Circumcision Ban in San Francisco!

This picture pretty much defines how I few about neonatal circumcision :)

This is probably one of the hottest topics to be posted on a blog, RACHEL made a post about circumcision last year and it became the center of a heated discussion.
Just as a side note, I completely understood why Rachel and her husband decided to allow the doctors to go ahead with the procedure once it was medically justifiable.
The core of the discussion in this post is not really about doing it or not doing it, but rather, one individual's right to make the decision for themselves, not by their parents when they are a new born.



Young parents are easily persuaded by eager for a quick profit doctors and it is sad to see, once it is an atrocious irreversible procedure.
I had no idea it even existed until I first came to the US when a teenager in high school.
I was intrigued to say the least when I noticed all boys in the locker room were circumcised, they couldn't ALL have had phimosis, which is a justifiable medical reason to have it done.
In Brazil, when growing up, I never ever even saw a circumcised penis, I knew about a neighbor who had phimosis but never saw how the post surgical penis looked like until much later in life.
I found an interesting article on circumcision and sexual numbness HERE is the link to the article.

If it is so wrong with girls, why so accepted for boys?

I knew something was seriously wrong but had no idea what or why all boys were circumcised.
There was only one guy who was not circumcised at my entire high school in Oklahoma, we became friends because we played football and we were in the same graduating class.
He used to tell me many kids had always made fun of him, he always felt extremely humiliated because his family didn't have the money to pay for the surgery when he was born.
He was the school's stud, had lot's of girl friends, lot's of sex, maybe girls were curious with his peculiar intact status. I have to confess, I benefited from the same situation at the time, I can't complain at all.
However, later in life, his wife ended up convincing him to do it. I spoke to him just a few years ago and he described the extremely decrease in sexual sensation, the numbness during intercourse, the increased thickness of the skin around his gland, he was devasted.
He regretted the procedure more than anything in his life. Their sexual life went down hill quickly and they ended up getting a divorce. He says he feels like he is half the man he used to be.
He says he was never the same again.
This is a very sad story and makes me wonder how many man has decreased sexual pleasure because of neonatal circumcision but don't know the difference of being intact to begin with...the numbness in circumcised men is said to intensify after 40 years of age, creating difficulty to reach orgasm.
Later in life I came to find out that widespread circumcision in the US started around the 1920's by the initiative of the Baptist church and a very powerful pastor from New York city who believed widespread circumcision would curb masturbation and put some control on the wide spread prostitution and spread of venereal diseases around the city, because he thougth masturbation increased lust and promiscuous sexual behavior. He was able to influence powerful people in Washington DC and turn the practice common around the country.
Doctors gladly embraced the practice as an interesting new source of income was introduced.
Today, one should be expected to pay between 1000 and 3000 dollars for a neonatal circumcision, it is a very simple procedure and doctors usually perform around 3 to 10 per week, that means anything between 3,000 to 30,000 extra dollars a week, Health Insurance companies no longer cover such procedure.
Considering the significant injection of easy CASH into the medical community's pockets daily, HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT ME TO TRUST THEIR OPINION ON THIS MATTER? I DON'T.
If you have the freakish justification that you want your baby boy to look like his father, I just don't understand that at all, I can't even begin to understand that defense.
Intact  penises are perfectly fine with it's foreskin, they are clean, if you bath in fresh water at least twice a week, you should be fine. If you think your baby boy won't have access to fresh water to take a shower at least twice a week, go right ahead. I understand why people who live in deserts have done it for thousands of years.
Not justifiable in the Western world, where all of us have running water and shower frequently.
The newest absurd justification you will hear on the matter is that circumcised people in Africa are less prone to infections and STD's.
They conveniently omit to tell you that hygiene standards in Africa are significant lower than the rest of the world. Access to clean water is very limited and sexual habits are very different from the ones in the US and most of the Western World. You can't even begin to compare Africa to the US when you are talking about STD's and circumcision.
Circumcision rates in Europe are extremely low, around 1% in Scandinavia, 2% in Southern Europe, under 6% in Asia and around 7% in Brazil and most other countries in the America's with the exception of the US.
Circumcision rates in the US have consistently dropped since the 1970's, around 60% in the present time.

Circumcision rates around the world

Canada also started a strong trend to reduce neonatal circumcision rates and they were more successful than the US because they have Universal Health Care, so you don't have greedy doctors recommending the practice for an easy CASH flow.
I was curious to find out about Canada, once they have Universal health care and the wild for profit mentality in the medical field is bound to be less wild than down here, the link below might help you understand the difference of opinions between Canadians and the US on the subject.

Circumcision in CANADA

But what really brings this post to the center of the discussion is the controversial San Francisco BAN on neonatal circumcision, yes, you heard me right, BAN, the initiative is aiming to make it illegal to perform  circumcision in newborns in the city of San Francisco, even when it is performed for religious reasons.
In other words, whatever it is your reason to do it, you can do it when you are an adult, if you still want to do it, period.
Jews are up in arms in the Bay area, threatening to sue the city if they move forward and approved the initiative, I understand their anger but I had to ask myself, how does infant Jew babies circumcision differ from the Africans who practice mutilation of girl's genitalia for religious reasons? My answer, no difference.
The only difference is that we are so used to hear about the Jewish practice that for some strange crazy reason, we grew accustomed with it, but it doesn't make it any less aggressive and invasive on an individual's integrity.
I was glad to read there is a growing trend of Jews who are against circumcision and there is a list of Rabis who perform a symbolic religious ceremony that doesn't involve circumcising the child.

Pro Sharia Law ad in Great Britain!

The discussion is around the individual's choice over such an important part of a person's body.
Someone called the folks in San Francisco hypocrites because they are in favor of abortion but against circumcision, well, good point. I have to agree that argument, it is contradictory to be for Abortion and against circumcision, in other words, you would be ready to protect one's penis integrity, but not his own life.
I am a liberal and I admire and agree with almost everything I hear out of San Francisco, however, before you call me a hypocrite bastard, I will say, I am 100% against abortion, but I still believe in the right for legal abortions in Hospitals.
As much as I am against it, I think it is important to make that procedure available at Hospitals, for a simple reason of public health, people will do it anyway, let them do it safely, in my opinion, still wrong beyond comprehension.

So, should parents be allowed to make such a life altering decision for their children?
In my opinion, they shouldn't.
I think it is wrong if medically not necessary.
Widespread senseless circumcision should become a crime anywhere, not just in San Francisco.
If folks in San Francisco get their way, you could get 5 years in jail if caught trying to perform neonatal circumcision.
More on the controversial San Francisco initiative on the link below:

HERE