SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • April 2007
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    2930  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Archive for April 9th, 2007

Emotional Comparison creates connotations that are untrue.

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 9, 2007


“GENITAL INTEGRITY IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.

Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are genitally/sexually mutilated (circumcised ) in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. (Source, AAP document)”

Oh.

You forgot this part:

“The AAP, though it does not recommend Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC), allows and teaches it’s members to perform this procedure. In contrast, the AAP strongly opposes any form of female genital mutilation.”

Could the reason for this “discrepancy” in “values” be due to the fact that there is a huge difference between the two? That the doctors actually know that there is a huge difference both in the matter of procedure, context and consequences?

“The risks of male genital mutilation, commonly referred to as Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC), far out weighs any very questionable benefits. Parents and physicians each have an ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child’s best interest and well-being.”

Male circumcision can be compared to having your ear pierced (something hoards of parents do to their toddlers daily), or having you ear lobe snipped. While female “circumcision” can be compared to having the tip of your tongue cut of and your lips sewn together.

A doctor performing a male circumcision will use clean instruments, local anastethics and his medical knowledge and skill to make sure that the child is not harmed, something that is not present in case of female genital mutilation.

RIC, does play a role in the appearance of cervical cancer in women who have sex exclusively with circumcised men – it is almost non-existent, instead of being banned, it should be given an appropriate secular context as something that increases the health in a future partner. Because it is here the problem arises – when there is no reason, no context and no meaning to a rite, it becomes harmful to the individual.

To target male circumcision in general will eventually also target the two religious bodies/communities that has male circumcision at the very core of their beliefs – Judaism and Islam. Both those communities have a safe and stable context in which circumcision has a place and a meaning. That is why few Jewish and Muslim men question or feel that they have been harmed by being circumcised. Of course they exist – the question is why they exist. I’d say that those who are Jewish or Muslim, who feel that they have been harmed by being circumcised, have not been given a proper context – basically, they were not raised within a coherent Jewish or Muslim context, some times they don’t even know that they are Jewish or Muslim, and then of course it becomes completely imcomprehensible why they are circumcised.

When words are seemingly equated – i.e Female Genital Mutilation is called “circumcision” and Male Circumcision is called Male Genital Mutilation the truth suffers and people promoting such equation play into the emotional area, rather
than telling the truth.

Shalom!

Posted in Judaism | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: