Moore on hunting
From H.M. Thornton Sir; Charles Moore, in defending hunting (`Life, liberty and the pursuit of Charlie', 27 January), calls in aid the example of Jews circumcising their baby boys. 'How easy,' he writes, 'it would be to work oneself up into a frenzy of anger at the idea that Jews take tiny babies and cut off their foreskins.'
Perhaps he included this argument for the reason that everybody is reluctant to criticise anything Jewish, lest it be thought anti-Semitic, and thus he hopes they will be equally inhibited in disagreeing with that part of his argument. I happen to agree with his defence of hunting, but I disagree with his defence of circumcision.
Why should we not object to this unnecessary mutilation? I couldn't care less if a man of full age decides to be circumcised, but to inflict it on a baby imposes a decision on him and completely ignores the possibility that he may regret it when he becomes a man. This is unethical. The law should be amended to prohibit the circumcision of any boy under the age of 18.
H.M.Thornton
Victoria, B.C., Canada
Previous page
