Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

No, nothing that could possibly qualify as a “nick” would cause any harm at all — it’s not removing anything, or even making a cut large enough to produce any detectable scar tissue. And that’s what makes it comparable to circumcision, or any other *harmless* religious or cultural practice. Sodomizing kids or making them play with rattlesnakes is obviously not harmless.

As I said, I don’t think the proposal makes much sense as a way to change a cultural tradition (and it is cultural not religious — it’s even commonly practiced by Christians in the countries where it’s prevalent). People who are not interested in disabling their daughters’ sexual function have already abandoned the key feature of the tradition, are unlikely to be interested in any “ritual nicks”. There might be a handful of people who would do it as a way to partially appease backward-minded grandparents or something, but otherwise it’s dead in the water.


61 posted on 05/13/2010 7:51:33 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: GovernmentShrinker

So there’s a new version of female cirumcision, a “compromise nick”?


79 posted on 05/16/2010 6:05:54 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (We knew deep down it was this bad. Devour ugly truths with glee -- truth is our weapon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson