Log in

Circumcision - Pregnant Liberals [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Pregnant Liberals

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Circumcision [Feb. 1st, 2007|04:36 pm]
Pregnant Liberals


I love how these baby/pregnancy books have sections on the 'not medically necessary but still valid choice to have your infant boy circumcised.'

What I really just can't understand is why they only mention male circumcision. What about the perfectly valid choice to chop off your unconsenting daughter's genitalia?

And why stop there? After all, circumcision is so over-done these days--why not find new and interesting ways to mutilate your baby? Instead of chopping off parts of their genitals to show that their parents assume that of course their baby will grow up to have the exact same religious beliefs as they do, why not brand your baby? Or if you were only considering circumcision for appearance's sake, why not bring back the ancient Chinese art of footbinding? You wouldn't want the other kids to think your kid had funny looking feet, now would you? Or maybe we should just get creative and randomly chop off bits of their bodies, like fingers or toes or ears.

I mean, it's not like they can object to being mutilated. They're just babies.

[User Picture]From: singoutsingout
2007-02-01 11:18 pm (UTC)

it's a doberman, let it have its ears.

People get so pissy when you try to bring female circumcision into a conversation about male circumcision (or, more appropriately, female genital mutilation into a conversation about male genital mutilation). the big argument is always "but it's DIFFERENT!." uh-huh... or "it's easier to keep clean." isn't "cleanliness" one of the reasons cited for FGM?

It's not even a religious thing; Christians don't have rules about circumcision, and a lot of reform Jews I know aren't circed. It's all Kellog and his freakazoid anti-masturbation propaganda!

and I love the way that people take the HIV transmission research from Africa as proof positive that circumcision is medically necessary. here's a hint: teach your child not to engage in unprotected sex, not to rape the women of the people you are at war with, and not to fetishize "dry" sex, and then you'll REALLY lower his chance of HIV. These are generally the same people who will refuse to give their daughters the Gardasil shot because they don't want it to make them hussies... ah, double standards.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: little_e_
2007-02-02 05:25 am (UTC)

Re: it's a doberman, let it have its ears.

Yeah, people mutilating their dogs pisses me off, too. :(

The easiest way to prevent HIV transmission is to wear a condom. I don't know why it is really so hard to get this through to people. Do they really think that having lots of unprotected sex with people who're HIV positive will suddenly become safe because their kid is circumcised?

A lot of people defend circumcision on religious grounds, though, as the 'right' of Jewish and Muslim parents. Given that I find Baptism silly on the grounds that a baby can't believe in a religion, much less chose to join it and thereby reap any of the rewards of choosing to join it, circumcision seems like a far worse ritual.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)