Julie Kemp Pick
Last weekend, the Chicago Tribune wrote an editorial about San Francisco's movement to ban circumcision by proposing the MGM bill (male genital mutilation). "Its supporters, who call themselves 'intactivists', say removing an infant's foreskin is painful and unnecessary and can have lasting physical and emotional effects. It interrupts maternal bonding, stamps violence into a baby boy's psyche and leaves him traumatized for life."
The Tribune cites Mayo Clinic for including these benefits to circumcision: slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and sexually transmitted disease. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics joined with the American Medical Association, and Mayo Clinic in saying, "parents should be given accurate and unbiased information and make the decision themselves." This is exactly how it should be, with no legislative interference.
Is it just me, or is it no coincidence that this editorial is adjacent to a series of cartoons about Anthony Weiner? Is he just acting out, because his parents had him circumcised? Will this unleash a whole series of unscrupulous acts based on a predisposition to the emotional state of fellow pickle croppers?
All because concerned parents tried to make their sons lives better by nipping it in the bud for religious and/or hygienic reasons.
Even one of Russel Crowe's 228,000 followers on Twitter stirred up some controversy on the subject when she said, "My son is due soon. Do you think I should get him circumstanced?" Crowe sharply replied, "Here's a life rule, if you can't spell it, don't do it."