Thursday, March 12, 2015

Circumcision by "law"

I'm sure you've seen the case in Florida where the woman is being ordered by the State to have her 4 year-old son circumcised like she had previously agreed to do.

First off, I will say that I support the mother's resistance. I consider circumcision to be genital mutilation- and when medically unnecessary, it is definitely an act of aggression. I consider the State's opinions to be the utterings of an idiot, to be ignored unless a gun is in your face right now, and to be resisted whenever necessary to do the right thing.

But I accidentally got into a Facebook "debate" with a couple of women whose opinions on this matter astounded me.

Here are the basics:

The contract is sacred and must be upheld- no matter what. 
It is better to do this to a baby since he won't  remember it, but since she didn't do it then, she must do it now, and it is her fault the kid is now being traumatized. 
The mom is wrong for informing (and scaring) him of what the dad and State want to do to him. 
The mom is a drama queen for not simply complying. 
It is hyperbole to call this "genital mutilation", and it can't be compared at all to female genital mutilation. 
The "origins" of the procedure matter more than the results.

I see these women as radical statists. Collectivists of the worst kind.

I don't care what contract you have signed. If an act is wrong, enforcing a contract that says you have to do it is wrong.

The baby may not remember the trauma, but it will affect his whole life and his quality of life- one way or the other. And this kid is no longer a baby and his wishes in the matter need to be considered. And, of course he is scared! People want to cut off a part of his body for no real reason other than it is "normal" to do so!

Sure, the dad claims the kid has a medical condition that can be solved by circumcision. You could solve a pimple on a breast with radical mastectomy, too, but that doesn't mean it's the only, or even the best, option. I'd be willing to bet there are less radical ways to fix the problem while leaving the kid intact.

This was one of those times I had a hard time being nice. I wanted to scream at these women for being brutal child abuse enablers.  I consider them pure evil of the sort that empowers the State and tramples liberty. What you do out of ignorance is one thing- what you continue to advocate after being educated is quite another.



  1. My brothers and I were the first generation in my family to be born in a hospital instead of our grandparent's home, and we were also the first generation in my family to be circumcised at birth. I can't speak for my brothers, but I've always resented being mutilated like that. I don't blame our parents, though, but rather the medical industry and doctors who were promoting the procedure.

    1. Same here. And I regret letting my (at the time) wife have our son circumcised at birth. (I wasn't asked my opinion, but probably wouldn't have objected back then.)

      But, my desire to not feel bad about past mistakes doesn't cause me to want to whitewash them away- like it seems some people do. Yeah, I screwed up. I admit it and accept responsibility.

  2. I won't put a dog in this particular fight, since we just had a discussion a month or two back on STR over (I think) the same news article reportedly concerning judge-enforced compliance with a previous parental agreement. The writer of the STR essay was also quite adamant and emotional concerning the "c issue". Anything involving the broad classification of "sex" will draw a crowd. Circumcision fits that category.

    And, of course, I will tend to side with the "anti-state" dimension of such a debate. I've got to. It's my duty. It would go against my religion not to. Belief in government is a religious belief. Therefore "anti-state" falls under the category of religion. Governments do not exist. People exist. So I'd be a heretic to side with the Dad in this old Florida news article. Presuming one can rely on the accuracy of the details from an article in mainstream press. S/he can't.

    But I did pay tribute last month to the STR writer for eliciting some dialog over the matter. Numerous and ongoing comments is a sign of a good essay. And I'm finding coherent opinion-comments lacking these days on many of the sites that used to be active -- pro and con. Sam

  3. They wouldn't advocate such things if it were reversed and they had to get a dozen piercings and earrings the size of silver dollars. The fact they don't care to let the child decide I find very concerning. I've always had success with logical persuasion and reasoning. Not with circumcision, but in other areas like braces. A very hard sell and I don't think I could persuade as it's hard to justify cutting someone else. Perhaps if the boy values money they can pay him to do it. I got paid to go to church when I was a kid. Alas, If it happens, it will be by the initiation of force. And I have one question for them, when ever in the history of man has the initiation of force been the right thing?

    1. They would argue that the initiation of force is often right. Or at least "necessary". I know, because that's what so many have said when I asked that question.
      Doesn't make them right, but it sure makes them believe they are right.

  4. I've said this forever, but it fits this case so I'll repeat: the family is the only legitimate governing unit. The "judge" in this case is a coercive interloper. There's a hell of a lot more than religiosity that provides a rule that makes "adultery" a very bad choice of behavior. Here is a case in point -- a child is trying to become a man, and Mom and Dad have failed and are continuing to fail their responsibility to him. Worse, the "judge" who somehow got involved feeds from the nosebag provided by the second, fifth, sixth and seventh most egregious lobbyists in town.

    They all just magically seem to agree that enforced circumcision of the lad is "right".

    The human newborn is totally and completely dependent upon adult caregivers for it's very survival. Unlike animals or mammals, the human being does not possess "instinct". Or clothing. But s/he does come equipped with one thing unique to all life forms: sexuality. The human Mom and Dad have a crucial roll in shaping that phenomenon to result in a healthy and enjoyable life.

    S/he must learn everything from the git-go. From Mom and/or Dad at the outset -- ideally parents who love and are dedicated to each other and to the offspring they bring about. It's generally accepted among psychologists and others who work with and study such things that the child has a better shot at emotional stability later in life when both Mom and Dad take active and joint parts in his or her upbringing. There is something about the woman's roll -- and the man's roll. I don't know exactly what it is.

    I don't know a lot about that all-pervasive mystery called "sex". I do know this: the young man's penis is hanging in the balance -- and probably his emotional health. And for the last three decades or so the dominant social theme has been to attempt to convince us that homosexuality is "...just one of those normal, natural things..."



    1. What does any of this have to do with homosexuality?

  5. Kent:

    "...What does any of this have to do with homosexuality?..."

    What little observation I've had occasion to make of the phenomenon of "homosexuality" seems to be that the guy or gal claiming that anomaly have been traumatized at some point of their life in the area of sexuality. This could be a classic example. Either what they're calling "sexual abuse" (I suppose that could include incest, etc., but I imagine "abuse" might also be sexual shout-downs, etc) -- or Mom and Dad splitting up.

    This particular topic would provide an example of that observation. I'm not moaning that this kid might turn out homosexual as a result of this quibbling -- or over his probably having to submit to circumcision as the result.

    And I'm not saying homosexuality would be such a "bad" thing if he did so turn out -- which he probably won't. His choice. Seems these days homosexuals have lots of company and are not so shunned and isolated and lonely as they might have been 50 or so years ago. That is a good thing. For them, at least.

    And it doesn't hurt folks like me who simply do not understand homosexuality -- not "homophobic" in any sense of that term, just lacking any basic understanding.

    Since homosexuality is a highly sensitive issue my point would probably have been better made leaving that word out. Sam

    1. OK. It just seemed to be a non-sequitur, and I was wondering if either of the parents were homosexual or claiming it would turn the kid gay.

      I don't think everything sexual has to be about homosexuality- pro or con or neutral.

      The only homosexual person I have personal knowledge of the background of has never made any claim of being sexually traumatized. In fact, I knew she was (or was going to be) a lesbian before she was even pubescent. It was just how she always was. I know, one example proves nothing for everyone else, but if it is true for one I think that can be extrapolated somewhat.

  6. I have never quite understood the fuss over circumcision. Yeah, nowadays I'd probably not have had my son circumcised - but I don't feel like an abuser because I did (after about a minute's discussion with my wife). If it's an evil, it's a very tiny one, that threatens to trivialize much greater evils, or at least to distract people from them. And no, it's certainly not even remotely as bad as FGM.

    As to this particular case, I'm with Sam. The state never helps any situation.