I'd vote for this:San Francisco Circumcision ban could be on November ballotFrom a comment at one of the
linked stories:
A circumcision ban would hold up as well as an infant sacrifice ban. Circumcision is something each person should decide on for themselves, not something that should be forced on someone before they can protest.
From a religious perspective, it should be kept in mind that the child may not decide to keep his parents religion when he's grown up. When he decides to leave his parents religion, is he supposed to be able to sew his foreskin back on? Marking for infant in a permanent and religious fashion is a violation of the CHILDS right to freedom of religion. It would be like tattooing a cross on the child, or writing the words "property of god" on the baby. Actually, circumcision is worse, because you can have a tattoo removed, but you can't ever really retrieve your foreskin.
I've never understood why a medically unnecessary removal of tissue from an infant has been allowed - especially since it seems to have been of value from an evolutionary standpoint (i.e. foreskin is not vestigial like make nipples). And "religious practice" is not a justification for that sort of thing. It'll be interesting to hear the arguments against this initiative.
posted by Quiddity at 2/19/2011 06:59:00 PM
There are health benefits to circumsision. Lower infection rates and hence complications from infections (like cancer).
True, this can be achieved by conscientious cleaning. Ever raise a boy? Want to nag him to keep his dingus clean?
No thanks.
Ever since seeing Arthur Miller's "Incident at Vichy," I've always liked the way it confuses the "who's a Jew" issue, too. But that's a minor side benefit.
