Putting Circumcision on the Ballot

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Ron Low says:

    No ban with a religious exemption would pass consitutional muster. Per the 14th amendment, we can’t fail to protect someone because of his gender (so the present FGM ban, which bars even a pin-poke to draw one ceremonial drop of blood, is already unconstitutional) and we can’t fail to protect someone because of his family’s faith (as shown in cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, Snake Handlers, etc).

    I think the only way people could fail to see that males have an equal right to keep all their pleasure-receptive parts is if they are ignorant of what the foreskin IS and DOES. To not cite THAT at every opportunity would be the path to failure for the intactivists’ ballot measures.

    I’ll start. Foreskin feels REALLY good.

  2. Hugh7 says:

    “Mutilation” and “torture” are both loaded words. A case can be made that circumcision is both, but it’s an uphill job. (“torture” suggests the intent to cause pain. This is not the intent nowadays, though John Harvey Kellogg thought it beneficial. “The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. … In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement” – Plain Facts for Old and Young, 1877)

    But how about “human rights violation”? You can’t have a religious exemption for a human rights violation. Human rights include “security of the person” “freedom of religion” (his religion, when he is old enough to choose one), and equality of the sexes.

    You could be right that this precipitate move to ban something that is still quite commonplace might be counterproductive. On the other hand, it has brought the issue into the public eye as few other actions could do.