It's a barbaric and unnecessary ritual and the world would be a better place if it were abolished. But, frankly, as long as my own sons are safe I don't care what other people do to theirs.
I never understood why female circumcision is not okay but male is. I'm against both and I consider both to be genital mutilation.
The ones who are against it usually try to make the point that it's painful. It may be, but the ones it was done to don't remember it. I don't.
Pain goes away, and builds character. Disfigurement is permanent. That's why I don't mind piercing childrens' ears; if they don't like it, they can just let them heal over.
Everything else being equal, if there is a problem you can solve by either paying attention to your personal hygiene or cutting off parts of your body that serve important functions, which do you think is the more sensible option?
Female circumcision is done predominantly by Muslims and it is done to eliminate the sex drive so women will not be unfaithful to their husbands. With males it is done for sanitary reasons. It also enhances the male sex drive as they get older. It is done for two totally different reasons concerning the sexes.
The modern excuse is that it's for sanitary reasons. Circumcision originates with religion... it's the covenant with God. It's to hinder masturbation, which is to hinder sexual function outside of intercourse. If it were about sanitation then it would be a relatively universal practice. Most of the world's men are not circumcised.
They're not apples and oranges. Both practices originated from the same reasoning. The male version has just received the convenience of modern backing.
The bit about enhancing male sex drive is totally unverifiable. Sounds like one of the many myths perpetuated by people who support circumcision but have no real basis for their practice.
Who cares what the reasoning is. The government has no right to tell people that they can't have a circumcision. It's not harmful and the government has no reasoning to ban it. California is just full of ignorance.
I'm talking about circumcision in general and why my son was not cut at birth. What CA does is its own business. My interpretation of the CA law is that it violates freedom of religion. But then, why should religion get to do what it wants just because it's religion? If my religion demanded that I sacrifice my first born to my god, should I be allowed to do it? Obviously not. A rabbi cutting a baby and then orally sucking the blood out is "okay" but in any other context that could be considered child molestation. Sorry, but tradition doesn't always get veto power over modern common sense.
Whether or not it's harmful is up for debate. I have read in various places that it impacts the child's disposition and pain response for the rest of their life. You may not remember having the procedure done because your concept of "you" did not exist yet; but your body and your neurology remembers. The notion that cutting off one of the most sensitive pieces of tissue in the body of a newborn without anaesthetic could not impact a newborn is beyond me. DO SOME RESEARCH PLEASE.
I actually never had it done, I just, as I've said and as you just said, that it would be a constraint on freedom of religion.
Who cares what the reasoning is. The government has no right to tell people that they can't have a circumcision. It's not harmful and the government has no reasoning to ban it. California is just full of ignorance.
OK, let me see how much controversy I can cause. With a measure on the ballot in San Francisco to ban male circumcision, let see what everybody's opinion is.