Sunday, July 25, 2010

Faith Healing in Oregon

 http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2010/07/faith_healing_in_oregon_a_pict.html#incart_mce

alayna1.jpg

Clackamas County Sheriff's OfficeThe Clackamas County Sheriff's Office obtained photographs of 8-month-old Alayna May Wyland that show the fast-growing mass of blood vessels that may cause blindness in her left eye. Her parents, Timothy and Rebecca Wyland, were ordered to hand Alayna over to state officials, and could also face criminal charges.

We've talked long enough about faith healing in Oregon. We've shared countless earnest conversations about religious liberty and parental rights.
The time for words is over. Now it's time for pictures.
Another couple from the Followers of Christ church in Oregon City stand accused of criminal mistreatment for deliberately withholding medical care from their child. Timothy and Rebecca Wyland of Beavercreek believe in treating sickness with prayer rather than medicine, even when prayer doesn't work.
Their infant daughter, Alayna, has a serious eye problem, which they chose not to treat. Someone notified authorities and the state intervened, and now the Wylands are trying to regain custody of their daughter.
Those are the words, wholly inadequate.
Only the pictures do the story justice.
Photographs obtained from the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office show Alayna as a sweetly chubby baby with a grotesque protrusion on her face, distorting her eye. The mass is angry and purplish red and painful-looking with the radius of a tennis ball. In the grocery store, it would be visible from five aisles away.
A reasonable person wouldn't keep this child from a doctor.
A reasonable person would break down doors to find a doctor.
Medical experts describe the eye problem as a hemangioma, a fast-growing mass of blood vessels. Normally the condition could be diagnosed and easily treated at the first signs of swelling or discoloration. Left untreated, the mass pushed Alayna's eye down and out, placing profound pressure on her eyeball and eye socket, as The Oregonian's Steve Mayes reported.
It's not clear whether Alayna will go blind in that eye or somehow recover. The only certain thing is that the Wylands deliberately withheld medical care, and admitted in court to doing so, from a baby whose injury was painfully obvious.
This is a not a sad instance of an unanswered prayer. This is a textbook case of medical mistreatment and neglect, with photographs to answer the questions that words cannot.
Over the past three decades, more than 20 Oregon children whose parents belong to the Followers of Christ church have died of treatable illnesses, according to the state medical examiner's office. Yet Oregon grants special leniency to faith-healing parents, singling them out favorably in state policy and protecting them from being charged with certain crimes.
In a 1999 compromise, the Oregon Legislature stripped away some of those legal protections but gave judges the authority to give lighter sentences to faith-healing parents. In recent years, Clackamas County authorities have successfully prosecuted two couples for the preventable deaths of their children. Things are moving in the right direction.
Still, Oregon remains a national outlier for its level of deference toward faith-based crime.
Oregon should get rid of its remaining double standards. Juries have proved themselves to be fully capable of taking faith into account as they weigh criminal intent, much as they consider addiction and other factors in other sad cases involving children.
Meanwhile, maybe we should spend more time studying the photographs of these kids. The smiling ones, now gone. The injured ones, now recovering.
These children might not fully appreciate Oregon's treatment of faith healing as an abstract intellectual issue, one requiring lots of discussion plus the perfect blend of libertarian distance and liberal tolerance.
Given a choice, they might prefer more action, fewer words.

I have a simple solution to nip this kind of abuse in the bud. Don't wait for parents to neglect their children when they follow misguided religious practices. Prosecute anyone who preaches that prayer may be used as an acceptable alternative for medical treatment of a child under the age of majority.

FGM

Female circumcision will be inflicted on up to 2,000 British schoolgirls during the summer holidays – leaving brutal physical and emotional scars. Yet there have been no prosecutions against the practice

Like any 12-year-old, Jamelia was excited at the prospect of a plane journey and a long summer holiday in the sun. An avid reader, she had filled her suitcases with books and was reading Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban when her mother came for her. “She said, ‘You know it’s going to be today?’ I didn’t know exactly what it would entail but I knew something was going to be cut. I was made to believe it was genuinely part of our religion.”

She went on: “I came to the living room and there were loads of women. I later found out it was to hold me down, they bring lots of women to hold the girl down. I thought I was going to be brave so I didn’t really need that. I just lay down and I remember looking at the ceiling and staring at the fan.

“I don’t remember screaming, I remember the ridiculous amount of pain, I remember the blood everywhere, one of the maids, I actually saw her pick up the bit of flesh that they cut away ’cause she was mopping up the blood. There was blood everywhere.”

Some 500 to 2,000 British schoolgirls will be genitally mutilated over the summer holidays. Some will be taken abroad, others will be “cut” or circumcised and sewn closed here in the UK by women already living here or who are flown in and brought to “cutting parties” for a few girls at a time in a cost-saving exercise.

Then the girls will return to their schools and try to get on with their lives, scarred mentally and physically by female genital mutilation (FGM), a practice that serves as a social and cultural bonding exercise and, among those who are stitched up, to ensure that chastity can be proved to a future husband.

Even girls who suffer less extreme forms of FGM are unlikely to be promiscuous. One study among Egyptian women found 50% of women who had undergone FGM “endured” rather than enjoyed sex.

Cleanliness, neatness of appearance and the increased sexual pleasure for the man are all motivations for the practice. But the desire to conform to tradition is the most powerful motive. The rite of passage, condemned by many Islamic scholars, predates both the Koran and the Bible and possibly even Judaism, appearing in the 2nd century BC.

Although unable to give consent, many girls are compliant when they have the prodecure carried out, believing they will be outcasts if they are not cut. The mothers believe they are doing the best for their daughters. Few have any idea of the lifetime of hurt it can involve or the medical implications.

Jamelia, now 20, who says her whole personality changed afterwards.”I felt a lot older. It was odd because nobody says this is a secret, keep your mouth shut but that’s the message you get loud and clear.” She stopped the sports and swimming she used to love and became “strangely disconnected with her own body”. Other girls have died, of shock or blood loss; some have picked up infections from dirty tools. Jamelia’s mother paid extra for the woman to use a clean razor. It is thought that in the UK there are one or two doctors who can be bribed by the very rich to to carry out FGM using anaesthetic and sterilised instruments.

Comfort Momoh works at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital in London, in one of the 16 clinics up and down the country who deal with FGM and its health repercusssions. Women who have had much of their external genitalia sliced off and their vaginas stitched closed, but for a tiny hole, also come to be cut open in order to give birth.

There are four types of female circumcision identified by the World Health Organisation, ranging from partial to total removal of the external female genitalia. Some 140 million women worldwide have been subjected to FGM and an estimated further two million are at risk every year. Most live in 28 African countries while others are in Yemen, Kurdistan, the US, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Canada.

The UK Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 makes it an offence to carry out FGM or to aid, abet or procure the service of another person. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, makes it against the law for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on UK permanent residents of any age and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. To date, no prosecutions have been made under UK legislation.

“Obviously in summer we get really anxious. All activists and professionals working around FGM get anxious because this is the time that families take their children back home. This is the time when all the professionals need to be really alert,” said Momoh.

“There is no hard evidence in figures about what is happening in the UK because it’s a hush-hush thing. It’s only now that a few people are beginning to talk about it, which is good because change will only come from within and the numbers coming forward are rising. But there is a lot of family pressure. When I first started in 1997 we had two clinics in the country, now we have 16.”

One woman told the Observer how a midwife examining her had raced retching and crying from the room. She had no idea she was “abnormal” before that happened. There is a clear need for women who have suffered FGM to be able to visit health professionals who understand what has happened to them. Momoh said that for those who wanted it, some surgical reversal work could sometimes be done on women with the most severe FGM procedure, Type III. For those with other types, counselling and support is all that can offered.

“Periods are agony – you get a lot of women who are determined to have reversals while they are having their period but then when the pain has stopped they lose their nerve again,” said Leyla Hussein, 29, who has had to have years of counselling to cope with her own anger and distress at what was done to her as a child. It has helped her forgive her own mother’s complicity in the mutilation she endured, though the older woman could not understand why Hussein would not have her own child, now aged seven, cut. But Hussein has vowed that she will be the last generation of women in her family to suffer.

“It was my husband who said on our honeymoon, ‘We are not going to do this thing to any child of ours.’ I was quite shocked, I hadn’t questioned it. But I now realise a lot of men are not in favour of FGM, not when you tell them the woman is not going to enjoy herself.”

Hussein is among a slowly but steadily growing band of women who have reacted against what happened to them with courage and a determination to stamp out FGM. Hussein has run support and discussion groups for affected women and for men, and formerly worked at the African Well Women’s Centre in Leyton, east London.

“I can really relate to some of the women who are very angry, but how do you blame your mother, who loves you yet planned this for you? There is a lot of anger and resentment. Many women blame themselves and of course there are flashbacks to deal with. I had blackouts – anytime I had to have a smear test, I would pass out because lying in that position brought it back to me, but the nurse is used to me now and allows a little more time with the appointment.”

“The new generation, born and raised here in Britain, they are used to expressing their views and it will be a lot harder to shut them up. Last month was the first ever march against FGM [in Bristol where 15 to 16 mothers protested] and that is a sign of something new.”

Asha-Kin Duale is a community partnership adviser in Camden, London. She talks to schools and to families about safeguarding children. “Culture has positive and negative issues for every immigrant community. We value some traditions, and most are largely good.

“FGM is not confined to African countries. It has no basis in Christianity, it has no basis in Islam; none of Muhammad’s daughters had it done. For some parents it is enough to let them know that and they will drop it completely. Everyone needs to understand that every child, no matter what the background or creed, is protected by this law in this land.”

She said there needed to be an understanding of why FGM took place, although that was not the same as accepting that the practice had a cultural justification.

“FGM has a social function and until this is understood by social services and other bodies they will never stop it. It is a power negotiation mechanism, that women use to ensure respect from men. It prevents rape of daughters and is a social tool to allow women to regain some power in patriarchal societies. With girls living in the UK there is no need to gain the power – it has to be understood that girls can be good girls without FGM.”

For Jason Morgan, a detective constable in the Met’s FGM unit, Project Azure, the solution lies with those girls themselves: “Empowering youth, giving them the information, is the way forward. They are coming from predominantly caring and loving families, who genuinely believe this is the right thing to do. Many are under a great deal of pressure from the extended families.

“Sometimes it might be as simple as delivering the message of what the legal position is; sometimes we even give them an official letter, a document that they can show to the extended family that states quite firmly what will happen if the procedure goes ahead. The focus has to be on prevention.”

Project Azure made 38 interventions in 2008, 59 in 2009 and 25 so far this year. For Morgan those statistics are just as important as getting a conviction. “We know it happens here although we have no official statistics, but we have seen very successful partnerships and we don’t want to alienate communities through heavy-handed tactics.

“While a prosecution would send out a very clear message to practising communities, really it is very difficult and you would be relying on medical evidence, and in turn that would all hinge or whether the child consents to an examination.”

But Naana Otoo-Oyortey is not so content with the softly-softly approach: “We have anecdotal evidence that it is being done here. So someone is not doing their job: it’s an indication that the government has been failing to protect children. The commitment is hollow.”

Head of the leading anti-FGM charity Forward UK, Otoo-Oyortey said people value the FGM tradition as something which holds a community together and gives it structure. “It’s seen as a party, a cutting party because it’s a celebration – people expect it as a way of welcoming a girl. A lot of women will mention to us that there have been no prosecutions here so why do we worry about the law? At the end of the day who will know?

“And we cannot just blame the women as the men are silently supporting it by paying for it. The new government’s lack of a position on FGM is very worrying. We don’t know what they will do, but we do know that the summer holidays are here again and we will be left to pick up the pieces in a few weeks’ time.”

And for those who will be “cut” this summer, the effects will be lifelong. Miriam was six when she had her cutting party at her home in Somalia, two years before war arrived to force her family out.

When she was 12, doctors were horrified to find that what they thought was a cyst in her body was actually several years of period blood that had been blocked from leaving her body. Unable to have children, she now lives and works in England and worries about other girls. “I’d seen so many people circumcised, all my neighbours, so I knew one day it was going to happen to me. We knew what was happening,” Miriam said.

“The little girls who were born in Europe have no clue. They will be traumatised a lot more. The only thing they know is that they are going away – that’s what they say, ‘We’re going on a holiday’.

“Then her life and her head are going to be messed up. It’s amazing how many people are in mental health care because of their culture. Don’t get me wrong, I have religion and culture and I love where I’m from and I love what I stand for. But culture should not be about torture.

“Why would anyone want to go and cut up a seven- or eight-year-old child? People need to wake up — you are hurting your child, you are hurting your daughter, you’re not going to have a grandchild, so wake up.”

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/25/female-circumcision-children-british-law

Saturday, July 24, 2010

No abortion coverage for high risk pools

This came to me in my ask box and I thought it should be able to be reblogged in case other people have the same question or if any of my tumblr pals would like to add anything to it that I might have missed or been wrong about.

The Question from accordingtosami:

So you seem to be the most knowledgeable, so I’m taking this to you… Why are lifers so up in arms about the new high-risk pools covering abortions? What legislation are they using to cite that, exactly, and what the fuck is going on. I’m lost and I can’t find anything non-biased that addresses their accusations…. Help?

My Answer:

I’ve linked to an article that tries to break this down (I think it’s pretty unbiased). The pro-lifers obviously don’t want women to have abortions so they don’t think state funding should be able to go towards the procedure under government funded health pools (since their tax dollars are included in that). They know that the majority of women who get abortions live under the poverty level and that they won’t be able to afford an abortion (or the future child, but hey, not their problem as long as she births it, amirite?) if it isn’t covered by insurance, so this is really a way for pro-lifers to force women to give birth.

These high-risk insurance pools were made for people who have pre-existing conditions or health issues that would basically bar them from being able to get “normal” health insurance coverage. The problem is that women who fall into this category are more likely to have a dangerous pregnancy and therefore will need access to abortion services that aren’t covered by their insurance.

Unfortunately, when the health care reform was passed a few months ago the Stupak amendments (without which the Health Reform would not have been passed) barred any federal funding to be used for abortions among other stipulations, which includes the high-risk pools (since they are government funded). In addition, President Obama signed an Executive Order stating that no federal funds would be used for abortions in order to get the health reform passed. An insurance company can offer abortion services but the process they have to go through in order to make sure federal funds aren’t used makes even me wonder who would really bother to jump through all those hoops to offer something that is, unfortunately, frowned upon. And if it’s a government-funded insurance program, abortion services coverage won’t even be considered due to these federal stipulations.

This is truly unfortunate. These high-risk women now have access to health insurance they truly need but if they become pregnant and can’t carry the baby to term due to their health, they have to pay out of pocket for the abortion (and mandated ultrasound, depending on what state they live in).

Love,

Rabble

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/820601748/no-abortion-coverage-for-high-risk-pools-q-a-7

Anonymous asked: "That sentence is about the CHILD"
Actually no it isn't, it puts complete and full faith in the mother and the life she was given by her mother. Oh and the child is half of her so caring about the child is caring about her.
"what about those who don’t and know they won’t?"
Still not a reason to choose abortion. There are countless resources out there
"What if a woman doesn’t want to be a mother? What if a woman is incapable of being a mother due to a psychological disorder like severe depression or severe PTSD?"
Still not a reason to take away an entire future. Adoption is also always an option. As for not wanting to be a mother, I hope they took the necessary measures when having sex and thought about the consequences. And not wanting to be a mother is saying that the unborn is not wanted.

No, your quote was:

”[…] see her as strong enough to handle a pregnancy and be a nurturing mother who can raise a child to lead a successful life”

It’s about the child leading a successful life, not the woman leading a successful life. If you actually cared about the mother you would believe her to be strong enough to make a decision about her own body.

And no. Caring about a child is not the same as caring about the mother. The child is its own person, even if half of its genes were donated by the mother, it’s not the same as caring about the autonomous woman who never wanted to have a child she couldn’t afford and therefore can’t provide a “successful” life to.

Well, good thing you’re not getting an abortion, right since that’s not a good enough reason for you. Women have their own reasons to have an abortion and it’s not your place to deem them valid or not since it’s a PERSONAL decision that the woman has a right to make about her own body. There aren’t nearly enough resources out there. If people really wanted to help children, why is the foster care system so over-burdened?

POTENTIAL future, just because a woman is pregnant doesn’t mean that fetus is going to live even if abortion was off the table. Adoption is an option to parenting, abortion is an alternative to being pregnant. Some women can’t carry a baby to term because of health risks, they should have the option of abortion (every woman should regardless of circumstance).

More than 50% of women were using a form of contraception when they conceived, is that what you mean by “necessary measures”? Nice slut-shaming though.

Okay? If a woman doesn’t want to be a mother she has two options available to her and has the right to choose the one that better suits her lifestyle.

Love,

Rabble

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/809458510/that-sentence-is-about-the-child-actually-no-it

Anonymous asked: "Pro-lifers are focused on the fetus, they do not see the women in the equation"
WRONG. We do put the woman in the equation and see her as strong enough to handle a pregnancy and be a nurturing mother who can raise a child to lead a successful life, not on her own but with support from other women.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

be a nurturing mother who can raise a child to lead a successful life

That sentence is about the CHILD, you don’t even get that you’re making it about the child even when you’re arguing that you don’t only focus on the child. What if a woman doesn’t want to be a mother? What if a woman is incapable of being a mother due to a psychological disorder like severe depression or severe PTSD?

You’re assuming a woman receives support, what about those who don’t and know they won’t?

Love,

Rabble

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/809180710/pro-lifers-are-focused-on-the-fetus-they-do-not-see

A queer girls experience at a CPC

First off, let me say that I love your blog. It has given me many resources, and because of it, I have become even stronger in my pro-choice stance. You have spoken out against CPCs, and somehow, I ended up in one and foolishly decided to stay. I wanted to share my story.
My period was a week late. I chalked it up to me getting off birth control, but I was having all of my PMS symptoms. And I had those for two weeks, which  never happened, even before birth control. So, I decided to go to Planned Parenthood, until I remembered that becuase I get free treatment, they wanted my mother’s paystub as proof of the income level I had claimed. Now, my mother and I are very close, but it would have been unreasonable of me to ask my mother to fax something by 9am the next morning. I thought about taking a home test, but I really wanted the counseling because while I am personally uncomfortable with abortion, I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of having a kid growing up in foster homes until he or she is 18. So, I looked online and found a free place that wasn’t a crisis pregnancy center. At 8:00 the next morning, I asked when they opened, and they said 9:00. 
The first thing on the door was a Bible verse: Jeremiah 29:11. I cringed, but went past the daycare center and up the elevator. I was told that even though the center opens at 9:00, the nurses don’t come in until 10:00. So, I waited an hour. All that there were in the waiting room were parenting magazines, and since there was a slim chance of me keeping my pregnancy combined with the fact that it’s been ingrained in my mind since high school that this fetus was a human, I couldn’t read them. I browsed Tumblr and wrote about being in a CPC. I got lots of support.
An hour later, a woman took me into an examination room, and she asked me how I was feeling. I admitted I was nervous because the website I looked at didn’t link to their real website, and I didn’t know I was at a crisis pregnancy center. I also said I was nervous about being pregnant. She asked me why I was nervous, and I said that a CPC had taught us sex ed and took a very pro-life stance on things. I also mentioned they told us the fail rate of condoms was at 50%-60%, which isn’t true. I mentioned my disklike for misinformation, but she cut me off and explained she is an RN. She then asked me what I thought the success rate for condoms was. I said 96%-97% if they are used correctly, and she interrupted me again and said that “nobody really knows how to use them correctly. And it’s more accurate to say that 1 in 6 condoms fail when used properly.” She went on to tell me that sperm are too small to have a condom stop them, let alone HIV. Grinding my teeth, I had to hold back on telling her about the couple I personally knew (they recently broke up) — one who is HIV positive and the other negative. They’d been together for 15 years.
She went on to ask me if I was in a relationship with the father (why she assumed I was only sleeping with one man is a mystery to me, though it is true in my case), and I admitted we had an arrangement. When she asked me to clarify that for her, and I explained that once or twice a week, I’ll call him and he will come over, she turned bright red. She asked if we used condoms, and I said that we did, but that we had a malfunction. She said, “Breakage? Slipped off?” I said, “Well, neither. He had already come but was still pumping.” Again, she blushed and looked away before circling something that wasn’t “sperm might have spilled out while her booty call tried to give her one last orgasm.” I was confused as to why a woman who is so bashful about sex would be doing this job, and I felt like she thought I was very promiscuous.
Her nervousness made me more nervous, and I started wringing my hands and touching my face (it’s something I can’t control when I’m upset), and she asked me if I went to college. At this point, I thought she was trying to calm me down by making small talk; however, when I told her my school, she wrote it down in the “notes” section of her paper. I was taken aback by this, but the real shocker came when I told her I was into web design and she asked me if I would please look at their website and e-mail her about any improvements I could suggest. I wanted to say, “Excuse me? I’m here in the middle of a crisis and you want to ask me to look at your fucking website?” However, I just smiled and nodded.
We went through other questions, and we got to the adoption part. She said she could provide me with three companies for adoption, should I choose that. I nodded and replied that I have no intention in raising a child, should my results come back positive (at this point, I hadn’t even taken the test. I felt like the intake was taking forever, but I’m sure everyone who goes through this feels that way because they are nervous). I mentioned that I am an obese white girl with a family history of alcoholism and mental illness (and heart attacks, but I didn’t say that), while the father is from India (who suffers occasionally from high blood pressure and has gone to the hospital for it a few times, though I forgot to mention that). She smiled and said this wouldn’t be a problem at all, which I know is a big crock of lies. I asked if any of those agencies would help me find a gay or lesbian couple. I explained that I am queer and would prefer to give my child to a couple like that, should I find one I’m comfortable with. She told me that all the agencies are Christian ones, and that a child needs a mother and a father. She asked me if my “arrangement” was female or male, which confused me because up until that point, I didn’t think I could get pregnant from scissoring. Damn. I said he was a guy, and to that she asked if I was ever sexually abused. This question made me angry, so I went into graphic detail about how my first boyfriend was abusive and guilted me into doing sexual things I didn’t like. This is usually a pretty touchy subject to me, and I do admit that it was wrong for me to use that to make this woman uncomfortable.
The nurse, who by this point told me she is an RN three times, then asked me from a scale of 1 to 10, one being definitely one and ten being definitely, how seriously I was considering abortion. I said a firm 8. She asked if the father knew about my period being late, and I replied yes. She asked where he fell on the scale. I replied a 10. She looked absolutely appalled and asked how I was so sure. “This guy definitely isn’t looking for a relationship with me,” I explained. “He certainly isn’t looking for some extra responsibility, either. When I told him about it, he asked if I was considering abortion, and I admitted I was. He said he would help pay for half or more, depending on the help I need.”
Finally, the pregnancy test came. I peed in a cup, and she put my pee on a test strip. She tried to explain to me about the hormone that would be released in my body, but I told her I already understood how a pregnancy test works. We spent the entire three minutes of this time talking about pap smears, and about how when I went to Planned Parenthood, I was 3 months away from the required “X amount of years having sex or you are 21” thing. She was astounded that they didn’t give me the smear and said that it was because I don’t have health insurance. “Actually,” I replied, “I do have health insurance, but because I am below a certain income level, they said I should just not use it so I can get free service. The pills I use aren’t ones they can give away for free, so they are an expense. And the reason I didn’t get the pap smear was because I begged them not to. They said it would be against my better judgement, but they agreed. I won’t be allowed to get service there again if I don’t get one in November.” To that, she said that they have a person who does pap smears and that I could get an appointment for one. I asked if this person was a male, and she said he was.
Now, I like to think myself as a progressive dyke, but I don’t feel comfortable with male general doctors, let alone having one looking at my crotch. This has nothing to do with my first boyfriend. I just don’t want  a guy down there unless I’m having sex with him.
She went on to talk about how an OB/GYN will put her fingers in me, and I explained that already happened. She tried to talk about it more, but t hen the timer went off. I wasn’t pregnant, much to my relief. I smiled and said, “Oh, thank God…” (I am a pretty religious person, and while I don’t personally believe God was destroying sperm on their way to my precious, fertile egg, I like to thank Him for the good things that happen to me). She frowned at me, probably for me using the Lord’s name in vain. The last thing she said to me was, “Well, you didn’t come back positive. Normally, I’d ask someone to abstain for two weeks and see if their period comes, but…” She didn’t finish her sentence. I replied, “Yeah. I’m going to go pick up my birth control (which I was waiting to take until I got my period) now.”
Lesson learned: Take a home pregnancy test and get counseling from a homeless man on the streets before going to a CPC. And also, any time you take a pregnancy test, your period will come the next day.

This story was sent to my inbox and it made me so happy I had to post it right away. Thanks for sharing and congrats on surviving with your sanity intact!

Love,

Rabble

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/788318055/a-queer-girls-experiance-at-a-cpc

All mothers of illegitimate children are to be advised that should they have anymore children out of wedlock they shall be denied relief.

From this article. So, the guy responsible for this is a republican and probably pro-life cause…well…aren’t they always? This goes to show what pro-lifers have constantly denied: that once a fetus is born they’re on their own and pro-lifers couldn’t give a shit.

The article is talking about a town’s investigation into welfare recipients basically looking into fraud to help the town budget. They didn’t find any evidence of fraud, so the guy, Joseph Mitchell, instituted a bunch of provisions for people to receive welfare, one of which is the lovely statement above.

So, pro-lifers, let’s look at this from a logical point of view (I know it’s hard for you, but try to keep up):

Women get pregnant and have children because they didn’t have the knowledge about birth control, because you wanted to teach abstinence-only education.

Women have said children and can’t afford a basic standard of living, probably because they didn’t have access to an abortion clinic, which you bombed or protested or shut down or because one of your CPCs lied to them about their options.

So then, said women go on welfare to provide their children with food, but can’t afford birth control and possibly still don’t have an education on its use.

Said woman is then kicked off of welfare for having another child because she was never taught about birth control because of education programs you funded and because the abortion clinic closest to her was just shut down by you, therefore forcing her and her children to stop receiving assistance.

Oh…and if you think I missed the slut-shaming “illegitimate children” part, you’d be wrong. This provision is specifically targeting women who are dirty whores and have sex before they’re married, so they must not deserve state assistance, right? And their kids sure as hell don’t deserve it now that they’re born.

Love,

Rabble

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/782377968/all-mothers-of-illegitimate-children-are-to-be

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/853631148/anti-choice-terrorists-leave-dead-animals-and-threats

Of course, when clinics are threatened with violence, it isn’t just doctors that are murdered. According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been over 6200 incidents by anti-choice terrorists against clinics, doctors, employees, volunteers, and patients since 1977.

Let’s take a look at the breakdown of violent incidents:

  • 8 murders
  • 17 attempted murders
  • 41 bombings
  • 175 arson
  • 97 attempted bomb/arson
  • 391 invasions
  • 1429 vandalism
  • 2057 trespassing
  • 100 Butyric Acid attacks
  • 661 Anthrax threats
  • 184 assault & battery
  • 416 death threats
  • 4 kidnappings
  • 157 burglaries
  • 526 stalkings

And that doesn’t mention the attempted disruptions including hate mail and harassing phone calls, emails, bomb threats (643) and clinic blockades (763). Of course, the numbers are actually much higher than this because some of these statistics were not tracked until the mid-1990s.

Anti-Gay student claims school forced her to accept homosexuality

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/07/antigay-student-claims-school-forced-her-to-accept-homosexuality.html

A female graduate student at Augusta State University is suing the school because she claims the public institution has violated her First Amendment rights by forcing her to accept homosexuality in order to graduate from her program in counselor education.

Jennifer Keeton, a Christian who believes that being gay is a choice (she thinks gays suffer from "identity confusion"), is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal defense organization. WRDW reports:  

J At the end of the first year, she was presented with a remediation plan, or courses to improve in certain areas. That plan includes classes to improve writing and grammar skills, as well as workshops to make her more sensitive to the gay population -- something her instructors say is necessary for her to be an effective counselor.
"The school counseling faculty has decided that my views are not acceptable for me or to share with other students," she says in a video statement produced by the Alliance Defense Fund. "They have required a remediation plan in which the end result would be me altering my beliefs or being dismissed from the program."
In a letter to Keeton, program directors say that is not the case.
In the letter, associate director Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley points to what she calls Keeton's "belief that you possess a special knowledge about the way that other people should live their lives, and that others need to adopt a similar set of values."
The letter goes on to say that "the content of [Keeton's] moral or religious beliefs is not in question."
According to the remediation plan, program directors are concerned about Keeton's ability to effectively council people who are gay or lesbian, citing class papers and comments where Keeton has disagreed with the gay "lifestyle."
The letter also cites an email from Keeton in which she says: "my Christian moral views are not just about me. I think the Bible's teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live."

Watch a news clip on the controversy, which includes interviews with students from Augusta State University who have varying opinions on the matter, AFTER THE JUMP.

Also, watch the short clip put together by the Alliance Defense Fund in which Keeton is interviewed and talks about being forced to her ditch her "biblical beliefs."


(VIDEO ON THE LINKED SITE BELOW.)

http://vimeo.com/13397121

http://twitpic.com/288fv2

I think this blog is absolutely inspirational. I have never considered myself a feminist, but I have always been pro-choice.
At age 15 I became pregnant. I felt alienated and terrified. I couldn’t speak to my parents about it because I knew they were fairly conservative as far as sex goes, and I couldn’t talk to my friends about it because of fear that I would be judged to be a ‘slut’. I simply didn’t have the money to seek medical help, even though most of the money could have been claimed back at a later date. I felt absolutely trapped.
In the end, I took matters into my own hands. I took a very large dose of pain killers and attempted to abort the foetus myself. I was successful, but I became extremely ill in the aftermath. I bled profusely for days, and I felt extremely emotionally unstable. It was a mentally scarring experience. I feel that I will never, ever recover from it.
I learned a lot from it though. I learned that no other person, regardless of gender, has the right to judge me for what I do with my body. What I do /consensually/ has nothing to do with them. I should not be afraid to express myself, sexually or otherwise. And if they do judge and ridicule me, I should pay no mind, because they are bigots and ignorant, and I want nothing to do with people like that. I came to understand that the people who would have had me keep the baby were often the same people who had no hesitation in labelling me a whore, a welfare-leech and any child of mine a bastard.
I also realised that legal abortions are one of the most important advances made in our society (well I live in Australia, but I speak of western culture in general), because they give women a safe environment in which to conduct abortions, with trained professionals. This is not only important for their physical health, but also mentally. I know now that I had that option open to me, but I was too afraid of social backlash to take it. In retrospect, it would have been better to deal with the issue properly, and spare myself the depression and physical pain I suffered for years afterwards.
I made the wrong choice in not going to a clinic. What I can’t imagine is not having the choice at all. I can’t imagine all those women out there who are FORCED by apparent ‘pro-lifers’ to seek illegal, unsafe methods of aborting their foetuses. Methods which may not only result in death and illness, but are highly traumatic for those people who do survive.
Not all women die from illegal abortions, but all women suffer.
I have a few question for all those pro-lifers out there. How many of you have adopted children? How many of you have taken in the same children you force out into the overcrowded foster system? And why is it that the life of the foetus is so much more sacred than the life of the mother?

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/852609297/i-recieved-this-in-my-ask-box

12 reasons not to cut your son

I have never understood why circumcision is a common practice in North America today (though I’m a woman; what do I know?) From what I gather, apart from religious reasons or making the penis look “prettier” there really doesn’t seem to be ANY good reason for it.

My husband and I decided to not circumcise our son, and for a good reason! There are a lot of myths about the benefits of circumcision and there are a lot of health risks involved in the procedure. Topping our list of why we said “no” to circumcision is:

If you’re born with it, it’s meant to be there

The foreskin on a penis isn’t some sort of optional part that was put there for fun – it actually has an important function! Babies need foreskin to protect the “glans” (the part of the penis that is in the foreskin) from bacteria and infections – like the kind of infections that can be caused by a diaper full of pee and poop.

It hurts your baby

Don’t be fooled; those who tell you your baby will not remember the pain you made him suffer through or isn’t old enough to even know what pain is are pleading ignorance. How would you like to be strapped to a board and have a chunk of skin lobbed off with a tool similar to a cigar cutter? The anesthetic used to numb the area is unsafe for your baby. Because of this, it is given in a reduced quantity (so it isn’t really doing a fantastic job when numbing) and it wears off rather quickly. Let’s see… open wound rubbing on a diaper 24 hours a day. Doesn’t sound very pleasant to me.

No one approves of circumcision

It’s true: no medical institution in the world thinks that circumcision is a good idea. Babies actually can die during the process (about 18 out of 100,000)

You are taking away your son’s rights

Your son didn’t ask for you to remove a vital part of his body. Parents make the decision to put their child through this unnecessary pain without even consulting the patient. If my son wants to circumcise himself when he’s old enough, then that’s his choice; not mine.

It’s a traumatic event

I was surprised to find out that circumcision can affect breastfeeding, sleep, and even maternal bonding. Studies have also indicated that men who are circumcised have a lower pain threshold and suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms.

Circumcision is SO passé

As we move further and further away from the 1970s, the circumcision rates continue to move on a steady decline. Even those of the Jewish faith are performing circumcision alternatives so that their child is not actually cut (referred to as the “Brit Shalom”).

Circumcision is a big business

Did you know that every single State could save up to $1 million a year if they did not fund these unnecessary circumcisions? Several States and insurance companies have ceased funding this practice.

What about urinary tract infections (UTIs)?

There are some unfounded rumors out there stating that uncircumcised boys suffer from UTIs, but that simply is not true. If your son does happen to have a UTI, antibiotics, breastfeeding and proper cleaning work wonders for curing and preventing it.

It’s not a cancer preventative

Out of all men who suffer from a penile cancer, those with an uncircumcised penis only showed a 0.2% increased risk. Circumcision is not the answer for treating genital cancers, though not smoking and having protected sex is.

It won’t necessarily reduce the risk of AIDS

Yes, there have been studies performed in Africa which correlate circumcision with the reduced contraction of AIDS. However, these studies have not yielded the same results in the United States. Safe sex and cleanliness are more effective measures in keeping yourself free from sexual transmitted diseases.

It IS easy to clean

The foreskin is there naturally and has a self-cleaning “mechanism”, much like a female’s vagina does. You should not retract the skin (especially infants and children) until it is easily retractable. All children need is a good warm bath to keep it clean

Father knows best?

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard – “I needed to circumcise my son so he looks like his father!” Right. And should mom grow a penis so that she looks like her son too? Take this as an opportunity to explain how everyone’s body is different, unique and beautiful.

http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/go/index.php/15/12-no-to-circumcision

Anonymous asked: Well even thought the procedure of partial birth abortion is now only recently illegal, other methods of late term abortions are still legal in the United States. The method used is either pill enduced or D & C seen here, http://media.photobucket.com/image/dilation%20and%20curettage/sublimeloverr/Abortion/de.jpg
Most abortion clinics offer abortion services up to the 24-26 week mark which is late late in the 2nd trimester and reaching into the early 3rd. And by then the unborn has reached some incredible milestones while the heart has been beating since late in the very 1st month. A baby survived premature at 21 weeks! And MANY can survive outside the womb at 23 weeks. Some other clinics allow abortions up to 36 weeks but have exceptions which I sure hope they adhere to (still to me doesn't make it right)
http://www.babycenter.com/0_your-7-month-olds-development-week-1_1477266.bc
But overall this is how I feel, I'll quote an early feminist Mattie Brinkerhoff
"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."
But just some more food for thought, it's always good to know both sides for any argument :)

Yes, late-term abortions are NEEDED, outlawing partial-birth abortion did not outlaw the practice of late-term abortions, it simply outlawed a specific method of abortion (there is, obviously, more than one way to perform an abortion). Virtually ALL abortions done after 21 weeks (which only makes up 1.5% of abortions) are done for pregnant women who WANTED their baby. The reasons these are performed are because of severe birth defects or exponential risk to the mother’s life. Partial-birth abortion was a way for abortion providers to give the parents a baby to hold and bury. Women who get late-term abortions haven’t just decided to get an abortion, they are in that position due to an extremely unfortunate set of circumstances.

Most abortion clinics offer abortion services up to the 24-26 week mark which is late late in the 2nd trimester and reaching into the early 3rd.

Actually, no. Abortions are not done later than 24 weeks in the US and they most certainly aren’t performed at 36 weeks. For more information on this, please click here. In addition to that, fetuses are incapable of feeling pain until after 24 weeks as well. Fetus survival rates before 24 weeks are exceptionally low.

A beating heart does not grant a fetus personhood. A fetus is not as valuable as a living, breathing, autonomous woman and her rights. You would do better to fight for comprehensive sex education in high schools and community centers, more widely available and cheaper contraception, and voting for legislation that will provide more support for women who do choose to keep their children. Fighting to restrict a woman’s right to her own body will not lower abortion rates, it will only increase the number of women who die from illegal abortions along with their fetuses.

Love,

Rabble

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/808962880/well-even-thought-the-procedure-of-partial-birth

Friday, July 23, 2010

Now I understand…

So, Them telling me I'm going to Hell, as their Moral Inferior= GOOD • Me telling them they're full of shit, PROVE IT! = HATEFUL!

“Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament!”

New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:

    I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations.  This is just another bullshit scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god.  Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes.  I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored.  Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it!  After this section I shall list where the Bible contradicts itself concerning other laws.

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself.  None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"  (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.  (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.”  This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Law Contradictions of the Bible:

10) Shall we obey the law?  Romans 13:1-7 says quite clearly that Christians are to submit to the law and regard it as the institution of God.  1 Peter 2:13-14  “Submit your self to every ordinance of man ... to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors.”  Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Also see Titus 3:1. Matthew 23:2-3 & Ecclesiastes 8:2 This leads one to assume that Christians must and should obey the law, yet look at these verses which contradicts what I just sited.  Acts 5:29  “We ought to obey God rather then men.”  Exodus 1:17-20 shows God punishing the midwives for following their rulers instead of God.  Also see Daniel 3:16-18, 6:7-10, Acts 4:26 & 27, Mark 12:38-40, Luke 23:11, 24 & 33-35 which all say the law should be ignored.  Now we know why Christians get away with their selective morality so often.

11) Should we steal?  (Exodus 20:15 & Leviticus 19:13)  Stealing is absolutely forbidden.  Yet, Exodus 3:21-22, 12:35-36 & Luke 19:29-34 all promote stealing.

12) Should we judge?  Jesus is quoted in Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.”  Also see Luke 6:37 & 1 Corinthians 5:12.  Now take a look at “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment”  (John 7:24).  Also note 1 Corinthians 5:12 & 6:2-4.

1 3) Should we covet?  Exodus 20:17 says, “Thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is thy neighbor’s,” while 1 Corinthians 12:31 says, “Covet earnestly the best gifts.”  So, are we or are we not to covet?

14) Is lying okay?  Exodus 20:16.  Proverbs 12:22 & Revelations 21:8 all say lying is forbidden.  Joshua 2:4-6, Exodus 1:18-20 & 1 Kings 22:21-22 all support lying.

15) Can we kill?  Exodus 20:13 says “thou shalt not kill”.  Exodus 32:27, Numbers 31, and THOUSANDS of other verses show God commanding us to kill.

16) Can we own slaves?  Leviticus 25:45 “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy … and they shall be your possession… they shall be your bondmen forever.”  Genesis 9:25 “And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”  Exodus 21:2 & 7 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing…  And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”  Joel 3:8 “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.”  Luke 12:47-48 [Jesus speaking] “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.  But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.”  Colossians 3:22

    “Servants, obey in all things your masters.”  So obviously the Biblical God thinks slavery is right, right?  Just look at these: Isaiah 58:6  “Undo the heavy burdens... let the oppressed go free, ... break every yoke.”  Matthew 23:10 “Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”  (Also see Exodus 22:21 & 21:16) Let it be known here that pro-slavery Bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa.  There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.  I simply do not have the room to post all of them.

17) What about Improvidence?  Improvidence is enjoined in Luke 12:3 “Sell that ye have and give alms.” also in Luke 6:30 & 35 “Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again ... And lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward shall be great.” Also note Matthew 6:28, 31 & 34. Improvidence is condemned in I Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. “ Also see Proverbs 13:22.

18) What does the law say about anger?  Ephesians 4:26 says “Be ye angry and sin not not.”  Anger is disapproved in Ecciesiastes 7:9 “Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.” Proverbs 22:24 “Make no friendship with an angry man.”  Also see James 1:20.

19) Are we to let our good works be seen?  Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.”  This contradicts verse Matthew 6:1 , “Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.”

20) Should we pray in public? 1 Kings 2:22, 54 & 9:3 shows the Lord is joyed by public prayer and listens intently.  Matthew 6:5-6 condemn public prayer and command people keep it a secret.

21) Can we wear long hair?  Judges 13:5 & Numbers 6:5 encourages people to grow their hair and insists it is a source of strength.  1 Corinthians 11:14 calls long hair a “shame”.

22) Should we circumcise males?  Genesis 17:10  “This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised.  Clearly this demands circumcision, yet Galatians 5:2 says “Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

23) Are there certain kinds of foods we should not eat?  Deuteronomy 14:2-8 lists several animals that we are NOT to eat because they are “unclean”, “chew the cud” and “divide the hoof”. Yet Genesis 9:3 & 1 Corinthians 10:25 insists there is nothing we can’t eat. Romans 14:14 says: “There is nothing unclean of itself.”

24) Can we take oaths?  Numbers 30:2, Genesis 21:23-24, 31, 31:53 & Hebrews 6:13 says that we can take oaths and encourages it.  Matthew 5:34 says “swear (make an oath) not at all.”

25) Can we get married?  Genesis 2:18, 1:28, Matthew 19:5 & Hebrews 13:4 all insist marriage is honorable.  Marriage is disapproved and scorned in 1 Corinthians 7:1 & 7:7-8.

26) Can we commit adultery?  Exodus 20: 14 “thou shalt not commit adultery.”  Also see Hebrews 13:4.  Now look at Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2 & 2:1-3 where adultery is advocated by God.

27) Can we drink alcohol?  Proverbs 31:6-7, 1 Timothy 5:23 & Psalms 104:15 all encourage drinking and intoxication.  Proverbs 20:1 & 23:31-32 discourage drinking and intoxication.

28) Do women have rights?  Genesis 3:16 “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”  1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man.  1 Corinthians 14:34 & 1 Peter 3:6 both say that women have limited rights and are under control of their men.  Judges 4:4, 14-15, 5:7, Acts 2:18 & 21:9 all tell of powerful women who were not subjugated by men and were not punished for their authority of men.

29) Should we obey our masters with usurped authority?  Colossians 3:22-23 & 1 Peter 2:18 says we should. 1 Corinthians 7:23 “Be not ye the servants of men.”  Also see Matthew 4:10 & 23:10 which say we should not submit usurped to our masters.

30) Was the law of the Old Testament destroyed by Christ’s crucification?  Luke16:16, Ephesians 2:15 & Romans 7:6 says that the old law is no longer binding.  Yet Matthew 5:17-19 and MANY other verses say that the old law is forever binding.  If you want to see the many verses that command we follow the old law please consult the upper portion of this page.

31) Should we swear an oath?  Numbers 30:2 “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath…he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”  Genesis 21:22-24 & 31 “…swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me…And Abraham said, I will swear…Wherefore he called that place Beersheba [“Well of the oath”]; because there they sware both of them.”  Hebrews 6:13-17 “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself…for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.  Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability ofhis counsel, confirmed it by an oath.” See also Genesis 22:15- 19, Genesis 31 :53, & Judges I 1 :30-39.  So apparently it is okay to swear an oath, we even do this on the Bible in American courts.  Just try and forget these verses: Matthew 5:34-37 “But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven…nor by the earth…Neither shalt thou swear by thy head…But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

James 5:12 “…swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”

32) Do we keep the Sabbath?  Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”  Numbers 15:32-36  “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”  Each of these contradict Isaiah 1:13  “The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity.“  John 5:16 “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day.  “Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.”

33) Should we make graven images?  Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven…earth ... water.”  Leviticus 26:1 “Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone.”  Deuteronomy 27:15 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.”  Okay, I got it I shouldn’t produce a thing in fear of making a graven image, but wait: Exodus 25:18 “And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.”  I Kings 7:15-16 & 23-25 “For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass…and two chapiters of molten brass…And he made a molten sea…it stood upon twelve oxen ... [and so on]”

 

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

Do your morals come from god or within?

One of the most common arguments from the religious is that without God there would be no morality. Non-believers reject this, and there’s an easy though experiment way to see which side you fall on. So, to those who do subscribe to a mainstream religion such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, consider this:

Imagine that one day God comes to earth and announces a new rule that says it’s a moral responsibility of all believers to kill anyone who doesn’t have a copy of your religion’s Holy book in his/her house.1.

The question is: would you instantly accept this as morally acceptable because it came from God, or would you reject it because it’s wrong to kill someone for such a thing?

And here are the results. If you would immediately start killing people because God told you to (and therefore the command was “moral” by definition), then your morality comes from God. But if you would question and/or reject this command because it feels “wrong” to you, then your morality comes from somewhere else.

Which are you?

Notes

1 Forget the silliness of this particular rule; it doesn’t matter. Besides, God asked Moses to kill a man for gathering wood on the Sabbath, so strange requests aren’t without precedent. And don’t cop out by saying, “My God would never make such a rule, so it’s pointless to discuss.” This is the whole point of a hypothetical–to see what you would do. You don’t have to accept it as an actual possibility.

The Good Atheist

We know that the Family Research Council are a bunch of lying bigots who hate homosexuals, but they’ve really been taking it up a notch lately. Just last week they released a bogus ’study’ claiming that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, straight soldiers would be at a heightened risk of being raped by gay soldiers. Now comes word that the FRC didn’t only lobby Congress against DADT legislature and same sex marriage, but against a bill voicing America’s disgust at Uganda’s death penalty for homosexuals.

It’s time for the Southern Poverty Law Center to reclassify the Family Research Council as an official hate group, not merely anti-gay as they are now listed. According to the FRC’s official lobbying report for the first quarter of 2010, they paid two of their henchmen $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda’s plan to execute homosexuals. The resolution passed in the Senate on April 13th, but remains languishing in the House almost four months after being referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Did the FRC’s lobbying kill it? As we learned last week with Malawi, international pressure CAN sway even the most virulently anti-gay government.

Below are three screencaps of the 20-page Family Research Council lobbying report supplied to me by Duncan Osbourne at Gay City News. Among the other items they lobbied against are the overturn of DADT and DOMA, which is to be expected. But it’s almost astounding, almost, that they would lobby the members of Congress against denouncing the death penalty for LGBT people.

Maybe if Christians would just leave everyone the fuck alone, I wouldn’t piss on them so much. But stuff like this just highlights how involved fundamentalists are in the political process and how they’ll do whatever it takes to force their exclusionary and divisive beliefs on everyone. Honestly, I just don’t understand why religious people are so obsessed about who’s sticking what in which hole. There’s a great documentary out there I recommend everyone watch called Outrage which basically makes the argument that a lot of the most vicious opponents of homosexuality are closeted men. Considering how many people fighting this stuff have been caught with their members in the chocolate cookie jar, it doesn’t surprise me.

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/06/frc-lobbied-us-congress-against-gay-death-penalty-denouncement/

No, Jesus Did Not Soften the Old Testament–In Fact He Did the Opposite, and Here’s What That Means

atheist_logo

Moderate Christians love to talk about how Jesus fixed the Old Testament, or, in other words, obsoleted the horribly offensive parts about slavery, keeping women in their place, killing gays, etc. In fact, he did no such thing.

I’ll be doing two things here:

  1. Show you that Jesus fully supported everything in the Old Testament
  2. Show you exactly how horrible that is.

So first, here is Jesus speaking specifically on the topic of Old Testament teachings:

The Law Stands

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

Keep in mind, this is Jesus Christ saying this–in the Bible that all Christians own and cherish. Don’t take my word for it; look it up–it’s all there.

So now that we understand that he fully supported what’s in the Old Testament, let’s take a look at what he actually just commanded us to uphold.

The Law That Stands

mosesten

Blasphemy is Punishable by Death
One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death. (NRSV) — Leviticus 24:16
Cheaters Must Die
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (NIV) — Leviticus 20:10
Dishonoring Your Mother or Father is Punishable by Death
Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense. (NLT) — Leviticus 20:9
People Who Work on Sunday Should be Killed
You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death. (NLT) — Exodus 35:2
If a Woman is Not a Virgin When She Gets Married, She Has to Die
“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) — Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21
There’s Nothing Wrong With Slavery
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. (NIV) — Leviticus 25:44
Gays Should be Put to Death
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13
Women Should Shut the Hell Up and Do as They’re Told
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV) — Timothy 2:11-12

Keep in mind, these aren’t suggestions. They’re not optional. Remember what Jesus said, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” He also said they’re not open to any personal interpretation. It’s all very clear to anyone willing to actually read their Bible.

But don’t listen to an atheist, we’re the last people you should trust. Read your own Bible. All the references are there for you. It is you who must reconcile this evil.

But luckily there’s an easy solution: Ask yourself which is more likely:

  1. God and Jesus really are evil (which the Bible’s own text proves, if you open yours and look)
    or…
  2. It’s actually all made up, so there’s nothing to worry about.

The answer is #2. God is not evil, and neither is Jesus. Man made them up in order to control other men. Few things offer better proof of this than the actual teachings in the Bible. You, my kind and thoughtful Christian friends, do not need this. You are above it. ::

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-jesus-did-not-soften-the-old-testament-in-fact-he-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means

Circumcision as a Memeplex

- talk by Hugh Young
at the Eighth International Symposium on Circumcision and Human Rights,
Padova, Italy, September 3, 2004

A meme is "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation"

- Richard Dawkins

Common examples of memes are

  • tunes, like "Happy Birthday to You" or your national anthem (four notes is thought to be the minimum)
  • catchphrases, like "Like father, like son" or "blood, sweat and tears"
  • myths, like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, or the tooth fairy
  • folk beliefs, like "We only use 10% of our brains" and
  • customs, like tossing spilt salt over your left shoulder and genital mutilation.

(Dawkins cites “tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches”.)

A cluster of related memes is a memeplex. (Dawkins called it a “co-adapted meme-complex”, but the name of the meme has evolved.)

Examples of memeplexes are

  • languages, and subsystems of languages such as alphabets, fonts, dialects and regional accents
  • clusters of customs, such as Christmas celebrations
  • systems of thought, such as philosophies and religions [except our own, of course]

Memes, like genes, are replicators - they copy themselves - an amazing property, when you think about it, the basis of life itself.

Like genes, memes endure and copy themselves with variations, which are naturally selected, and thereby evolve. Like genes, they are "selfish" - or rather, their function is the promotion of their own survival.

...all that counts in the life of a meme is whether or not it survives and replicates. ... we must remember that [saying that memes 'want', 'need', or 'try to do' something] is only shorthand for saying that the 'something' will improve the chances of the meme's being copied. Memes do not have conscious intentions; nor do they actually strive to do anything at all. They are simply (by definition) capable of being copied, and all their apparent striving and intentionality comes from this.

- The Meme Machine, p 162

Unlike genes, only human (and possibly some primate, and electronic) brains carry memes.

A good analogy for a meme today is a computer virus. In fact, a computer virus, being merely information stored in, and transmitted between, information processsing systems, is more like a meme than it is like a biological virus (which is a self-contained physical entity that actually moves between organisms, carrying genetic information with it).

Richard Dawkins says that as with genes, we track memes through populations by their phenotypes [ways of being physically expressed]. And he cites circumcision as a rare example of a meme phenotype that is part of a living body, like most gene phenotypes. He says a Martian geneticist ... … would have to work quite hard to discover that no genes are involved in the genesis of the "roundhead" (circumcised) phenotype.

Susan Blackmore suggests that the taboo on masturbation, and circumcision, both have the evolutionary function of increasing the amount of vaginal sex, and hence the number of offspring to whom the taboo can be taught. Enter evolutionary biology. But there is no evidence that circumcision significantly increases the birthrate, and many circumcised men claim circumcision does not make masturbation more difficult.

But the belief that it did was sufficient to establish it in the UK and then the US, late in the 19th century, and once established, it sustained (and sustains) itself by associated memes that had (and have) nothing to do with masturbation or sex. In fact, for most of the 20th century, any role of the foreskin in sex has been ignored or denied in circumcising cultures.

While Dawkins and Blackmore consider circumcision a meme, the central idea - cutting part of a baby's or child's penis off - is always embedded in culture, tradition, religion and/or medicine. (Nobody could reasonably consider that cutting part of a baby's genitals off, without some supposed benefits or context, was a good idea in and of itself.)

The genesis of this website was the list of reasons to circumcise. There seemed just too many, maybe 30. There are now more than three hundred and 30. Fortunately, the reasons fall into some general classes: :

A mindmap of the context of circumcision
The Circumcision Memeplex

This diagram does not include circumfetishism - circumcising or being circumcised for sexual pleasure, though there is reason to suspect it's often hiding not far under the surface.

Ritual circumcision and Routine Infant Circumcision [that is, without immediate medical reason] might almost be considered different memes that happen to share the same phenotype:

  • Muslim ritual circumcision, done in childhood, is associated with ideas of ritual cleanliness, conformity, and as a rite of passage to manhood, as well as the belief that it is required by Islam. Customs vary across the huge Islamic world, but it is usually associated with celebration, feasting and treating the boy as "Prince for a day" - all parts of the Muslim memeplex that cement it into that culture. We have one report that Muslim circumcision is surgically much milder than western “medical” circumcision, and this could explain how it can be done to boys old enough to speak.
  • Jewish ritual circumcision takes place at a social occasion for adults (where the emphasis is on food - the baby and what is done to him become almost irrelevant. and it is common for a meal celebrating a symbolic act to take centre-stage and eventually replace the act, so it would be a good idea for Brisot Shalom to have better than average catering). It is much later that he is explicitly taught about its significance (the meme is transmitted very deliberately) - though that significance itself is a whole complex of ideas, some unrelated:
    • To keep a bargain Abraham made with G-d
    • As a badge of Jewish identity. / To make him look different from outsiders
    • To remind him of anti-Semitic persecution / To bond him with his community / To educate him in his parent's faith
    • "... because Jewish men should be able to feel the pain of others more easily."
    • To symbolise humanity's unique essence as more than animal
    • To offer our children to a higher spiritual life / To ensure a share for him in the world to come
    • To draw down the Divine light, bring down the soul of holiness into the body, reveal the Jew's inherent connection to G-d / To signify the union of body and spirit
    • Because "[t]his paring away of the superfluous skin allows for Shechinah energy (the 'essence' of the Universal Deity) to permeate the seed of Israel."
    • Because the foreskin concentrates negative energy / To "spiritually remov[e] and eliminat[e] undesirable character traits... / ...depressive tendencies and so on...
    • ...[To] eliminate from the body of the child, forces which might try to cultivate overindulgence in physical pleasures, etc."
    • For "its positive effects on the generations to come."

These may be summarised as

  1. identity (yet it is generally agreed that circumcision is not what makes a boy Jewish) and
  2. supposed spiritual benefits; and we can't deny the good feeling some Jewish men claim from being circumcised, of continuity with their age-old tradition.

but ritual cleanliness is the invisible guest at the feast. Jewish defenders of circumcision frequently cite cleanliness and express horror at the supposed uncleanliness of the foreskin.

"Opening the draw string of his pants, he allowed the filth of his uncircumcised penis to unsheathe into the air."

- "The Last Kabbalist of Lisbon" by Richrd Zimler

In the USA, Routine Infant Circumcision is perpetuated by a stealth akin to that of the stealth bomber. It makes itself invisible to our radar.

  • It is usually done out the parents' sight and hearing - and they were once not even told it was to be done. Two parents might agree to circumcise their son for reasons that have nothing in common - might even be contradictory - and never share their reasons.
  • Its victims are discouraged from discussing it or even thinking about it. This silence has one component that is peculiar to circumcision and another that arises from the taboo on sex. Thus the transmission of the meme is often done indirectly, through euphemism ("a little snip") and with a kind of desperate jocularity. (“I'm just taking him away for his circy.”)

The ostensible reasons are

  • medical, and hygiene and cleanliness
  • supposed psychological benefits of looking like the father
  • coupled with tradition and custom
  • sexual, coupled with women's supposed preference
  • fear of difference, projected into the child's future locker-room experiences

Each of these is a cluster of ostensible reasons, sometimes contradictory - for example both to increase and to decrease penile size or sensitivity.

The constituent memes of Jewish circumcision and Routine Infant Circumcision in the US are like the two members of a double star orbiting each other, influencing each other while keeping their distance - with Jewish circumcision the shining star, Routine Infant Circumcision a black hole, sucking parents and babies in. The interaction can be seen in many TV sitcoms - Seinfeld is a good example - where the circumcision being discussed is ostensibly Jewish, but stripped of any religious connotations, and many of the other "reasons" are adduced. A large but unknown number of US Jewish babies are reportedly circumcised in hospital before the eighth day, nullifying any covanental value, but satisfying other memes of the memeplex.

The most effective memes are simple and couple the behaviour with something universally agreed to be good:

God said we must circumcise
All the nicest people are circumcised / Circumcision is American
Circumcised penises are cleaner
Circumcision protects against AIDS (or cancer or UTIS or STDs
or whatever is the most feared disease of the day)

And these associations makes them hard to argue with.

The Altruism meme

Altruism is a powerful way of spreading memes - and hence many memes spread by linking themselves to altruism.

People are nice to each other to get kindness in return, and their emotions are designed appropriately. ... Kind and generous behaviours will spread by imitation, .. behaviours that look like kind and generous ones, or are prevalent in kind and generous people, will also be spread by imitation.

...if you are in a community that uses reciprocal altruism, you are likely to gain most by being with people who are known to be generous. So the generous people will have more contact with others and therefore more opportunities for spreading their memes.

- The Meme Machine, p156

Memes which have nothing to do with altruism can benefit from "copy-the-altruist" by just tagging along for free. ... we can expect memes to have devised strategies for getting into altruistic people without actually being altruism memes themselves (or more accurately, memes that happen to have such strategies should have survived better than those without, and we should be able to observe them around us). Are there such examples?

Yes. They range from little groups of co-memes to very complicated memeplexes. ... the essence of any memeplex is that the memes inside it can replicate better as part of the group than they can on their own.

ibid. p 168

Circumcision is an excellent example of such a memeplex - the cluster of ostensible reasons for doing it is hydra-headed and ever-changing. The silly ones are carried on with it, as well as those with any validity at all.

The ostensible reasons for infant circumcision always have an altruistic component. Even the reason “to punish him for masturbation” was only prevalent when that was believed to be for his ultimate betterment, including the salvation of his immortal soul.

Certain memes, like wearing a turban or abstaining from certain foods are carried along as markers of other religious memes, so that those who share them will be altruistic toward each other.

Unlike those so-called “beneficent norms”, religious, ritual and "medical" circumcision (and FGM) are forced on infants and children by adults who have already undergone it themselves. The ones who perform it are not those who suffer (now). Their culture or religion has taught them that it is "inevitable" and "necessary" and “beneficial” so that they are able to suppress their natural revulsion, and even wallow in their own empathy with the child's pain. If they remember the pain, they may consider that it, too, is valuable, as Nelson Mandela does. So by a variety of dodges, the circumcision meme can pass itself off as altruistic. Or rather, people infected with it can.

Or circumcision may seem to benefit someone else, and two important memes of this kind are complementary, but not exactly so:

"A boy should look like his father"

"Women prefer circumcised men"

This seems to be spread mainly by women (for a man to say it makes it too clear that it is about his insecurities, not the boy's). There is certainly no clamour from boys demanding to be circumcised for this reason.

This seems to be spread mainly by men (it may be believed by women, whatever they themselves prefer - but women who do themselves prefer circumcised penises are more likely to believe it).

This links to the more general "looking like his father" that assures paternity.

After all, women don't need to be told what women prefer.

It may be that the meme "a boy should look like his father" has a basis in biology:

  • Species that survive, do so because they behave in ways that promote the survival of their own genes
  • Individuals promote the survival of their own offspring and (in the wild) have no interest in the offspring of others (or even a negative interest, as where an incoming alpha male kills the offspring of his predecessor)
  • Appearance is one of the ways individuals recognise their own offspring.
  • A male may be less likely to bond with his son if the appearance of his son's genitals is markedly different from his own. (This fails to explain how he bonds with his daughters, but that may have a quite different mechanism, as the bond is different)
  • The boy's mother may fear that the father will not bond if their appearance is not similar, and collude with making them match.

The question arises, how could circumcision get established if intact fathers risked failing to bond to their circumcised sons?
Answer: In both the mythical (and probably the actual) origins of the religious rite, and the historical origins of the surgical rite, boys out of infancy were circumcised for a generation or more before infants were, so intact fathers had intact sons, who grew up, were circumcised, and became circumcised fathers of sons sons they then had circumcised. So there was no time when many intact fathers had circumcised sons.

How, then, did circumcision come to an end in Britain and New Zealand without demur from the circumcised fathers of intact sons?
A partial answer is that fathers (and mothers) were not consulted. The meme was never given the opportunity to be invoked.

Pirate father - eyepatch, hook, wooden leg - with matching son

The meme "Women prefer circumcised penises" is likely to spread among men wherever a majority of men are circumcised, whether there is any truth to it or not. Women are more likely to say, "I prefer intact/circumcised penises" than to claim to speak for all women - but more likely than either to have no preference, but rather, to judge each man on his personal qualities.

The meme is extremely strong where circumcision is tribal, and hence universal within the tribe, taking the extreme form "No woman will look at a[n intact] man." Women in bars in Samoa are said to check European men out manually before agreeing to go with them.

If women hear the meme, they are likely to assume that men are speaking from experience, not just wishful thinking. If they are smart, they will not hurt circumcised men's vanity by telling them that they have no preference (or actually prefer intact penises). So men's belief in the meme is reinforced and not challenged.

It seems like another reason to circumcise babies, so more babies are likely to be circumcised where it is believed, giving rise to another generation of circumcised men to spread the meme. The Williamsons' study shows that it is widely believed where the great majority of men are circumcised - even by women who have no basis for comparison.

There is no corresponding meme "Women prefer intact penises" in communities (most of the world) where most penises are intact, not because women don't prefer them, but because intactness is spread genetically, not memetically. Intact penises don't need memes to spread, only genes. Circumcision needs memes.

"From now on, I'm thinking only of me."
Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: "But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way."
"Then," said Yossarian, "I'd be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"

- Joseph Heller, Catch-22

This is the principle of "runaway sexual selection": females prefer some characteristic, such as long tail feathers in males, even though - or even because - it puts the males at a disadvantage. If a female tries to buck the trend and mate with a male with short tail feathers, her short-tailed male offspring are less preferred by the next generation and her preference dies out.

In the same way, it makes genetic sense for women to prefer the kind of man (they think) most women prefer.

Female Genital Mutilation:

The meme "A girl should look like her mother" is not greatly recorded in cultures that practise FGM. This is probably because questions of maternity (who the mother is) seldom arise. Nor is there any danger that a girl will not bond with her mother. FGM is generally committed after she has done so.

The meme "Men prefer circumcised women" is very strong in cultures that practise FGM - in fact it takes the extreme form "She must be circumcised or no man will want to marry her." This is probably spread more by women, with men collaborating, not by positively preferring circumcised women in the first instance, but by refusing to take a woman who has placed her suitability in doubt by being rejected by all other men.

Intersexuality::

When a child is born intersexed, their parents and their deliverers are thrown into a panic, because the meme "A human is male or female" is immensely strong, being built into all the memes associated with our sexuality and intimately associated with our genes. What is striking is that the surgical action that is taken in response to that panic has little or no bearing on the child's genes or their reproductive future, but almost entirely on the appearance of their genitals.

The Spanner in the Works

Meanwhile, the irrational aspect to the circumcision memeplex adds a complication. Circumcising a baby is Doing Something (at a particular time and place), so it has a definiteness about it that Leaving The Baby Alone does not. In fact US mothers who leave their babies intact are frequently accused of neglect. Circumcision leaves a vivid mark of having been done. It does not usually do sufficient harm at any one time to be genetically or socially contraindicated - unlike, say, castration. (There is some suggestion that ritual circumcision may have been introduced in Egypt as a substitute for ritual castration - of a priestly caste, rather than the whole male population, obviously.) The good that circumcision supposedly does is set in the unforeseeable future. (In this, circumcision is like those religion memes that promise infinite and eternal rewards or punishments after death.) Since the evils it is supposed to prevent are rare, it is allowed to take credit by default for their absence, something like a lucky charm, or wearing garlic to ward off vampires.

Is this concept productive?

Reviewing a book of Dawkins', Simon Blackburn argues against treating memes as having purposes or designs, which of course they do not. But while they are in people's heads, memes are subjected to those people's purposes and designs, and hence to creative, evolutionary processes. And for memes, acquired characteristics (changes to the meme phenotype between transmissions) ARE inherited, unlike those of genes. (That is, meme evolution is Larmarkian, as well as Darwinian.)

For example, secular circumcision quickly evolved from being a childhood treatment for masturbation to an infant preventative of it, largely because newborns can put up less resistance. (Jewish circumcision probably moved in the same direction in ancient times. Muslim, Korean and Philippine circumcision have yet to do so. They are also reportedly milder than the Jewish and US forms.) And when masturbation hysteria waned, people's wish to circumcise, which is the heart of the circumcision memeplex, has attached and reattached itself to successive diseases it was alleged to prevent.

Intactivism hammering protean circumstitions

The concept of a meme or memeplex is particularly productive with regard to genital mutilation, because the idea of genital mutilation has a coherence of its own that is independent of individual rationality.

Is intactness, then, also a meme?

An intact penis (or female genitalia) are not themselves memes (nor meme-phenotypes), because they are transmitted by genes, not by imitation. In the context of a strongly circumcising culture, it may require unusual determination to break the hold of the circumcision meme, but, for the most part, leaving a baby alone needs no reason.

However, Intactivism, the campaign for genital integrity (which only exists in the context of genitally mutilating cultures), may usefully be considered a memeplex. Here are some of the ideas linked to it:

Intactivism as a meme - linked ideas
The Intactivism Memeplex

Opposition to the three varieties of genital modification has been amalgamated here because most of the associated factors relate to all three, in greater or lesser degree. (The “gender equality” meme is near to male circumcision, but there is a special relationship between feminism and opposition to FGM - women's outrage that this can be done to women. We might speak of “gender solidarity”. Sadly, there seems little or no equivalent men's outrage, based on gender solidarity, that this can be done to fellow men. It seems to be overwhelmed by macho denial of pain, imposed on tiny babies.)

The Intactivism memeplex is clearly much simpler than the circumcision memeplex. The different elements also reinforce each other in ways that the parts of the circumcision memeplex do not. These are two of the strengths by which the Intactivism memeplex will ultimately prevail. Intactivism is an easy idea to transmit, and once transmitted, it is not easily lost.

These practices are memes that have thrived for thousands of years in spite of being so harmful to their carriers. Now that we have the insight and ability to prevent them continuing to replicate, we should work for their complete eradication from the memepool.

http://www.circumstitions.com/meme.html