‘Intactivist’; anti circumcision activists want to outlaw circumcision

Whether you have children or not, it should be a concern to every free citizen in this country when parenting rights continue to erode under the agenda of special interest groups. The founding fathers did a great job in providing us with documents which preserve our rights, but what happens when the minority reject those rights and take advantage of people’s ignorance, processing of misinformation and misguidance?

Recently, no other than the bastion of freedom and liberty everywhere — San Francisco — is proposing a law which would render circumcision illegal and punishable by penalties of up to a year in prison or $1,000 fine.

Seriously???

This is actually making its way onto the ballot at the end of the year.

The irony is that recent data has come out about the benefits of circumcision. ABC reports that circumcision significantly reduces the chances of HIV and HPV transmission. Furthermore, circumcision vastly reduces the chance (if not completely eliminating the risk) of penile cancer. Scientists now believe that an uncircumcised foreskin may breed a higher rate of infection, which is why the procedure may have started to begin with, noted as early as thousands of years BC.

While many of these so called “intactivists” (intactivism refers to those who advocate that baby boys foreskin remain “intact”) wish for the procedure to be banned, deny much of the medical benefits even as studies continue to grow in favor of circumcision. They go as far as to call it genital mutilation and claiming that the act is excruciatingly painful, however, if we defer to the “intactivists” wishes, we would let all men decide for themselves at the age 18 when the procedure is significantly more complicated and painful. Circumcision opponents also propose the same penalties be imposed for those who do it for religious reasons. (Now, if that isn’t intolerant, what is??) So, if this circumcision ban passes in San Francisco, mohels who are Jews trained in performing circumcisions, could be imprisoned for their religious ceremonies.

“Intactivists” also claim that a man’s sexual pleasure is greatly diminished when circumcised. (Oh, those poor circumcised men who just loathe sex, isn’t it a pity?)

The trend in the U.S. is largely moving away from circumcision and I speak as a mother who decided against circumcising her two sons, yet ardently respect and protect the rights of parents to make that choice for their own sons. I have no right to say that what’s right for my family is right for my neighbors. Who am I to say or impose my values on everyone else?

When done in a safe, sterile environment, circumcision is extremely safe and provides some compelling evidence of protection. Comparing it to genital mutilation is pure hyperbole. It’s like saying that getting your ears pierced is the same as cutting off your arm.

The American Academy of Pediatrics urges parents to choose what is best for their child as it relates to the decision to circumcise, however, it does preface that with a veiled ‘warning’ that “there is Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. How­ever, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.”

“Intactivists” have hijacked this statement to further their agenda. While the AAP doesn’t recommend the procedure, they aren’t telling parents NOT to circumcise their sons either. Why? Because it’s a personal choice.

Intactivists really need to stop obsessing about safe, medically advantageous procedures to baby boys penises. In a world gone mad, aren’t there far more pressing issues to take up? So, to this end, I extend an olive branch — you stay out of my son’s pants and I won’t expound on how borderline-creepy your obsession is. Deal?