I would vote this if I could: I find circumcision a very nasty way of harming young boys, a barbaric practice akin to female castration (at least in its milder forms) and a blasphemy against God (if God exists: Nature is its expression, so crippling nature is a blasphemy, a capital sin).
I also find that it decreases the quality of US-made porn (a peeled penis is ugly or at very strange-looking and puts you down). For some reason in parts of the USA it has become common to quasi-castrate boys at birth, even without asking the parents. It seems that the main reason was originally to prevent masturbation. Some figures put the rate of genital violence (circumcision) against newborns at US hospitals around 80%.
There are no particular advantages for this practice. Even if it might slightly help preventing sexual disease transmission, the effect is tiny and cannot justify the damage. The only "advantage" therefore seems to be pseudo-moral: preventively repressing the normal sexuality of young men.
It is therefore a form of castration, much like female circumcision is. Hence it must be eradicated and no superstition must be allowed to stay in between.
In this sense the California provision is clear in not mentioning any exception, being them religious or otherwise. Otherwise it'd be like justifying cannibalism or slavery on religious grounds.
Source: Miller McCune.
|Commonality of male circumcision through the World|