Indeed the rights of the child, to be fed and sheltered etc. are progressively lost as she, he or they gains cognition and the power to maintain them for him/her/themself.
Did those who removed only the part of the foreskin that overhangs the glans for the first 3,000 years of Jewish history have it wrong? If not, why not go back to that?
-
-
Because that still removes the ridged band of specialised nerves, and so is just as damaging as full removal.
-
I wouldn't say "just as damaging," but still wrong. I'm sure you appreciate the point of those 2 questions is that Jewish circumcision is not the immutable practice many think it to be, and it should not be for others to decide if a given male is/was "correctly" circumcised.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.