The unborn male is seen as a separate person with a right to life and liberty until delivered and then becomes parental property to be mutilated all because he was born perfectly normal.
Defense of medically unnecessary circumcision is insanity.
I had a right to life, liberty, and property as a child. I also had to do chores. Was that slavery?
“Mutilation”? Why that magic fireman looks right purty compared to its uncut appearance, is more hygienic, and can do anything that the au naturale version can. This debate goes back to the post-Alexandrine Greek occupation of the Holy Land by Antiochos, and was resolved long ago. Parents do have the right to decide such things for their children even in San Francicko, as they have done for thousands of years the world over.
I’m not taking a position on circumcism. I am pointing out the irony that, in San Francisco, a foreskin has the same value as a human life.
“Pro-lifers should naturally oppose circumcision.”
There’s no real comparison between the two, they are totally separate acts.
“The unborn male is seen as a separate person with a right to life and liberty until delivered and then becomes parental property to be mutilated all because he was born perfectly normal.”
Those circumcised are not unborn. They are already born. Your use of mutilation is also very incomparable too. It doesn’t affect a person’s sexual functioning to any significant extent.
“Defense of medically unnecessary circumcision is insanity.”
That would pretty much mean all of it, if you mean “neccessary”. Even when done with medical authorization, it isn’t a proven neccessity.
I would also note that sex-changing operations are usually not neccessary either, but the main difference between that and circumcision is that I have yet to see a serious movement about accepting the circumcised as something special.
It’s not mutiliation;it’s part of a covenent between G-d and the Jews.
BTW
What does this have to do with being pro-life?