Fall Equinox: equality in day, night, and human rights

[SoCo Intactivists]

The Fall Equinox and its associated astrological sign, Libra, are all about equality and balanced scales of justice. All humans have a fundamental human right to bodily autonomy, regardless of their age, culture/nationality of birth, or gender.

Currently this human right is not legally recognized in most places, including the United States. In California, males are specifically deprived of their right to bodily autonomy in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

EQUALLY protect everyone's right to choose!

[Glia]

One of the key players responsible for this decidedly unfair and UN-AMERICAN situation we now have in California is former State Senator Noreen Evans.

Because of Evans and her cronies in the state legislature, sharks swimming off the coast of California have more legal right to keep their fins than boys living in California have to keep their complete penis.

Please do keep this blunder in mind when you are casting your vote for the Sonoma County's 5th District supervisor.

... In California, males are specifically deprived of their right to bodily autonomy in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

EQUALLY protect everyone's right to choose!

[Barry]

...Because of Evans and her cronies in the state legislature, sharks swimming off the coast of California have more legal right to keep their fins than boys living in California have to keep their complete penis.

I presume Glia is referring to Noreen's 2011 vote to not ban circumcision. Details here.

[Glia]

Barry, your assumption is correct; I am referring to AB768, aka "The California Mohel Protection Act."

Evans' involvement and action supporting this awful bill went beyond merely voting for it. Further, AB768 not only prevented the electorate of cities and counties from expressing their will to equally protect all children from genital mutilation, it also asserted the following into California state law:

• a "parental right" to have their MALE child circumcised -- by anyone -- for any reason up until the day he reaches legal majority.
• deprives the MALE victim of childhood genital mutilation of legal recourse against the person who mutilated him or the parent who "authorized" it when he reaches the age of legal majority.
• that carving up a boy's genitals is somehow magically different from carving up a girl's genitals.
• that removing a healthy, normal protective organ from a boy's genitals confers magical "health benefits" -- assertions from the prior century which have now been debunked for decades.
• that MALE circumcision confers "affiliative benefits" on the MALE child -- and you do not need to be Sherlock Holmes or an anthropologist to figure out what that really means.

Evans fell for this load of manure like a rock trying to swim. It is, IMO, a damning statement about her intelligence, judgement, ethics, and suitability for public office.

Please do keep this in mind when you are filling out your ballot.

I presume Glia is referring to Noreen's 2011 vote to not ban circumcision. Details here.

[podfish]

All humans have a fundamental human right to bodily autonomy, regardless of their age, culture/nationality of birth, or gender.

It does seem kind of arbitrary - parents can remove your tonsils without controversy, foreskin with some resistance, but no way can they remove your testicles.
Also, choices parents make about your diet, activities and education will impact you for the rest of your life. So again, we have arbitrary choices to make as a society (legally and morally). I'm not at all comfortable with insisting that as much as possible we defer such choices for eighteen years, though.

[Valley Oak]

Part of the problem is that circumcision is unnecessary and does harm the child when they mature sexually. It affects sensitivity and the man's sexual experience is negatively impacted.

Circumcision needs to be prohibited for being an unnecessary surgical practice, which has no medical justification, excepting very few cases. A religious exemption can be made for Jewish people and others but it should not be covered by medical insurance since it is purely elective and it is also only a cultural tradition. People who choose to circumcise their baby boys should pay for this service out of their own pockets.

I don't believe that society should have to pay for medically unnecessary, cultural practices, which harm the health of the baby for the rest of his life.

The wholesale and systematic circumcision of baby boys nationwide needs to be stopped asap.

It does seem kind of arbitrary - parents can remove your tonsils without controversy, foreskin with some resistance, but no way can they remove your testicles.
Also, choices parents make about your diet, activities and education will impact you for the rest of your life. So again, we have arbitrary choices to make as a society (legally and morally). I'm not at all comfortable with insisting that as much as possible we defer such choices for eighteen years, though.