Kupcake wrote:If you re-read the post, the question was
Kupcake wrote:I can't help wondering if this argument holds well
That is, the argument (or question) of "alterations" to a person without the person's consent, based on cultural norms. FGM is at the extreme end of cultural norms. I am not ignorant of the extremity of it, and i certainly would never tolerate it. But then again i would never allow anybody to pierce my child's ears, or make any other alterations to their body, before my child was old enough to consent.
Still, sorry if i offended anybody.
Ok, I agree you rather compared the argumentation, and you were not exactly comparing the practices of ear piercing and female circumcision. And it's very nice of you to feel sorry if anyone got offended
In my opinion, ear-piercing is at a very low end of the body modification, and male circumcision is a more significant body modification, especially when performed for religious reason. Again, I point this recent piece of news:
Supreme Court: Properly performed religious based male circumcision no crime I strongly doubt that the supreme court would rule over ear-piercing... and maybe that the law already rules on the definition of it (someting like :
only the lobe can be pierced for persons less than 18 years old), and for those who are not adults yet, the law may already rule against any other piercing (lips, tits, forehead, skull, neck, penis, etc.), against tattoo, etc. At least, I hope the law does rule on those...
/Paul
