- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Lauren Beukes wrote:
If we had a vaccine this good we'd roll it out today
That may be, but it presents a false equivalency. A vaccine takes a moment, involves comparatively little pain, and normally has no side-effects. Circumcision lasts a lifetime, and obviously includes complete loss of sensation in the excised tissue, as well as some inevitable loss of function.
The two are simply not comparable.
I can't help but wonder if the women who argue in favor of circumcision would be quite so cavalier if female circumcision were found to convey any medical benefit? Sometimes it seems that women who argue in favor of circumcision (and men who've already undergone the procedure as infants) consider it about as serious as clipping a hangnail.
To be blunt, if you've never had (or don't remember ever having) a foreskin, you don't know what it feels like and therefore cannot understand the negative consequences of what you're advocating.
It strikes me that this position is not unlike men advocating for a complete ban on abortion. It's easy to take an extreme stand when you've got nothing to lose.
