Saturday, October 28, 2006

Double Standard on Circumcision

Khalid Adem, an Ethiopian immigrant to the US, is on trial near Atlanta for circumcising his 2-year-old daughter in what could be the first criminal case involving the ancient African practice. Adem has been charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children. He allegedly got a male friend to hold his daughter down while he snipped the toddler's clitoris off with a pair of household scissors.

It seems odd to me that so many Americans find this practice so despicable, yet they don't bat an eye when it comes to male infant circumcision. Why do we have this double standard? Both practices are barbaric and unnecessary.

I understand there is biblical justification for male circumcision, but if female genital mutilation is considered a crime, why is male infant circumcision not?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just an interesting fact: male circumcision is the BEST protection against contracting HIV ( other than abstinence) it is significantly better than condoms. Probably because it reduces surface area for transmission. The study was done in Africa across multiple years and countries.

Greg Smith said...

Now, I find it hard to believe that circumcision is better protection from HIV than a condom, "significantly better" no less. That doesn't make any sense.

Reading List