tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3184356987071638281.post26492931928402676..comments2024-01-26T08:23:40.649-08:00Comments on Rabbi Avi Billet, Mohel in South Florida: Maimonides on the Reasons For CircumcisingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3184356987071638281.post-21764882354089107802013-07-27T21:31:36.251-07:002013-07-27T21:31:36.251-07:00Thank you. I use the term because I believe the &q...Thank you. I use the term because I believe the "intactivist" argument is a straw-man for the real agenda, which is anti-circumcision. <br />The female issue is not one I address because no religion truly advocates it. It is a custom in some (Arab/African/Muslim?) communities but not mandated. I do think FGM is a horrific practice. But male circumcision is viewed very differently even in the medical world - it has its supporters and those who believe it to be unnecessary except in certain circumstances. But for the most part the medical community has accepted it as a normative practice (of sorts).<br />Male circumcision in Judaism is mandated on infants, as a mark of the Covenant. Intactivists don't like it. So they shouldn't circumcise their sons. But they should leave Jews alone. Our sons don't need their protection. And using Maimonides to bolster their argument is disingenuous. A.B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01589500849392390120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3184356987071638281.post-11488222549965403322013-07-27T20:48:20.506-07:002013-07-27T20:48:20.506-07:00I've enjoyed this entry and the second install...I've enjoyed this entry and the second installment as well, and have learned a lot.<br /><br />I do have one qualm though.<br /><br />Why do you continue to use the word "anti-circumcision"? These people are not necessarily against circumcision, which is what your phrase implies. These people are only against circumcision when it is performed on minors without medical necessity. There is a huge difference that is very important to see. They are called "genital integrity activists," or sometimes just "intactivists." The circumcision itself is not significant, it's about removing healthy, normal, natural, functioning tissue from a human being. That applies to both male and female genitals, and any part of the male and female genitals, not just the prepuce, another important element that is lost by using "anti-circumcision." Do they usually talk about ending the excising of the male prepuce(for minors and non-consenting adults)? Yes. But they also spend considerable time fighting the exact same for females. I just hope that's not lost on you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com