I always find it entertaining when a circumcision advocate thinks s/he is being so clever to bring up the abortion debate. It's amusing to watch them congratulate themselves because they're so sure they've caught intactivists in an inconsistency.
The quip goes something like this:
"You intactivists are the same people who support abortion. You support killing an unborn child, but are up in arms about a tiny piece of skin?"
The wording varies from person to person, but overall, the accusation that intactivists are all pro-abortion, and the attempt at dismissing intactivists based on this accusation is the same.
There are many things wrong with bringing up the abortion debate, particularly in the fashion in which circumcision advocates do, beginning with the straw man accusation that all those who protest the forced genital mutilation of infants also happen to be pro-abortion.
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.
The fact is that there are intactivists on both sides of the abortion debate. There are intactivists believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term, and then there are intactivists who believe it's wrong to kill an unborn child.
Intactivists on BOTH sides of the abortion debate, however, agree that circumcision should be the choice of the individual male to whom the penis in question belongs.
The truth of the matter is that the abortion debate is nothing more than a diversion to distract from the crux of the argument; a red herring.
Why does the crux of the argument always seem to elude people? Are people being willfully ignorant? Or are they simply that dense?
Intactivism is about CHOICE for the individual.
Though the standpoint is different on each side, choice is at the crux of both sides of the abortion debate, be it choice for the unborn child, or choice for the mother.
For this reason, being in favor of circumcision of infants is inconsistent with either side of the abortion debate.
A person who is "pro-choice" could not consistently argue "my body, my choice" for women, while ignoring the same principle violated in healthy, non-consenting children.
(Unless you're male...)
If you are "pro-choice," it is hypocritical to be arguing "my body, my choice" for girls and women, but tossing this argument out the window when it comes to boys and men.
If you are "pro-life," it kind of defeats the purpose to be fighting for his "right to life," but not for the right to his own body.
"Protect the unborn child..." (until he's born)
Why is it wrong to chop up a child within his mother's womb, but perfectly OK to be cutting off parts of his penis just as soon as he comes out?
I repeat; being in favor of circumcision of infants is inconsistent with either side of the abortion debate.
"My body, my choice" applies to both men AND women.
A child's "right to life" includes his right to his own body.