I had thought that the proposed ban on circumcision in San Francisco was mostly a product of that city’s general left-wing wackiness and certain homosexuals’ obsession with their penises. There was an anti-semitic element but I thought it was relatively minor, given that the majority of circumcised males in this country are gentiles. It would appear that I was wrong and there is something more sinister at play here, judging from this from Pajamas Media. The images that Zombie provide are the most offensive I have seen in a long time. I suppose I ought to provide a sample but I would really rather not and it is no trouble to click on a link.
Jeff Jacoby writes about this in his column. Apparently, this fall voters in San Francisco will get to vote on whether to ban circumcision on infant males. If the measure passes, circumcising a baby boy will be an actual crime with a sentence of a fine up to $1000 and up to a year in jail.
Why? I didn’t think that this was a problem. I mean, with all the other problems that the state of California and the city of San Francisco are having, why are they even bothering with this. The majority of males in the United States are circumcised and I haven’t heard anyone complaining about it. And what about the Jews? Wouldn’t this law be kind of anti-Semitic?
Jeff Jacoby explains who is behind this:
The ballot campaign in San Francisco is being spearheaded by a group of self-described “intactivists,” political crusaders obsessed with the preservation of foreskins. Their mania might be laughable if not for two things: (1) they hijack terminology used to describe a dreadful type of violence against girls and women, and (2) they are attempting to criminalize a fundamental rite of Judaism.
Promoters of the San Fancisco initiative call it the “MGM bill.” The initials stand for “male genital mutilation,” a dishonest phrase meant to link the safe and medically unobjectionable procedure of male circumcision with the frightful cruelty of female genital mutilation.
The two are not remotely comparable. “Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits,” the World Health Organization and nine other international organizations stressed in a 2008 report on the scourge, which persists in much of Africa and the Middle East. “On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways.” It is painful and traumatic; it makes childbearing “significantly” more risky; and it leads to higher rates of post-partum hemorrhaging and infant death. Long-term consequences of female genital mutilation “include chronic pain, infections, decreased sexual enjoyment, and psychological consequences, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Yes, the difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation is that circumcision, in no way impairs the functioning of the male organ, while female genital mutilation is a deliberate attempt to prevent females from having any pleasure during intercourse.