An enraged citizen’s group in San Francisco has submitted legislation that, if passed, would ban abortion—no, wait. I have that wrong. They would ban circumcision.
In a fit of Enlightenment not seen since Dr Joseph-Ignace Guillotin discovered an efficient way to reduce the surplus population of France, and although somewhat opposite in effect, the very concerned Lloyd Schofield has demanded that parents cease snipping at their male children’s pertinents.
Politico.com says that if the Male Genital Mutilation bill passes, “circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.”
Schofield (pictured at the Left) realizes that if he is to carry the day, he must first win the battle of words. He’s off to a good start.
He says that circumcision, which he calls “forced genital cutting”, is a “more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.” A procedure, you see. Coronary bypasses, emergency appendectomies, and bowel resections are also procedures—all frightening things. Who wants to let infants undergo procedures?
Circumcision has been a practice of humans so long that we have had enough time to compile statistics on its effects. A look into the database reveals that very few or no individuals who have been circumcised go on to become murderous dictators. Mao and Stalin, for example, went to their graves uncut. Too, circumcision has apparently not limited breeding, since there are more of us now than ever. Thus, circumcision can’t be particularly harmful and might even convey benefits.
And what’s this about “new parents” or “childless individuals”? Are there persons that do not fit into either of these categories? Old parents, we suppose, individuals who have had time to bone up on the subject of circumcision. The only reason to mention “childless individuals” is to motivate these poor souls who sit at home alone on Mother’s Day and weep for what might have been to stick their noses where they do not belong.
In this line, Schofield also states, “Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what’s in the best interest of the child. It’s his body. It’s his choice.” These statements are mutually contradictory, but inconsistent in the familiar, modern way of asserting “choice” while also arguing for limiting choices to those that are government approved.
Parents are guardians of their minority children because their children, particularly infants, are unable to think for themselves. They do not know what is in their best interests. Parents do. A circumcision is, parents judge, as their parents and their parents before them, etc. have judged, that circumcision is worthwhile.
A circumcision cannot be the “choice” of an infant, because an infant cannot make a choice (about so complicated a matter).
Schofield insists that the State, guided by able men like himself, take over the parental function and become the guardians of all children. Schofield says he is able to make the choice the infants cannot make. Schofield asserts that he knows more about what’s best for society than do parents who rely on custom. And religion.
Jews, of course, circumcise their children. But so do many Christians. These, however, are religions on their way out. They may be freely disparaged. Calls for upholding circumcision based on religion will carry little or no weight in San Francisco.
Except for the big Uh-Oh. Schofield, too busy contemplating his own moral greatness, has forgotten that Muslims also practice circumcision. See what I mean? Uh-Oh. Jews and Christians can be ridiculed with impunity, but Muslims? Good luck, Schofield, old boy.
It’s even worse for our enlightened hero—and in a way that is difficult to comprehend, especially give that Schofield calls himself a “long-time San Francisco resident.” Polotico.com reminds us that “International health organizations have promoted circumcision as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus.”
Many of these organizations have the backing of Gay rights groups. And many of these are based in—you guessed it!—San Francisco.
Schofield has cut off his own head. His legislation will wither and die and he will be lucky to escape with his goatee intact.
What is worrisome is that Schofield found enough support in the first place. Schofield is a symptom of the growing disease of Statism, a disease which is invariably fatal.