I'm curious why people are discussing this as an issue of health, or not. The reason why children are circumcised has nothing to do with medical science. It's in the Bible, and the vast majority is carried on due to tradition.
Now, find me an analysis on cutting off toes, or nipples, or the health effects of anything else. There are none. The only reason that it's being analyzed on that level is to distract the fact that the tradition has been carried over so many years obviously due to religious tradition, any other 'health fact' involving is just a distraction of that.
I think the real issue is where the line blurs between legally accepting a bizarre, potentially dangerous, and unnecessary ritual for a religious right, or not.
__________________
Quote:
|
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
|
Al Pacino = God
|