I recently got in a rather heated discussion with a nurse.
The argument, after I compared female and male circumcision, declined to this:
"A direct comparison was made between male circumcision and female genital mutilation. The two acts were conflated. Female mutilation is a purposeless and barbaric act performed by evil men who comit this atrocity to keep women as second-class citizens.
The only conclusion that can be drawn when a direct relationship is made between female mutilation and male circumcision is that they are equally atrocious.
And if the two acts are the same (remember, they were directly compared), someone who sees a benefit to male circumcision is by definition just as evil as someone who supports female genital mutilation. If female mutilation and male circumcision are truly exactly the same, then anyone who favors either act must be an equally repugnant person." - Nursing Student
Obviously, she is horrified at the idea of female circumcision but very much in favor of male circumcision.
Which leads me to this post. I'll make it short and sweet...
Which child's parents would be considered barbaric by the majority of the population if they circumcised the child? Which child's parents would be offered the option before leaving the hospital because it is culturally accepted?
Which child's parents have a right to decide if they should have a healthy part of their body excised? Which child's body is less deserving of their natural state?
Which child's genitalia is more likely to be permanently altered because of religion, cultural acceptance, aesthetic appearance, or 'health reasons'?
You and I both know the answers to these questions. I would encourage you to take a look at the chart that I created below. Feel free to share at will, just give a link back or reference me as a source.
It is amazing what we can justify when it fits our personal paradigms and wants/desires.