By Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO – Up in San Francisco, a measure headed for the Nov. 8 ballot asks city voters to ban male circumcision inside the city limits. Some see it as a thinly veiled attack on Jews and our religious beliefs. Others accept take proponents at their word that they are just trying to look after the welfare of baby boys.
The ballot measure says that “it is unlawful to circumcise, cut or mutilate the whole or part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years.”
It makes an exception if “the operation is necessary to the physical health of the person on whom it is performed because of a clear, compelling and immediate medical need with no less destructive alternative treatment performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner.”
It dismisses religion as a matter to be taken into consideration, saying: “No account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.”
If the measure is enacted, violation would be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment in county jail not to exceed one year, or by both fine and imprisonment.
If this ballot measure is approved by voters, no doubt it will be the subject of a court test. But even so, it is likely to spawn similar ballot measures in other cities, and recurring political controversies.
In circulating the petition, its chief proponent, Lloyd Schofield, made various claims. As most of the people who will be reading this column either are themselves circumcised, or are married to or are in relations with people who are circumcized, I ask readers to consider his claims carefully and see if they have ever been an issue in your lives.
Schofield wrote as background for the ballot measure: “Genital mutilation constitutes a major health risk, violates human rights and has lifelong physical and psychological effects. Complications due to male genital mutilation include hemorrhage, infection, excessive skin loss, skin bridges, nerve damage, glans deformation, bowing, meatal stenosis, loss of penis, and death. Long-term complications include sexual dysfunction, decreased sexual sensitivity, increased friction and pain during sexual intercourse and lifelong psychological trauma.”
Further, he contended while circulating ballot petitions, “It is time for San Francisco to join with genital integrity and human rights organizations to condemn this harmful and outdated procedure. Criminal investigations and prosecutions should be carried out, when necessary, to send a strong message that San Francisco abhors this practice and views its abolition as paramount to the health and welfare of these young children.”
*
The debate asks what are the benefits or harmful effects of circumcision? Does the procedure hurt the baby? Does it affect enjoyment of sexual relations? Does it have any long term benefits? Does it infringe on the child’s rights?
There probably are few, if any, experts on this subject matter, as so many of the sought-after answers are conjectural.
First, does the procedure hurt the baby? In my own case, I don’t remember. I was only eight days old. I challenge anyone to bring forward a single boy who does remember. From what I’ve observed at brit milah ceremonies, including those of my son and grandsons, you could add the procedure to a long list of things that babies don’t like. They don’t like being hungry. They don’t like having full diapers. They don’t like sudden noises. They don’t like chills. They don’t like being taken out of their mother’s arms. They don’t like being restrained so that their arms won’t flail during a brit milah ceremony. But they recover remarkably quickly. It seems that adults who project their insecurities on the children take far longer to recover.
Second, does it violate the rights of the child? Let’s take an analogy. There are people who oppose vaccinations, saying that they can increase the chances of autism. Some parents take these warnings seriously, others listen to their doctors who say there is no real risk.
Ultimately, the parent decides whether the child should receive a vaccination or not.
The same applies to circumcision. There are some who argue the procedure has no benefits, and could harm the child. Others say it does have medical benefits and will help the child. Up to now, it has been the parent who decides. Now, there are people who are asserting that they know better than the parents, the doctors, and Jewish tradition. They assert that they, by majority vote, and not the parents, should make the decision about the child’s welfare.
Is this right? Is it constitutional?
What are the supposed drawbacks of circumcision? Some opponents of circumcision describe the procedure as “mutilation.” This is an emotionally-charged word. For some, foreskins represent some sort of perfection. I suppose appendixes and tonsils do as well. For others, a foreskin is an unnecessary part of the body, like an appendix or tonsils, that no longer serves a purpose and, in the future, could cause harm.
What kind of harm?
Jewish men tend to urinate quite quickly and efficiently. At public restrooms, the men standing at nearby urinals often are not circumcised. For them, urination is a longer, more complicated process. They have to pull back on their foreskins to clear a path for their stream of urine. Instead of a steady stream, it’s a process done in spurts.
For Jewish men, keeping the head of the penis clean is a relatively simple matter. Simply wash. For uncircumcised men, the process is more complicated. Soap or a washcloth needs to be worked under the foreskin. Some men are not as clean as they should be. Sometimes infections can develop. Material known as smegma can build up.
If there are foreign deposits under the foreskin, these deposits can become dislodged and spread during sex, so that men with foreskins can be at higher risk for transmitting sexual diseases than men without foreskins. This, in itself, would seem sufficient reason to give favorable consideration to circumcision.
There are those who argue that men with foreskins feel more pleasure during sexual intercourse than men without them. Perhaps they do; who is to say? Sex may or may not be more pleasurable with that little flap of skin being stimulated in the process. I doubt that there are many circumcised men who are complaining about this score.
Some say that for women, it is more pleasurable to have an uncircumcised partner than a circumcised one. I don’t know. I suppose someone could do a poll. Regardless of the outcome, women who care about these matters would continue to have their choice of partners.
If one were to ban circumcision, the medical and sexual evidence ought to be conclusive. It is far from that. The evidence, in fact, may even support the other side of the argument – that circumcision is a healthy practice.
With these matters in contention, what right does someone have to attack what Jews, and I’m told Muslims, consider a fundamental religious rite – the circumcision of their males in accordance with the injunction found in the Bible. Before anyone is able to infringe on someone’s religious practices, which have been a feature of western civilization for millennia, ought they not be required to make a compelling case.
Or if voters can decide today by majority vote to outlaw circumcision, can they tomorrow outlaw some other religious practice? Can some ballot measure writer argue that praying on your knees is bad for you? Can the initiative circulators persuade us that baptism by full immersion exposes babies to unacceptable risks of drowning? Are parents who believe we should not eat meat, and thus are vegetarians, likely to be told by voters that they are depriving their children of necessary vitamins?
Just how far will the anti-religious crowd be willing to go? And how far will we let them?
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted at donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com