MK Yoel Razvozov: Conduct Bris Milah at Israeli Embassies

 

In response to the declaration made by the Council of Europe that the circumcision of infants is a human rights violation, Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Committee chairman Yoel Rozvozov has proposed that Jewish circumcision ceremonies be conducted at Israeli embassies.

"No one can force us and Diaspora Jewry to follow certain religious values and not others. We should be allowed to observe all Jewish customs... If necessary, we will instruct embassies to hold circumcision ceremonies on their territory, which is Israeli sovereign territory." ~MK Yoel Razvozov

Note, there is no ban on infant circumcision, yet.

European laws allow certain religious values and forbid others all the time. For example, female circumcision for whatever reason is strictly prohibited, and there is no exemption for religious practice. At this point in time, I'm not exactly sure where European laws stand on the marriage of children to other children, or even to adults. Someone please educate me, are bride burnings allowed in any country in Europe?

But I digress; let's stick to forced genital cutting.

What would be the political ramifications would that immigration ministries from countries where female circumcision is seen as an important cultural or religious rite, were to propose female circumcision ceremonies to be conducted at the embassies of their countries?

For example, female genital cutting is performed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore and other countries, as a matter of religious and cultural custom, known there as "sunat."

What if the heads of immigration ministries in those countries were to propose having "sunat" ceremonies at their embassies in Europe?

Yes, I'm sure it sounds very poetic to say that "No one can force us to follow certain religious values and not others; we should be allowed to observe all of our customs."

Does it apply in all cases?

Or just with Judaism when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

Related Links:

Jerusalem Post

Israel Hayom

New York Times - A Cutting Tradition

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

It's the internet; it's a freedom of speech free for all. I've seen quite a few pro-circumcision propaganda posters, and I've seen so many that I thought I was used to it.

Which is why I was surprised to find the this picture in my Facebook news feed today, particularly from a group that calls itself "Granola Babies."

Can you spot what this group craftily decided to sneak in there?

"Granola Babies" gives off the impression that it's a group for crunchy moms, and as far as I was aware, crunchy moms want everything that is the most natural for their kids, which is why I thought it rather revolting to see this picture trying to pretend like circumcision fits right up there with co-sleeping and breast-feeding. The "I work outside the home" seems pointless up there; who cares WHERE you work, as long as you're taking care of your kids.

The caption that accompanied this filth read:

"Let's celebrate our differences as mothers and that we love our babies the same. ♥"

I was fuming.

No, seriously, what self-serving, self-congratulating crap.

As if circumcision were this "choice" parents are entitled to, much less a "crunchy" one.

This to me seems like nothing more than a deliberate inflammatory piece of propaganda aimed at inciting the ire of human rights activists.

And they knew exactly what they were doing. Oh yes they did.

The caption continues:

"Update on this picture ~ Unfortunately the message was lost on some and many unkind posts towards other posters (now deleted) have been made and are not such that Granola Babies is willing to host. There were even a couple of posts stating that mothers do not love their babies the same if she did ___ (insert box) different than her.

In particular -
All posts that continue the circumcision debate will be deleted. This isn't a platform for this debate."

I've said it before on a different blog post, but if people don't want to hear it from us intactivists, if they don't want to host the "circumcision debate," why post inciteful things at all?

I posted more than a piece of my mind, and as promised, my comments were promptly deleted.

But they are gravely mistaken if they think they're going to post this crap and not hear about it from intactivists.

These self-serving idiots just want to pretend like mutilating your child is "just another choice" and we should all be "celebrating our differences."

Well, what do they think of mothers who have gone ahead and circumcised their daughters?

Should we "celebrate" that?

Maybe it's "different" with said mothers of circumcised daughters, and they don't "love their children the same?"

Sexist, self-serving double-standard to be treating male circumcision, and male circumcision ONLY as a "choice" mothers can be making.

The fact is, if being a parent justified everything you did with your children, then there wouldn't be a need for child protective services.

There is such a thing as horrible parents out there, and at some point what they do to their children crosses over into abuse, and shit has to hit the fan.

"Granola Babies" seems to be in the business of pleasing the masses and just issuing out touchy-feely slogans and propaganda that congratulates idiotic parenting.

In the words of John Steinbeck:

"No one wants advice, only corroboration."

And, it looks like "Granola Babies" is more than happy to supply it.

I've taken their sick disgusting poster and made a parody of it:

Yes, "Granola Babies," let's celebrate.

But you know what, this isn't about parents.

I don't blame parents for making a "choice" based on the "advice" their charlatan pediatrician or OB/GYN gave them. Can parents be blamed if they were told that not circumcising their children would result in their child getting penile cancer and dying of AIDS?

No.

That responsibility lies in the charlatans that sell the lies they need to to profit at the expense of children, and at the expense of parental trust.

The bottom line question is always this:

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be giving their parents any kind of "choice?"

Without a medical or clinical indication, how is it doctors are even stoking in mothers this false sense of entitlement?

That is "Granola Babies'" biggest failure; they are perpetuating the myth that parents are entitled to perform needless surgery on their healthy, non-consenting children.

Does "Granola Babies" celebrate the "choice" of mothers who chose to have their daughters circumcised?

No?

What if it were a "ritual nick" as once approved by the AAP, where they said it dwarves in comparison to male infant circumcision?

Let's see how much support "Granola Babies" gives mothers who had "sunat" performed on their daughters.

Shameless, self-serving, disgusting pieces of shit.

Give TRUE crunchy advice, you lousy people-pleasers.

Related story:  GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

In the battle against male genital mutilation, intactivists always point out that while male circumcision is defended on the grounds of "religious freedom," "parental choice" and "medical benefits," the same is not true for female circumcision. At the same time, advocates of male infant circumcision always shoot back "male and female circumcision aren't the same!" There are some that even go as far as feigning offense and demanding "How dare you compare male and female circumcision! We're not moving forward until we agree that they're not the same!"

So we hear that male and female circumcision "aren't the same." But what is the basis for this claim? Are we supposed to believe it at face value without any demonstrable proof? When a circumcision advocate asserts that male and female circumcision "aren't the same," what does that person mean? What exactly is he comparing?

I've already written an extensive blog post on the matter here, so I won't spend too much time on this one.

I'm just going to briefly cover a few points of consideration for this debate that tend to be completely ignored, if ever even brought up.

Male circumcision as it happens in the United States to newborns and children is always compared to female circumcision as it happens in the African bush to teens and adult women.
This is a false comparison. Circumcision advocates always compare male infant circumcision, which is usually conducted by a professional, with sterile equipment, in the pristine environment of a health facility (sometimes) with analgesia, with the kind of female circumcision that is conducted in the African wilderness as a rite of passage, which is usually conducted by a shamaness priestess, using raw tools such as a rusty razor blade or a glass shard, under the harsh conditions of the bush. They are also comparing two different genital cutting procedures that are not analogous to each other.

Not all female circumcision is performed in the bush.
In fact, female circumcision is also performed by doctors with sterile utensils under pristine conditions. Some doctors also claim there to be "medical benefits," citing works and studies. They do this out of genuine concern for their patients, and not because they wish to justify their profession I'm sure.

Not all female circumcision is performed on teens and adult women.
Male circumcision advocates elicit an emotional response when they present the image of a teen or an adult woman being forced to undergo genital cutting. Male circumcision is supposed to somehow be justified by the fact that it is often performed on newborn babies that will not remember.

The fact is that circumcision is performed in baby girls in various parts of South-East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. "She won't remember," however, seems to fail this litmus test.

Not all female circumcision is forced.
As in adult male circumcision, adult female circumcision is also often a rite of passage that a girl or woman is expected to undergo willingly. "Willingly" is a misnomer, as succumbing to social pressure can hardly be called "free will." This seems to be a good enough reason, however, to look the other way, when it concerns male circumcision as it happens in African tribes. In the "mass circumcision campaigns" in Africa, one often hears the acronym "VMMC," which stands for "voluntary medical male circumcision." With all the social pressure to get circumcised, lest one be seen as an HIV risk, one must wonder how much of the circumcisions in Africa are actually "voluntary."

For better or for worse, however, there are communities where a woman submits herself to get circumcised out of her own free will. While this is enough to justify male circumcision in various situations in Africa, "social pressure" only seems to be a problem when it involves female circumcision.

Not all female circumcision removes the same parts.
Male circumcision advocates always compare male infant circumcision as it occurs in the United States, to infibulation, which is a kind of female circumcision that removes the clitoris, inner and outer labia, and the remaining wound is sewn shut to leave only a small hole for menstruation.

In reality, infibulation is the WORST kind of female circumcision, and it is actually the rarest, comprising of 15% of female circumcision globally. There are various other forms of female circumcision, and not all of them remove the same parts of the genitals. There are forms of female circumcision that are as equal to, or less severe than male circumcision. At least in the United States, ALL forms of female genital cutting is considered "mutilation," and against the law.

What is true for female circumcision, is also true for male circumcision.
Just as female circumcision is often performed by shamanesses and priestesses with glass shards and rusty razor blades under harsh conditions, the same is true for male circumcision.

Every year, millions of men undergo circumcision  as a rite of passage in various parts of Africa, and every year, scores of men succumb to infection, lose their penises to gangrene, or die.

While these are concerns regarding female circumcision, they don't seem to be a concern regarding male circumcision.

Perhaps less women would succumb to infection or bleed to death if only these procedures would be done in hospitals. Perhaps it would be less traumatic if only these women were circumcised as babies so that they wouldn't remember the pain and anguish.

The suggestion that African states should provide sterile equipment and proper training to provide "infant female circumcision" would probably not make it very far.

So what is being compared?
The comparison of male infant circumcision as it occurs in America to female circumcision as it occurs in the African bush is self-serving hyperbole.

A more accurate comparison of male infant circumcision as it occurs in American hospitals would be female infant circumcision as it occurs in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei.

A more accurate comparison of female circumcision as it occurs in Africa would be male circumcision as it occurs in Africa.

Apples to apples
So what do people mean when they assert that "male and female circumcision aren't the same?"

When someone makes this claim, can we trust that this person has actually taken the time to do their research? That s/he has actually witnessed both male and female circumcision? Adult and minor?

How can we be sure that they're aren't blowing female circumcision out of proportion in order to trivialize male circumcision?

I dare say that comparing male infant circumcision as it is performed in US hospitals to female circumcision as it is performed in the African wilderness is a false comparison. It ignores the fact that circumcision is performed in males under the exact same conditions as it does in females. It ignores the fact that there are actually various kinds of female circumcision, some equal to, if not less severe than male circumcision as we know it. It ignores the fact that we would never accept female circumcision, not even the kind that can be compared with male circumcision, or even dwarfs in comparison.

Let's compare the same exact thing:

A baby in South-East Asia undergoes "sunat"

Original Text: "It happens so fast, with a bismillah and a snip,

a little bit blood and that's it, Zahra dah sunat!

She didn't cry even a drop, in fact giggling2 lagi.

I guess it wasn't painful for her, alhamdulillahh.."

The slit clitoris if you can find it (on the lower blade)

You can read the whole thing here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html

We're often told that male infant circumcision is "just a little snip," "he doesn't even cry," and they remove "only a little flap of skin."

Well, let's have "a little flap of skin,"

..and let's compare it to the slit clitoris above.

I'm somehow not convinced that the foreskin is "just a little flap of skin."

And I'm not convinced that female circumcision, as we see above, is "worse."

Remove the same exact amount of flesh you see above from the genitals of a baby girl, that would be "mutilation."

When we actually sit down and compare like with like, I dare say male infant circumcision is more severe than female infant circumcision.

Recap of the facts:
Female circumcision is not always as severe as male circumcision advocates would like their audience to believe. While it is often performed by a shamaness priestess, using raw tools such as a rusty razor blade or a glass shard, under the harsh conditions of the bush, the same is also true for male circumcision.

While male infant circumcision is often conducted by a professional, with sterile equipment, in the pristine environment of a health facility, the same can also be true of female circumcision.

While infection and hemorrhaging to death are risks of female circumcision, the same is also true of male circumcision.

Claims of "hygiene" and "medical benefits," as well as "literature" to back these claims exist for both male and female circumcision. While these seem to be perfectly good rationale to justify circumcision in males, there would never be enough literature that would ever make female circumcision "acceptable."


Conclusion
Comparing the severity of male and female circumcision, citing "potential medical benefits," "religion and culture," and "parental choice" are all red herrings that draw attention from the point that intactivists are trying to make:

Circumcision, male or female, is always abuse, genital mutilation, and a gross violation of basic human rights, when it is conducted on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Whether it is performed by professional or amateur, in the hospital or in the bush, on babies, children or adults, with pain killers or without, with a glass shard or a scalpel, whether it removes a "tiny flap of skin," or a substantial chunk of flesh, for "potential medical benefits" or for "religious reasons" is irrelevant.

The Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent's sense of entitlement.

References:
For more information regarding female circumcision as it is performed in South East Asia, I recommend the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html

The WHO classifies female circumcision into four types. Read more about them here:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Closer investigation reveals that, contrary to popular belief, women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"Studies show" that female circumcision "reduces" the risk of HIV:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html

A mother in South East Asia blogs about her daughter's circumcision, or "sunat," as it is known there. The picture used in this blog post was also taken from here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
Another blog similar to the one above:
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html

In the following parenting forum for South East Asia, mothers describe their experiences in having their daughters circumcised, their own circumcisions as adults, and there are even some recommendations for doctors who perform it.
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/

Note that if the forum above were discussing boys instead of girls, it would read like almost any other parenting forum on the internet, such as CafeMom or what have you. Cutting genitals in the name of "religion," "parental prerogative," or "potential medical benefits" is only an issue with girls; never with boys.

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

So Marikina City officials in the Philippines, east of Manila, hope to establish a world record for people attending a "mass circumcision."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384549/Hes-smiling--Filipino-youths-wait-line-mass-circumcision-party-world-record-attempt.html#comments

According to vice mayor, Jose Fabian Cadiz, "We applied for the Guinness Book of World Records and we are recording everything so we can send all the data to them and hopefully it will be recognized."

In the Philippines circumcision is a rite of passage most males undergo as preteens, particularly during their school summer break from March to May. City officials took advantage of the season to throw a "circumcision party," as they had the local press sell the event.

They offered poor residents "free" circumcisions that would otherwise cost at least $40 in private hospitals. It sounds like a nice sentiment, since in rural areas, the surgery is sometimes performed by non-doctors using crude methods.

In Marikina, east of Manila, boys "receive" their "free" circumcisions.

Wherever I see this story, the comments all try to make light of the situation, with jokes and humor.

But let's stop for a minute.

What would be people's reactions if the gender of the subjects were female?

What if officials in some city in Malaysia or Indonesia were so starved for recognition they threw a "sunat" party and gave away free "sunat" for the girls there? You know, since girls are circumcised anyway, and they "might as well" be circumcised in a "clean environment?"

What if city officials planned to record this data and send it to the Guiness Book of World Records to see if they would get some sort of prize?

Girl receives "free" sunat, at a free circumcision event in Bandung, Indonesia, west of Java.

But it's not the same!

Before people start blubbering with their double-think, I'm going to attack some of the common myths that people spew to maintain the idea that "they're not the same" in their minds.

When female circumcision comes up, here are some of the common one-liners that people try to use to condemn female circumcision, but defend male circumcision.

"Female circumcision removes the clitoris, the labia, and the vulva is sewn up to leave only a small hole for urinating and menstruation; that's equivalent to castration in males."

Actually no, there are many kinds of female circumcision in the world, the WHO acknowledges this, and not every kind removes the clitoris.

The kind of female circumcision most people know, where all external genitalia is removed and the vaginal opening is stitched up, known as Pharaonic circumcision or infibulation, accounts for only 15% of cases globally.

In Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, the procedure ranges from rubbing turmeric on the genitals, to pricking the clitoris to draw a symbolic drop of blood. In other instances, the procedure is more invasive, involving what WHO classifies as “Type I” female genital mutilation, defined as excision of the clitoral hood, called the prepuce, with or without incision of the clitoris itself. The amount of flesh removed, if any, is described by circumcisers as being the size of a quarter-grain of rice, a guava seed, a bean, the tip of a leaf, the head of a needle. They use a small pair of sterilized scissors to cut a piece of the clitoral prepuce about the size of a nail clipping. In some areas, they do cut the clitoris itself.

In these countries, surveys show that over 95% of the female population undergoes some sort of "sunat" procedure, and the women seem to be doing fine.

In May, last year, the AAP tried to approve a "ritual nick" for girls. The procedure wouldn't remove anything, and the AAP admitted that it was much less severe than male circumcision. The logic behind this was that if they offered a "ritual nick" here in the States, then parents wouldn't take their daughters abroad to have more drastic procedures done. There was a world outcry, and the month of May did not end before the AAP was forced to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstances were medical professionals to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html

"Female circumcision is different from male circumcision, because it is meant to subjugate women and control their sexualities."

Actually, closer inspection reveals that this was precisely the reason it was done to boys.

"...with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible...
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...
...violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened." ~Rabbi Moses Maimonides

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." ~Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

But in the end, do the intentions really matter? What if doctors and parents seriously thought it made a woman's genitals cleaner and "more appealing" in their eyes? Just as many of us in America believe circumcision makes a boy "cleaner" and "more appealing?"

Let's change the intentions. For better for worse, mothers in these countries believe they are doing something good for their daughters. Does "sunnat" stop being abuse? Why this double-standard when it comes to male circumcision?

"Female circumcision completely eliminates a woman’s ability to orgasm.”

Contrary to popular belief, even women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female circumcision are still able to orgasm.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

Actually, "studies show" that female circumcision, nicely euphemised as "labiaplasty" here, can increase sexual satisfaction for both the woman and her partner.
http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-clinical-study.html

From the site:
- The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction
- An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work
- Sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction
- The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.

"Male circumcision is an imporant religious tradition in Judaism."

Surprise, surprise, according to the Indonesian Population Council study, many Indonesians view circumcision for boys and girls as a religious duty. But this isn't important, right?

"Studies show male circumcision could have health benefits. The same is not true for female circumcision."

And if they did?

Let's see how far people care about the "health benefits." What if there were "studies" that showed that female circumcision offered "potential medical benefits" for girls? Would we allow, request it for our daughters?

What if there were "studies" that said female circumcision "reduced" the likelihood of some disease? What if “studies showed” that female circumcision “reduced the risk of HIV transmission?” Because there are few studies that show precisely this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html

How interested would we be in the "potential medical benefits" for girls? Would we support further "research" into the matter? Would we allow the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins etc., to fund "research" in Africa? Well what about these countries where female circumcision isn't as "severe?"

But let's ask a different question, would we support "research" in finding alternative ways to provide the same "medical benefits" as male circumcision? If doctors came into your child's birthing room and said "We have great news! This new vaccine offers the same protections as circumcision and more! Now we don't have to circumcise your child anymore!" How would American parents react? Would they be jumping for joy, or would they request their child be circumcised anyway?

That would be the litmus test for how much we actually give a crap about supposed "medical benefits."

(Here's another surprise; the so-called "benefits" of circumcision ARE already easily achievable through other means; American doctors, parents and "researchers" simply aren't interested.)

Incidentally, for being a nation with a circumcised male majority, the Philippines has one of the worst reputations for HIV transmission. In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN
 
Maybe they want to see if they can add that to the Guinness Book of World Records?
 
American readers may yet delude themselves saying "babies who are circumcised as newborn boys, like we do here in the US, can't remember a thing." But does "not remembering" really make the act any more justifiable?

For readers who stomach it, I encourage you to visit these blogs. Here, parents in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore discuss their baby daughter's "sunat" pretty much the same way American parents talk about their son's circumcisions online. Here too, the subjects of permanent genital modification will also "not remember" what has happened to them. But does this fact justify the act here? What is the list of things that you can do to a child because "s/he can't remember?" And isn't this, the taking advantage of the defenseless, the very definition of abuse?

Blog links here. CAUTION - Not for the squeamish:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html

Bottom line
Abuse is abuse no matter what age, and no matter what sex.

It is sick, disgusting and despicable that the City of Marikina thought it graceful to throw a "circumcision party," and furthermore, to try and put this in the Guinness Book of World Records. We would be disgusted at the exact same notion for a similar event, such as a "sunat party" for girls; this "circumcision party" and the fact that city officials actually think it should be a world record is reprehensible.

The New York Times wrote an excellent article on the kind of female circumcision performed in Indonesia, "A Cutting Tradition." Read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html