EUROPE: Israel MKs Turn Up the Heat

Earlier, I commented on the fact that the European Council finally dared to call a spade a spade and declare medically unnecessary circumcision on healthy, non-consenting children to be a human rights violation.

I also mentioned that, unsurprisingly, Jewish groups and even the State of Israel have vowed to make the European Council rescind.

The Jerusalem Post reports on the progress of Knesset initiatives:

The Knesset has made significant efforts to collect signatures from European parliamentarians on a counter-resolution it seeks to pass in April, reaching 102 signatures as opposed to 77 MPs who voted for the anti-circumcision measure.

The [Reuven] Rivlin-led delegation will meet with leaders of four of the Council of Europe’s five factions to convince them to put the Knesset’s counter-resolution on the PACE agenda for either late January or April. The Presidium, which consists of faction chairpeople, will set the agenda for those two meetings on December 15.

According to Rivlin, the anti-circumcision measure (Was it a definitive, binding measure, or a declaration?) “is not a legitimate decision, and it is a joint goal of Jews, Muslims and anyone who believes in freedom of religion and conscience to cancel it.”

Rivlin, Vaknin and Hoffman plan to meet with party leaders and members of the Council of Europe’s Presidium and present them with the 102 signatures from PACE members, aiming to show that the original measure was passed unfairly when only a small number of MPs were present.

 “We want to make it clear to the Europeans that even if it’s legitimate for them to intervene in diplomatic or regional issues, it is not legitimate for them to be involved in Judaism and freedom of religion.” ~Reuven Rivlin

This "freedom of religion."

How far does it extend? Does it extend to religions whose followers circumcise girls and women? Perhaps it's illegitimate for Europeans to intervene with religions whose followers marry and have sex with little girls. Or does this "freedom of religion" only apply to Judaism when it concerns the forced genital mutilation of specifically male, newborn children?

"Freedom of religion" is a weak argument, and Jewish advocates of male infant genital mutilation know it, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to lecture Europeans on the so-called "medical benefits" of circumcision.

It must certainly be asked, since when do adherents of Judaism, where circumcision is considered divine commandment, care about "research" and "medical benefits?" And since when is it the jurisdiction of governing bodies, such as the Knesset, to make medical value judgements on surgical procedures?

It's not surprising that I'm seeing this happen, and as I've mentioned before regarding other attempts to ban infant genital mutilation, it will not be surprising when the Council of Europe caves to Jewish demands, rescinds their bold move, and offers some sort of "apology" for having dared to call infant circumcision the genital mutilation that it is.

The despair of religious circumcision advocates must be noted. So desperate are religious infant genital mutilation zealots that they go as far as feigning an interest in public health, and as far as citing "research" that may as well be published in tabloids at grocery store check-out lines.

From the Jerusalem Post:

"In addition, last month, The Journal of Sexual Medicine published a peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Sydney proving circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure."

Had the authors paid any attention, they would have noticed that the "research" was actually published in August.

Not mentioned here is the fact that the "researchers" are none other than long-time circumcision zealot Brian Morris and his friends, and that the research doesn't actually "prove" anything. Brian Morris didn't conduct any "study," rather, the "research" is nothing more than Brian Morris giving his approval and disapproval for "studies" he himself hand-picked, yielding results he wants.

In short, yet another decidedly myopic opinion piece by a known circumcision enthusiast.

Notice that Knesset leaders are careful not to mention the fact that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that the "benefits" are not great enough.

In essence, Knesset MKs, along with Brian Morris, are taking an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the west.

I will not be surprised.

I will not be surprised when and if the resolution put forth by the Council of Europe is replaced with the new dictum from Israel.

But I will also not be discouraged.

I have mentioned it numerous times on this blog already, that legislation is secondary and is not the end-all, be-all of the intactivist cause.

Whether governments ban or legalize the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants means nothing.

Laws follow societal change, not lead it.

Even if the European Council succumbs to Israeli blackmail, it is ever clear that change is inevitable, and circumcision, no, infant genital mutilation, is finished.

The truth is out, and can be no longer hidden.

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin

EUROPE: Israeli MK Lectures PACE on the Medical Virtues of Ritual Circumcision

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

It's been only a few days since the Council of Europe declared the medically unnecessary circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, to be a human rights violation, and, as predicted, it has drawn non-stop fire from Jewish organizations.

Said Benjamin Albalas, President of the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece:

"This is a sign of anti-Semitism."
The Jerusalem Post

If one reads the comments to these articles criticizing the Council of Europe for their stance, the argumentum at Hitlerem is never-ending.

Israel Gets Involved
Apparently, Israel has gotten involved, with President Shimon Peres, sending a letter to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, asking for his intervention.

Thorbjorn Jagland,

Secretary General of the Council of Europe

And, apparently, the Secretary General has complied, signaling that the Council of Europe has begun to backpedal.

According to a tweet from Jagland's press spokesman Daniel Holtgen, Jagland has expressed:

“Female genital mutilation violates human rights. Male circumcision does not.”

But this was to be expected; Israel also got involved when the Cologne ruling was handed down in Germany, causing the Bundestag to write up a resolution "protecting" non-medical child genital mutilation.

Poor Europe, stuck between a rock and a hard place; they must perform a delicate balancing act, wanting to protect basic human rights, while at the same time, appeasing Jews who hold the Holocaust ever over their heads.

Special Pleading
In his letter to the European Council Secretary General, Shimon Peres stressed that infant circumcision is of "great importance" in Jewish and Muslim religious tradition. (Since when does the Israeli President care about Islam?) He also noted that male circumcision has been practiced by Jewish communities for thousands of years and is a " fundamental element and obligation of Jewish tradition." Peres stressed that Jewish communities across Europe would be "greatly afflicted to see their cultural and religious freedom impeded upon by the Council of Europe," which Peres observed is "an institution devoted to the protection of these very rights."

Of course, Shimon Peres, and other advocates of circumcision that make these arguments are employing logical fallacies, either inadvertently, or quite deliberately.

Of course, where it is practiced, female circumcision has also been practiced "for thousands of years," and those who practice it see it as a "fundamental element" and obligation for their traditions. Communities across Europe who practice female circumcision are also "greatly afflicted" because their "cultural and religious freedoms" are infringed upon by the local government. But, apparently, while the Council of Europe is to condemn the forced genital mutilation of females, ad antiquitam should afford male genital mutilation special treatment.

Circumcision is Not Exclusive to Jews
Accusations of anti-Semitism are based on three assumptions:

1) That circumcision is exclusively Jewish
2) That circumcision is universal among Jews
3) That intactivists focus on stopping only Jewish circumcision

The fact is, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews.

Circumcision also happens to be Muslim practice. It is considered a rite of passage in the Philippines, and it is considered a rite of passage in many parts of Africa, where, as in female circumcision, boys and men of varying ages are forcibly circumcised in the wilderness using raw materials. Not to mention that in the United States, 1.2 million baby boys a year are circumcised, only about 3% or so, comprising of Jewish brisim.

A commenter on Facebook made the following observation:
Jews are 1.7% of the US population (5,425,000 out of 313,900,000) and only about 30% of American Jews have a bris; the remainder have their son circumcised in the hospital or doctor's office just like all other American boys or skip circumcision. By my math, 30% of 1.7% is just over one half of one percent, or one-sixth of your figure.

In Muslim tradition, boys are circumcised at later ages,

when they can remember. Here, a boy is being circumcised

at a medical facility in Turkey. Note his white circumcision outfit.

In Marikina, east of Manila, boys "receive" their "free" circumcisions.

 Boy in Africa being circumcised.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

(Only one of the above "traditions" should be a human rights violation, according to circumcision advocates. Can you guess which one?)

In addition, circumcision is not universal among Jews. There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. A growing number of Jews are forgoing a traditional Bris Milah circumcision ceremony, and instead opting for a more peaceful, non-cutting Bris Shalom naming ceremony. Even in Israel, there is a growing number of parents who are not circumcising their children. A recent poll reveals that 1/3rd of Israeli parents question the practice.

And finally, it would be one thing if intactivists targeted the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision. The fact is that intactivists oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL minors, regardless of race or creed. Jewish bris is only one form of male infant genital mutilation. We're opposed to ALL of it.

It is dishonest for Jewish advocates of circumcision to pretend like they're being "singled out," when this clearly isn't the case. Little by little people are seeing through this smear tactic, as more and more people have the courage to speak out, despite the threat of being labeled Nazi-Germans.

Questions to consider:
For better or for worse, the forced genital mutilation of females has also existed "for thousands of years," and it is considered an important rite of passage where it is performed. In some tribes and communities, a woman who has not undergone genital cutting is seen as a social outcast.

Is declaring the forced genital cutting of girls to be a "violation of human rights" not "affliction" to those living in Europe who practice it?

Is being against the forced cutting of girls and women "anti" ethnic groups that do it? (e.g. anti-African, anti-Indonesian, anti-Malaysian, anti-Brunei, etc.?)

Is a ban on female circumcision not infringing on "religious" or "parental rights?"

If leaders of countries where female genital cutting is practiced were to write to the Council of Europe, would they be obliged to soften their stance against the forced genital cutting of girls?

Why the special treatment of only MALE forced genital mutilation?

When are world leaders going to cut the political pandering and call a spade a spade?

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

Readers must pardon me for not posting much lately, and and I must apologize for the poor quality of posts I am able to muster. My current job situation is very demanding and I don't have time to sit down and think things out anymore. There is so much happening in the world of intactivism and so much I want to comment on too.

Currently there is a lot of hullabaloo, because the Council of Europe has declared medically unnecessary circumcision to be a human rights violation. For this post, I will cut-and-paste a few comments that have appeared in my Facebook news feed, and give a few brief thoughts on it.

JUST NOW: THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE HAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT CALLS THE RITUAL CIRCUMCISION FOR BOYS A MENNESKERETTTIGHEDSKRÆNKELSE
Yet another great step in the right direction! The German member of the Council of Europe, Marlene Rupprecht, got his draft resolution adopted today, which juxtaposes ritual boys circumcision with female circumcision as human rights violations. Thanks to Marlene Rupprecht! The resolution, which was adopted without one of the proposed adjustments (amendments, inter alia, one Turkish amendments which were aimed at removing the ritual circumcision boys from text) can be read on her profile. Europe rocks!

  --

Here is a link to the "Children’s right to physical integrity" resolution that was just passed by the Council of Europe. (Click on "Here.")

 --

According to Sweden's children's ombudsman, "To circumcise a child without medical reasons and without the child's consent, runs contrary...to the child's human rights and the fundamental principles of medical ethics." What do you think about the Ombudsman for Children in Sweden?

 --

So very pleased to covey this most exciting news from Strasbourg, the Council of Europe has voted to define circumcision of male children a human rights violation. The resolution and recommendation were both accepted, votes for were 77 and 78, and against 19 and 13.
Here is a link to an article from Denmark.

 --

"As ombudsmen for children and experts in children’s health we consider circumcision of underage boys without a medical indication to be in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, article 12, about children’s right to express their views about their own matters, and article 24, pt. 3, which says that children must be protected against traditional rituals that may be harmful to their health. In 2013, the UN Human Rights Council has urged all states to end operations that compromise the integrity and dignity of children and are prejudicial to the health of both girls and boys. We consider it central that parental rights in this matter do not have precedence over children’s right to bodily integrity. What is in children’s best interest must always come first, even if this may limit grown up persons’ right to carry out their religious or traditional rituals."

(Shared with this link.)

--

The Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, PASSED the resolution that medically unnecessary circumcision of boys is a violation of their human rights. Many amendments were offered for religious exemption or the sincere medical beliefs of the parents, but these failed. We can mostly thank Rep. Rupprecht of Germany for this result. She is an intactivist and spoke forcefully and eloquently.

In a resolution based on a report by Marlene Rupprecht (Germany, SOC), the Assembly strongly recommends that states promote further awareness in their societies of the potential risks of some of these procedures for childrens’ physical and mental health. It calls on states to clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys.

It also asks states to adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted.

PACE also recommended that “children’s right to physical integrity” should be explicitly included in relevant Council of Europe standards.

(Shared with this link.)

--

Today, under the leadership of German intactivist Marlene Rupprecht, the Council of Europe (CoE) passed a recommendation number 2023 (by a vote of 78 in favor, 13 opposed, and 15 abstaining) endorsing a child's right to physical integrity and a resolution number 1952 (by a similar vote of 77 for, 19 against, and 12 abstaining) discussing the right to physical integrity in more detail and specifically supporting genital autonomy for children by opposing several practices including male circumcision, female genital mutilation, and "early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual chldren."

The CoE's resolution 1952 includes the following statement in paragraph 2:

The Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, amongst others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.

Paragraph 7.5.2 of the resolution states that the CoE "calls on member States to... clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices which are today widely carried out in certain religious communities, such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys..."

--

In a groundbreaking move, the Council of Europe has told its 47 member states (including the UK) that medically unnecessary circumcision is a violation of boys’ human rights!
(Shared with this link.)

--

A Danish newspaper confirms that all the Nordic ombudsmen for children and numerous health experts have met and agreed in principle to work toward a ban on the circumcision of children (boys & girls) before they are old enough to understand and legally consent. This includes all circumcisions for religious reasons and naturally makes allowances for medical necessity.

Two Danish political parties have already agreed to add a ban on religious circumcision to their platforms.

Nordic includes Scandinavia plus Finland and Iceland. Specifically (west to east): Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.

(Link)

Also, the Council of Europe held a debate today, which I watched live on the web, regarding a resolution that, among other things, declared religious circumcision of minors to be a traditional practice injurious to the rights and welfare of children.

There were numerous amendments offered, specifically trying to label circumcision as "beneficial" and "not harmful", or to take out any language from the bill relating to male circumcision. These failed. In the end, the resolution was adopted! It passed 78-13, with 15 abstentions. The author is Marlene Rupprecht from Germany.

(Link)

Overall, this has been a remarkable day for progress in protecting boys from unnecessary and harmful genital cutting.

My thoughts:
As much as I think laws against circumcision sound great, I'm not holding my breath.

Don't get me wrong. I am against the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting individuals. There is nothing that I would like to see more than to have the practice of circumcising healthy, non-consenting children abolished, and that the individuals that do this be put in jail and/or taken to court by the men who resent this violation upon their bodies.

It is inspiring that somebody has drafted a resolution calling the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors the human rights violation that it is, that it was proposed to the Council of Europe, and that it actually PASSED . The last time anything like this has happened was when a proposition to ban non-medical genital mutilation in infants was put on the ballot in the city of San Francisco.

In my opinion, however, we've got a long way to go.

Even today, it is rather taboo to talk about circumcision, especially in Europe, where questioning circumcision automatically gets you labeled an "anti-Semite." The ethics of performing needless surgery on a healthy, non consenting individual are never addressed. Rather, advocates of circumcision want to talk about how any attempt to scrutinize infant circumcision harkens back to the days of the Holocaust. Already, Jewish media outlets are trying to dismiss Europeans who oppose the non-medical circumcision of healthy minors as "left-wing secularists and right-wingers who fear the influence of immigration from Muslim countries." (Yes, because people don't actually see the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors as a deliberate human rights violation. You see, they actually just woke up one day and thought to themselves "Today is a good day to hate a Muslim.")

On the one hand, it's exciting for me to learn that there is actually legal progress being made concerning the rights of healthy, non-consenting minors. Social change never happened because people sat around wishin' and a-hopin'. Human rights issues have been addressed because somebody had the courage to stand up and question the status quo and to challenge social constructs and expectations. Just imagine what would have never changed if people had never taken action; slavery, women's rights, gay rights etc.

On the other hand though, I think the ban in Europe will ultimately, and ought to, fail. I'm not sure there is any country ready to handle the fallout of an actual ban on the non-medical circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors. Too many parents see this as their parental or religious "right," and the state would have to deal with the logistics of arresting and prosecuting countless renegade mohels and doctors. Who knows what ruckus it would cause with religious organizations, or even countries where circumcision is a norm, who have relations with European countries. Perhaps this is what the Bundestag was thinking in their response to the Cologne ruling? (Incidentally, in another very recent case, a court in Hamm in North Rhine-Westphalia has forbidden a woman from having her six-year old son circumcised because of a risk of psychological damage, this despite the Bundestag's resolution to keep circumcision legal.)

I think we have to admit to ourselves that, at least for now, it could never actually work. Human rights activists shouldn't be surprised or disappointed if and when others manage to dismantle such a ban. Rather, we should be thankful for the opportunity to further our cause and keep fighting. We've got a long way to go, and I think it's a mistake to think that our fight would end, would that an actual ban on the forced genital mutilation of all sexes were enacted.

Don't get me wrong; we shouldn't give up the ship just yet. We need to fight to be heard. We should persevere until the very end. But let's keep our feet on the ground; current society is not ready for a ban against circumcision. Expect for religious groups and charlatans with a feigned interest in public health to cry foul, and expect for attempts to ban the forced, non-medical circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors to be stopped before people even get to vote on them. In countries where bans may actually be instated, expect renegade circumcision advocates to defy the law publicly or secretly. Expect for every attempt to compare said countries to Nazi Germany. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

It is a mistake for intactivists to let all their hopes ride on a circumcision ban. Those that do are sure to be disappointed, because those who cling to circumcision, whether it be for traditional, religious, lucrative reasons, or to satisfy their own personal fetish, are not going down without a fight, and will most likely be successful in striking it down.

I have often read that in social movements, laws are the very last thing to change. The reason a federal ban against female genital cutting passed so swimmingly is because female genital cutting was already seen as the gross human rights violation that it is. Intactivists have a long way to go. A ban is not going to end our worries; it may in fact prove to make our efforts more difficult.

We need to work to realize social change first; a ban is not going to happen until society is on board. In my opinion, worrying about passing a circumcision ban is placing the cart before the horse. Rather than effect social change, it may make advocates of circumcision cling closer to what is seen as a cherished tradition, and/or a lucrative source of income.

More so than a ban, it is important to dispel the myths surrounding circumcision and the foreskin, and to spread factually accurate information; we need to spread awareness of why the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors constitutes a gross human rights violation and medical fraud. Until that groundwork is done, I'm afraid a ban, even if it does happen, will not do our movement any good.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
~Mahatma Gandhi

DISCLAIMER: What I have expressed in this blog post is my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists.

Related Posts:

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Cutters Trying to Silence Debate

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

Legal Circumcision Battle Goes State AND Federal

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

 

Related Links:
Council of Europe Report: Children's right to physical integrity

Forbyd omskæring af drenge

'Circumcision breaches human rights of the child'

Historic event in Denmark; report by Morten Frisch

Nordic children’s ombudsmen take historic step to protect children’s rights

Male circumcision is a human rights violation that must be stopped say European leaders….

10 reasons German Socialist wants Europe to ban male circumcision….

Jewish Media Coverage:
The Times of Israel

The Jerusalem Post

The Jewish Daily Forward

The Jewish Press

Jewish Journal 

JTA

Virtual Jerusalem

Jews News

CIRCUMCISION: For or Against? (NO BASHING!!!)

Much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates who spend endless hours trying to convince you that circumcision is a "non-issue," circumcision is highly controversial, and a guaranteed attention getter.

No parenting forum, webpage or Facebook group is complete without the obligatory circumcision thread, which always asks a question to the effect of "Are you pro or anti-circumcision?" Or "Circumcision: For or against?", and which is usually coupled with some sort of "NO BASHING!!!" warning.

These threads and the pages they're on are something of a paradox; asking for "no bashing," they posit a question that, because of its very nature, will elicit just that. Answering "no" or "anti" is going to be perceived as "bashing" by those who are "pro." Parents who circumcised their children invariably say "it's none of your business!" as they brag on a public parenting forum about having had their children circumcised.

But I digress, and I've already written a separate post about mommy pages and the "no bashing!!!" phenomenon.

"Do you support or oppose circumcision?" asks many a thread on public parenting forums, but this kind of bifurcation ignores many important factors that are relevant to the debate.

For example, is there a medical need? Are other alternatives available? Have they been tried? Shouldn't surgery be reserved as a very last resort?

As a thought experiment, let's replace "circumcision" with any other medical procedure.

Are you for or against appendectomies?

Do you support or oppose coronary bypasses?

Are you in favor of gall bladder removal?

Kidney transplants?

Suddenly, medical necessity becomes relevant, and whether you're "for or against" becomes a moot point, doesn't it.

Am I for or against circumcision?
I am against the forced circumcision of minors unless there is a legit medical need for it, and all other alternatives have failed.

This is standard medical practice governing all other medical procedures though.

If informed, conscientious adult males choose to be circumcised for non-medical reasons, I have no problem with this.


Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

The Circumcision Blame Game

The Faces of Genital Mutilation

If you have to make a face like this man and woman are making in these pictures, then you know very well that you must be doing something wrong to a child.

Kurdish girl being circumcised

Men circumcising a newborn boy

Taking advantage of a smaller, weaker person, is the very definition of "abuse."

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

Who's the "Douchebag?"

Every once in a while, you'll get someone writing about the "right" way to talk about circumcision.

The latest I've seen is in a blog post titled "How to Talk About Circumcision Without Being a Douchebag."

On the one hand, I could see what the author was getting at, but on the other, I feel that one side is being ignored.

A good point she makes is that intactivists could do a better job of delivering their message, and I agree.

But there are some points that I simply can't see eye to eye with.

To each their own, but I'm not sure I could continue being "best friends" with someone I knew agreed to have their children mutilated after having given them information.

Would you want to continue to be friends with someone you knew was OK with doing other abusive things to their children?

Beating them black and blue?

Sexually molesting them?

Yes, I see circumcision on par with sexual molestation.

Worse; sexual mutilation.

A child could heal from the wounds of sexual molestation through therapy, but a circumcision scar is permanent and can never be erased.

The author also seems to believe that circumcision is "just another choice," like bottle feeding or using disposable diapers vs. cloth diapers.

"We had a conversation about a subject that can be controversial without making it controversial because that is how adults interact.

And both of our children are thriving.  Both of our children our loved, breastfed, well taken care of."

I've seen this "celebrate our parental choices" attitude before:

And I couldn't agree any less.

It is a mistake to attack and humiliate parents over something they honestly didn't know any better about, and who would take it all back if they knew what they were doing to their children.

I'm not advocating that.

But I also do not advocate corroberating with parents, rewarding willful ignorance, making them feel justified and entitled by calling circumcision a "choice" to be "celebrated."

This author seems willing to pander to her "best friend" at the expense of the basic human rights of that friend's children, because she is more interested in "staying friends" than the principle of basic human rights for all.

I can't agree with sacrificing principle for the sake of friendship.

I couldn't pretend like "nothing happened," just to stay friends with someone whom I gave information to, but decided to mutilate his/her child anyway.

Who is a douchebag?
Now, let's talk about just who the "douchebag" is.

Who is a douchebag?

Someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

I am ready to acknowledge that there are some intactivists out there who cross the line. There is much reason an intactivist does it though; we feel as passionate about male infant circumcision as people feel about say, female circumcision. It is a gross violation of basic human rights and not to be taken lightly.

People keep saying "you shouldn't judge."

But let's ask, how do you feel about female circumcision?

How do you feel about parents that circumcised their daughters?

And be honest.

Would you hold back and "not judge?"

Would you respect that "parental choice?"

Or would you say the first thing on your mind?

That said, there are also intactivists who have lots of time and patience, and who try to deliver their message in as a non-judgemental way as possible. They try to post facts, links to information, and just leave it a that; only to have it be called "bashing" and "harassment" by parents who simply want to hear nothing other than validation and encouragement, and have it promptly deleted, user blocked.

So who's the douchebag?

The answer is, someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

Intactivists could tone it down. I will admit.

But why is the first reaction from parents who are adamant about having their child circumcised defensiveness and hostility?

Why does it make someone who wants to post factual information automatically a "douchebag?"

Not all intactivists are extreme. Not all parents are close-minded and pawn off whomever they don't want to hear as "douchebags."

This is probably asking for the sun and the moon, but there needs to be acknowledgement on both sides.

Yes, intactivists can be extreme douchebags.

But if you're a parent who things you've got it all right, but then you openly post about your son's circumcision online, and then complain that you're being "harrassed" and "bullied" by people whom all they want to do is give you information to make a better choice for your children, and that they're "getting into your business," and then delete what they have to say and block them, because you care more about mutilating your son and being "right" than you actually do about his health and well-being, then you're a douchebag too.

The fact is, circumcision is a sensitive subject, and you're not going to get away with posting about it on the internet, and getting people like us roused up.

If you don't want people "getting in your business," then don't post it on the internet for the whole world to see. 


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

ILLINOIS: Law Against "Ritualized Child Abuse" Proposed - Circumcision Exempted

 

Legislation outlawing the ritualized abuse of a child has been introduced in Illinois by one Senator Don Harmon.

The catch?

It makes a specific exemption for infant genital mutilation:

15		Sec. 12-33. Ritualized abuse of a child.
16		(a) A person commits ritualized abuse of a child when he or
17		she knowingly commits any of the following acts with, upon, or
18		in the presence of a child as part of a ceremony, rite or any
19		similar observance:
20		(1) actually or in simulation, tortures, mutilates, or
21		sacrifices any warm-blooded animal or human being;
22		(2) forces ingestion, injection or other application
23		of any narcotic, drug, hallucinogen or anaesthetic for the
24		purpose of dulling sensitivity, cognition, recollection
25		of, or resistance to any criminal activity; ... 16     (b) The provisions of this Section shall not be construed 17 to apply to: .... 21         (2) the lawful medical practice of male circumcision or 22     any ceremony related to male circumcision;

If he has to write an exception to protect circumcision, what does it say about the practice?

It sounds like Senator Don Harmon is aware of the fact that this law would clearly be applicable to male infant circumcision. 

In other words, not even Keemonta Peterson would be prosecutable under the law, because it was a "ceremony."

 

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

During hospital circumcisions, babies may or may not be given anesthetic to dull their sensitivity and lessen their pain. (Most are not.) Babies are normally given a little of wine during Jewish circumcisions. Furthermore, all babies, Jewish or not, are circumcised at a time when they will be too young to remember, and cannot fight back.

Circumcision creates a wound on the penis and removes a high concentration of nerve endings that do not exist on the rest of the penis - thus causing sensory and mechanical damage to the genitals. As recently reported by Reuters and many mainstream news media, a recent study shows that circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity. And there have been other reports (see Frisch and Sorrells.)

Can someone still argue that circumcision does not mutilate a human being, a minor, a baby?

More info on Don Harmon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Harmon

Thanks to dreamer for bringing attention to this on his blog.