
Article labels intactivists as 'bigots'
This column by Vincent Carroll calls those who oppose circumcision "bigots"--basically, anti-Semitic bigots. Carroll posted a father's day column about "selfish and irresponsible" dads who abandon or neglect their kids. About 4 years ago, he wrote a column against a law giving relief to men who were the victims of paternity fraud, saying they were "picky types" who wanted their children to be their own (unlike, I suppose, mothers who are more than happy to take home another mother's child from the hospital). The guy is starting to get on my nerves. Excerpt:
"Who would have thought that circumcision — circumcision, for heaven's sake — would be the next frontier for busybodies determined to impose their choices on the rest of us?
What prompts this musing is an article in Thursday's Denver Post by Diane Carman of the Solutions Health Policy Network reporting that Colorado will soon drop coverage for circumcision under Medicaid. That's fair enough, I suppose, since the procedure is purely discretionary in most cases.
What caught my eye, however, was the news that Matthew Hess, a notorious anti-circumcision zealot, "said Colorado also has a bill ready to go, if a sponsor can be found. The measure would amend the existing law outlawing female genital mutilation, extending the same protections to males."
- Log in to post comments
Comments
That comic cover is...
found here: http://foreskinman.com/
and if not anti-Semitic then very close to it, and here is why: plenty more foreskins are cut away by non-Jewish people in the US than by Jewish ones. The typical circumcised male in the US is not Jewish. So if there is to be any group whose actions should be focused upon, it is secular circumcisers (ie, doctors), not mohels. So why focus on mohels in that comic when a better selection would have been an MD in a hospital? Nonetheless circumcision done in the name of religion remains wrong except or unless it is a decision made by an adult male for himself alone.