First San Fran, now: Group Wants Santa Monica to Ban Boy Circumcisions

There's a campaign in Santa Monica to ban circumcisions on boys under the age of 18, even for religious reasons.

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Group_Wants_Santa_Monica_to_Ban_Boy_Circumcisions_122606399.html?storySection=comments

Santa Monica residents may be voting on circumcision in their November 2012 ballot, according to the LA Times.

The MGM Bill (Male Genital Mutilation bill), an organization dedicated to placing circumcision bans on ballots across the country, has just proposed an initiative in Santa Monica that would ban the procedure on males under the age of 18. Female circumcision, or what most call female genital mutilation, is already outlawed in California and the United States.

This same organization has successfully proposed a circumcision ban in San Francisco, which means the initiative will appear on the city's ballot for an upcoming vote this fall. Lloyd Schofield, a San Francisco resident who is leading the charge to ban the minor surgery in his city, told the Associated Press, "Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/santa-monica-circumcision_n_867170.html

it only makes sense to leave the decision up to the individual who is getting his penis whacked.
Kudos to the humane and rational activists on the West Coast.
:bounce:

:evilgrin:

Why is government interfering? The ones who claim...get the gov. off my back don't min when it comes to personal/social behavior. How can the Gov tell Jews how to practice their religion?

?

nothing wrong with that and if it reduces the incidence of circumcision, great. But let's face it folks, no way is circumcision going to become illegal. It would be more practical to try and make it illegal for anyone but a doctor to perform it.

People will get their baby boys circumcised elsewhere.

I'm just quoting Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens.

In most cases it's done for sanitary reasons.

It was done routinely when I was born; I don't think they even asked my mom. Now, at least, people are given a choice.

We didn't do it to our son. We had gone back and forth about it, then after he was born and I held him in my arms, I knew there was no way I was letting anyone cut him unless there was a damn good reason.

I don't think there is a damn good reason for that particular procedure, frankly.

I mean, really, where are those people going to go? Venice?

This kind of legislation only hurts businesses and takes choices away from consumers.

I'm not sure that's what they had in mind.

But, why is Santa Monica jumping on the bandwagon?

And the baby doesn't have a say in the matter.

I'd think that was a vaguely homophobic cheap shot.

:sarcasm:

But seriously, the argument that this is somehow equivalent to clitoridectomies for girls is ridiculous.

A circumcision won't eliminate sexual gratification for a boy when he gets older. It certainly hasn't for me. Nor do I remember any "trauma" associated with the procedure.

Geez, these "crusaders" need to just give it a frickin' rest!

There's more I could post, but I am so goddamn sick of people drawing this totally inaccurate parallel.

But it's still a worthy topic of debate in its own right.

As a matter of fact, I told my Mom that I wanted it done, because it wasn't done to me as an infant. I was not happy with all the extra skin.

So it was done… And yes, it was pretty painful. When I woke up from the anesthesia, I screamed my head off. Then they knocked right the fuck out again. I can imagine avoiding the whole experience had been done right after I was born.

In spite of all, I'm glad that it was done.

And oh yeah, no complaints from any of the ladies either.

This whole made up outrage is about nothing.

"Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice."

:thumbsup: