18,550
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Views on child circumcision
</blockquote>
Professor [[Jonathan A. Allan]], in his stunning new review of [[circumcision ]] culture observed:
<blockquote>
The foreskin here is likened to hair and fingernails rather than say skin to which it is actually similar. Additionally, the authors ignore a vital difference: both fingernails and hair continue to grow, while the removal of the foreskin is complete and permanent. The foreskin here is no more like fingernails than finger are. Experts do not recommend the amputation of fingers because fingernails are susceptible to hangnails or becoming ingrown. The authors of the book (which include television personality Dr. Oz) inform readers than in one fashion or another a choice will have to be made, but that choice is not terrible serious. They treat the matter almost flippantly. After all, the foreskin, in this rendering, is not terribly important: Keep it, don't keep it, doesn't matter. That is the choice is almost inconsequential, like cutting fingernails or hair. In essence they understand circumcision as a choice about style rather than substance. The problem is that there is little consideration of what the foreskin does or why it might matter.<ref name="allan2024">{{REFbook
|accessdate=2024-11-24
}}</ref>
</blockquote>