Christina Cauterucci: Why 'The Real L Word' Is Bad For Lesbians
Jeanne Faulkner: The State of the World's Soccer Moms
The people of San Francisco are making their voices heard, and their voices are saying "Leave our wangs untouched." A group of people called "intactivists," led by Lloyd Schofield, are working to get an official ban on circumcision in the city.
The ban would make it illegal to "circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles or penis" of anybody under the age of 17, even for religious reasons. The punishment for violating this law would be no more than one year in jail or a fine of no more than $1,000. Some people say the ban would violate their religious freedom, others say circumcision is mutilating the genitals of babies against their will, and still others say, "I just want my kid to have a penis that looks like his dad's."
The petition to get the ban on the November 2011 ballot still needs over 7,000 signatures.
Would you sign it, or do you think people should be free to snip their kids if they so choose? Let us know in the comments.
Comments:
Add a comment
Thursday 25 November
By Katie Leigh
I would definitely sign the petition. Male circumcision is exactly the same as female circumcision; removing a healthy and functioning body part that serves a major purpose. I used to be Pro-Circ, but after finding actual information about circumcision, I am now an Intactivist. The more I know, the more I'm against it.
Reply
Wednesday 24 November
By Katie Leigh
I would definitely sign the petition. Male circumcision is exactly the same as female circumcision; removing a healthy and functioning body part that serves a major purpose. I used to be Pro-Circ, but after finding actual information about circumcision, I am now an Intactivist. The more I know, the more I'm against it.
Reply
Thursday 25 November
By ML
This is the kind of thing that gives the city of San Francisco a reputation as being full of nuts. These people who are trying to bring this ban have nothing better to do than rally for a non-topic that would without doubt be ruled unconstitutional when inevitably appealed to a higher court. What idiots.
Reply
Thursday 25 November
By Michael Leeling
This is the kind of thing that gives the city of San Francisco a reputation as being full of nuts. These people who are trying to bring this ban have nothing better to do than rally for a non-topic that would without doubt be ruled unconstitutional when inevitably appealed to a higher court. What idiots.
Reply
Friday 26 November
By Grace
Maybe it's because I come from a no-circumcision culture (I've never even seen a cut penis outside of the internet), but I consider it to be the same as cutting off the labia of a baby girl; absolutely barbaric. In the US without public health care it just seems to be a way for hospitals and doctors making more money with unnecessary procedures.
Reply
Saturday 27 November
By Alysia
I would sign the petition. My son is uncirc'd and I think that's the way it should be for all baby boys, unless something goes medically awry with the foreskin.
Reply
Saturday 27 November
By freedom0speech
Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.
----------------------------
Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds In The Adult Penis
British Journal of Urology International,
2007, Vol. 99, No. 4, 864-869
Sorrells et al.
Reply
Wednesday 01 December
By Crev
Would definitely NOT sign the petition. If you don't want your kid circumcised, don't have it done, but you have no business dictating what everyone else can do. While the procedure is not "necessary', it's not "barbaric" either. I was circ'd at birth and am glad I was. Frankly, I don't have any recollection of the procedure (and that was when no local anesthesia was given), but if I had had it done as an adult, I can assure you I'd never forget it. Full recovery can take up to a couple of weeks for an adult man.
Reply
Friday 03 December
By Kyle
You guys are all nuts! You say the baby has no say, but that is true on the basis that he has no say if he WANTED it cut!
Im circumcised (no religious reasons) and not only is it more hygenic, a circumcised penis is less likely to spread STDS than an uncircumcised one.
Dr. Oz, people!
I could go ON AND ON but really?
Reply
Thursday 16 December
By BenAdict
The proposal by Mr. Schofield and his fellow members of Catholics Against Cricumcision to imprison Jews for conducting circumcision has the cart before the horse. Before adding new laws to the books, we would be better served by enforcing existing statutes and demanding that the Catholic Church end its practice of providing alcoholic beverages to underage children in their "communion" rituals. Hence, the group Jews Against Communion will soon be petitioning the San Francisco District Attorney to crack down on this deplorable practice and require prison time for the officiating priests and parents of the minors involved. Ritualistic communion should only be available to adults over the age of 21 with valid identification. It is a well-known fact that Catholics are more prone to alcoholism than other groups, and therefore more likely to drive drunk when they reach adulthood, claiming the lives of innocents in their quest for a good time. Of course, the Catholic Church is also unfortunately plagued with pedophillia by some of its clergy, which perhaps helps explain Mr. Schofield's obession with young boys' penises. I'm sorry to put it this way, but it had to be said.
Reply
Thursday 31 March
By Sadlyhuman.com
That is an incredible display of ignorance to compare a male circumcision to female genital mutilation. Male circumcisions are done in a medically sound environment, or by a trained professional. There are countless medical benefits to male circumcision, ranging from vastly reduced risks of fungal infections, reduced risk of cancer of the penis, and reduced likelihood of the transmission of HPV.
Female genital mutilation holds no accepted medical benefits, and is a barbaric religious practice conducted by untrained members of local religious groups. It is unsanitary, un- anesthetized and commonly performed at the ages of 8 and up. It prevents a woman's ability to gain sexual pleasure, vastly increases the risk of stillbirth, and greatly increases the likelihood of the mother dying during labor.
Those of you who believe these two procedures to be the same should be ashamed of yourself and your ignorance. Your thinly veiled attempt to be "liberal" by supporting a ban of circumcision betrays your complete lack of concern for women and women's right.
Reply
Thursday 24 February
By Thinker5
I wonder how these intactivists feel about abortion. If you believe a guy should have a say over a medical procedure performed on him, do you think he might also want to have a say about whether he's allowed to be born or not, not ripped out of his mother's womb?
Reply