To Cut or Not To Cut: That is the Question in San Francisco's Circumcision Debate

If you watch CNN or read the news, you may have heard that San Francisco is the latest city to deal with anti-circumcision legislation. Ultimately, I think it's wrong for parents to mutilate their male children without the children's consent. I think that circumcision is more tolerated because it is more common. But that doesn't make it right. However, I am loathe to have the government dictate this (yes, I said "dicktate"). I would prefer that this argument be won logically and that minds be changed with information instead of legislation. There is no great holocaust that requires government intervention. Circumcised guys will be just fine and their lives won't be ruined.

The best part of this whole political debacle, however, is the type of participation and conversation it generates, especially from our online citizens. I couldn't resist reading the comments on CNN's story. I hope you enjoy my contribution to this particular comment thread.



As for the CNN article I linked to above (video here), I have to say that the author's arguments are absurd. Take this brilliant reason to perform unwarranted, unnecessary surgery:

Besides being an important aspect of some religions, circumcisions improve hygiene, which is effective in limiting urinary tract infections and the transference of STDs. And speaking of sex, having a circumcised penis saves the young man of the potential embarrassment of having a new partner look at his nude body and say "What in the hell is wrong with your... penis."

The author seems to think that a socially-constructed aesthetic is a legitimate reason to perform surgery without consent. What the hell is wrong with your. . . thinking? I weep for this country some times.