Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I hate to quote that moron tax wonk, but now we are noiw going around in circles.
The president of Egypt would argue that it could be done under anasthesia, that if done right it has no negative long term health consequences, and that it benefits the society as a whole because it reduces morality. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I still stand by my original statement. When telling the leader of any country that we are going to impose our moral will on them (becasuse that is what we are doing) there are only three possible explanations.
1) It is in our national interest
2) Our mutation tells us to do it, so we are going to do it.
3) There are universal human rights. If there are universal human rights they have to come from somewhere. We will call it the creator (if they don't come from the creator where do they come from?). We feel it is our duty to protect and enforce those rights wherever and whenever we have the ability to do so.
|
If it's under anaesthesia and there are no health risks, I don't have enough of a problem with the practice that I would object to it much more than I object to any number of other things. It's kind of icky, but not
that much more than say piercing ears or male circumcision. It's not like allowing women to keep their clitorises is suddenly going to cause the society to place any kind of value on female sexual satisfaction.
The "no health risk" is bullshit in the traditions that also sew the vagina mostly shut -- that pretty much guarantees tearing during intercourse, and you are much more likely to contract AIDS if infected semen can hit the bloodstream directly. Not to mention that any kind of rending of flesh runs the risk of leading to infection.
