Is there a correlation between stance on abortion and stance on infant circumcision?
It seems like the "religious right" is on opposing sides of those issues. When you point out that the owner of the penis should have a say in the matter of circumcision, they scream about how it's a parent's right to alter a child's genitals. When you insist that carrying a baby is your choice, they insist that the fetus be given a choice in the matter.
Yes, I realize one procedure stops a beating heart and the other doesn't (although babies certainly die from circumcision), but why do babies only get choices in whether or not they live and not what to do with the appearance of their genitals?
And don't give the HIV nonsense either. There's evidence on BOTH sides and babies don't get many STDs anyway.
- Anonymous7 years agoFavorite Answer
Balanitis ......that's what circumcision is thought to prevent/treat.
Antibiotics/antifungals also treat Balanitis. Circumcision is not life saving, it's not even necessary most of the time.
Abortion can be life saving.
The idea of women possessing the right to autonomy enrages the Abrahamers.
We are still paying for that bite from the forbidden fruit, you know.
Patriarchal societies favor pointless reproduction - gotta fuel the churches and the war machine....and keep women "in their place."
We all know the cure for poverty has a name - it's called women.
Oh, I almost forgot to answer your question, sorry.
The correlation is ignorance.Source(s): Hitchens, and many others.
- MikeLv 57 years ago
No. But if you look for a correlation between those who oppose infant circumcision and anti-Semitism you will probably have more luck. What other motive could someone have for wanting to ban something that protects babies and later on protects health and increases sexual pleasure and appearance?
You are the one giving HIV nonsense. There is evidence on both sides but only one side is credible. Like the anti-circumcision groups the Flat Earth Society give evidence to argue their case but that doesn't mean I take the possibility of a flat earth seriously.
The World Health Organisation doesn't use circumcision to fight HIV on a whim. It is clear where the credible evidence points for HIV.
Babies don't get STDs as babies but they do get painful UTIs and without that vaccination-like protection it won't be good. It is also not unknown for them to be at risk of STDs before they hit 18. Indeed younger sexually active people are probably the least responsible and take the worst risks.
- 7 years ago
Don't understand what point you are trying to make. The "Religious Right" is for circumcision? None of the men in my family.
On the other hand, there is a move among the anti-Semites to ban the practice. Like hell! I would encourage all Christians to stand with the Jews.
So what was your point?
- MikeLv 77 years ago
Only if you're suffering from insanity. Which would describe anyone comparing the murdering of an unborn baby with circumcision.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- darlaLv 57 years ago
I have no idea but it's a very interesting question! I'm pro-"get your politics out of my vagina and mind your own damn business" and I'm anti-circumcision. I believe a bunch of cells doesn't have rights but once it becomes a person then it does.
Ford, dude, I found your towel!!
- PaulCypLv 77 years ago
Why would there be? Cold-blooded murder vs. a simple medical procedure?
- Anonymous7 years ago
Abortion is a choice.
Circumcision stops MANY health problems later on. There is NO valid reason not to circumcise.
- 7 years ago
- arcwebspinLv 57 years ago
the child should keep his foreskin and not loose his life from abortion.
- Ford PrefectLv 77 years ago
religious people don't have to make sense...they have belief
my towel has rights Darla...give it back