Saturday, November 20, 2010

Is this really the best solution?

If you don't know I'm against circumcision unless there is medical necessity or if its an adult choosing to have it done. Well it would seem that there are forces at work attempting to not just turn people against it but to make it straight up illegal.
Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal.
"Intactivist" (an activist that advocates against circumcision) Lloyd Schofield and other activists like him seek to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco".

On one hand I would very much like to see something done about circumcision. Its benefits are debatable at best and pipe dreams at worst.

People have this done to their sons for reason ranging from health benefits to religion to plain old vanity.

There seems to be conflicting science whether or not circumcision is of actual benefit. Some studies suggest it does help prevent infections while other say it makes no difference (I myself would like to see some data comparing the effectiveness of circumcision versus that of sex education and genital hygiene). If anything I think there should be some solid evidence proving that there are actual health benefits to it before putting so many boys through it.

Religion is a tough one. You see when you talk about religion you talk about culture, history, and tradition. Its not as easy to strike down why Muslims and Jews (and anyone else who practices for religious reasons) have been doing this as it is for Westerners who have not only turned it into a habit but have made it something that can be covered by health insurance. (And besides one could argue that genital cutting of girls should be okay since its a tribal tradition.)

But when you get down to it you might be able to make an argument of medical benefit and you might be able to justify it religiously. However vanity has no place in this.
Amy Jo Jones of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, made the decision to have her two sons circumcised and it "wasn't about vanity."
Sounds noble right? Amy made the choice to have it done and didn't do it for vanity. So you're probably thinking its about medical benefits or religious right or some other justifiable reason aren't you? No. Pay attention because this one is a bit tricky.
"The deciding factor for us was I wanted my son to be like his father. I didn't want him grow up and feel his body was different. It's not about how it looks or doesn't look. I knew there were some medical advantages, although it's not considered medically necessary. The deciding factor was for him feeling comfortable with body and like that of his dad."
So its not about their looks but rather she wanted then to look like their father (well she says "be like his father" but come on). She wants them to be comfortable with their bodies but instead of teaching that there is nothing wrong with foreskin as they grew up and teaching him proper genital hygiene, you know actually showing them how to be comfortable with their bodies, she decided to have it removed. What kind of lesson is that? Can you imagine a parent, in an effort to teach their daughter there is nothing wrong with having really small breasts, getting their daughter breast implants so that she will feel comfortable about herself?

But anyway. While I personally think circumcision should only be done when the guy can choose it for himself or if its a medical necessity I'm not so sure about making it flat out illegal.
-->