Posting on the Internet:
At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, why is it wrong for a doctor to nick a female's
genitalia to satisfy parents' religious beliefs. But when the tip of the male penis is removed
entirely to satisfy parents' religious/tradion, it's ok because enough people are doing it?
And to be fair, has an equivalent study been done on any variation of female "circumcision"?
If we remove extra skin from females (assuming it's done properly and w/o infection), isn't it
possible having less damp areas to harbor viruses work would as well for them as it does for the
circumcised men?
Just curious what others think about what appears to be a double-standard?
Next
 |