how anti-circumcision equalled castration

Comments

6 comments posted
Correction

The whole circumsicion covenant happens before Issac is even born. And yes, Abraham himself is circumcised:

On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day. 27 And every male in Abraham's household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him. (Gen.17).

Link: http://biblia.com/prayer2/abraham.htm#Covenant

Lavoisier1794's picture
Posted by Lavoisier1794 on 26 August 2005 - 11:14am
In The Red Tent version of the tale

...it's all a rather gruesome spectacle.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 26 August 2005 - 11:18am
how embarrassing

I apologize for not looking to the torah/talmud/bible/koran for my information. Looking back on it, it was amazingly stupid. I did not come away with the information that abraham circumcized his whole household including himself. In fact, in my snarky way, I managed to screw the whole story up.

and for some reason, I thought I gathered that sarah was much older, but even 90 is pretty old.

thank you for the corrections.

www.bitchingandmoaning.org

gballsout's picture
Posted by gballsout on 26 August 2005 - 11:31am
Penn & Teller

Penn & Teller did an episode of Bull Sh*t about circumcision and they deemed it a useless procedure. Even the "hygenic" reasons were not really reason enough. If a guy is taught to properly clean himself he doesn't need to be circumcised.

Here's the website for the season 3 episode:

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=circ

Piratealice's picture
Posted by Piratealice on 26 August 2005 - 12:16pm
the aids connection

In my discussion, someone brought up the study done recently in africa where men were circumcised as adults and then seemed to have a lower rate of AIDS. Lancet wouldn't publish it b/c they felt there were too many uncontrolled aspects.

My volley was that as intelligent men who could be taught ways to avoid AIDS, did they really feel that that particular practice was required over education? Besides, female *circumsion* could be interpreted the same way. It could very well prevent the onslaught of aids. I don't think that's a very good argument for female genital mutilation.

I do believe this is very related to feminist issues. It has to do with "powersthatbe" whether the government (who in Africa could promote circumcision for health reasons) or the american medical community not informing the parents that they have a choice about what to do with the bodies of their children is just as insidious as intervention in a woman's choice to carry a pregnancy to term. And as far as that's concerned, I believe the child should have a say in the matter when he reaches a certain age of "consent", rather than let the parents decide for him. Once it's gone, it's gone.

does that make sense? I'm having trouble making sense that last couple days.

www.bitchingandmoaning.org

gballsout's picture
Posted by gballsout on 26 August 2005 - 12:40pm
"insidious as intervention

"insidious as intervention in a woman's choice to carry a pregnancy to term"

See I did mess up there. I meant to say a woman's choice to carry or not a pregnancy to term.

that's what I meant. yah.

I think I need a nap or something.

www.bitchingandmoaning.org

gballsout's picture
Posted by gballsout on 26 August 2005 - 8:33pm