It seems that San Francisco is gathering steam on their tirade to ban a bunch of things, having just recently banned toys from Happy Meals in the area. What's next? Circumcision, because of course that's a natural flow of thoughts. The proposal allows for those who break the ban to either be jailed up to a year or fined up to $1,000.
The driving force behind this proposal are people who call themselves "intactivists" and their mission is to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone under 17 years old, at which point it is assumed the person could choose whether or not to have it done for themselves.
The big problem with the government stepping in on this? For some people it's a matter of religion to have a child circumcised. One would think that would violate their freedom to freely practice religion, right? It would be like banning baptism in the same area. Surely Christians would be game to such terms?
Religion put aside, the scientific data both for and against circumcision doesn't really seem like enough to justify going either way. There is no clear side about what's best for men. Some people say being circumcised makes sex less pleasurable from men, though the jury is still out on whether or not that holds true. Both circumcised and uncircumcised men hold that they have a good sex life, so clearly the pleasure factor can't be too bad after circumcision.
Intactivists point out that circumcisions are not medically necessary, so it's putting a child through unnecessary risk and pain during the procedure. They also say that the foreskin is a natural means of protection. On the other hand, studies have proven that those who are circumcised have less risk of getting penile cancer and are less likely to get STIs. There are also many cases of infection if the foreskin is not properly taken care of, especially in babies whose parents may not know how to properly care for the foreskin.
So what's Lloyd Schofield's justification for the proposal? "It's up to the choice of the individual -- not the parents, society or religion. This is a choice for body integrity. Just as females are protected from having a drop of blood drawn from their genitals, baby boys deserve the same protection."Great, so we're likening circumcision to the practice of mutilating female genitals. Wonderful metaphor...except it's inaccurate. The whole point of what is dubbed "female circumcision" is to prevent women from having any pleasure while having sex. Male circumcision, on the other hand, does not prevent such stimulation. Yes, both require procedures to a person's genitals, but the similarities end at that point and to compare both as stand-alone argument is fairly ignorant.
Since the pros and cons of circumcision seem so evenly weighed, the choice is up to the parents. However, if this law were to pass parents would no longer have any say as to what would happen to their children.
Are you for or against this ban? Do you think the government should be able to say no circumcisions, period, or should the choice still be left with the parents?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 15
I'm glad I don't have to make the decision this time around (yay for little girls!), but it's something Jake and I did have to talk about briefly and we couldn't really decide, so I know how tough it is for parents.
You'll eventually have to decide, though. There's some parents, too that regret their decisions afterward. We'll go the same route we went with Gideon. Nature does it best. ;) He never had any infections (circumcision areas can infect, too) and no worries at all.
As for the little ear piercing, it appalls me. My child, if a girl will NOT get them pierced little. That's just for your happiness not the baby's. Besides, those earring backs can be sharp and poke, not smart for little ones that might get scratched or tug at the earrings. But that's just our long-standing view.
If you are appalled at the pain of ear piercing, imagine a knife going through the most sensitive part of a human body.
I have witnessed a circumcision in a hospital, inadvertently. That baby's screams were more desperate than anything I'd ever heard. I believed he was being murdered when I ran in. 35 years later, thinking of the sound still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
And for what? The propaganda from the American medical machine, so that they can keep making money off of the parents' lack of knowledge of human anatomy. "First, do no harm" goes out the window, along with any ethics, when an easy buck can be made.
The only loser is the baby, who gets to go home with half the skin nature intended on his penis...along with 20,000 nerves removed, and a scar for life.
Or do they
I think if there were more information and education about it then fewer people would do it. Since there has been better information available obviously people have chosen not to circumsize because the rates are falling.
If it were between this and a happy meal toy ban -- I'd chose a ban on this over happy meal toys any day.
How much of your genitalia would you like to keep? I bet it's 100%.
Please, name another operation which removes a healthy body part, from an unconsenting person.
Genital mutilation is the same, no matter which sex you are, or what your religion is.
If Muslims can't be allowed to do it to their girls, nobody else should be allowed to do it to their children. If you want to lift the ban on girls, and circumcise everybody, male and female, OK...that is fair. What is truly unfair, is to call it mutilation and have a legal, Federal ban on it as a felony, when removing the clitoral foreskin of a girl, and no one bats an eye when the foreskin is ripped from the penis head of a boy. The head a foreskin are joined at birth. Circumcision must feel like a nail being pulled off the nail bed, but more intense, because the genitals are much more responsive than the fingers.
How do all those European men and women manage life just fine, with foreskins?
There is no medical evidence that circumcision prevents any disease. Uncut and cut men get the same diseases, and in about the same ratios. If you want to prevent disease, wear a condom. You don't amputate a body part. Especially when it is half the skin of the penis, and two thirds of the nerves.