The fact this is coming from San Francisco shouldn’t surprise us, but some loser resident is trying to collect enough signatures to put a question on the city ballot making male circumcision illegal. That’s right, that’s one more medical decision removed from the people and put in the hands of your government.
This is just as outrageous as making cesarean birth mandatory for all women! ANY medical decision should be made by the individual it pertains to or by their legal guardians. Politicians are not guardians. It doesn’t matter what an individual believes, they cannot constitutionally force their medical beliefs on everyone else. That is just plain immoral. And isn’t it ironic that most “intactivists” such as the moron who came up with this idea are most often the same individuals who highly support a woman’s right to choose abortion? Who’s side are they on??
And in case you’re wondering, no, I am not pro-circumcision. In fact, if I have any more sons, they won’t be circumcised. But I will never tell another parent that it is wrong for them to circumcise their son, and suggesting that their child should be removed from their care so they can go to jail for a year because they circumcised him (which is what the author of the bill suggests) is so insane I have no words strong enough for it.
People, get out of your neighbor’s life and mind your own business! Stop telling everyone else what they should or should not do. Fight for liberty. That is what our country stands for isn’t it? Or is it?
Oh, and he says the government should not decide whether a child has a circumcision or not. Now, isn’t that contrary to him deciding it’s right to ban circumcision?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/12/health/main7048210.shtml
Absolutely absurd that people think they should be able to make decisions for others like that – absolutely absurd!
You might not have seen it, but I just added a mention of a quote in the article I linked to. He says government should not decide whether a child is circumcised or not. Maybe he thinks voting on a ban isn’t a government issue? I’m confused.
I don’t think a law is the solution (at this point).. but I don’t get the idea that this is somehow “the government deciding”..
…What we know in the present day is that the foreskin is healthy, sensitive, functional, and erogenous genital tissue. It’s normal and valuable.
So.. the point is.. armed with that knowledge, we are forced to admit that the foreskin of a male child is the only healthy, normal, valuable body part that we currently allow parents to cut from their children – and for ANY reason they want!
So, what this law is REALLY saying is not that the government should create some special case where foreskins are protected.. its saying “actually.. we protect the healthy, normal genitals of baby girls, from even a the most minor traditional cut of the labia, even if it doesn’t remove tissue. The pinky toe of a healthy is protected from being cut off, as is every other healthy, sensitive part of a child. …so we should stop the ALREADY-IN-PLACE special case situation that has parents deciding the fate of a child’s body, where they really don’t need to be making a choice at all.
As a male, my genitals are MINE. They are not my parents to do with as they please. I think its absurd that people think it’s someone else’s right to make that decision for ME.
Do I think making people criminals for doing this to their children will stop it? no. I think instead, we just need to spend our efforts educating people, allowing them to see that medical organizations around the world do not recommend the practice, and also sharing with them the knowledge that the foreskin is valuable – it contains thousands and thousands of specialized fine-touch nerve endings like those found in the fingertips and lips!
I think us males should have every bit as much of a right to our genitals as females do. You don’t want people cutting off parts of your genitals you like, and I feel the same way about mine.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Joel. To be clear, I do agree with you that the foreskin is a healthy part of the body that serves good function and that in most cases it is pointless, and sometimes harmful, to remove it from a baby boy. HOWEVER, I am also a devout libertarian, and I believe that freedom is what keeps our country healthy. If a government can decide what is healthy for a baby boy, they will assume it is their right to decide other health practices, such as whether or not it is the right of a mother to give birth at home or at the hospital. In truth, they do not, and never should, have the right to decide ANY health practice. If it is common sense to avoid circumcision, the best thing we can do is share facts and experiences so that people will come to understand the truth and decide for themselves that the best practice is to avoid routine circumcision. This is how we have always done things, and it is the best way (compared to a socialist government making up your mind for you on all your health decisions) to develop healthy practices as a whole country.
So, do you think we should remove the laws we put in place to protect infant girls from having their genitals cut?
Those laws protect a baby girl from having even a small cut made in her labia or clitoral hood unless it is absolutely medically necessary.
It also protects baby girls from having their clitoris removed, their external genitals entirely removed and sewn up.
So it protects girls from the full spectrum of medically unnecessary genital cutting.
I think we have it right when it comes to female genital cutting.. there is no reason to allow parents the right to harm their daughters in such a manner!
What do you think?
Should all the body parts of a child be legally removable by parents?
At what point are the rights of an INDIVIDUAL more important than the right of a parent to do whatever they want to their kids?
I would think a Libertarian, someone who values individual freedom, would agree that just because someone is in a place of authority (parents are like the government of the family) does not give them free reign to do WHATEVER they want.
This isn’t about the government deciding what is healthy for a baby boy, it’s the government giving the rights back to the individual… Healthy body parts are for the INDIVIDUAL to decide about…
cesarean births hugely affect the mother, which explains why she should have the over-riding say in what happens. But the truth is that circumcising a healthy baby is not even a health decision at all!
I understand your concern for babies, and unfortunately a small number of baby boys do suffer consequences of circumcision, but government making any rules about medical decisions, about boys or girls, removes rights from the people. Should we make laws saying baby girls shouldn’t have their ears pierced? What about all the infections they can get in their ears?! Sorry, I have just seen WAY too many problems with the government getting their hands in healthcare. Once they start making seemingly good laws, the wrong people twist them to their own ideas of what is right. And it isn’t like you can see, well, they have a point so even though there are some not so good things about the law we’ll just deal with them and be thankful for the good parts. IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS LAW, YOU’RE SAYING PARENTS SHOULD BE PUT IN JAIL AND KIDS SHOULD BE PUT IN FOSTER CARE BECAUSE THEY WERE CIRCUMCISED! Bad things happen, but a government controlling anything is bad. They should serve justice, yes, but what about parental rights? Once they can decide whether your kids are vaccinated or not, whether they can be born at home or not, whether they can be circumcised or not, whether they have to see a pediatrician or not, etc. etc. you have a totalitarian government that is out of control. And what about abortions? Weren’t more women dying from abortions when they were illegal? So what happens if we make circumcision illegal? We have parents hiring back-alley doctors to perform the circumcisions and then we have more baby boys dying from them?! Where does it end? Instead, we need to push the facts, tell everyone the dangers associated with circumcision. The fact that the circumcision rate in the US has been cut, like, in half over the past couple years should be proof enough that the government does not have to make a ‘safety law’ in order for the system to work. You show people it’s dangerous and they’ll stop doing it, you don’t have to force them by threat of imprisonment to do what is right by their child. It is just plain common sense.
technically this law would only make circumcision a misdemeanor… meaning it would result in a fine.. and no jail time.
Technically it already is illegal to vaccinate a child with a vaccination that is NOT recommended by the medical community.
Again, I am in total agreeance with you that the law is not the solution at this point, but I don’t think the problem with it is the “government deciding”
…I find your fears sound a little bit excessive. “first its the circumcisions, THEN IT’S OUR RIGHT TO BREATHE THAT THEY REGULATE!”
That’s a bit like what your argument sounds like to me… and I don’t really mean to offend you by saying that, but I feel like you can freak out about ANY law by going the same route.
If you don’t support individuals choosing circumcision for their own bodies, then I think you better call our state Totalitarian RIGHT NOW, because we’ve already GOT that law – just for girls.
Again.. circumcising a baby is NOT a medical decision. It just ISN’T one.
It’s a HEALTHY body part..
Actually, it wouldn’t be a misdemeaner, the law Schofield is pushing for specifically says parents would be punishable with up to a year in prison. And I wasn’t referring to giving a child an illegal vaccination, I was referring to the government forcing parents into giving their child to get vaccinated at all. And whether you believe it or not, our government is already essentially a totalitarian government. That isn’t a fear issue, that’s reading the news. Perhaps you want the feds (who are controlled by big business including the AMA) telling you what you can and can’t do, but I’m perfectly content making my own decisions thank you very much.
I don’t want people making choices for me either.. but for me.. that includes parents forcing their preferences onto my penis.. with a scalpel.
If you don’t think the government should step in for that, do you feel parents should be free to do ANYTHING to their children?
Where is the line, for you?
also….
“The initiative, which requires 7,000 signatures before it can be added to next November’s ballot, would make it a misdemeanor to “circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of all minors, and would not make exceptions for religious reasons.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/13/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-ballot-_n_783191.html
Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/19/male.circumcision.sf/index.html
It looks like we were both sort of right.. But, ultimately, I am not here trying to defend the specifics of this law.. as I’ve said, I don’t even think it would work if it was passed.
I’m merely trying to say that despite that.. I don’t think this IS a parental choice. In theory, you seem to think so, and I am just trying to explain that I think healthy body parts don’t belong to someone’s parents, or their preachers or rabbis, or their teachers, or their politicians and government… they belong ONLY to the individual born with them… only THAT person should make the decision to cut it off unless there is a medical necessity that necessitates its removal.
That is my point. I would argue you are not “choosing” to not circumcise a baby boy any more than you chosoe to not circumcise a baby girl – you’re just respecting the child’s right to not be unfairly harmed… respecting the child’s right to grow up and make their own decisions.
I agree with you that the choice to circumcise or not should ideally be placed in the hands of the individual who the foreskin belongs to, but if you are dealing with an infant he obviously cannot make that choice for himself, so it is either the parent or the government. Many intactivists suggest that the foreskin should be left alone and when the boy becomes a man he can decide for himself. I respect that opinion and see it as legitimate, yet many of those same activists suggest it is a woman’s right to kill her unborn child. Where do the rights of those unborn children come in? If the choice has to be made, should it be the government or the parents? And it is impossible to separate this issue from other parenting issues. If parents don’t have the right to choose about this, do they have any medical rights for their child? And, if you don’t understand how laws work, EVERY law removes someone’s rights. So if you don’t want someone making choices for you, you don’t protect those rights by handing them off to someone else.
But thanks for sharing your thoughts, I enjoy thoughtful debates.
Naomi,
So, is it the government that decided that you get to have a clitoris?
I would like you to address my question regarding your feelings on ALL OTHER body parts, which ARE protected by law.
You keep mentioning the foreskin, but this is a special case… all other healthy, valuable body parts are ALREADY protected..
Who should decide the fate of your clitoris, your parents or the government? What about your eyeballs?
Medical rights are for PROBLEMS that arise, that must be dealt with. Your parent is a guardian who protects you when something arises that must be dealt with. Circumcising a healthy infant does not meet these criteria… which is why I keep asking you, what other healthy, sensitive body parts can you cut off from your children? Please just list 3 of them for me… then I will acknowledge you have a point.
I don’t believe the abortion debate fits here because the reason we even have the abortion debate is because we can’t all agree on what point in development a child gains the rights and freedoms of a human being. I don’t know a single person who would legitimately argue that abortion is totally fine if you do it the day before a woman’s due date. Early-term abortions are a different story since we’re talking about a small cluster of cells, for the most part. We can get into the specifics of that, but the point is that circumcision is NOT an argument about “is this a person?” so it’s really unfair to directly compare them and assume that your understanding of abortion is the basis by which we should analyze circumcision. Even beyond that, if abortion only affected the child, I would probably not support a woman’s right to choose – but abortion is also tied deeply into the issue of reproductive rights – it enormously effects the body of the mother, and how she can live and what her health is. I’ve never heard of a mother dying because she didn’t circumcise her son, but I’ve heard of a mother dying because she didn’t have an abortion (in childbirth, etc). So, these issues are not comparable, and I really think it’s unfair to try and put them on the same level.
There is a point where the parent’s rights end and the child’s rights begin, but I do not believe circumcision is absolutely on the child’s side of the line. Why? Because while female circumcision is absolutely unnecessary and an ugly practice, male circumcision has long been a tradition among developed nations for both religious and medical reasons. We now know that circumcision is unnecessary in many situations, but it is not altogether a useless procedure. It does reduce the rate of health problems among people who are sexually active with multiple partners, and amont those living without running water or in unclean environments. Because it is not unreasonable in these situations and among religious beliefs (I know plenty of grown men who are glad they were circumcised as babies) it is still debateable whether it is a “reasonable” or “unreasonable” procedure. I see both sides. Men should be able to choose for themselves, but if a parent believes with good reason it is in the best interest of the child, circumcision should not be a punishable offense.
Plenty of men are glad they were circumcised at birth, but so are plenty of women glad they were genitally cut. There are also both men and women who are bothered by, and sometimes even devastated by the fact that they were cut – especially if there are serious complications.
Religious motivations don’t justify cutting parts off of someone else’s body. Religion is a personal choice, it’s something we’re all free to practice in regards to our own lives, and not force it onto someone else – especially not with a knife. I am not the same religion as my parents, and I don’t think that just because they gave birth to me means their religion should decide what parts of my healthy body I get to keep! If my religion dictates genital cutting – I am FREE to choose it for myself. THAT is freedom of religion.
I recommend that you don’t fall into the trap of using “developed nations” as though it holds some kind of empirical meaning on the value of people’s beliefs and traditions and religions. Just because we have more wealth and better technology does not make us better or more evolved people.
Muslims practice circumcision in both “undeveloped” and in “developed” nations.. as do Jewish people. Circumcision is not a Christian practice, so I don’t know what other religious motivations you are referring to in developed nations. The origin of non-religious circumcision that occured in America is hardly “developed”. In the 1830s circumcision began to become popularized – until that time no one saw a need for the practice – they weren’t having foreskin problems. The reason it was popularized was doctors at the time began to spread the message that self-abuse (masturbation) caused all of the health problems found in society, including blindness, insanity, and other such things. Circumcision, they claimed, would cure self-abuse, and therefore all their problems – including things like club-foot and curvature of the spine.
THAT pseudo-science is the background behind why circumcision is popular today. Though those reasons have been disproved, they have constantly been looking at new possible reasons why circumcision might have benefit – almost like they’ve been trying to find an excuse to keep doing it. Interesting. Actually, for a while they did the same thing with female genital cutting, which also was briefly popular in “developed” America when they thought it would stop the made-up disease “Hysteria”… as well as female masturbation.
One of the more recent studies that tested female genital cutting found that it reduced the rate of HIV transmission – sound familiar? However, ethics committees now consider studies testing this practice unethical – so we’ll never know whether or not it has any of the same really mild potential benefits – though, the vulva does create the SAME substance – smegma, that you seem to be insinuating makes the male genitals so problematic without running water or clean environments. Are women getting by fine without FGM in those communities? Well, guess what, so are the men. Smegma actually has anti-bacterial properties. The body makes these substances to help protect us.
If there is enough water to keep the rest of the body clean, there’s enough to occasionally rinse the penis. Cultures that don’t practice circumcision don’t GET why people do it.. if circumcision were reasonable, then people would not be baffled by it. Europeans generally don’t circumcise, and they’re doing just fine. They actually have lower rates of STDs and HIV and other such problems than Americans.
Even assuming it’s true – is it my parent’s right to GUESS that I might be having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and take the preventative step of cutting off a treasured part of my genitalia to potentially reduce my chances of a problem? I don’t think so. I think an individual is old enough to make that choice for himself before he is old enough to be having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and will be able to decide if he needs it himself.
Our genitals develop from the same tissue in the womb, and women have foreskins too.. and together with the inner labia, they serve the same functions as the male foreskin – all I’m asking is for a little gender equality.
Either we start running endless studies to see if a little genital cutting on healthy american girls will protect them marginally from potential UTIs and any other potential health issues we can think of that seem to plague females at such higher rates than males… OR we give baby boys a LITTLE SMIDGEN of respect and stop cutting off one of the most sensitive parts of the body.
Is it such a hard decision?
And for all the reasons you stated I did not have my second son circumcised. Because I informed myself better than I had before. And if I were to make a recommendation (I am a birth doula) to anyone it would be to leave their son’s foreskin alone. But I still not believe the government is in a position to be telling parents what to do here. You can disagree with me all you want, but at a time when the feds are removing more and more rights, it is difficult to distinguish between good laws and bad laws, laws that are being paid for by lobbyists and laws that are actually being written by our congressmen. There can be no simple answer. Take child abuse for example, since some could argue that circumcision is a child safety issue. We all believe that at some point a child should be taken from his/her parents for their physical safety, but who is to argue what safety is?? At one time, the state only got involved if a child was claiming abuse or was obviously facing physical abuse by the marks on their body. But now, kids are taken from their parents when nothing wrong has been done to them simply because someone who didn’t like them made a phone call. I worked at a support center where a couple’s children were taken from them because they couldn’t afford the heat, when it cost the taxpayer more to cover the foster home than it would have to pay their heating bill. Is THAT child abuse? No, this isn’t “directly” related to circumcision, but what is constituted as child abuse is now a very gray line, we need to have a better definition of what is dangerous and what the feds should leave alone, BEFORE we start charging parents with a year in prison for what 40%ish of the population believe is GOOD. The system is corrupt, and I do not trust the federal government to decide for me, or anyone else, what is right. I do not agree with circumcision, but I also believe it is NOT my right to tell me neighbor that I can decide what is right for their child.
Naomi,
Are you arguing that the law that protects the genitals of infant females should be removed? Imagine punishing a well-meaning mother for doing what she feels is in the best interest of her baby girl.
I would recommend against accepting a practice as legal simply because it is largely-accepted by the majority of people in a given area, especially when those individuals have likely not done adequate research and have many false ideas about the benefits of the practice.
This isn’t about you or the government deciding what is right for someone’s child, it’s about realizing that the foreskin is a healthy, normal body part – and therefore not the domain of ANYONE but the individual who owns the foreskin to decide about.
Like I’ve said numerous times, change the name ‘foreskin’ to any other healthy, normal, sensitive, functional body part and 99 percent of the people in America would be aghast that we’d even have this conversation – because you don’t cut parts like that off of a healthy child!
I feel like we’re running in circles a bit though, which really just mean’s we’re probably just both quite dedicated to our beliefs, but I guess I just want to say that I feel like you’re mostly using THIS issue to express your distaste for the government’s approach to children’s rights in general.
I get why you’re upset, especially with that situation about the children being taken away because the parents simply couldn’t afford to pay for a certain bill. Is that applicable to whether or not parents should be able to cut off healthy parts of their children though? I feel like not. I mean, I get that you feel like it’s too much intervention by the government.. and really, do I want parents who circumcise their kids to have their kids taken away? Of course not! I don’t think they’re bad parents even, for doing so. I just don’t think its a parent’s RIGHT to do it.
I do think it’s wrong that there are doctors and physicians in hospitals and running clinics that are not properly informing parents, and are making huge profits from the fact this practice is accepted and legal… and that some doctors are forced to do this practice or risk being fired, despite feeling it is morally wrong to do it to a child. I think it’s wrong that there are men growing up, finding out what happened, and feeling incredibly upset about what was taken from them.
I know a few men like this personally, and I have to side with them… what happened to them was not fair. What about THEIR rights?
No, I am not arguing that the law CAN protect you, but I AM arguing that the law is often abused. As you admitted yourself, circumcision is not so wrong that parents are “bad” for having their son circumcised, but passing any law which punishes the entire family for doing so is wrong. Yes, the rights of the child should be protected, but that’s where I believe the power of information comes into play. TRUTH has caused the circumcision rate to drop substantially, and may make it nearly obsolete very soon. The government does not NEED to get involved in every questionable practice for people to learn what is right. Yes, baby boys should have their rights protected, but the question is, where do the rights of the government end, and the baby’s begin? Because while there are good people fighting for what’s right, who work in the government, it is still a corrupt system and ANY good law can be abused. It happens all the time. If doctors shouldn’t be performing circumcisions, intactivists should be holding conferences, writing books, and making films, directed TO doctors to inform them of what they are doing wrong. There are better ways than throwing everyone in jail! Schofield said not even the government should decide, but by passing a law you are saying that the government is the ONLY one who can decide. To me that is just as bad as the parents not considering the child’s possible wishes and making the decision out of their own ideas.
I appreciate your thoughts, you’ve certainly made me think about why I believe the way I do. I hope you have learned something from this discussion as well, and do hope that you will return to share your ideas on other topics I’ve posted about.
Merry Christmas!
Ultimately, I think we agree on far more than we disagree on here. I agree that jamming this law into place would never work.. there would be outrage by literally MILLIONS of people (who would argue things they’ve heard from a friend of a friend, instead of doing research, but they would be outraged nonetheless).
So.. While I agree with you that the law is not the best intervention, I do think the Government has a duty to protect the bodily integrity of all of its citizens, male babies included.
So, how would I do it? Well, perhaps one solution would be to create a policy that keeps hospitals and doctors from “keeping” the monetary profit from the procedure – this would discourage doctors from “forgetting” to inform parents of all the facts, and making a living off of an unnecessary, harmful procedure on children. So where would this money go? Well, it would go into education campaigns designed to educate people on the functions of the foreskin, on the falsity of the misconceptions and myths surrounding the practice, and other such programs.
It really bothers me that there are numerous individuals making huge profits from the propagation of this practice… Is it that surprising that many doctors are not speaking out and really trying to educate parents when they can make 1000 dollars a week from just a few minutes of work doing circumcisions?
There should be an institutional interest in actually lowering the the rates through education.
what do you think?
Also, Merry Christmas to you!
That is a good idea, although I would add one thing, I would make sure that such a policy was a volunteer program through individual hospitals, or at least states, not the federal government. Perhaps similar to the UNICEF/WHO Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative. That way hospitals would be encouraged for participating, but doctors would still have the freedom to choose another place to work if they didn’t agree with the policy, and parents would be free to choose another hospital that does perform circumcisions. Eventually such hospitals would be few and far between, but it would be based on consumer demand, not government control. Consumers ask hospitals to be part of a Baby-Friendly Initiative and stop doing circumcisions, then hospitals volunteer to participate to get public recognition, and the circumcision rate would drop more. Makes everybody happy!
So if a doctor is essentially making a living from the thousands of dollars he makes monthly from doing the procedure..
and keep in mind that he’s agreed already to follow the “do no harm” principle.. and he accepts that these childrens have the right to bodily integrity…
…you think he should just be allowed to volunteer whether or not he does an adequate job of informing parents so that he can collect a bigger paycheck?
I mean, I get that you’re worried about parents rights.. but my proposal wouldn’t actually even stop parents from having the total ability to choose – all it would do is keep people from getting rich off of a damaging, harmful, unnecessary practice.
Notice that my policy doesn’t even force hospitals to stop offering the procedure.. all it does is stops them from profiting from it.
The UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative is very interesting, and I can see how it could be translated into a similar thing for educating parents about how to care for an intact child (though, I suppose it would only need 1 or 2 tips instead of 10). However, teaching breastfeeding and all of the things that are involved in the BFHI are more complicated and require seminars and stuff – so I see why its on a volunteer basis. There is less reason to make the simple removal of profit from the hands of the hospitals an optional policy… and it would especially fail to be taken up by clinics that make a large portion of their profit from this practice – simply because they just don’t even try to inform parents.
The WHO as well as UNICEF, UNFPA and UNIFEM made this joint-statement about the AAP’s possible acceptance of a “ritual nick” of the labia/hood of a baby girl:
“Allowing such a cut with a doctors’ assistance may make parents think it is acceptable or medically beneficial. It may also serve to institutionalize the procedure as medical personnel often hold power, authority and respect in society and lead health care providers to develop a professional and financial interest in upholding the practice.”
So tell me, why should care not be taken to avoid a similar perception from promoting the practice of male genital cutting that is ALREADY DEEPLY entrenched in our culture? And I’m not even saying BAN the practice, like these organizations have said regarding the “nick” of a clitoral hood.. I’m saying.. let’s at least make them properly INFORM parents.. and stop giving them hefty paychecks to make them happy to go along with it!
I realize you don’t want the government to make ANY laws or policies at all, it seems, but clearly something need sot be done and just saying “hey, everyone.. let’s volunteer to stop paying you money” isn’t it.
I just have one question. If you take away the money, who pays for the circumcision? Who foots the bill for using the room/table, the tools, the gauze, ointment, and medication? Is the doctor supposed to cover that as a punishment for performing the circumcision? Money has to be paid in order for ANY procedure to be done. I realize they overcharge, but did you know that most of that money goes to the hospital? It’s an insurance issue really. That’s why it costs twice as much to get an out-patient circumcision than an in-patient one, because supposedly a baby born outside the hospital will get the other babies sick if he comes into the nursery. Dumb really, but it’s not just about doctors making money.
There will be money paid, but after the necessary expenses paid, all of the profit would go towards the fund I described earlier.
It should not be a profitable venture by any means, but of course if you’re going to perform surgery there are expenses.
I don’t claim its a perfect solution, but I feel like something of this sort needs to be done.
That’s called socialism, and it’s never worked. Anywhere.
Pingback: Circumcision not for modern Christians « Birth a Miracle Services