The E-
by page

Tumblr.jpg Google_Plus.jpg







Home / Articles / News / Rant Control /  A Hard Decision
Rant Control

A Hard Decision

By Rachel Piper
Posted // June 8,2011 -

D.P. Sorensen’s May 26 satire column “Putting Circumcision to a Vote” examined the recent controversy over a San Francisco ballot measure that would ban the circumcision of males under age 18.

Commenters John and Ron Low had bones to pick with the pro-circumcision argument. “This is not a circumcision ban. Anyone would still be allowed to choose circumcision for himself at a rational age. ‘Male’ is not a diagnosis. Foreskin is not a birth defect,” wrote Ron Low.

“This ban would protect the bodily rights of underage boys. ... Just say no to circumcision and protect your sons from any damage!” John said.

In the column, Sorensen wrote about a fictional mohel, Willi Schneider, who espoused the virtues of circumcision—medical and cosmetic—and admitted to screwing up “only” 70 circumcisions.

The joke was lost on commenter Kinae, who posted, “One screw-up is too many! How would you liked to have been one of the 70 babies that he screwed up on?”

In the meantime, another California town, Santa Monica, will not be putting a similar ban on the ballot after its proponent dropped the effort due to criticism that the ban is anti-Semitic. According to Fox News, the proponent, Jena Troutman, said it was never about religion, echoing the City Weekly commenters: “You shouldn’t go around cutting up your little babies.”

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post a comment
Posted // June 8,2011 at 14:44

You got that right. The rights of the child superceed those of the parents. No circumcision until the boy is mature enough to make his own decision.

Also, I've read that the extra skin helps women during intercourse to reach orgasm.