Language is crucial. Re-defining and/or re-naming words/issues has become the preferred tool of many in America. The American Heritage Dictionary (Dictionary.com) defines the word “distort” as follows:
“1 – To twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed; 2 – to give a false, perverted, or disproportionate meaning to; misrepresent: to distort the facts”
According to the following CBS San Francisco News report, “Circumcision Ban May End Up on S. F. Ballot”:
“The city that will soon outlaw toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals could have a measure banning circumcision on next November’s ballot…”
Circumcision banned? On what grounds?
Lloyd Schofield, who appears to be the author of the ballot measure, apparently concluded that:
“It’s genital mutilation.” In fact, he wants circumcision to become a “misdemeanor”.
The first question that we, as concerned citizens, must ask is: “Who is this person and under what authority does he push forward such a measure?”
Schofield goes on to add:
“Tatooing a child is banned as a felony and circumcision is more harmful than a tatoo.”
Why? Because he says so? Is he a medical expert on the matter? Where is his “evidence” that circumcision is “more harmful”? Ballot measures come into fruition because somebody like a Mr. Schofield “concludes” that circumcision is equivalent to “mutilation”?
The American Association of Pediatrics makes absolutely no mention that such a procedure should be considered an act of “mutilation”, as Mr. Schofield describes; not even close.
While the AAP makes it clear that circumcision “is not essential to a child’s health”, it nevertheless makes it clear that “parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks.”
If such a medical procedure were in any way similar to a “mutilation” wouldn’t the AAP have an obligation to report it as such?
Now that we’ve established that circumcision is NOT an act of “genital mutilation”, what – EXACTLY does a circumcision consist of? According to the AAP:
“Circumcision surgically removes the foreskin, exposing the tip of the penis.” The keyword here is “surgically”.
Looking at the dictionary, again, we now see what “mutilation” ACTUALLY means:
“1 – To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts; 2 – to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part”.
If we are to believe Mr. Schofield’s assertion, then we would have to necessarily conclude (according to the following statistics) that 79% of men in the United States are walking around with an “injured, disfigured, imperfect, and/or irreparably damaged” penis.
However, circumcision and mutilation are NOT the same thing. Sorry, Mr. Schofield. This is what we call a distortion or perversion of facts. By redefining, in his mind, the word “mutilation”, Mr. Schofield is seeking to generate a false sense of anxiety, of worry, of injustice, and sensationalism which has no place in the subject at hand.
At this point, one can only be left to wonder what Mr. Schofield’s REAL intentions are behind such a measure. Why is he so concerned over something that is proven to be medically safe AND legal?
While we’re on the subject of mutilations and distortions, let us – for a brief moment – consider the procedure formerly known as “abortion”. As we all know, some in America have decided to change the wording when it comes to this issue. We now know it as a “woman’s reproductive right”. Presto! You see? Now, it’s not such a bad thing, is it?
What is this ONE “reproductive right” that many speak of? Dictionary.com says the following:
“1 – The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy; 2 – any of varioius surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.”
We all know that when you “end a pregnancy” what you really are doing is ending a life. The embryo or fetus outside of the uterus is NOT going to survive. Who are we kidding? Unless, of course, you are one who firmly believes that a “pregnancy” has absolutely NOTHING to do with the life of an unborn human being inside a woman’s body.
If you are able to convince yourself that a living, unborn human is NOT really what’s inside the woman’s body, then you can easily justify terminating the “pregnancy” and just as easily justify your claim to having this “reproductive right”.
However, if we go back and re-evaluate the definition of “mutilation” we would see that, actually, the act of aborting an unborn baby more closely resembles an act of mutilation than does an act of circumcision. Ironic, isn’t it?
(Please go back and read the definition of “mutilation” just above). In fact, an abortion seems to go beyond an act of mutilation. It would appear a far worse act. What can we call the act of terminating somebody else’s life? Hmmmm, let’s think here for a bit.
Mr. Schofield also adds:
“People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else’s body.”
Again, we must ask: “What authority does he have on the issue of religious freedom (clearly protected under the 1st Ammendment)?” Zero.
Does Mr. .Schofield feel the same about abortion? It’s “someone else’s body” that is inside a pregnant woman. Doesn’t a woman’s right end there as well?
Luckily, there are those in America who are still willing and able to confront people like Mr. Schofield about his intentions and his, assumed, “authority” on the subject.
Lloyd Schofield made an appearance on the Mark Levin Show and could not answer even 1 simple question, straightforward. It appears that because Mr. Schofield attended an “international seminary” at UC Berkely and “spoke to some people”, he now is an “expert” or someone with enough authority to dictate to the rest of us that circumcision is, actually, “genital mutilation”.
Listen, if you would, to the audio recording of the interview with Mark Levin. You decide whether or not Lloyd Schofield has any “authority” on the subject.