There was an interesting op/ed by Michael C. Moynihan over at Reason.com in their Hit and Run Blogs with the title “The Most Unkindest Cut of All”.  The blog post pointed us to a story in the Washington Examiner about a proposed ballot initiative in San Francisco.  The initiative would:

“…amend The City’s police code “to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”

This idea has generated a lot of discussion, and several of my friends have stated that they agree with the measure, that a child should have a say in whether or not they get circumcised since this permanently removes a part of their body in a display of religious mutilation.

They argue that something that drastic should require the consent of the person upon whom it is being performed.  Indeed, when you begin to do a bit of research on the topic, you will find that many people apparently have a problem with the practice, as this picture found in the Wikipedia entry on circumcision illustrates:

You will find that countries such as Sweden and Finland have had court cases where circumcision has been ruled illegal.

You will find that this isn’t even the first time someone has asked for circumcision to be banned here in the US.  There is a special interest group named Intact America which has asked for a ban on circumcision in Massachusetts.  This group lobbies across the US for “a world where children are protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent, in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference.”

Ohhhh…  That evil “profit” pops up again…  Who does circumcision for profit?  What kind of liberal, hippy, retard nonsense is that?

Here’s my problem:

These liberals, the ones who are protesting the religious practice of circumcision on 8 day old boys, what do you think their stance is on whether or not that same boy should be allowed to give his consent 9 days earlier to being aborted?

Abortion is slightly more drastic than a circumcision, yes?  The difference between a purely cosmetic alteration that the child will not remember and killing the child is rather significant, wouldn’t you agree?

You know what these liberals think.  If it’s an abortion, a mere 9 days earlier, it’s the woman’s body, her right to choose, her “parental preference” that matters.  Because after all, the kid is still dependent upon his mother for life.  As if an 8 day old isn’t still dependent upon its parents for life…

It’s the obvious hypocrisy in the liberal stance on issues like this that drives me absolutely crazy.  It’s down right bonkers.

I’m going to make the same argument here that I make on the abortion topic:  If you don’t like the practice of circumcision, fine.  Don’t have your boys circumcised.  Start a PR campaign designed to show how circumcision is wrong and how people should not get it done to their children, even if the WHO says it lowers the risk of AIDS by 60%.  But for the love of Pete, don’t go trying to increase the size and scope of government by attempting to get laws passed for the purpose of taking the freedom of choice away from parents, and banning a religious practice in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, simply because you don’t like it! 

That’s just uncivilized.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: politics & government // 1 Comment »