Posted on 04/21/2017 8:42:00 AM PDT by Cementjungle
I guess I’m the dork. I didn’t listen to what you were saying.
I'm curious: since the vast majority of male circumcisions are done w/o religious context, in such a way as not to destroy sexual sensation, potency or fertility, and are said to be justified (in health terms) as a hygienic/protective measure, what is morally reprehensible about it?
I'm not asking for gotcha purposes, I'm just interested.
For those on the left who vehemently oppose this practice, I'd ask why should it be illegal for a mother to consent to this practice for her newborn daughter and yet be perfectly legal for her to abort that same daughter just a few days earlier?
Early "medical" proponents of male circumcision promoted it as a "cure" for anything from masturbation to a long list of other maladies. It was pure snake oil. But it was only after 1945 that the practice started gaining any widespread adoption in the United States. Elsewhere around the non-Muslim world it was (and remains) basically unknown and restricted to religious practice. Interestingly, the main exception is Korea, for unique reasons.
After 1945, millions of men returned from war where the U.S. military "clipped" most of them for "hygienic" reasons as it was touted as a way to help prevent G.I.s from contracting various venereal diseases. As these men became fathers, they passed on the practice to their sons. And, thanks to the rise of hospital births and the fact that this was now "covered" by insurance, this became basically a profit center for the medical establishment. As good businessmen, doctors began promoting all sorts of "benefits" to the general public. But it's the same snake oil just dressed up in more respectable garb.
The case of Korea is interesting because after 1945 with the American occupation, Americans were viewed as "modern" and "advanced", so Koreans wanted to "be American" and so adopted male circumcision essentially as a sign of admiration. The difference is that in Korea it's typically performed on boys around their 12th birthday, where family and social peer pressure ensures that "consent" is obtained.
Interestingly, Western medicine never took the same attitude towards female circumcision, which is why the U.S. can still regard it with horror while considering its male counterpart as "normal". Stripped of the specious medical claims, both are anything but normal. This is the only area of "medicine" where the attitude is that humans are "defective by design" and require universal surgical "correction" to address this defect.
Interesting. Have you evidence that the medical claims are specious?
Some links for you to explore:
The claims are specious because the billions of men around the world who are intact are not suffering from statistically abnormal rates of any of the supposed problems that arise from not having been circumcised. The "problems" that circumcision supposedly prevents are mainly due to lack of proper hygiene. It would be like saying we should pull teeth because if you don't brush you'll likely develop dental problems. In most countries fathers teach their sons proper care of their foreskins as a matter of routine the same way mothers instruct their daughters about care of their bodies.
Deportation if they aren’t citizens, long prison terms if they are.
Sorry, but you are an ignorant moron.
Thank you for that definitive rebuttal.
Wasn’t a rebuttal.
It was telling you how stupid you are.
Perhaps I am not sympathetic enough because I can’t believe anyone can actually be that stupid and ignorant of anatomy and physiology.
So I think someone who writes what you wrote are not serious but has an ulterior motive.
Perhaps you actually are sincere.
So I will ask if you are serious in thinking circumcision is the “same practice” as this?
I see you’re responding to my initial post. You need to read my follow-on posts on this thread. Then I’ll be happy to discuss further.
Thanks.
I see it was important for you to show not only your complete ignorance of human anatomy and physiology, but also you’re inability for logical thought and, most importantly, that you are crazy as a loon. well done.
Like I said though, if you will say you are sincere say so and we could talk about how circumcision is not “the same practice”.
On what basis would you make that argument to SCOTUS, because that's where such a blatant assault on the First Amendment will certainly land.
You’re all over the place.
Are you now renouncing your original statement that these are “the same practice”?
For either sex, proponents call the practice “circumcision” while opponents call it “genital mutilation”. You will never find either an Imam or a Mohel refer to it as anything other then circumcision. Legally they are the same: religious practices that are equivalently protected under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. That’s the key point you’re avoiding.
I’m not avoiding anything, except your lunacy and lack of coherent thought.
You have avoided answering if you stand by your claim these are “the same practices.”
It’s the “same practice” in the sense that it’s a religious ritual involving the amputation of a sexual body part. That’s all I said. The issue is not whether your or I approve of such practices (as I mentioned, I do not) but whether the state can legally bar them, and if so on what basis. Do you have an opinion on that question?
Please, you are an ignorant buffoon.
You don’t know what circumcision is, or don’t understand the word amputation.
Please educate us then. Stating your position would be more productive than simply throwing insults.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.