Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Circumcision and the ballot measure we'll never miss

circumcisionforeskin maninitiativeJewishmohelSan Franciscosanta monia

Bris It would have been nice to see the force behind the misguided anti-circumcision campaign in Santa Monica divorce herself, voicing appropriate disgust, from a movement that created a repulsively anti-Semitic comic to advance its cause online. Instead, we have to content ourselves with being grateful that Jena Troutman is too busy as a working mom to continue with her attempt to tell others how to parent.

This, of course, doesn't stop the equally outrageous San Francisco ballot measure from being voted on in November.

Matt Hess, the San Diego resident whose MGMbill organization is behind both signature-gathering efforts, created the comic "Foreskin Man" in which a blond, hunky superhero saves a baby boy from the "Monster Mohel," portrayed as a caricatured and hideous ultra-Orthodox Jew in traditional hat and prayer shawl, salivating as he wields a knife. A mohel is trained to perform circumcisions in the Jewish faith.

In a New York Times article, Hess says that the comic is simply told from a baby's point of view. But last time I looked, most babies didn't harbor outlandish anti-Semitic stereotypes.


Circumcision decisions

Tim Rutten: S.F. circumcision proposition doesn't belong on the ballot

The medical and religious arguments against the anti-circumcision measure

--Karin Klein

Photo: In San Francisco, Benjamin Abecassis rests on a pillow following his bris, a Jewish circumcision ceremony. Credit: Noah Berger / Associated Press


Comments () | Archives (53)

The comments to this entry are closed.


The point of the circumcision ban is to protect un-consenting minors from unnecessary bodily harm and injury. See Jews against Circumcision.

Kyle Parker

Sure, but why not circumcise girls too? Oh, right...BECAUSE ITS BARBARIC!!!! just like seeing a two year old with ear rings. Punch a hole in their ears, cut the tip of their penis off, why not tattoo toddlers as well?

Religious zealots are the same whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu. They need to wake up and get a clue. The invisible friend in the sky doesn't exist, and we don't live in caves any more. Lets stop acting like we do.



The issue has nothing to do with being anti-semetic and everything to do with respecting the body of another human being. It's an archaic and unnecessary procedure that has no legitimate place in a modern society.


This really forces a question: how can you decry circumcision of girls in Africa and celebrate it here on boys?

What, we are all Jewish all of a sudden?

Karin Klein

Regarding female genital mutilation, the Times' editorial on the subject spells out the huge difference between the two:


Basically, female genital mutilation has no health benefits but has terrible medical consequences. Male circumcision carries few risks and has been linked to several potential health benefits.

The reference to ear piercing is an apt one, though earrings have not been linked to health benefits. Still, take away the religious aspect, and the two are similar...a cosmetic procedure that is low in risks. Many parents wouldn't dream of having it done to babies and infants, others find it cute. In the absence of any evidence that they are causing real harm to their children, it's parents' choice.

--Karin Klein


Thanks for explaining the article and further explaining the difference between male and female circumcision. Trudging through the comments sections of articles finds all sorts of misinformation and lack of education on the people voicing their opinions. It is truly maddening.

And for MGM trying to say it isn't an Anti-Jewish movement, the comic simply says everything. A picture truly is worth a thousand words. I'm sure the San Francisco ballot measure will either fall flat on its face and/or never be held up in a court of law.


I agree with you 100% on the god part but it doesn't mean we should be trying to infringe on the 1st Amendment. It's freedom of and from religion. If you even try to chip at the 1st Amendment you will find your rights will go right down with it. Be careful what you wish for.


p.s. I emailed Ms. Troutman directly after the first article in the LA Times we she essentially called parents and their children dumb for the hypothetical ones out there that didn't use condoms. I explained to her that calling people "dumb" is not the way to rally people to her misguided cause. I can only hope that my email (that she never replied to) had some part in her moving on and leaving the rest of us and the 1st Amendment alone!


It is horrific, violent sexual abuse, torture and mutilation, like something a Jeff Dahmer might do. What is next, cutting off eyelids?


It is a barbaric practice period. A bad choice made by unwise people . Medically unnecessary. 1 in 400 ends in a catastrophe for the infant.
Failed messiah has a long list of infants harmed by circumcision.
While we probably cannot ban it under the First Amendment it needs to be discouraged as a procedure.

Something that seemed wise in the Stone Age is not needed in the 21st century


"1 in 400 ends in a catastrophe for the infant."

Neil..any reputable source for this? Catastrophe? Does the infant die? Lose his penis? Post hysterically on a newspapers forums?

Joakim Flodberg

No reason to circumcise boys. I was not circumcised, and I'm glad I wasn't, but inexplicably my brother was. Why? If a grown man wants to have his foreskin removed, fine. But to do it to a little baby is really barbaric.


Yes. The points well made here, that if you wouldn't mutilate your own penis or clitoris, why attempt such an absurd justification for mutilating a child? While circumcised myself as an infant (by the way, I would have said no if given the choice), I decided to let my son make that choice as an adult. His choice was to have earrings rather than cut his penis, which is understandable.

But to not question such a violent, rather horrific action as coming from your God, seems like a rather bizarre acceptance of an act whose instructions were certainly written down by a human man rather than a God making you the "chosen people". It's my understanding that there is much in the Old Testament that is not put in practice today (anyone read Leviticus lately?), including stoning your wife to death if she is discovered to not be a virgin on her wedding night.


There is a god reason to have an intact foreskin. There are supporters for and against circumcision, but aside from the religious aspect, there seems to be little reason to do it.

The pro circumcision people say a foreskin is dirty and causes disease, but this is false. If you sleep with an AIDS positive person, foreskin or not, you will get AIDS. If you do not wash your genitals, they will be dirty. It's not that difficult to have an intact foreskin.

On the other hand, I think circumcision is male genital mutilation and I am glad my parents did not do this to me and I in turn did not mutilate my son.
If other people want to mutilate their sons, have a ball.

We do not need to create a law to stop male genital mutilation, we can simply create a campaign against it, similar to anti-smoking campaigns and over time it will decrease and only the religious will ritually mutilate their son's penis.


For me this is not an issue of "protecting unconsenting children" but one of government intruding on the family unit. The procedure itself has been described in these forums as having no medical benefit...however the folks making this claim fail to mention that there is mixed opinions within the medical community. Parents make decisions for thier children all the time (vaccines, adenoid removal, etc). Parents are given the information and make a decision...and thats the way it should be. So if I have to choose between the evil of allowing parents to make decisions for thier children (that are not inherantly harmful, even if not "useful") or the greater evil of the government telling parents how to parent I opt for the government (and my neighbors) to stay out of my family.


p.s. Whenever someone claims "its for the children" that immediately sends up a red flag for me. What will be next? The government telling parents they have no right to "brainwash" their unconsenting and innocent children with their personnal beliefs and "indoctrinating" your kids with a particular faith is actually more harmful than circumcision? The same nuts that are behind this circumcision ban would no doubt advocate for raising children in a religion free enviornment until they reach 18 so they can make the decisions for themselves?


It really...really....REALLY amazes me the lengths to which people will go to defend an unnecessary procedure on a baby. Just disgusting...

There's nothing that says you can't do it when you're an adult. But let them choose when they're grown men...that's all anyone was asking for. So because the argument is that a baby shouldn't be put under the knife...some how that's misguided? This pro-circumcision bias is really sad

11th grade High School student

Okay, seriously? We have more important things to worry about and politicians come up this this bill?

Since when do we care about what parents do to their children? Worry about your own children and let other parents care for theirs. Simple as that.

By the way, isn't performing circumcision equivalent to making holes in a girl's ear to put earrings on her?


I wish I had been allowed to decide for myself. My parents were mislead by doctors into thinking that circumcision is harmless. Now sex is often painful for both me and my partner, because of excessive friction. I lost many very sensitive nerve endings; I can feel the difference in sensitivity between the skin on either side of my scar.

People who call circumcision benign do not know what they are talking about. Sure, it's benign in some cases, for men who want to be circumcised. For those of us who don't, it is anything but benign.

For those of you who think that it was right for somebody else to nonconsensually cut off a part of my genitals, will you permit me to turn the tables and let ME decide how much of YOUR genitals I get to cut off? No? Your advocacy of the nonconsensual mutilation of my genitals while protecting your own is pure hypocrisy.

S. Tony

Circumsicion is barbaric and a slap in the face to our creator. Most of the studies that say that a foreskin poses a greater risk for STD's were done in Africa where HIV/AIDS is rampant regardless of foreskin, also the studies say "it MAY pose a greater risk".... MAY??? that's like me commissioning a study on baldness amongst married men and concluding that marriage MAY lead to male baldness. They didn't follow clean uncircumcised males and see if they contracted an STD or not, they just gathered HIV positive males and counted the ones that were circumcised (in Africa, it's a toss up whether they circumcise or not, some parts do, others don't). Whenever someone brings up male circumcision to me, I ask if they would cut off the Labia on a baby girl.... It's extra skin that's unnecessary and it just collects sweat and odors anyway, plus it would look cleaner.


Circumcision is an outrageous, misguided procedure to perform on an unconsenting child.

Typical of a liberal to paint an entire group based on one person.

Also, can you stop saying anti-semetic when you mean anti-jewish? Thanks.


It's sad to see how much of our country these days don't seem to care about the Christian foundation this country is built on. If a family is Christian or Jewish, then no person should get politically involved in the practices of their family's beliefs. It doesn't matter if everyone shares the same beliefs or not. It's simple, just don't give your baby a circumcision if you don't believe in it and stay out of other's business. Don't bring this in to the politics. I'm glad my parents gave me mine as a baby. I don't remember it and I believe in the word of God, and I would have done it as an adult which would have been a pain I would have remembered. Just because Jesus came to save us, it doesn't mean we're released from the Old Testament ways. People are getting way too involved in things that they have no business getting involved in. If I ever did live in California, meaning I happened to be stationed there, and this ban went through, I would still take my baby to another state.

We could take this subject to another level since we're getting in to sensitive subjects. They want to protect babies but an unborn and developing person, which is exactly that at conceivement, doesn't get protection from those who want to abort. So it's okay to kill an unborn person but it's not okay to give a circumcision which is a right under our beliefs? Take a sample from a fetus and test it and tell me what kind of animal it is. I'll bet you the result will be 100% human. But if you still want to say that the person is not fully formed so therefore it doesn't know, feel, or even have a soul; so how do you know? A baby isn't fully formed from birth. The skull isn't even fully formed. Remember the soft spot? I could go on about this but I'm sure that people who support this practice would want me far away from the debate as possible.

You may try to argue with a family that has a spiritual belief backed by God and what they want to circumcise their child in obedience to God but we can return the argument that people are killing unborn people and we could have the DNA evidence to prove it.


More than 50 % of circumcisions are done without any anesthetic. If you don't think it's barbaric and painful for a baby, perhaps you should go cut off the nail of your pinkie fingernail. Go ahead, we'll wait.

On balance there is not reliable evidence that circumcision has any health benefits whatsoever. What research is out there is pretty thin and leads to contradicting conclusions. There are even studies that suggest female circumcision is associated with lower rates of HIV...not something I find particularly relevant, but just another reminder that these types of small research studies yield contradicting and irrelevant results.

Basically, just like female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation is a crazy tribal practice... it just so happens that the tribes—Jewish, Christian, Muslim—ended up as the world's dominant religions. The LA Times editorials on this subject seem to be informed by patriarchy rather than facts.


@Karin: no, it's not like ear piercing. Here's the difference: don't want your ears pierced? Take out the earring and the hole will close. Don't want to be circumcised? TOO LATE, IT'S IRREVERSIBLE.

@DMHagwood: enough with the abortion bait and switch. That is a completely different discussion, not germane here. Also, please go back and read your bible, there is no Christian requirement to be circumcised and yes the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.


Really, LA Times? This message board promotes intellectual curiousity and inspires debate? I mean, there's actually a guy saying that circucising a child is equivalent to cutting off a pinkie.... and without anesthesia.

Just frigging wow.

When this fails, will the anti-circumcision crowd blame the Jew controlled legislature? When this fails, will the anti-circumcision crowd think that they should kidnap babies ala Foreskin Man? When this measure fails, will we continue to read small minded, borderline bigots espouse their common man-made sense about how religion has a 3000+ history of fallacy and fairy tales?

In other words, when this measure fails, will anyone give a dang, outside of the bigots, the idiots, and the tools of brainless stupidity?

I think not.


Has anyone ever heard of a child suing their parents for having been circumcised and winning? That tells you right there how the courts view it and even if a small group of folks manage to pass the law in their little enclave it would be tossed out.


Circumcision reduce erogenous sensitivity by removing half of the penile mucosa tissue and its erogenous nerve endings. The newly tightened mucosa newly limits erogenous movement of the remnant mucosa and frenular delta tissue.

Lists of common complications do not include frenectomy, but understand that ~25% (+-5%) of neonates receive a frenectomy during their circumcision; thus loose their primary erogenous zone.

Guys, imagine how stimulation would (not) feel if you lost your frenulum!

As for complications through age five, ~7% of circumcised infants develop meatal stenosis; the treatment of meatal stenosis is meatodomy. Meatodomy crushes an area dense erogenous nerve endings and looks ugly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTdGOrQh_2o

Jack Perry

It is always shocking for me to read posts on male baby boy penis parts removal and see that people think it is just cuttintg a bit of skin or that it is senseless and functionless. Of course very few of these people understand that the foreskin is several parts and many of these parts are not skin at all. The mucosa tissue has about 20000 fine touch (like fingertips or lips) nerve endings and also stretch sensing nerves. These are unique. The ntire structure is important for sexual function and PLEASURE. People inevitably shoot down the comparison to female circumcison. OK men and women are different. However, MGM (male circumcision) destroys many more pleasure giving nerves than most female circumcision. Is male natural sexual pleasure and function not important? So are women’s pleasure parts more valuable than men's pleasure parts ?

Do the ITS JUST SKIN people know how ignorant they are?

MALE Circumcision involves nerve damage -- a cutting off of about 20000 fine touch and stretch sensing nerve endings and removing a source of pleasure from the male FOR LIFE. This is 2/3 of the total pleasure source amputated! This is nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones taken away from a human before the human can experience this. The dynamics and function and pleasure from sex and masturbation of the penis is harmed for good.

Only about 0.5% of males who are left intact at birth end up getting circumcised later in life. That tells you the foreskin parts are not as much of a problem as people make it out to be, and Men LIKE their foreskin parts.

HIS BODY = his right to enjoy all of its parts.


Roman Catholic (and not Jewish! Gasp!). Male. Circumcised as a baby, as were my two brothers. Thankful for it.

Get over it.


Whenever an online discussion on this topic appears, a bunch of anti-circumcision advocates run over to spread misinformation, insult and intimidate If you really want the latest science, I will give you two good sources:

World Health Organization - http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
You will find a link there to a recent document "Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia". They discuss the advantages of being circumcised as well as why it is best done on infants and much, much more. The WHO has a program to introduce infant male circumcision in central Africa where it almost never has been done. However the manual has very little that can be said to apply only to Africa.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
They describe their almost 2 year old intention to make a recommendation on infant circumcision. You can tell which way they are leaning by clicking on the link to their circumcision fact sheet. There you will find, e.g.,
"A large retrospective study of circumcision in nearly 15,000 infants found neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and phimosis. The cost of postneonatal circumcision was 10-fold the cost of neonatal circumcision [37]".

linda massie

The Dutch Medical Association of 46000 doctors can hardly be considered a bunch of circumcision activists, rather educated concerned professionals Please read if this if you have considered circumcising your child. Americans need to be educated on this child abuse.



Thank you Linda for the link to the Dutch document. It is very interesting that their conclusions seem to be so different than what you get by reading the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control links that I gave. One thing I notice is that the Dutch organization finds a legal ban problematic since it will drive the practice underground, causing as much harm as banning abortion. I would love to hear the doctors debate the different viewpoints.


Randomized controlled trials - the gold standard of science - have shown that circumcision helps reduce the risk not just of HIV (spread through bodily fluids) but also of sexually transmitted HPV (spread through skin to skin contact - condoms do not prevent this). Of the more than 150 strains of HPV, more than a dozen cause cancer: cervical cancer in women, and anal and oral cancer in men and women. Studies in American cities show that uncut men carry far more HPV - including the cancer causing strains. Scientists believe this is because their bodies take far longer to clear the infection, which is thriving in the warm, moist environment created by the foreskin. Could forcing "better hygiene" on intact men change this fact, as many intactivists suggest? Or should we accept the reality of what's been proven now, along with accepting the rate of teen pregnancy that show the reality of condom use among young Americans? Surveys show that the majority of American boys engage in behavior that exposes them to these kinds of sexually transmitted diseases well before they are adults who can make their own medical decisions.

Circumcision in infants is associated with a tiny rate of mild complications, with major complications being exceedingly rare. Circumcision in older children and adults is associated with more complications and more severe complications. Surveys show that virtually every doctor training in a relevant specialty (such as pediatrics or obstetrics) in the U.S. has learned effective pain relief for the procedure; the AAP has recommended local anesthetic for more than a decade. In addition, surveys of adults who have undergone circumcision show that most say sexual sensation is not diminished.
In conclusion: Parents do the right thing for their children all the time. This is one of those things.

linda massie

Obviously those of you who want to press on with this abuse of children will find any excuse to do so, the Dutch position is clear this is a harmful act and against the childs inherent rights. The HIV debate is irrelevant to babies and children as they are not sexually active. All circumcisions cause complications as the penis has been permanently altered and that is not normal. Hundreds of babies die from this practice in America and elsewhere and when I tell people that this routinely practiced in the United states they are horrified.


Regardless of the medical debate, it is shocking that anyone would even think about proscribing a right of parents to decide what is a low risk procedure (1 in 400??? Not even close, unless you count minor bleeding, occasional skin separation, etc.).

A friend of mine used to do many adult circs on Russian Jews who emigrated. It seems Stalin and his successors banned the practice, too. You advocates for the ballot measure: think of the company you keep. Do you plan on having a little pogrom next, or just starve a bunch of Kulaks?

Actually, altho I oppose circs personally, it is annoying for some messianic Stalinist busybody to tell parents what they can and can't do with their own kids. Go find something more meaningful to do with your life -- like stuffing sand down a rathole.


They Dutch Royal Society of Physicians KNMG document makes this statement that applies to the SF referendum:

"There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists
for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention
being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of
the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than
is currently the case".

So it is clear that if you really have concern for the welfare of unborn infants then you should vote no (if you can) regardless of whether you will circumcise your own sons. The question of whether the KNMG document refutes the pro circumcision case that you can glean from publications of the WHO and CDC is a totally different and more complicated matter.

linda massie

the same arguments that it would "drive the practice underground" was used when the law was proposed and passed to protect female children from circumcision. It is because the practice is so widespread in the United States that so many babies are dying and those babies are being circumcised by doctors.


I suspect your notion that "hundreds of babies are dying" comes from an opinion paper written by an anti-circumcision activist a couple of years ago. It was neither science nor logic. It wasn't written by a scientist or doctor, wasn't published in any kind of medical journal and wasn't taken seriously by any medical authority, although it lives on endlessly in these sorts of discussions. http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html
Regarding your notion that STDs have nothing to do with babies, there are two major problems with your logic. One is that babies grow up to be adults. Infant circumcision is far safer and has far fewer complications than adult circumcision, and has more benefits than adult circumcision because it includes the risk of childhood urinary tract infections, which in infants can be very serious because of renal scarring. Second, STDs (like HPV) that sicken and kill adults do affect the children of those adults very much. Think about this for awhile. http://cellwarnotebooks.blogspot.com/2009/06/butterflies-and-thunderstorms.html

linda massie

anon , you are obviously unaware of the published research demonstrating that babies and children die from circumcision in the medical and cultural setting globally. You also seem intent on promoting myths regarding circumcision, it does prevent UTIs in babies or children, even if it did antibiotics are the answer to infection not amputation. There is no research that shows fewer complications in babies than adults undergoing circumcision, quite the reverse. Further in those countries where this is not practised on babies, adult men would never agree to having this done and never have problems with UTIs. The fact that the United States has the highest circumcision and HIV rate of any western country shows it doesn't work, condoms do.

Marc A.

The latest research shows circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis. www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html
In fact, it is gynecologically equivalent to the removal of the clitoral hood, which is illegal to do to an infant girl. Even the least intrusive forms of female circumcision are illegal. So why is it still legal to cut 20,000 nerves off your boy's penis?

No national medical association in the world supports routine infant male circumcision for health reasons. The Dutch Medical Association recently issued an excellent report backed seven other national medical associations declaring male circumcision an infringement of a child's right to bodily integrity and debunking the myth that it is justified by health benefits or that it differs from all forms of female circumcision. It also cites researching calling into question the studies that found male circumcision reduces HIV. In fact, there are studies showing female circumcision reduces HIV too, but nobody suggests cutting girls' vaginas to prevent HIV.

No matter how you cut it, it's a total double standard.


"No research?" I refer you to the recent and comprehensive survey of studies found here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2490/10/2.
It shows definitively what urologists already knew. There are fewer complications in infants: "In general, complications (reported by parents) occur least frequently among neonates and infants than among older boys, with the majority of prospective studies in neonates and infants finding no serious complications, and relatively few other adverse events, which were minor and treatable. The prospective studies in older boys also found virtually no serious adverse events, but a higher frequency of complications (up to 14%) even when conducted by trained providers in sterile settings [47]. The lower frequency of complications among neonates and infants is likely to be attributable to the simpler nature of the procedure in this age group, and the healing capability in the newborn. Further, a major advantage of neonatal circumcision is that suturing is not usually necessary, whereas it is commonly needed for circumcisions in the post-neonatal period. This advantage is illustrated by the US study in which no complications were seen among 98 boys circumcised in the first month of life, but 30% of boys aged 3-8.5 months had significant postoperative bleeding [24]. There are alternatives to suturing, either with the disposable clamps, or with alternatives such as cynoacrylate glue [44] and further research in this area is needed."
The authors went on to say that there were more complications and more serious complications among adolescents and young adults. "Reported complications tend to be more common in this age group than for neonates and infants, even when circumcision is conducted under the 'gold standard' conditions such as in the RCTs."


linda massie

There are a mutitude of complications meatal stnosis for example, common in circumcised men unheard of in the uncircumcised. You are intent on promoting this sort of unnecessary risk to babies and children., one has to question why. Babies need protection from people who promote circumcision as the Dutch Medical Association has stated.



Linda, you selectively quote the memo from KNMG. They estimate there are 2 deaths every year in the US from infant circumcision while you claim hundreds. You fail to see their analogy between outlawing abortion and outlawing circumcision. Abortion and infant circumcision are both widely popular procedures in the US and both with continue whether they are illegal or not. FGM, on the other hand, has an extremely small following and thus is easier to police.


Mark, there are other references on the question of whether circumcision adversely effects sexual enjoyment. The World Health Organziation manual in infant circumcision mentions these. Try to read them for balance:

Kigozi G, Watya S, Polis CB, et. al.The effect of male circumcisi­­­on on sexual satisfacti­­­on and
function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcisi­­­on for human immunodefi­­­ciency
virus prevention­­­, Rakai, Uganda.BJU Int 2008;101(1­­­):65-70.

Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, et al. Effects of circumcisi­­­on on male sexual function: debunking a myth? J Urol. 2002;167:2­­­111-2.

Kigozi G, Lukabwe I, Kagaayi J, et. al. Sexual satisfacti­­­on of women partners of circumcise­­­d men
in a randomized trial of male circumcisi­­­on in Rakai, Uganda.BJU Int. 2009;104(1­­­1):1698-­7­0­1.


Two deaths every year in the U.S.? That's sadly typical of that Dutch document. I'll just point out that the 2009 survey conducted for the CDC (the same survey that anti-circumcision activists like to use to show the circumcision rate is currently around 32 percent) showed no deaths. Few complications, almost no serious complications, and no deaths.
I wonder why the intactivists completely ignore that part of it?

linda massie

there is no analogy between abortion and male circumcision. However there is an anology between male and female circumcision both are "popular" in a number of countries doesn't make either acceptable. Legislation which protects girls and not boys is called discrimation were I come from.


Your obtuseness doesn't speak well for the proponents of the San Francisco propositions, Linda. No country has outlawed male circumcision even though their medical societies and the public disapprove of the procedure. Would it satisfy you if the FGM laws were changed to allow a harmless pinprick on a little girls clitoral hood in order to make some sort of continuance with North African tradition? In the amount of harm done, circumcised boys and pinpricked girls would then rate about equal.

linda massie

interesting you should say the public dissaprove of the proecure what does that tell you? Male circumcision is child abuse, as is the pinprick you mention, all children should be protected from child abusers being male or female makes no difference. Your opinion sides with abuse and whilst you are right regarding the legislation, it is only a matter of time because child protection orders have been issued through the legal system in the United Kingdom and in the United States to protect minors from male circumcision. A dead baby is also a dead baby whether its a boy or a girl therefore the potential for harm is equal.


I predict the following:
1. The SF circumcision ban will go down to an overwhelming defeat in November.
2. Before the year is out both the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will recommend that all boys born in the in the US be circumcised shortly after birth. Of course they won't try to make it a legal requirement but it will make the circumcision rate shoot up. Here are some references to back up 2.


linda massie

you may predict whatever you like, but history will judge those who failed to protect children as unenlightened. The American Academy of Peadiatrics will never recommend male circumcision because if they did they would become a laughing stock throughout the world and viewed as totally unprofessional in supporting what is an American cultural practice which harms and kills babies and children


i know of a lot of teens and adults that went thrue a jewish circumcicion never heard of any regreting it actualy most end up circumcising there child too, well lets ask them , i am open to all opinions

1 2 | »



In Case You Missed It...



Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.

In Case You Missed It...