Female Circumcision. Male Circumcision. Is There A Difference?

"In looking at both Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Male Genital Mutilation (MGM), it appears that there is no equal protection under the law for male infants and boys under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Illegal to perform FGM, fine to perform MGM. Yes, willful destruction of the primary male sex organ is unethical. Or is it much more than unethical?" -Ken Derifield of The Intact Network

Full article here:  http://www.compleatmother.com/articles3/femalecircumcision.shtml

One thought on “Female Circumcision. Male Circumcision. Is There A Difference?

  1. Circumcision is a Jewish custom. The first man was created without this mutilation. Most of the world’s men were not circumcised before God’s covenant with Abraham, and continued in his descendants until the Law of Moses came into effect. Then when Christ’s church was established, the Law of Moses ceased to be in effect. I know for a fact that the early church was told that they did not have to circumcise themselves or their children to be pleasing to God. I don’t know when the practice came back under the medical profession, but the excuses I have heard in the last century have been the following reasons:
    To keep cleaner, to keep the male from having cancer in that area, to keep from causing his wife to have cancer, and to keep down disease.
    My husband was not circumcised and had no problems along any of these lines. Nor did I. But when my oldest sons were planning marriage, they had themselves circumcised. They told me that they were having problems, and that is the reason. I have always suspected that the mothers of the girls they were marrying found out and told their daughters to tell them to do this! One of the daughters is adamant about this, feeling that circumcision is necessary for all those reasons above! How does one combat this ignorance, and I call this ignorance, because the scriptures say that ‘circumcision availeth nothing, and uncircumcision availeth nothing.’ In other words, either way is alright. But, like you say, men were not created circumcised. The natural state of uncircumcision is ‘normal.’
    Would like to hear about the ‘research’ on those four ‘given’ reasons above, to counteract them!

Leave a Reply to Ruth Atnip Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>