Originally Posted by Ilaria
We must have posted at the same time.
The whole paragraph might go over the copyright rules at MDC anyway, but I did quote most of it in my last post, after looking it up online. And I didn't EDIT the paragraph, I hadn't yet looked it up online, so I simply TYPED UP those sentences off the magazine, not my version
What you put your emphasis on both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body
was indeed in my OP, BTW.
Either way, the message is clear and appalling IMO. These are points made:
1. circumcision is questioned (claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence)
2. circumcision is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer
3. Trust in the individual, in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family
What I think:
2. it's a personal matter for the owner of the penis, but genital integrity is not
a complex thought. There IS a single easy answer: circumcision is mutilation and a violation of human rights.
3. Trust in the inherent integrity of the child’s body - YES. But not in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family
in this case. I wonder if Peggy feels the same way about girls in Africa who undergo FGM due to their parents' authority to make that decision?
How does this sound? (simply subbed circ with FGM and deleted vax), kept everything else as stated by POM (this time I did copy and paste so everyone is satisfied):FGM for example, is questioned because the procedure’s claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. FGM is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer. Here in particular we fall back on trust in the individual, which is the foundation of natural family living. We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family.
Hey, hold on before you start flaming me. Don't start jumping to conclusions as to my stance on either circ or FGM.
All I did was give Frank the full paragraph. Whether you typed out parts (as you did), or copy-pasted and then cut out parts (which you didn't), when quoting text if you do not quote the full context, it is technically an "edited" quote (as in "not exact quote", as opposed to "full, exact quote"; "edited" does not mean only "changed").
There was no judgement of *you* or your post intended.
My only comment was that the full version, including the explicit statement that the alleged benefits are not scientifically proven
, was (to quote myself) "(very) slightly less offensive
" than the lines you quoted in isolation.
As for the FMG analogy you put forth, my reaction is the same.
An article that states only
that FMG is a "complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer....We trust both in the integrity of the child's body and the inherent authority of the parents to make decisions for the family" is, IMO, more offensive
than one that also
explicitly states that there are no scientifically proven "benefits" to the procedure.
Do you understand what I was trying to say now?
Also, have you noticed that we both quote the sentence "We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child’s body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family" but we each seem to focalise on the implications of different parts of the sentence?
I read "the inherent integrity of the child's body" and take away from that part of the sentence a slant *against* circ., this phrase being the most striking for me in the sentence. When I add that to the second half, it leaves me with the impression of a moderately anti-circ tone with the sub-text of something along the lines of it is parents' responsibility to make that decision and as NFL parents we believe the child's body is inherently as it should be (and by implication it is not the responsiblity of ignorant doctors with a foreskin to grind).
On the other hand (and no "rightly" or "wrongly" implied or intended), you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to focus on "the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family" as a blanket authorisation for parents to decide *to* circ, canceling out as it were the first half of the sentence...
I'll just conclude this by quoting myself again (in case you missed it before reacting to my post) "It's still not the resounding condemnation of circ. that one could hope for...
edited for a typo I missed