I know it's silly of me, but that person just gets my goat. big time. People who don't read digs will have NO idea what I'm talking about, but just this once it will just have to be that way. sorry, massive internet audience of mine.
But her asinine and judgemental response to my little book report on circumcision was totally wack-o. freak. I wrote a little retaliation, but I don't think I will post it to anyone but the studio audience. Maybe someone can run her off again with a revival of the smoking while pregnant thread. sorry, that was dumb. I just get so worked up...
so this is my response. I wrote it in response to the person who alleged that male circumcision is a new fad in elective surgery. Notice I don't go into the lame ass counterarguments irritating smoking lady presented. because I'm bigger than that and nobody likes a know-it-all anyway.
"Actually, there is evidence of circumcision in males dating back to 3000 BC. Circumcision is dictated in the bible in a convenant that is still practiced today in the practice of Judaism and some christian religions. Muslims also regularly circumsize their male infants. In the US, circumcision peaked in the 1970's, when up to 90% of newborn boys were circumcised.
I think there is a mountain of evidence for either position (pro or con) if one wishes to use a strictly medical approach to justify their decision. No matter where you look, you will find what you need to support your opinion. Because of this, it is clear to me that circumcision is a very personal and hard thought out decision for most parents. This decision is clearly not just about medicine, so to posit that one way is better than another seems to me to be disrespectful of the multiple components of the issue that parents must weigh. What is completely cut and dry to one person can have absolutely no meaning to another. Would anyone here REALLY tell a person of a strong tradition of male circumcision that they are mutilating their child by making this important spiritual gesture?
I suppose some might posit using this rationale makes female genital mutilation an equally culturally sound practice. As was already pointed out, male circumcision doesn't remove all sensitive nerve tissue, and doesn't leave behind intentional scaring, and isn't done for the sole purpose of controlling a person's sexual response. It's a very complicated issue. And besides, there comes a point when we have to get off our western high-horses and face up to the fact that there are groups of people in this world who do things we don't necessarily think are ethically or morally good. These are value judgements that fluxuate depending on the situation, culture and circumstance.
Debate is important. We share ideas this way. We like to pursuade people through argument to see our side and possibly even convert to our side through debate. I think that exposure of facts and misinformation is also an important side of debate. When the debate turns into a dichotomous exercise in good versus evil, there is little room for intelligent discourse.
With this complicated issue, I think that most people will look at the issues, weigh them with their own value systems and make informed decisions. Misinformation and ill informed conjecture really doesn't contribute anything to the conversation."
Anyway, you read it here. blech. She just gets me SO worked up! I will no respond. I will not respond. I will not respond. stinky girl. stinky know it all girl. urg.
The thing is, underneath all of this is a very fence-walking lola. she's seen the research that she considers valid (as most people would, I mean it's from the american college of nurse midwives, for goodness sakes) and she still doesn't quite know which team she's going to root for. SO I'm not trying to pursuade anyone of anything, I just want the facts represented as accurately as possible. Is that too much to ask?