The left one says "Circumcision? NO! Moroni 8:8"
The right one says "If God wanted me to have a foreskin, I would have been born with one."
So we got to talking and mostly only talked about the religious aspect. While I am religiously aposed to routine infant circumcision, our bodies are temples - no unnecesary cosmetic surgery and all that, what I feel most passionate about it the human rights aspect. You know - the owner of the penis should get to decide how it functions and what it looks like.
That said I think I am going to swap one of them out so I have one religous and one not. This is where you guys come in. Which one should I replace it with?
"Foreskin is NOT a birth defect"
"10 out of 10 babies oppose circumcision"
"His body - His choice"
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity" George Bernard Shaw
Post your vote on your blog - great way to get the word out - or just leave a comment here. Thanks!
12 comments:
I like "Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity" George Bernard Shaw
I hadn't heard that one, but it certainly is apropos.
On the oppose one, you'll want to fix the spelling of oppose.
Sarah
Thanks Sarah - taken care of. NOt sure how that slipped through. :o}
I like this one best:
"10 out of 10 babies oppose circumcision"
Yeah...that's a good one.
Voltaire always gets my vote - my favorite Freedom (French) Enlightenment writer, essayist, deist and philosopher.
Doesn't appear this vote is much going to help you :)
Let us read and let us dance - two amusements that will never do any harm to the world. - Voltaire
10 out of 10 babies? Shouldn't it be 10 out of 10 male babies? Just a thought.
Also, do members of the LDS church believe circumsision is wrong or is it just the opinion of a few? Has the First pres. come out with something saying it is wrong?
Not trying to fight, just asking.
Philip, I'd think that the female babies oppose circumcision also. Thing is, they *are* protected from circumcision, at least in this country. In some other countries *they* are the unlucky ones while the males stay intact.
Yes, I think that "10 out of 10 babies" is correct.
Females get circumsized? gross! Where? Thanks for the correction.
In trying to drum up enough outrage to support the fight they have on their hands to end this, the WHO has begun calling female circumcision what it really is - female genital mutilation. It's too bad that we haven't begun to label male circumcision the same way.
The WHO's definition of FGM is "Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." Almost the exact same definition could be given for male circumcision if you change the pronouns and gender labels.
Male genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial removal of the male external genitalia for non-medical reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/index.html
Thanks pichinde. I was out of town yesterday.
Philip - thank you for asking. This is one of the first questions I had after learning what circumcision actually is. The church does not believe that circumcision is necessary as far as a covenant with God is concerned. As it says in Moroni 8:8 "Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer,. . . and the law of circumcision is done away in me."
What does the lewadership of the church say about it? In an article published in the October, 2005 Ensign titled "A Crisis, a Council, and Inspired Leadership" is says,
“There is no doubt that Peter and the other Brethren knew that the law of Moses was fulfilled. Latter-day revelation also makes it plain that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ [see above]… Obedience to the law of Moses was no longer a requirement for salvation since Jesus had completed his atonement… In like manner today [regarding any conflict between traditional practices (e.g. circumcision) and doctrine], there may be questions on which the doctrinal foundation is clear but on which tradition or custom are so strong that the Brethren are impressed not to take a firmer stand, trusting, as did Church leaders in New Testament times, that if the basic revealed principles are known, the Holy Ghost will eventually lead the adherents to forsake their tradition, or academic popularity, or peer pressure in favor of the word of God."
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=eff86e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
So, while the brethren are impressed not to publicly denounce male and female genital mutilation through the church, that has no bearing on what we as members do to end this horrendous practice.
long post, so just to end - this pamphlet is well written and to the point.
http://members.cox.net/jbtilden/nenocirc.org/files/handouts/Circumcision_and_Mormonism.doc
Something else I thought I would say in a separate post -
Since mgm (male genital mutilation) is such a common practice (a custom really) here in the US, most parents don't really think about it as a (dangerous) surgery on a newborn. They are NOT bad parents. It is the doctors who recommend it and don't properly inform parents of it's dangers that are mostly to blame for the purpetuation.
No medical establishment in the WORLD recommends mgm and Australia is set to actually ban it!
Fgm is bannedin the US and it is about time males get equal protection.
Thanks for the suggestions everyone. Perhaps I'll just make one of each and rotate them around.
I agree that it isn't necessary for boys and my boys are not in fact cicumcised, but it is prophesied that all things will need to be fulfilled. Polygammy will be brought back, etc. My one concern is that the need to have all males circumcised will again need to be done. It happened in the time of Abraham, and it sure would be painful for men to have the procedure done.
Liberty you just made my day!!!
I am so glad to hear that
You know, when I think about it perhaps being required in the future, I am happy that there are wonderful pain relief options for men that aren't available for infants. Also I do believe that the type of circ done in ancient times was more a drawing of blood procedure. Not the aptutation that it is today. Thanks so much for your comment.
Maria
Post a Comment