Abortion vs. Circumcision

June 20, 2011 at 10:39 PM 6 comments

Since I wrote the blog about “Foreskin Man,” a number of individuals have written attempting to take me to task because I seemingly know little to nothing about the circumcision procedure.

So these kind individuals have spared no amount of energy to tell me just how barbaric the surgical procedure of circumcision is to the male infant.

The saddest part of what they say is that nearly EVERYTHING they argue with respect to banning circumcision can EASILY be applied to abortion, yet they do not seem to notice their own stupidity.

Here’s one comment from a person that I thought was interesting:

It’s past time for this brutal and unnecessary procedure to be outlawed. There’s no justification for it being inflicted on the body of a non-willing human being.

That’s interesting because the exact SAME thing can be said for the procedure we happily call ABORTION.  As far as I understand it, the unborn infant has NO say in the matter, therefore he or she is NON-WILLING.

Here’s an interesting comment from another individual:

Children are also more likely to die to the procedure since it requires such a small amount of blood loss to cost a child his life.”

All you’d have to do is change “are also more likely to” to “will” and you have a clear reference to ABORTION.  The truth is that while the “intactivists” (anti-circumcision people) argue that 100 children die each year due to circumcision (that is tragic!), yet over one MILLION babies are aborted annually in the United States alone.

While the “intactivists” argue about the gruesome or barbaric procedure that is done on the male infant, I cannot help but wonder where their hearts are with respect to the aborted child?  These unborn babies are ripped, cut, or vacuumed out of the uterus.  In some cases, a saline solution is injected into the amniotic sac, which simply burns the unborn baby to death.

Yes, truly, I can see why some people would choose circumcision as their protest of choice!  Give me a break!  If circumcision is barbaric to male infants, abortion is murder to both male and female unborn infants!

If those who are anti-circumcision want to argue that there are health risks for the male infant, I want to hear them argue about the health risks for the unborn child AND the mother of that unborn child with EVERY abortion!

There are too many people in this world who have their principles all screwed up.  Why is it possibly okay for women to have abortions, yet we have groups of men who will seemingly fight to the death to keep one more male infant from being circumcised!  What is wrong with this picture?

Look, if there are groups of men (and possibly women) out there who believe that circumcision is so wrong it should be illegal, that is up to them.  If outlawed, there should at least be an exemption for a person’s religious beliefs, (or the very real possibility will exist that the government will be stepping over the line of no longer separating church from state), however, I would have a great deal more respect for these individuals if they were AT LEAST consistent by fighting for the overturning of abortion as well.

These people will not argue against abortion though, because they will say that it is the right of the mother to do with her body what she will…until that baby is actually born.  So they can sit around and make themselves feel better by believing that they are truly being benevolent.  They are not condemning the actions of the woman who opts for an abortion in spite of the fact that every baby dies (even the ones who are aborted still alive, and left on the table to die), so they can pat themselves on the back because like good little leftheads, they are supporting a woman’s right to choose (to kill her unborn child – not at all barbaric, is it?).

What a sack of cow excrement!  Give it up and get a life all of you “intactivists”!  Until you fight the same fight against killing unborn male and female children, you’re just talking smack at the highest level of hypocrisy.  At least be consistent, will you?  If you’re going to argue against circumcision, then argue against abortion as well!

When am I going to see a comic book called “Anti-Abortion Man – Defender of the Unborn!“?  You “intactivists” should not even be given the time of day, much less be taken seriously.

You pick and choose your debate as if you have been busy gathering your “troops” for battle to rid the earth of the scourge of circumcision, all the while over one million children are ripped from their mother’s wombs dead each year in the United States, and not once did anyone ask the child for permission to kill him/her.

The fact that there are people out there with such a skewed view of what is important in life boggles my mind.  I guess it is nothing more than a sign of the times when people are able to strain out a gnat, but swallow the camel! (cf. Matthew 23:24).  Sad.  Very sad indeed.

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, ufology. Tags: , .

In Talks with the Taliban, and Other Gaffes by Team Obama Alabama Judge Roy Moore and the ACLU

6 Comments

  • 1. Jason  |  November 25, 2011 at 1:29 PM

    Anti-Semitism isn’t my agenda, I assure you. Religion in general bewilders me, I’ve never been able to quite understand how deeply people get indoctrinated, even when raised into a practicing family. Do they actually believe, or is it mere habit? The fact that infant circumcision is largely (but sadly not exclusively) Jewish doesn’t even enter my feelings regarding the practice. I just don’t understand how after giving birth to a (hopefully) perfectly healthy baby boy, people can look at him and think that some (dis)assembly is required. Such mentality makes no sense to me, it’s as bizarre and alien as some obscure rituals that might performed by some obscure tribe in a jungle located in a country I’ll only see on documentaries.

    I care about a great many matters, many of them are greater problems than infant circumcision, but I’m not here to talk about them. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t pierce my children’s ears unless they asked for it, nor do I understand why other people do it, but despite the principle being similar to infant circumcision, ie, mostly done more for the parent’s benefit than the child’s, it’s on a different scale.

    I don’t claim to understand the function of the appendix, but considering that it’s never removed unless there’s a good reason, plus you can’t actually see yours every time you do something as mundane as urinate, it’s beside the point.

    I don’t live in San Fransisco. I don’t even live in the United States. I just think it’s wrong to surgically alter a child’s genitals for no other reason than the parents like it that way, not least because the child won’t always be a child. I’ve heard people attempt to trivialise infant circumcision by likening it to raising one’s children to be vegetarians, conveniently oblivious to the fact that If a child wants to eat meat when they grow up, no one can stop them, whereas if a man who was circumcised as an infant wishes he had a natural penis, there’s absolutely nothing he can do about it. A better example would be vegetarian parents who inject their child with some purely hypothetical chemical that makes the individual violently ill whenever they ingest meat products so that they never stray from the path their parents set for them, even when they’re old enough to make their own choices. Now I’m not saying infant circumcision is motivated by malice on the parents’ part (although greed on the doctors part no doubt plays a role) but going by the opinions of some people that I’ve heard or read, there is an element of parental selfishness about it, be it a father who wants his son to have a matching penis (as if anyone besides the mother, the paternal grandparents, and at a push, the paternal aunts and uncles will ever get to see the penises of a father and son, let alone remark on any similarities between them) or the mothers who claim they think circumcised looks better, as though their opinion on the subject is really the one that matters. There’s a certain disregard for what the child will feel when he’s old enough to form his own opinions, and I find that both odd and sad.

    Like

    • 2. modres  |  November 25, 2011 at 2:21 PM

      Jason,

      You have your opinion and I have mine. Seems like no matter how much we discuss it neither of us is likely to change opinions. Part of the reason may be due the fact that I simply don’t see circumcision on the same level as you do. I’m sure there are plenty of people you can commiserate with on an anti-circumcision forum.

      It’s an issue I wrote about but not one I care to deal with on an extended level.

      Like

  • 3. Jason  |  November 25, 2011 at 10:29 AM

    Modres,

    You misunderstand me completely. I don’t equate abortion with infant circumcision. I wouldn’t even mention them in the same sentence if other people didn’t insist upon comparing them. My problem is when people try to justify infant circumcision by claiming they bet its opponents support abortion. I don’t consider myself a supporter of abortion. I certainly don’t consider abortion a quick and easy remedy for irresponsibility, but I can grudgingly admit that there are times when it’s necessary. Whether or not a foetus early on in it’s development can be compared to a newborn child is debatable, but there’s no question of whether a newborn baby boy is officially a person and the main issue is, should what is essentially cosmetic surgery be performed on neonates based on the likes and dislikes of their parents? Cosmetic surgery that the individual will have to live with for the rest of their life, theoretically long after their parents have died? Even if you discount the pain it causes a child and the risks that might be present, do people have the right to do this to their children? Many people circumcise their sons because they believe it’s aesthetically pleasing, but they fail to account for the fact that aesthetics are purely subjective and that the opinion of the individual whose body it is, is the opinion that truly matters.

    I find your choice of words interesting. “It removes the additional skin”. “Additional” suggests that it is extraneous, like a foot with 6 toes. This couldn’t be further from the truth, it’s supposed to be there. The fact that so many people, apparently including yourself, seem to view the prepuce almost as a birth defect, albeit one that every male is born with, is very strange.

    Basically, I don’t care if a grown man gets circumcised any more than I care if a grown man gets a tattoo. It’s his business. What does bother me is the mentality that a child needs to be surgically altered at birth for no other reason than the parents desire it. At the risk of going off on a tangent, I bet many of the people who circumcise their sons would attempt to discourage their daughters from having breast augmentation surgery, and try to convince her that she’s fine the way she is.

    I suppose what I’m trying to say is if there’s a legitimate medical reason, and circumcision is the only answer, then fine, but routinely doing it to kids as though that’s the way it should be is madness. I can’t fathom how such a practice has become so mainstream that people take it for granted.

    Like

    • 4. modres  |  November 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

      Okay, I misunderstood you – my apologies.

      The reason it has become mainstream is because of two things:
      1. The Judeo-Christian remembrance of the covenant between Abraham and God, and
      2. The age-old thinking that those who are circumcised are “cleaner.”

      Obviously, anti-Semitic people want to outlaw it whether or not Jews still want to perform it on their boys (and I realize there ARE Jewish groups who do not hold to the ceremony of circumcision any longer). This was THE reason why the legislation to outlaw it was not allowed on the ballot in the last California vote. It was deemed to be anti-minority.

      I guess my thinking is that it boggles my mind that there are individuals like yourself who feel so strongly about circumcision that it seems to take precedence over other issues which are far more serious and important.

      Regarding the “additional” skin I refer to. It seems to me that it IS additional skin.

      Like the appendix – which doctors really have no clue of its use – we can live with or without it. The skin surrounding the penis is just that – SKIN. You see the removal of it as creating a deformity. I don’t.

      If you can’t fathom how the practice has become mainstream, a trip down history lane would clue you in.

      Why aren’t you just as upset about people who get their toddler daughters’ ears pierced?

      I’m not necessarily trying to make light of your position. It’s just that in the full scheme of things, circumcision is down there with wondering what purpose the appendix serves.

      If you believe that the skin that each born is boy with around their penis should be left alone, that’s fine. The idea that you and other people should force a law to be created that prohibits people from the procedure of circumcision on their infant sons is asinine.

      It kind of reminds me of the fact that San Francisco deals with such extremely important topics like McDonald’s Happy Meals. Because of health concerns, they have to outlaw them (or parts of them) so that young children will not become unhealthy.

      Meanwhile, the city could care less about “Up Your Alley,” an annual fundraiser in which gay men party on a few streets of the city doing things that should never see the light of day.

      This is the way the entire subject seems to me regarding circumcision. It is such a “nothing” event or subject compared to some of the major things that society is facing. We’ve got starvation in many countries around the world, the encroachment of Islam, which has begun in earnest in the United States, terrorists making their mark, 1.2 million unborn babies killed last year in the United States, still no closer to conquering the problems of AIDS, cancers, or even the common cold, and then there are those who are militantly opposed to…circumcision…wow.

      Like

  • 5. Jason  |  November 25, 2011 at 6:58 AM

    I don’t understand why people always bring abortion into the circumcision debate as they’re two completely separate matters. For what it’s worth, I don’t view abortion as the quick fix that some people seem to. It isn’t a decision that should be made lightly, but sometimes, it is necessary. I question the logic of people who say all babies have the right to be born and then go on to assert their ownership over their new son by irreversibly altering his genitals. The notion of people working so hard to save the lives of potential babies who, when born, probably won’t even have a say in how their penis will be for the rest of their life is almost amusing. Abortion is certainly no substitute for contraceptives, but again, there are instances where it is necessary, just as occasionally circumcision may be necessary. This doesn’t, in my opinion, excuse the fact that many people in the US take it for granted that a male child will be circumcised as though it is the most natural thing to do without giving it any thought. The fact that so many Americans view an natural member as a curiosity, if not outright “weird” or “gross” speaks volumes.

    Like

    • 6. modres  |  November 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM

      Jason,

      It is really difficult to believe that you are equating KILLING unborn children (both BOYS and GIRLS) as essentially similar to removing additional SKIN surrounding the penis. I’d say “you have GOT to be kidding me!” but it is obvious that you are serious.

      Circumcision does not remove a boy’s TESTICLES. It removes the additional skin around the male organ – that’s it.

      People like yourselves have such a skewed view of life – in my opinion – that it is obvious that for someone who sees circumcision and abortion as equal has a huge problem in the first place.

      By removing skin from around the penis, the boy REMAINS a boy. Unfortunately, EVERY abortion results in the death of the unborn child and too often, harm or even death to the mother.

      You are unbelievable…

      Like


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,143 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 1,072,911 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,143 other followers

Follow Study – Grow – Know on WordPress.com

%d bloggers like this: