Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
I found an article a few months back. It mentioned that in Africa males who were circumcised had a lower rate of contracting contracting HIV/getting AIDS. That should be the "morally legitimate reason" you are looking for. I don't considered it "mutilation" because the way male circumcisions are performed nothing else is damaged. The glan is not destroyed, removed, or sliced which is what happens to clitoris and other part with FGM.
|
Pretty sure thats been debunked and for the 100th time: we arent trying to equate the 2 procedures.