circumcision vs castration
Kirk Nechamkin
Its like this: Circumcision -- like vescetomization -- isn't NECESSARY,
since cleanliness and OTC birth control work just fine.
However, there is a new movement among some feminist organizations to
mandate vascetomizations of 14 year old males, after they've donated 8
samples of sperm to be cryogenically preserved. I'm not kidding.
The basic ideology is the same as with circumcision -- that is, while any
man and woman can use a condom, some inevitibly won't.
And, while women can get abortions, feminists argue that abortions can be
harmful and have complications, and some women won't opt for them.
In my opinion, this is ovestepping the boundaries of bodily autonomy.
While they are correct that some women will inevitibly become pregnant
because of unvascectomized men, this is to me just one of those risks that
is inherent to life itself. I mean, she could abstain from sex, or take
more responsibility for her own actions.
We are human beings -- not machines that you can rig to best suit your
needs.
Men should have to right to decide for themselves whether or not be
vascectomized, just as women can decide for themselves whether or not to
take the risks in having sex, or whether or not to have children, or what
to major in college.
Before the fall of the Iron Curtain, people were TOLD what they would do
for a living. It was thought that this was the best way -- even thought it
stripped them of freedom.
Everybody has their own views and opinions regarding freedom, but I just
don't see the sense in forced circumcision/vascectomization.
I think the alternative would be better education. With education, we can
reduce (not eliminate) the risks of infection from an uncircumcized penis,
and with education we can reduce the risks of accidental pregnancy.
While vascectomy generally doesn't have too many risks, there are sometimes
complications, and vascectomies are often extremely painful for up to a
week after the operation. And, as with any surgery, ther ARE SOMETIMES
complications.
To vascectomize ALL men in order to reduce the slight risk of unwanted
pregnancies in (SOME) women who may then run the slight risk of having
complications in abortion is ridiculous.
At what point do we draw the line?
There are even some feminist organizations that say we should mandate the
castration of all men at 14, after they've donated sperm samples, so as to
eliminate the 'unwanted' effects of testosterone. They say that without
testosterone, men will be more docile, less likely to rape and harm women.
But, the truth is, most rapists come from fatherless homes and were abused
-- many sexually, by their mothers. One out of three serial rapists had
consensual sex with their mothers before the age of 14.
A simpler, less invasive way to end rape would be to put cameras in
everybody's home to ensure that they take proper care of their children.
Again, any psychologist will tell you that if we can eliminate certain
family dysfunctions, we can all but eliminate rape. Rape is not inherent to
masculinity, nor testosterone.
But, what woman would want a camera in her home to monitor her parenting
skills? She might consider it an invasion of privacy. Well, which does she
want -- privacy or a risk-free world?
-Kirk