S.F. Circumcision Ban Is a Bad Idea But It Could Still Become Law

San Francisco has banned Happy Meals and, should enough signatures be gathered by the end of next month, voters will decide on whether to ban circumcision — meaning the Foreskin McNugget may never grace a local menu.

Every one of the platoon of lawyers SF Weekly consulted regarding the potential ban on circumcision stated it'd be a really bad idea. But that could be said of a great many laws San Francisco voters choose to enshrine in the city charter. Just because ideas are transcendentally bad doesn't mean they're unconstitutional. And, should San Francisco voters opt to criminalize the practice of circumcision within our borders, it would, lawyers say, not be illegal — not, at least, at the federal level.

"Would it be constitutional? Almost certainly," says Ashutosh Bhagwat of UC Hastings. Adds Jesse Choper of UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, "Under the federal Constitution, unless you could show that the purpose of this was to disadvantage Jews generally, and since it's a neutral law and applies to everyone, it's not a violation of the free exercise clause."

Intriguingly, the precedent that would enable San Francisco to bust a bris and haul the rabbi off to jail is tied to peyote. In Employment Division vs. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court found that benefits could be denied to a man who used an illegal drug, even if its use was part of a religious ritual. While states can choose to accommodate illegal behavior tied to religious rituals, they aren't mandated to.

So is the circumcision ban a legal slam-dunk? Quite the opposite. California's state constitution takes a rather generous view of free exercise of religion. This means the ban's proponents would have to argue a compelling "state interest" to outlaw circumcision, an ancient practice exacted upon the penises of an estimated 79 percent of American men — many of whom, we're told, live productive lives.

"The court could say the state's interest would outweigh the free exercise of religion: If I'm an Aztec and my religion says I must go up on top of a high, pointed building and tear someone's heart out — that's nice, but we have a murder statute that trumps that," notes Peter Keane, dean emeritus of Golden Gate University. "In terms of a state interest in preventing the foreskin of a male infant from being detached — that is an interest that is very, very minor."

And if the lawyers are wrong? For S.F. residents, San Mateo County becomes Foreskin Town USA.

 
My Voice Nation Help
47 comments
SoAndSo
SoAndSo

The Serial Circumciser

The piece on your website entitled Infant Circumcision: The Perfect Crime is tremendously powerful. It is difficult to imagine what emotions will erupt in a circumciser's brain when he reads this. In all probability, he will have no emotional reaction at all. Like most rapists, serial killers, and other criminally deranged people, most serial circumcisers probably commit their crimes in cold blood. The surge they get from committing these atrocities is not emotional but chemical.The very act of shredding and mutilating a baby's penis with knives, clamps, electrocautery guns, or fingernails affects the serial circumciser's brain chemistry like a drug. The craving for this neurological stimulus is an addiction as real and as irresistible as an addiction to heroin. Carving, crushing, burning, and slicing a baby's penis, reducing it to gore, getting his hands covered with penis blood, and filling his ears with shrieks and screams of agony and terror are the potent drug cocktail the serial circumciser needs to make himself feel alive.

Criminologists and forensic scientists have long known that there is no treatment or cure for sado-sexual compulsions. Only death will bring peace to the criminally insane serial circumciser. Jeffrey Dahmer found peace after a frightened fellow prisoner smashed his head to a bloody pulp against a filthy prison toilet. If this was the fate providence meted out to a man who murdered young men and then fed off their corpses, what fate awaits the monsters who torture, cripple, mutilate, maim, butcher, dismember, vivisect, mine for profit, and even suck blood from the sex organs of living baby boys?

At least Jeffrey Dahmer did not lie about what he was doing. Unlike the serial circumciser, Dahmer did not sink to the absurdity of calling his crimes "medical procedures." He never tried to create "studies" to justify the killing and eating of young men. The medicalization of psycho-sexual sadism and barbaric blood rituals is a deception perfected by people like Auschwitz Death Camp doctor Joseph "Angel of Death" Mengele and the American hospital ghoul: the serial circumciser.

A man in New York(Quoted with permission)

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

Infant Circumcision: The Perfect Crime

I have always despised being circumcised. Sometimes I can barely function at work. I think about suicide. Words cannot describe the rage I feel toward the pervert who did this to me. There's something deranged about anyone who persists in circumcising babies after being confronted with the facts. I recently saw the movie Schindler's List, and it struck me that these are the same butchers who were murdering Jews in Nazi Germany. I think that every society has these "closet sadists" who emerge only when societal constraints are removed. They have now found their niche as contemporary doctors who circumcise. For a brief moment they are God, with total control over another's sexuality. It's the perfect crime. Sanctioned by unsuspecting, misinformed parents, the hospital, and an ignorant society, they hide under the guise of a respected medical profession. And the consequences only appear years later when they are long gone and their trail cold. Some doctors really don't know any better, and when told about the gravity of their actions, stop. But some just keep on cutting. There's something really frightening about the Finks and Wiswells and Gelbaums of our society. You're right -- it's not circumcision that needs to be studied; it's circumcisers.From a letter to John Erickson from a man in Arizona(Quoted with permission)

[Yes, statements like this are "just anecdotal." But why are they just anecdotal?]

Michael Mooney
Michael Mooney

It's a good law, because it protects the vulnerable from a popular thing that happens to also be a human rights violation.

“The leading international statement of medical ethics is the European Convention on Human Rights and Bioethics, where Article 20(1) prohibits non-therapeutic tissue removal from those who do not have the capacity to consent. Children have a right to the protection of the security of their person and to protection from degrading treatment. Circumcision violates those human rights. Several authorities report that circumcision degrades the erectile function of the penis. Circumcision, therefore, must be regarded as degrading treatment. Degrading treatment is an additional violation of human rights.”

See: http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews...

John-Nathan
John-Nathan

As this issue is back on the books in Santa Monica and San Francisco, I suggest everyone read Charles' comment below, which was so well-written. All I can say from my perspective is that adults have the right to cut, carve, brand, pierce or do whatever they wish to their bodies; however, all babies should be protected from any kind of violence, including circumcision. If you really do the research, you'll find that females are routinely circumcised in many countries; yet, we protect them from this horrible act in the U.S. Cutting a baby boy's penis is NO laughing matter and the author of this article was very irresponsible and immature about the topic in general. If those that support circumcision do not think it is a big deal or worthy of discussion, then it shouldn't matter to "them" that the practice is stopped. However, many men, and probably Joe E. the author, MUST come to terms with their own circumcisions and what was done to their bodies...denial is never a good thing. Maybe until the decision is made to protect all male babies from circumcision, doctors should be required to repay any adult male who feels he's been violated from circumcision. If the medical community support the practice, then they should be confident that men are living "productive lives" and will not wish to pursue monetary gain. I'm happily uncut and would sue any doctor that tried to harvest my healthy, functional foreskin.

Charles
Charles

Someone very unwisely decided that a particular religious faction would via the doctrine of anti-Semitism henceforth be 100% exempt from any and all criticism. This strategy would give them carte blanche to do whatever they want; critics would be silenced by merely invoking that illegitimate strategy! We see it overseas today, Israelis to some extent treating Palestinians like the Romans once treated Israelis ancestors. It's known that circumcision originated with the Egyptians, not the Hebrews. When Catholic children become adults, don't some of them by their own choice cease being Catholics? Yes, some of them. With this OTHER religious faction, however, upon adulthood, the male members cannot choose to cease being members, in the real sense that a religion has been permanently forced upon their bodily characteristics. The right to have a child's penis cut is not a right of choice, for such proposition is mere imposition of another's will to deny choice to the person it's being inflicted on. Calling circumcision of infants a religious freedom and a parental choice is a 1,000% farce and travesty! Self determination MUST include a child's freedom of choice to take a different path than his grandparents imposed on his parents! This struggle is in some sense akin to the struggle women endured to win the recognized right to "dress like men" by wearing pants. Opposition to rectifying the existing order always transpires, no matter how wrong the existing order is! Rome exiled men in pants in 393AD because it was counter to their conventions!

ordman
ordman

Can you just imagine the trauma that young men will face when their only choice will be back-alley circumcision? The unclean surgical instruments better than a dual butter knife at home I guess and having to pay a bull dyke who hates men who loves nothing more than mutilation of the male penis to do the job, and last but not least the shame of knowing that this open minded community forced men into back-alleys. So it would appear that the Members of the San Francisco city government believe that they have the right and the duty to regulate the Members of others.

hugh
hugh

Do any "of the platoon of lawyers SF Weekly consulted regarding the potential ban on circumcision" state that the existing law against cutting ANY part of a girl's genitals* off is "a really bad idea"? This one is just cut-and-pasted, mutatis mutandis, from that one. Why the double standard?

*such as the clitoral prepuce, so we're not talking about the horrors of African FGC, but an operation that used to be legal and not uncommon in the US.

Philip K.
Philip K.

Although the proposed law seems poorly thought out and overly extreme, it is in accord with a modern understanding of circumcision as an unsupported procedure and probable human rights violation.

Even in this country (where a majority of doctors are themselves circumcised), our major medical associations do not endorse infant circumcision, stating that the procedure's benefits in no way outweigh the negatives and dangers.

In other civilized countries (where circumcision is rare), policy statements generally state the case more strongly - often citing research that demonstrates important protective and erogenous functions of the foreskin.

Don't take my word for it; consider this thoughtful policy statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association: http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diens...

This article is witty, but ignores the global scientific/medical consensus regarding the issue at hand; circumcision, like its terrible female counterparts, is a clear human rights violation and is to be minimized at a societal level.

RabbiSol
RabbiSol

Hear & read Rabbi Sol Solomon's Rabbinical Reflection on circumcision by visiting his website, ShalomDammit.com or at this youtube clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Here’s an excerpt: “On Chanukah we light the menorah to symbolize the drop of oil that burned for eight days in the great temple. So why can’t we take a baby, have him wear a little condom, and then the mohel yanks off the Trojan and says, “Ut! This is to commemorate what we used to do to baloney ponies for 5,000 years.” Rabbi Sol's Rabbinical Reflections air weekly on the Dave's Gone By radio show (davesgoneby.com).

Sloucher
Sloucher

I have long thought that the American Medical Association (AMA) was the main proponent for this needless butchery. After all, it's another source of income for Drs. etc. It became such a given when I was born, (early 50s) that not to circumcise was never a condideration unless the baby's health would be compromised. Thus it was routine for no sound reason. I see it as barbaric, child abuse, mutilating another person's without their consent.. Why not have a law against circumcision? Shouldn't the decision to remove a natural, "God" given, part be left to the individual to decide when they are able too?

MichaelKMooney
MichaelKMooney

Circumcision reduces penile sensitivity as much as 80%. Women have about half as many vaginal orgasms with circumcised versus with uncircumcised. Mother Nature, or God, if you will, did not create a foreskin because it's wrong and needs to be cut off. There are LESS STD's with uncut because moisture produced in the foreskin contains immune factors, like lysozymes, which destroy HIV, and other invaders. See: http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews...

Eric Clermont Player
Eric Clermont Player

This should be the parent's choice, not a law, but is anyone who is FOR this law aware that a circumcised male is 60% less likely to contract HIV/AIDS . . . and that is BEFORE he puts on the condom. (Source: The Atlantic, January/February 2011 issue, p. 27, "The Kindest Cut," by Shaun Raviv.)

"Swaziland has been preparing its men for mass circumcision since 2006. The previous year, a randomized controlled trial in South Africa (later confirmed by studies in Uganda and Kenya) found that circumcised men are as much as 60 percent less likely to contract HIV through heterosexual sex. Scientists do not yet know exactly why, but the study was so convincing that it was stopped after 18 months, because preventing the uncircumcised control group from getting the procedure would have been unethical."

Brendan Bartholomew
Brendan Bartholomew

It's odd that a newspaper as enlightened as the SF Weekly would run an opinion piece with such a blatant bias in favor of mutilating the genitals of innocent children.

Guest
Guest

Infant circumcision is mutilation of an integral part of a boy's body and is child abuse. Girls are protected in this country from genital mutilation. Why not boys?

The Omordha
The Omordha

The court should have nothing to do with this. The decision is either for the parents when the boy is a minor or the adult when the man can decide whether to go hatted or not.

David the Jew
David the Jew

It's in the Torah or the Bible (aka the "Old Testament" to Christians) that Jews should circumcise their boys. The Torah was created by G-d. So if San Francisco wants to go against G-d, they are free to make that decision. They do it at their own risk though.

Dasher, from FR forum
Dasher, from FR forum

I notice that SF weekly News's writer, Mr. Eskenazi, is only interested in the proposed SF circumcision ban as it relates to Jewish religious freedom. A possible unstated attack, in other words, on a religious minority which makes up maybe 3% of the general population. This is noble, but does the writer know that some of the most vociferous opponents of routine infant circumcision are Jews? Just check out the Jews Against Circumcision website some time. Or does the writer know that Dr.Dean Edell, who is Jewish and one of America's most respected voices on health issues, refused to have several of his sons circumcised? One of the reasons is probably that around 120 baby boys die of their circumcision every year in the U.S., including several deaths attributed to circumcisions by rabbis in New York City.

Restoring Tally
Restoring Tally

The better Supreme Court precedent is Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a 1944 case that limited what a parent could do with their children. "The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose . . . the child . . . to ill health or death." There are other nuggets in the case that would favor a circumcision ban being Constitutionally permissible.

I think it is about time that we recognize that baby boys grow up to be men. We should let boys grow up with all their body parts. I wish I still had all of my sex organ and not just what the doctor left me with after my circumcision.

pat
pat

A law like this should've been passed over a century ago. Back then, only a few misguided doctors encouraged circumcision, and it was still unheard of among most people in this country. They would've been able to see it for the crime that it is - assault and battery of a child. Nowadays so many of us have been circumcised that it's somehow become acceptable to allow such a breach of ethics.

People need to wake up. Although an attempt to criminalize an act that's still commonplace will likely fail due to the reaction it provokes, at least it will start a more public discussion on the subject. Or at least I've heard that's what happened when a similar attempt at legislation in Massachusetts was heard (and dismissed) last year. This one in San Francisco is a bit different in that it's going directly to voters, so we'll get a clearer picture of how divided public opinion may be on the matter.

Oceanbeach4243
Oceanbeach4243

The peyote case is totally different. In that case the court basically accepted the premise that the right to practice religion freely is not outweighed by the state's need to regulate the use of illegal drugs. The state will find it much more difficult to show how there is a legitimate government interest at stake in banning circumcision. Especially given that in its application, the law would impact one group of citizens (Jewish male children), disparately. You also have to consider the Equal Protection Clause and the issue of "disparate impact cases" (i.e., does the City's law have a disparate impact on one group?). There is simply no legitimate state interest in regulating this practice; it is not regulated by any other city in California or any other state in the United States (to my limited knowledge). The American Pediatrics Association - the leading medical group in this country for children's health care - has not identified any significant long-term ill effects, and has left it to the parents to decide for religious or cultural reasons. The APA's official report notes there may be medical benefits to circumcision but the data is not sufficient to decide.

This is a classic example of San Francisco absorbing itself with an issue that is so far down the priority list as to be laughable. It is promoted by non-experts (sfgate identifies the proponent as "a 58-year-old who used to work for a "major hotel chain.") And people in the city actually take clowns like this seriously. The ability of San Franciscans to occupy themselves with non-civic issues seems to know no bounds.

h. brown
h. brown

So, Joe,

Do you also favor allowing other tribal people to bring their cultural habits to SF? How's about if our traditional Chinese want to bind up their women's feet? There are still African tribes who sever the clitoris of their infant daughters. You think that's cool too?

Mutilating infants and children who lack the capacity to agree is barbaric no matter how long the practice has been going on.

Go Giants!

h.

dark
dark

let the child decide its the child's body not the parents. if you think it looks better. remember looks are subjective. condoms and safe sex practices prevent std infection not circumcision. condoms also prevent pregnancy. and if you are circumcised guess what you still need to wear a condom to prevent STD infections. think about the amount of pain that the baby will feel.

and what about all the babies that have died because they were circumcised. over 100 male babies in the US die each year from circumcisions. these babies wont ever get to experience life or love. because of an unnecessary surgery that was forced upon them without their consent or knowledge. in the short time that these babes were alive all they got to experience was intense pain.

infant circumcision should be banned. its inhumane to cause this pain to babies.

Jonathon
Jonathon

I agree that "protecting" boys in San Francisco from such an ancient practice is a REALLY bad idea. What we should be doing is trying to repeal that Federal law that prevents the free exercise of religion for Americans who believe in following the ancient practice of female genital cutting. Now Labia Lasagna--that's something I would definitely like to see less of on the local menu.

Besides, women without all that *extra* skin live much more productive lives, or so I've been told. Preventing the labia or clitoral hood of a female infant from being detached...it's of such minor interest.

As a man, I hate uncircumcised vaginas. I really can't believe that something historically practiced for health reasons can be seen as something worth banning. I also can't believe that this is the kind of crap with which the federal government has wasted its time. What about the lack of U.S. jobs? What about the war? What about the country's growing deficit? And yet we are worrying about taking away the freedom of parents to do what they think is in the best interest of their daughters. Just ridiculous!

Stephen
Stephen

Let the child - Jewish, Muslim or Gentile - make the decision for himself when he is old enough to make the decision

Paul E. Ester
Paul E. Ester

There is nothing "wrong" with a penis that needs fixing.

KeepEmSnipped
KeepEmSnipped

As a woman, I hate uncircumcised penises. I really can't believe that something historically practiced for health reasons can be seen as something worth banning. I also can't believe that this is the kind of crap SF government wastes their time with. What about the homeless problem? Our troubled public transit system? Housing? The closing of schools due to lack of funding? And yet we are worrying about circumcised penises?! Just ridiculous!

J
J

A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips and fingertips have similar touch sense to what is lost to circumcision. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. We should all be against cutting of the genitals without the consent of the person being cut.

Mike
Mike

For once a good law may be enacted in SF. Circumcision is a barbaric practice and its victims have no choice. I'm sick of the stupid identity politics always played around here. When they tried to outlaw barbaric treatment of chickens in Chinatown the imbecile Leland Yee cries bigotry. Now presumably the Ashkenazi community or some members may cry anti-semitism.There are a very few things that are legitimate subjects of government intervention. Stopping unnecessary pain and cruelty is one of them.

Flight Suit
Flight Suit

You make an excellent point, Hugh. I suspect Joe Eskenazi has a chip on his shoulder because he's Jewish. Well, I'm Jewish too, and I am totally opposed to the mutilation of children's genitals. There are other, better ways of honoring a covenant with God.

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

"Sharing the awareness that the human penis is designed correctly the way it normally comes into the world: with its foreskin intact; that a male's possession of his own penis -- including his foreskin -- is his inviolable birthright; and that a child's chances for health and happiness throughout his life are greater -- by far -- if he is allowed to keep all of the penis he is born with."John A. Erickson

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

Whose penis is it ? Whose body is it ? Whose rights ?

"Sharing the awareness that the human penis is designed correctly the way it normally comes into the world: with its foreskin intact; that a male's possession of his own penis -- including his foreskin -- is his inviolable birthright; and that a child's chances for health and happiness throughout his life are greater -- by far -- if he is allowed to keep all of the penis he is born with."

John A. Erickson

INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!

hugh
hugh

Except that if the parents decide to do it, the man can't decide not to. And whose "hat" is it?

Ken
Ken

It's the responsibility of the justice system to protect the rights of children. Since circumcision is a purely cosmetic procedure with no medical benefits, there is no reason for a parent to circumcise their child. Why should parents be given free reign over their child's genitals?

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

WHAT AN IMBECILE !!!!!!!!!!!!

The torah and every single else religion were created by MEN , and there is even a religion without god - buddhism - and it's the most RESPECTFULL and PEACEFULL of all !

A few thousands years ago , a psychopath pedophile wanted to chop off baby boys foreskins , he knew he might get in trouble , so he told his ignorant and superstitious fellow men that a supernatural creator told him to do so !

May it be the will of the Creator to bring upon you an exact punishment necessary resulting in preventing you from ever mutilating NON-CONSENTING baby boys penises again !

May it be the will of the Creator to bring upon you an exact punishment necessary resulting in preventing you from ever destroying His perfectly created penises again !

May it be the will of the Creator to bring upon you an exact punishment necessary resulting in preventing you from ever violating basic human rights to genital integrity again !

J
J

Actually it has now been observed that the original versions of Genesis did not mention circumcision. This cutting of of parts of a baby boys pe nis copmes only from humans. It was a sexual sacrifice instead of a human sacrifice and before that it was a marking (slave marking by Egyptians).

There are no benefits. A cut up penis is not cleaner nor does it get less stds. The alleged benefits are contrived by people wanting a reason to pass this on to the next generation.

A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous.

BTW, the infection thing is part myth part bad medical advice. Boys that are natural should not have their foreskin touched by others. The US medical advice was to pull it back and scrub with soap. That causes problems including infections. Natural boys really have no problems if you don't retract THEIR foreskin. And then they get to have a full and natural sex life. Stop this mutilation.

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!

Steve
Steve

You want to tout the equal protection clause? Okay. We can play that game, especially since it's not supposed to work one way only buddy.

Every form of female circumcision was outlawed in the US a while ago. Even the minor ones such as pinpricking the clitoris, which comparatively would have no lasting effect quite unlike male circumcision. The fact that that law exempted males, creates a very real and unconstitutional double standard with that equal protection clause you seem to be so fond of. If it were a true equal protection clause, males should have been protected at around the same time that females were. No more of this cherry picking please. That's really all your argument boils down to; picking and choosing passages from the law and twisting the definitions thereof to where it is convenient for your stance. Actually, if this ban were to pass, it would be supporting the equal protection clause. Isn't equal protection under the law exactly what it's supposed to promote? That's what we want here. Given all of the above, it would appear that we have a rather rock solid case against the law discriminating it's protection, don't we? And no, it has nothing to do with anti-semitism. There are even Jews who dislike circumcision, whether you will believe that or not. Simply open your mind, and google it sometime.

The only laughable thing here is how narrow minded and ignorant you are. Is this is an actual problem? Yes. Are we taking action to resolve this problem? Yes. Are there men out there who are upset about having been mutila-oh I'm sorry; circumcised, and don't feel whole exactly like there are females who feel that way about FGM? The answer to that is yet another resounding YES! It amazes me how some people just can't seem to connect the dots. It is a simple matter of human rights, really. Do you even value those?

Nathan
Nathan

The majority of circumcisions are not religious in nature therefore saying this ban targets Jews is wrong. There is also a legitimate state interest in banning forced non-therapuitc circumcisions which is protecting the human rights of male minors to make an informed decision as adults as to whether or not they want their penis permanently altered or not.

You'reWeird
You'reWeird

I really don't think there is any comparison between genital mutilation of vaginas, and a non-mutilating, health related practice as circumcision.

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

You hate natural penises and prefer surgically modified ones ?

Good for you , but please concentrate on adults men who share your perverted fetish and don't try to impose it on non-consenting boys !

And why don't you begin with circumcising your own intact vagina if mutilated genitals give you such a thrill ?

"A piece of skin the size of a quarter contains more than three million cells, 12 feet of nerves, 100 sweat glands, 50 nerve endings, and almost three feet of blood vessels."

The Human Connection Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson McGraw-Hill, 1979."Circumcision removes a piece of skin almost equivalent to a 3 x 5 index card."

heirofsalazar
heirofsalazar

I have a friend from Egypt, where 90% of the women are circumcised, and I was appalled to hear him make almost the exact same statements about female circumcision.

Of the world's men, only 30% are circumcised, of whom 68.8% are Muslim, 12.8% are non-{Jewish,Muslim} Americans, 0.8% are Jewish, and 17.6% (the rest) come from mainly backwards third-world tribal cultures/countries where there have long been genital cutting rituals of one flavor or another.

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

"A piece of skin the size of a quarter contains more than three million cells, 12 feet of nerves, 100 sweat glands, 50 nerve endings, and almost three feet of blood vessels."

The Human Connection Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson McGraw-Hill, 1979."Circumcision removes a piece of skin almost equivalent to a 3 x 5 index card."

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

"A piece of skin the size of a quarter contains more than three million cells, 12 feet of nerves, 100 sweat glands, 50 nerve endings, and almost three feet of blood vessels."

The Human Connection Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson McGraw-Hill, 1979."Circumcision removes a piece of skin almost equivalent to a 3 x 5 index card."

SoAndSo
SoAndSo

Infant Circumcision:Crime Against Humanity

It's time someone said it, loud and clear: that infant circumcision -- including so-called "religious" infant circumcision -- is an atrocity and a fraud; that it's a brutal, perverse, outrageous violation of a helpless human being's right to his own body; that it's child sexual abuse in its most vicious, most destructive, most cunningly disguised form; that it literally censors a child's life -- kills part of the child -- even if he never realizes it, because it severs him from a uniquely specialized, uniquely sensitive means of perceiving, experiencing, sharing and enjoying his existence; that the reasons given to justify it are myths and lies; that it's the ugliest, saddest, most sickening scandal in the history of medicine and an infamy to societies that tolerate it and to institutions that sanctify it; and that anyone involved even remotely with cutting, tearing, crushing or burning off the foreskins of babies -- or anyone else by force, coercion or deceit -- is as guilty of causing human suffering as the monsters of Auschwitz and in the name of humanity should be exposed, confronted, stopped, brought to trial, and imprisoned.Regardless of anyone's "reason" for circumcising a baby, the fact remains that infant circumcision is foreskin amputation by force -- the deliberate, irreversible destruction of a normal, natural, functional part of someone else's body -- living, protective, erogenous tissue that is rightfully his and that he instinctively wants to keep intact -- at a time in his life when he can't understand what is being done to him -- or why -- and can't speak for or protect himself.

Infant circumcision is, in other words, human vivisection -- legalized, institutionalized, sanctified human vivisection.

Reason and attempts at persuasion will not deter those who, driven by the compulsion to destroy what they secretly envy but can never have, and desperate to make their own tortured partial penises seem normal -- and for who knows what other god-awful reasons -- persist so relentlessly in defending, promoting, misrepresenting and performing this crippling, disfiguring mutilation.

The birthright of males -- all males -- to keep all of the penis they are born with must therefore be secured by law.

John A. Erickson Biloxi, Mississippi March 1998

Steve
Steve

How... How do they brainwash people so effectively? I wanna know their technique, because it's amazingly thorough.

At any rate, entirely contrary to what you've seen fit to assert, the two often have the same effects: Both are a completely non-medical procedure far more often than not. No, "prevention" doesn't count. Babies don't have sex, and cut or not you can still get an STD if you're not using a condom. The US also has the highest circumcision rate of developed nations, yet also the highest HIV rates of developed nations. I'm supposed to believe that my infant circumcision was supposed to prevent the big dreaded HIV despite these statistics? Sorry, not buying it. The experiment has been attempted, and subsequently failed. Just look at Europe. They're doing fine. I'll stick with safe(er) practices as any sane person would, excluding circumcision. Thank you.

Both violate human rights. I'm supposed to just... Up and not care that somebody cut off a sexually valuable piece of my organ? Without asking ME? No, that sort of mentality just doesn't fly with me. In fact, if I had the ability I'd love to sue the physician or pediatrician that did it to me. He didn't have the right. Neither did my parents. There, I flat out said it. That piece that they cut off has sexual sensitivity. That's more than enough reason for me to classify it as a mutilation when there is no medical need for it. Never mind the body image. I don't like the fact that I have a scar down there with a color reminiscent of fecal matter...

Both share the same potential for psychological damage. If they didn't, why on earth would I be complaining about it openly on a public forum against people unlikely to change their minds? And arguing against those that >THINK<, which is altogether different from fact, that it is harmless? It was not harmless in my case. Don't use blanket claims like that.

heirofsalazar
heirofsalazar

Most acts of female circumcision are as damaging or less damaging that male circumcision.

More to the point, you cannot deny that there is a double standard.

In fact, under federal U.S. law, it is an illegal act of genital mutilation even to prick with a pin just the labia of a girl----no tissue is removed, and no lasting damage is done; constrast that with male circumcision, which amputates a proportionally huge, protective, sexually pleasing part of a boy's sexual organ---removing what would become upwards of 15 square inches of specialized genital tissue and completely transforming the mechanics of his sex organ.

In fact, in 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics tried to introduce a policy that legitimized the ritual pin prick of a girl's clitoris (to avoid a girl being taken to the Middle East for possibly more heinous forms), and the AAP even stated that such a ritual pin prick is less invasive/damaging than male circumcision. However, the AAP was trashed in the media and blogs as a promoter of an illegal act of genital mutilation, so the AAP retracted their proposed policy almost immediately. Woops!

When you forcibly circumcise a child, then you are forcibly circumcising the independent adult he will become. At least a man who has complete genitals can choose to have himself circumcised (and according to his particular wishes, as there are various styles and techniques and outcomes that are possible, and that he may discuss at length with his surgeon), but a man who already has cut up genitals cannot choose to have himself un-circumcised.

 

Around The Web

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...