Wow… I thought that me and my dad had some blowout fights when I was an adolescent. The guy was so unreasonable. He wanted me to mow the lawn, take out the trash, and go to school. Every male knows the scene — you hit adolescence and decide that in some form, you should challenge the silverback for dominance of the pack. You lose. A few years later, you realize just how cool your dad was in the first place.
Anyone who thinks that their dad might have been a little uptight at any time in his youth needs to count his blessings!
Picture yourself in this situation:
You have lived a normal life for 12 years. Your parents get divorced, and your our dad joins a club, lets call it the “Super Adventure Club.” The Super Adventure Club says that they want you to cut off a piece of your genitalia (For those of you who attended Kansas public schools: If you are a boy, that means your penis, if you are a girl, that means parts of your labia).
Your mom says “no way. I don’t care what club you joined, nobody is cutting off a piece of my little boy’s penis.”
Dad sues to get the state to grant him the right to force you to have a piece of your penis removed.
That’s one dad that shouldn’t get a goddamned thing for father’s day this year, I’ll tell you that much.
I wish this was fiction, but this is exactly what is going on in Oregon.
The Oregon Supreme Court dealt with this by asking “what does the 12 year old want?” You know, get the opinion of THE BOY WHOSE PENIS IS GOING TO BE BUTCHERED!
Seems reasonable, but not to the father and several Jewish organizations that filed an amicus brief arguing that the boy’s attitude about whether he wants the circumcision is not legally significant. They assert that a child is not the decision-maker on such questions, any more than an infant who is circumcised. Further, they argued that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause gives the father a constitutionally protected right to circumcise his son, arguing that American Jews must be free to practice circumcision because it is and has been one of the most fundamental and sacred parts of the Jewish tradition. (source)
I think that any group that says it is okay to slice off a piece of a 12 year old’s penis against his conscious will is a bunch of sick freaks.
When sick and twisted witch doctors want to do this to little girls in Africa, we have candlelight vigils, Amnesty International raises a stink, and anyone of any intellectual capacity whatsoever joins in with the complete global outrage. (example)
When it happens in Oregon, these sick and twisted freaks think it is a violation of their right to religious freedom, and it gets very little press attention.
For the record, I am not necessarily anti-circumcision. I had my penis involuntarily mutilated when I was an infant. Although I would have preferred to have had some say in the matter, I hold no grudges about it. I’ve heard both pro and con arguments regarding the practice, including a recent report that says that circumcision can reduce the chance of HIV infection by 50%. Accordingly, I take no position on whether it is good or bad to be circumcised.
I do take a strong position on this: Anyone who thinks that it is okay to take a knife to a 12 year old boy’s penis, and who takes the position that his opinion on the matter is irrelevant is a sick, sick, sick, lowlife.
If you enjoyed this post, click here. No popups. Just let the ABA know!
By Email
By RSS Feed
February 24, 2008 at 1:02 pm |
Hi I totally agree with all you say, the only penis cutting that should be done is to the paedophile who preys on innocent children.
February 24, 2008 at 1:07 pm |
I might be able to live with that morally, once he got a fair trial. Of course, it would be unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment).
Unfortunately, these sick freaks don’t even want to afford this innocent 12 year old boy the same rights that we would give to a convicted sex offender.
February 25, 2008 at 9:46 am |
From a legal standpoint, why should potential benefits matter in the discussion over forcing circumcision on an infant? Circumcision is surgery, with all the inherent risks that entails. In the overwhelming majority of infant males, the foreskin is healthy and functioning properly; there is no medical need for circumcision.
Legally, would we permit parents to remove the breast buds from their daughters if the family has a significant history of breast cancer? The risk of breast cancer is far greater than the risk of HIV infection. We know that such an action is absurd. What’s different?
With potential HIV protection, we must remember that the risk of HIV infection in the United States through female-to-male transmission is very low. It is not the nature of our problem. Parents can’t know whether or not their sons will be at risk. Also, we don’t know where treatment and prevention will be in 15+ years when males circumcised today become sexually active.
Like you, I take no position on whether it is good or not to be circumcised. I am, although I would never have chosen it. And I absolutely hold a grudge about it, to be honest, although I don’t believe that all males circumcised as infants should be upset or indifferent about it.
I do take a strong position against forcing any medically unnecessary surgery on a person who either doesn’t or can’t consent. Parents can’t know which opinion their son will eventually have. A boy’s penis is not his parents’ property until he turns 18, or some age before 12, as suggested by this case. In the U.S. we protect female minors, regardless of parental whim or belief. There is no valid excuse to prevent applying the 14th Amendment equally to all male minors.
April 29, 2008 at 1:30 pm |
Well, I think that by you saying “I had my penis involuntarily mutilated” then that implies that you ARE anti-circumcision–since you automatically call it mutilation. I am circumcised and glad I was. I am quite sensitive, plus have a lot less health issues to deal with. But of course, that is my view on things :-)
April 29, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
I’m not anti-circumcision. I’m willing to believe that it is a good thing. My mind isn’t made up on that.
However, even if you are pro-circumcision, it is intellectually dishonest to call it anything other than “mutilation.”
March 19, 2009 at 11:40 am |
I agree with John. The word mutilated has a very negative connotation. I consider circumcision to be physically altering the body in a more pleasantly aesthetic and hygienic way.
March 19, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
[...] And remember the story about the asshole dad who wanted to circumcise his son at age 14 against his will? [...]
March 20, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
Jennifer the problem with “consider circumcision to be physically altering the body in a more pleasantly aesthetic and hygienic way.” is that the exact same sentiment is spouted by people who support various forms of female genital mutilation.
My impression is that the foreskin is similar in purpose and sensitivity to, say, the labia. But however you value a foreskin, it’s hard to claim a qualitative difference between circumcision and female genital mutilation. Either it is moral to cut bits off of babies because we feel like it, or it isn’t.