Saturday, July 7, 2012
A more concise response to Frank Furedi, submitted to spiked
Frank Furedi believes that intactivists are against self determination. Quite the opposite, circumcision of infants takes away the right to self determination of the infant, the adult of the future.
Frank Furedi tries to discredit the comparison to FGM which he describes as 'the removal of some or all of a woman's external genitalia', but in order to do so he never mentions, not once, that the foreskin is effectively a part of the external genitalia of males, and that circumcision removes it permanently.
Frank Furedi keeps steering the essay to prove that intactivists are against the cultural practice of some groups, are against self determination, intend to tell people how to live their lives, etc etc. Everything to steer away from the topic at the core of the discussion: the procedure of cutting part of the external genitalia of helpless babies who do not know what is happening to them, who suffer great pain, and who are exposed to several risks such as: death from bleeding, death from infections, mutilation or loss of the penis, and even pain during sex for their whole life.
Just this year, another baby died in NY after being infected of herpes by a mohel during the oral suction of the wound - incidentally, the only legal way that an adult can put a baby's penis in his mouth in the United States.
This year another baby got his penis cut off during an Islamic circumcision in Israel.
This year, a proponent of non-religious circumcision, Vernon Quaintance, head of the Gilgal society, was convicted of possession of child pornography. It's not that we want circumcisers to look like pedophiles: they do this to themselves.
For one second, put yourself in the skin of a baby: from peacefully sleeping to being restrained, touched in the most private part, subjected to excruciating pain while somebody else keeps putting ice with sugar in your mouth to keep you from crying until your mind goes into neurogenic shock as you believe that your end is imminent. And then waking up to a painful recovery, and that in the best case, when they didn't make a mistake and cut your glans off, or didn't give you an infection, and when you didn't bleed to death.
This act would be horrifying on you, so what makes it acceptable on a baby?
Attacking this act is not about moral relativism. Defending this act is about defending absolute cruelty.
Are we telling parents how to live their lives? Parents are not allowed to kill their babies or to cut their fingers or toes off. What makes the male's genitalia any different?
Intactivists are not against anyone's culture or religion. We are against cutting non-consenting babies.
We are not an abstract group of liberals. We are parents who don't want to hurt our babies. We are children who were hurt by circumcision. We are simply people who saw cruelty for what it is and denounce it in the hope that future generations will have a more fair chance.