Community

May 20, 2011

UPDATE: Anti-circumcision movement reaches Santa Monica

By Jonah Lowenfeld

Tweet

Share

UPDATE: Santa Monica Circumcision Ban Ballot Measure Withdrawn

Santa Monica residents may get to vote soon on whether circumcisions can be done in the beach city.

San Francisco residents learned last week that a measure would be on their November ballot allowing them to vote on whether to ban circumcision in their city. Now, if a petition about to begin circulating succeeds in garnering enough signatures, residents of Santa Monica could soon have the same opportunity, The Jewish Journal has learned.

Sources provided The Journal with a copy of a petition, filed with the Santa Monica City Clerk on May 19, which proposes adding an initiative prohibiting “Genital Cutting of Male Minors” to a ballot in a future election in Santa Monica.

Included with the notice is the text of the proposed initiative, which is identical to the text of the initiative approved in San Francisco on May 17.

The text allows for exceptions to the ban only in cases where a surgical removal of the foreskin is deemed “necessary to the physical health of the person on whom it is performed.”

Religion is not an excuse, despite the fact that the practice of circumcision is a sacred ritual of both Judaism and Islam.

The petition also suggests that the act of circumcising be treated as a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a sentence of up to one year in county jail.

“This smacks of a clear infringement on religious rights and freedom of Jews,” Rabbi Mark Diamond, executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, said. Calling the effort to ban circumcision “outrageous,” Diamond said he was confident that rabbis and other faith leaders would join together to fight the iniatives. “We’ve been practicing this rite for thousands of years, and we are not going to stop now,” Diamond said.

The Santa Monica petition’s proponent, Jena Troutman, is a doula, a mother of two uncircumcised boys and a self-described “intactivist.” She disputes the claim that anti-circumcision initiatives like the one she proposed are a violation of religious freedom.

“Congress already passed a law saying that it was illegal to cut girls even if it’s for a medical reason,” Troutman said, referring to the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995. “All we did was copy that law exactly. That’s already been passed and proven constitutional.”

To qualify the initiative for inclusion on the ballot in Santa Monica’s next election in November 2012, its proponents will need to collect signatures from 10 percent of the city’s approximately 61,000 registered voters in the next six months. If they obtain signatures from 15 percent of Santa Monica’s voters, the initiative could be put to a vote in a special election.

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

It’s about time that this human rights issue gets the attention it deserves.  Circumcision, either male or female causes long-term damaging effects, including a decrease in sensitivity of the guy’s genitalia.  I know that some guys won’t agree, but if they’ve had their foreskin removed at birth, how would they know what they’re missing?  This procedure should only be legal to do on CONSENTING adults.

Comment by Jarek on 5/20/11 at 6:26 pm

I remember reading about the anti-circumcision movement when my now 18-year old boy was born and being amazed at how emotional people were about it.  It really is a freedom of religious practice issue.  On a personal level, I figure that if it has been practiced for generations among my people, it’s fine for my family.

Comment by Amy on 5/20/11 at 8:55 pm

So, what part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates the First Amendment don’t these guys understand?

Comment by LKitsch on 5/20/11 at 11:01 pm

Circumcision of babies/children, when performed for religious reasons, precisely violates the individual’s guaranteed freedom of religion because it is done on a person unable to consent. Circumcision should be illegal just as it is illegal to permanently remove any other body part from a child. Physicians and mohels need to learn the benefits of an intact penis. It’s mechanics are completely different than a cut penis. Please do not limit your children’s future sexual experience by maiming their genitalia. It makes no sense, common or medical, to expect a partially amputated penis to be as functional as a whole penis.

Comment by karen on 5/21/11 at 4:38 am

Cutting up a females genitals is illegal under federal law and there are no religious exemptions for that.
If the federal government is not going to protect boys too under the 14th amendment then it is up to citizens to demand it.
I do not see this about taking away parental choice, it is about protecting human rights

Comment by Nathan on 5/21/11 at 4:51 am

To LKitsch,
  So, what part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment don’t you understand?

Comment by James on 5/21/11 at 4:51 am

I totally support freedom of individuals to practise their own religion and choose their own path.

As such, I completely back the ban on male genital cutting.

Because if you cut the genitals of a child, you are violating their freedom. You have no religious right over the body of another.

Let that individual decide for themselves if they want to make a covenant with god, and if that covenant requires the sacrifice of parts of their genitalia.

You should not force the mark of your religion upon the body of another. That’s not freedom - it’s the opposite.

Comment by Susanne on 5/21/11 at 4:59 am

The real issue here is the human rights violation. Men are not permitted to have a say in how their body looks, works, and feels. This is doubly important because it effects their sexuality, too. We protect girls from harm, and rightly so. That Federal female genital cutting law prohibits even a pinprick to extract one drop of blood; male genital cutting, aka circumcision, is certainly worse than that. We’ve come a long way with gender rights; let’s not perpetuate this double standard.

All boys should be protected, including those born to Jewish or Muslim parents. They can later give informed consent to the blood rite.

Comment by Dan Bollinger on 5/21/11 at 7:14 am

Interesting read from Glick’s “Marked in Your Flesh”: “that the Lord’s covenant and his two definitive promises (prodigious reproduction success and a lavish land grant (all of Canaanite land) appears first in Genesis 15, an earlier J text but with one crucial difference, there is no mention of circumcision.” “To seal this covenant the only requirement is that Abram offer several sacrificial animals- a heifer, goat, ram, dove, and one other bird. Here we find no mention of circumcision, no change of name, no mention of Isaac or Ishmael.”

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/21/11 at 7:56 am

“Like a number of their neighbors, the ancient Israelites had practiced circumcision, but not as a mandatory rite and probable seldom on infants; nor did they associate it with the idea of covenant.”
It was the Judean Priests who wrote Genesis 17 (P text) 13 centuries after Abraham’s putative lifetime that called for male circumcision of infants. A initiation rite not so much for the infant but of the father who must circumcise his son himself for he is cognizant of the event whereas the infant is not.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/21/11 at 7:57 am

These type of circ.s were the cutting off the acroposthion (the part that hangs past the glans). No damage of tearing the foreskin from the glans (thus results scarring from the cut up to the tip of the glans) and no amputating the part covering the glans. The radical circ., also medically known as penile reduction, as we do happens centuries later. The Torah says not to mark the body, the original Covenant jives with the earliest Judea.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/21/11 at 7:58 am

Over 800 years ago Moses Maimonides tells the harms of circumcision, “Rambam”, was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher. “...the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a stateas possible.” & “The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/21/11 at 8:00 am

SF is progressive and open minded. We are intolerant of sexism and inequality. This law brings males into the fold of protection currently enjoyed by females.
So either your FOR Equal Rights or Not. Simple simple simple.

Mesculin and Peyote are banned, those are used in religions, Pot is banned, Women in Florida are not allowed to wear their Bhurka’s in official photos for Drivers permits. Female circumcisn is banned. Christian Scientists have been sent to jail by denying medical treatment to their children, Sihk’s are not allowed to carry long daggers in public, etc…
So I don’t know WHERE this idea sprang up among conservatives that the law has no power ever against religions.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/21/11 at 8:14 am

Frank, the laws stem from our social mores and folkways.  Since we accept circumcision as a cultural and religious practice, comparing them to those other things isn’t valid.  The country won’t give up the ghost this way- and Jews certainly won’t.  It must come from within

Comment by Jennifer on 5/21/11 at 9:46 am

Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch | Shea’s Blog: http://disq.us/1zn76x
http://forward.com/articles/137577/  Outlawing Circumcision - Good for the Jews? by Eli Ungar-Sargo
http://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.aurora-israel.co.il/articulos/israel/Titular/32895/&sl=es&tl=en “Thousands of parents sail against the tide of circumcision”
“Circumcision simply should not exist!”  Jewish doctor, Dr. Dean Edell
http://www.davidwilton.com/files/johnsonmalegenitalmutilation2010.pdf Johnson, M. Male genital mutilation: Beyond the tolerable?
Moises Tractenberg’s book “Judaism, Christianism, Islamism, Animism and Circumcision”
Lisa Moss’ book “The Measure of His Grief”

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/21/11 at 10:22 am

Religion is no excuse for carving up your kid!! Your religion is not above the law of decent human ethics.

Comment by Kathleen on 5/21/11 at 10:57 am

Circumcision is no more important than the things you dismiss as “invalid” comparisons. Why are they invalid? They are religious commands, which we don’t permit because of ethics.

What is culturally accepted and what is ethical are separate things - a hundred years ago, it was acceptable for men to rape their wives. Or for black people to be treated as second-class. This time it’s not women or ethnic minorities - those with a voice that ought to be heard. Instead, it’s children, with no voice at all. Who is going to stand up for those that can’t stand up for themselves?

Comment by Susanne on 5/21/11 at 11:34 am

I am a man that was circumcised as a baby and I really wish I was NOT. I wish I could have experienced sex the way it was intended. But more importantly, I was denied my choice to keep a functional, natural, healthy body part.

Comment by Dave S. on 5/21/11 at 3:03 pm

@Amy: “... it’s fine for my family.”
As one man said, but in more colourful language:
“My family doesn’t [urinate] with my [p enis],
my family doesn’t [masturbate] with my [pe nis]
and my family doesn’t [have sexual intercourse] with my [pen is],
so what business did my family have to go cutting part off of my [peni s]?

Comment by Hugh7 on 5/21/11 at 5:26 pm

Brit Milah is one of the most ancient and sacred commandments of Judaism. Previous attempts throughout history to ban this practice have always resulted in massacres against the Jews, which ultimately have failed.

Comment by Babushka on 5/21/11 at 7:23 pm

The First Amendment allows freedom of religion:  let the boy decide for himself when he becomes an adult.  The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection:  female circumcision is outlawed, even for religious reasons;  why are not baby boys equally protected?

Comment by Alfred C. Schram on 5/21/11 at 10:04 pm

Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure when there is no diagnosis of defect or disease, and no record of other less-destructive remedies tried before resorting to the drastic last-resort step of amputation.  “Male” is not a diagnosis.  Foreskin is not a birth defect. 

Not one national medical association on earth (not even Israel’s) endorses routine circumcsion.  HIS body, HIS decision. 

Foreskin feels REALLY good.

Comment by Ron Low on 5/21/11 at 11:33 pm

It’s up for the Children either they will go in the operation or not.

For me it’s not required anymore.

Comment by Joel-d-M on 5/21/11 at 11:45 pm

So, here is a question for all of you anti Circumcision writers. Where do parental rights begin and end. I wonder about how many of you would be willing to enforce your “opinion” on parents who have to sign permission forms for the millions of operations deemed as “elective” or “cosmetic” for children. How about ear ring piercings? It may not be permanent but it is painful and bleeds. How about breaking and then bracing legs to correct pigeon toe? Nose jobs?

For a Jew, the foreskin is a defect.

You don’t believe it, don’t do it.

Comment by Shlomo on 5/22/11 at 1:15 am

First US armed forces studies have shown that male circumcision is protective by reducing the risk of invasive UTI by a factor of seven fold
second, if circumcision is a human rights issue enforceable by government what about vaccinations in general. There is no vaccination without risk.
Third, human foreskin does not participate in the sexual act anymore than any other part of the skin, It does however endanger the woman (or man) participating in intercourse by introducing infective pathogens residing in the pouch created by the prepuce
Finally when such idiocies become the law of the Land its time for the Jews to pack up and come home to the Land of Israel

Comment by yuval Brandstetter MD on 5/22/11 at 8:11 am

@yuval Brandstetter MD.

Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out

Comment by Jon on 5/22/11 at 8:36 am

Yuval wrote, “Third, human foreskin does not participate in the sexual act anymore than any other part of the skin”

Not true. Please see http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/

Comment by DK on 5/22/11 at 8:50 am

Yuval, no study has ever shown the protection from UTIs that you claim. Circumcised men are MORE likely to develop kidney infections because UTIs are diagnosed later, because they miss foreskin symptoms.

Don’t speak of “vaccination in general” as though circumcision falls under this banner. Circumcision is amputation, not vaccination.

The foreskin absolutely DOES have a role in sex, and it is not disease-related. You obviously need to do more research.

It’s disgusting that people are so keen to ride roughshod over the rights of CHILDREN. Why do YOUR views count for more than the views of the person whose genitals you’re cutting?!

Comment by Susanne on 5/22/11 at 8:53 am

Susanne, I guess Yuval is unaware of the study that originated from an Israeli hospital that showed circed boys suffer *more* UTIs than their intact counterparts.

Not really that hard to believe when a cutting a boy leaves an open wound exposed to all the p-ss and sh-t that you usually find in their diapers.

Comment by James on 5/22/11 at 8:57 am

” It must come from within”

Jennifer, I guess you have missed the fact that some of the most vocal advocates of banning circumcision are themselves jewish or muslim. If that isn’t coming “from within” I don’t know what is.

Comment by Johan on 5/22/11 at 9:49 am

Science News “Half of adult males carry HPV” Male circumcision and the use of condoms have shown little protection against HPV infection, Monsonego says.
Swaziland Times “More circumcised men are HIV positive”
All Africa “Uganda: New HIV/Aids Messages Worsening HIV Situation”
CircumcisionAndHIV “Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells” Lot De Witte (the foreskin is the primary barrier to disease and is part of the immune system).
The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) 2010 Circumcision Statement:
“There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.”

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/22/11 at 9:52 am

Tim Rutten had an excellent column on the anti-circumcision ballot measure in yesterday’s LA Times.  I agree with him—-it’s primarily about what is an appropriate role for government regulation.  Regulating these kind of things is a bad idea, just as banning abortion would be:  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0521-rutten-20110521,0,45960.column

Comment by LKitsch on 5/22/11 at 10:23 am

Circumcision didn’t stop settling Jews in towards the west. There wasn’t a Mohel around so they did not circumcise. Before Mohels, it was the fathers responsibility to cut his boy’s genitals. Then the part cut off was the Acroposthion, the skin past the glans tip. Before that it wasn’t a Jewish meme, Genesis 15. So a Brit Shalom should be just fine to do.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/22/11 at 10:32 am

The way the laws are NOW these religious rites are fine to do too in the USA.
(Muslim) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKJnZ8YuHkk (eating newly cut foreskin) (Dr. Oz is Turkish who demonstrated for cutting.)
(Jewish) http://uncle-semite.com/menschhealth/  (sucking baby penis blood even though it transmitted herpes disease to many killing one and mentally retarding one.
Look at all the deaths reported at cirp.org

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/22/11 at 10:33 am

@Babushka Just because things are does not mean they have to be and does not meant they are good (or bad). This is stupid just plain unthinking dumb. Please give some effor and challewnge youself. Read
Glick’s book “Marked in Your Flesh” Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America
Moises Tractenberg’s book “Judaism, Christianism, Islamism, Animism and Circumcision”
http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/intact_sex.html Qur’an quotes
Patricia Robinett’s book “The Rape of Innocence” www.PatriciaRobinett/books/circumcision

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/22/11 at 10:49 am

@Babushka (cont.) A few 100 years ago circumcision was almost made illegal. This would have passed if it was not for the Orthodox / Fundamentalist Jews who took control by voting themselves up in the anti-circ. movement to stop the reform Jews. That;‘s from within!

@LKitsch “what is an appropriate role for government regulation. Regulating these kind of things is a bad idea,”
The gov.had done the same exact law protecting females. Perhaps you are sexist?

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/22/11 at 11:14 am

//“it’s primarily about what is an appropriate role for government regulation.”//

What do you think a government’s role ought to be, if not protecting the vulnerable?

Children can’t defend themselves against decisions made by their parents. Does that mean they should be entirely at the mercy of their parents’ wishes?

Of course not. Children have RIGHTS. They are INDIVIDUALS. They are not the property of their parents.

So WHY would anyone think their decision ought to override the rights of another individual?

Comment by Susanne on 5/22/11 at 1:16 pm

There have been bizarre problems one would never think of happening with circumcision. For instance, one newborn screamed during the procedure with such intensity that the stomach ruptured requiring emergency surgery. Another developed heart failure and died. Still another from a bleeding disorder.

General anesthesia poses too great a risk to administer to infants so that they are left to endure with full consciousness the most horrifying procedure imaginable.

Comment by Jones on 5/22/11 at 2:39 pm

Jones- only if they are unlucky enough to be born male.

Comment by Christine on 5/22/11 at 2:52 pm

“For a Jew, the foreskin is a defect.”

­Not true. Circumcision, first of the symbolic variety of ancient times and then of the radical variety of the present, is designed to make imperfect the physical body at its very heart of being so as to motivate a compensatory spiritual process.

Comment by Dovid F. on 5/22/11 at 3:02 pm

I understand why many people may be asking “why would anyone want to ban newborn circumcision?”. I too was in favor of circumcision before I learned about the anatomy and function of the tissue that circumcision removes:
http://www.coloradonocirc.org/anatomy.php

Comment by Craig Garrett on 5/22/11 at 9:09 pm

@ Dovid F. “to make imperfect the physical body at its very heart of being so as to motivate a compensatory spiritual process.”
The compensatory process turns out not to be spiritual, but because of the constant lack of fulfillment not having the sensory and properly complete mechanics of the intact foreskin, curt males seek out and augment anything to make sex more memorably better. Like toys, infidelity, group sex, drugs especially the sexually packed crystal meth - biggest problem drug of the USA for men AND women because cut men use it for sex, both get addicted.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 5/22/11 at 9:44 pm

Religion is an excuse. Wake up. There is a G-d.

Comment by mmu on 5/22/11 at 10:15 pm

I’m a kosher member of my tribe. Now my pride may morph into injury. Butt out!

Comment by mel newman on 5/23/11 at 9:48 am

I feel about this issue the same way I feel about abortion:  if you don’t believe in it, don’t have one, but don’t take away anyone else’s right to make that decision for herself.  If parents don’t believe in circumcision, they should not circumcise their sons.  They should not, however be forced to tell their sons that if they want to practice Judaism or Islam, they have to wait until they’re 18 to be circumcised.  I know that there are men who wish they had not been circumcised infants.  I also know that there are men who are grateful that they didn’t have to make that decision as adults.

Comment by Sheila Linderman on 5/23/11 at 2:49 pm

I am not sure if I am duplicating my comment but here goes anyway.It amazes me to read the incredible crap that you anti semitic scum come up with .Whats next??

Comment by bpgooner on 5/23/11 at 3:12 pm

All you anti-circ “intactivists” do you feel that the California penal system is underutilized at the moment? The Supreme Court just ordered 30,000 prisoners to be released because of overcrowding. Is there enough room now in the prisons for all the religious Jews who will continue to perform Brit Milah? Are there enough foster homes to take in all the male infants who will be confiscated from their parents in order to protect their foreskins until they turn 18? I guess you are all OK with criminalizing an entire community.

Comment by Babushka on 5/23/11 at 4:20 pm

Believe it or not, the real issue here isn’t religion, it is sexism. Cutting boys is a human rights violation. These men are not permitted to have a say in how their body looks, works, and feels. This is doubly important because it effects their sexuality, too. We protect girls from harm, and rightly so. The Federal female genital cutting law, which has no religious exemption by the way, prohibits even a pinprick to extract one drop of blood. Male genital cutting—aka circumcision—is certainly worse than that. We’ve come a long way with gender rights; let’s not perpetuate this harmful double standard.

Comment by Dan Bollinger on 5/24/11 at 5:52 am

Babushka, wouldnt it be more of an act of faith for a grown man raised jewish to choose circumcision for himself when he reaches the age of 18?

I suspect you would not agree with this point of view because you know in your heart of hearts that most men would not choose to do so and the practice would likely die out in a generation or two.

Do you feel that uncircumcised men who identify as Jewish are not Jewish? Surely its a state of mind, not a state of penis?

Comment by Jon on 5/24/11 at 9:41 am

//“If parents don’t believe in circumcision, they should not circumcise their sons”//

And what about what the child believes in?

Or does it not matter what he believes in? Is his body his own, or his parents? Is it simply a canvas on which his parents can display their faith, or is it his own?

//“It amazes me to read the incredible crap that you anti semitic scum come up with”//

There’s nothing anti-semitic about wanting to protect the rights of ALL children. It’s a shame you’re too blind to understand that, and disregard the logic in what people say because you label them “anti-semites”.

Comment by Susanne on 5/24/11 at 10:49 am

If you guys are going to argue, stop bringing up FGM. It was never a religious rite. Male circumcision IS a religious rite. The natures are different.

If you want to bring up human rights, do. I like to think when you say “a person that small doesn’t have a voice and needs to be heard”, you believe the same for unborn babies and will want to make movements against abortion after 20 weeks since there have been babies who have been born as early as 20 weeks that are children and adults.

If the cities approve the law after a vote (because even for religion) there’s no reason to circumcise a boy, the same can be done for unborn babies who could certainly survive at points of abortion.

Comment by Eh on 5/25/11 at 6:34 am

Interesting to see the pro-circ contingent trying to work abortion into their argument as if it has any relevance to the issue.

The corner. Their backs are to it.

Comment by Jon on 5/25/11 at 9:40 am

The anti-circumcision movement shares something very profound with the anti-abortion movement:  using government to legislate morality and personal choice. 

There is only one reason the state should prohibit religious practice—-if it causes signficant harm to individuals and is a clear and present danger and threat to the public health and safety.  You can argue over circumcision all day, but you will never be able to demonstrate that it rises to that level, unlike female circumcision, which is much more invasive, done to children at an older age, is done specifically to inhibit sexuality, and has a long history of medical complications. (cont)

Comment by LKitsch on 5/25/11 at 9:58 am

Anti-abortionists believe it is murder, as is their right, and they are free to abstain from the practice.  But they have never been able to prove that it meets that legal standard, so thankfully, our country permits people the choice within broad limitations. 

If you believe that circumcision is a terrible thing, don’t do it.  But until you can make a compelling legal argument that is causes signficant harm and is a threat to public health and safety, you cannot infringe on people’s right to practice their religion.  I can certainly understand the debate over the medical issues, but that is not my concern—-the First Amendment is.

Comment by LKitsch on 5/25/11 at 10:00 am

And now over to the FGM argument.

Still in the corner.

Comment by Jon on 5/25/11 at 12:35 pm

Here’s a solution that could be a win/win for everyone, if this becomes law in San Francisco and/or Santa Monica:
1.  Those child-torturing scoff-law parents who choose to have their sons circumcised pay the respective city the $1000 fine; and
2.  Those same families stop doing business in those cities.
This way, the intactivists get their law, practicing Jewish or Muslim parents who choose to circumcise their sons do so, and the people of SF and/or SM get their due for stomping on the First Amendment rights of the aforementioned parents.
Now THAT’S freedom of choice!

Comment by Sheila on 5/25/11 at 3:01 pm

I and 64 years old, not a Jew and there is nothing wrong with circumcision. All those that say they have problems should wash more then once a week, like everyday.

Comment by George Gallant on 5/25/11 at 4:04 pm

//“If you believe that circumcision is a terrible thing, don’t do it.”//

But what about those men who think it’s a terrible thing, but are LEFT NO CHOICE?

WHY do you people keep dodging this question? It just smacks of cowardice that you keep trying to claim “personal choice” when in fact you’re advocating removing a choice from the person who actually OWNS THE BODY!

Comment by Susanne on 5/26/11 at 2:55 pm

//“people of SF and/or SM get their due for stomping on the First Amendment rights of the aforementioned parents”//

And what about teh First Amendment rights of the CHILD?

Why does the child, who can’t defend themselves against the choices of their parents, not get to have freedom of religion?

The first amendment is all the more reason to STOP parents from being able to force religious brands onto defenceless children, who may or may not go on to share those beliefs!

Comment by Susanne on 5/26/11 at 2:57 pm

George Gallant, you are nothing but the voice of ignorance.

You advise washing? What on earth do you think people are complaining about regarding circumcision? Because personally I think you’re highly confused if you think washing is any kind of solution.

The problem with circumcision is that it takes away the right of an individual to decide what ought and ought not be done with their perfectly healthy body. It also alters their sexuality, and causes loss of sensitivity, as well as being less pleasurable and even uncomfortable for the man’s partner. I suggest you do some research.

Comment by Susanne on 5/26/11 at 3:00 pm

I can see it now, a committee of “Human Rights” advocates from SAN FRANCISCO (George, Frank and Susanne) will determine exactly what a parent can do, to, or with, their child that that child may, as an adult object to.

Committee says:  no sweets, no animal protein, no religion (guilt, you know is very damaging) no competitive sports. No gender delineation. Where does it end. How about the permanent “DAMAGE” that can be caused to a child forced to do their homework instead of fulfilling their desire to grow up to be a “WII” master?

Comment by Shlomo on 5/26/11 at 3:41 pm

Shlomo - how do those things compare with forced amputation of healthy, sensitive flesh from the genitals?

Can a child grow up to choose a different religion? Yes.

Can they express their gender differently as an adult? Yes.

Can they later choose to cut meat out of their diet? Or add sweets in? Yes.

Can they choose to give up getting an education and play games instead? Yes.

Can they regrow the 20,000 nerve endings forcibly amputated by circumcision? Never.

So where’s the comparison? This is a feeble attempt to excuse cutting healthy tissue from a child.

Comment by Susanne on 5/27/11 at 10:26 am

You have yet to provide any reason as to why the rights of a child to have their whole, healthy body should be denied because of a religion that is not theirs as a baby, and won’t necessarily be theirs as an adult.

Once again you’ve just make a pretence that you want freedom, but what you want is the right to permanently deny others freedom over their own bodies.

Comment by Susanne on 5/27/11 at 10:27 am

Anti-circumcision opinions are something that reasonable people can understand—-that’s why this is a legitimate medical argument.  But you cannot prove how ritual circumcision poses enough of a clear and obvious threat to public health and safety that a ban would pass Constitutional muster.  You cite studies, but they do not constitute an argument that would convince the US Supreme Court that a ban on circumcision would not violate religious freedom in the 1st Amendment.  None of you has addressed that issue.  Moral high ground is not the issue here.  The law is.  And you lose there, and lose so obviously that this entire thing is a waste of time.

Comment by LKitsch on 5/27/11 at 12:25 pm

Another voice of reason:  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-circumcision-20110527,0,2052460.story

Comment by LKitsch on 5/28/11 at 11:53 am

If people were this concerned about abortion maybe we could get it stopped. Do not give me that “bull” a woman has a right to her own body, what about the child he or she has no rights when it comes to abortion.

Comment by George on 5/28/11 at 6:36 pm

^^ If people were this concerned about abortion maybe we could get it stopped ^^

Weird.  It’s like people got a memo from Rupert Murdoch about deflecting talk of this human rights abuse against boys by bringing up the unrelated issue of abortion. 

Amputating healthy normal body parts is wrong. 

No matter what else more or less severe happens in the world, amputating healthy normal body parts is still wrong.

Comment by Ron Low on 5/28/11 at 8:30 pm

LKitsch, I think you’re misunderstanding something.

Religious freedom doesn’t extend to the body of another.

If someone believes it is their religious duty to stone gays, we don’t let them, because it inteferes with the rights of another.

So why should we allow people to circumcise others in the name of religion?

The CHILD has a right to religious freedom. The future adult has a right to freedom OF and FROM religion, doesn’t he?

So why does his body get to be indellibly marked by a religion that he later may not choose to follow?

First Amendment rights shouldn’t allow people to inflict their beliefs onto the body of another.

Comment by Susanne on 5/31/11 at 11:09 am

//“you cannot prove how ritual circumcision poses enough of a clear and obvious threat to public health and safety”//

This may be the source of your misunderstanding - assuming this has anything to do with public health and safety. It’s not about the public - it’s about as private as it can get. The privacy of a person, the ability of them to decide what is done with their own body, the ability to defer any body-altering and unnecessary surgery according to their wishes.

What evidence do you have that the individual shouldn’t have that right, simply because they are born to a particular culture?

Comment by Susanne on 5/31/11 at 11:12 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?