The Atlanta Journal Constitution is getting dozens of comments on this posted question: "Is tattoing a child worse than piercing ears, circumcision?" It's a question that comes about because a father has been charged with child abuse for tattoing his 3-year old son. http://blogs.ajc.com/momania/2009/05/28/is-tattooing-a-child-worse-than-piercing-ears-circumcision/
Of course, there's no parallel at all between inflicting a tattoo on a child and giving him the life protection of circumcision. One has no value except to satisfy the father's weird tatt desires, while the other -- the removal of the disease-inflicting foreskin -- is recommended by the World Health Organization to protect the male and his parents. Most of the posters see the immediate difference, but it's still amusing to see the anti-circ foreskin lovers carry on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for reminding me of that discussion. It was good to go back there and find the circumcisers have been thoroughly pwned.
ReplyDelete"No value except to satisfy the father's weird ... desires" pretty much sums up many circumcisions.
"To protect ... his parents"? What bizarre new circumstition is this?
Tattoos should be mandatory just like circumcision
ReplyDelete