Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Circumcision
There is a drive for a ballot initiative in San Francisco that would make the performance of a circumcision on a minor illegal "except where "the operation is necessary to the physical health of the person on whom it is performed because of a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need with no less-destructive alternative treatment available." There is no religious exemption in the proposed language.
Paul Horowitz expresses the view that the initiative would likely pass constitutional muster despite its disproporationate effect on those who seek circumcision for religious reasons. He also raises the question, I think an important one, of whether this is wise policy.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/11/circumcision.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
My first reaction was that this is an outrage and was also anti-Semitic, but my second thought is that I am not 100% sure.
Should female circumcision be permitted for religious reasons? Admittedly, female and male circumcision are very different. But they are still surgical removal of God-given parts. I think it could be argued that both males and females have a right to bodily integrity, and if some surgical procedure is going to be performed for religious reasons, it should be postponed until the person who will have the surgery can make an informed decision.
The most FURIOUS online debate I have ever participated in involved circumcision. (I was arguing at the time that it was not "mutilation" and should be permitted.) Things got so heated that I began to fear for my personal safety. I am not sure the government has a compelling interest in preventing circumcision, but there are people who feel very, very strongly about it. What other part of a child would we allow to be cut off for religious purposes? I think a case can be made against circumcision based on bodily integrity and the dignity of the human person.