[S.T.D.]

http://falsedichotomies.com/2011/05/...vism/#more-727
From news article:

Anti-circumcision activists, also known as ‘intactivists’, are celebrating on the west coast. In November, San Francisco residents will consider a proposal to ban the circumcision of male children. If the measure passes, circumcision will be banned among males under the age of 18, and will be punishable by a $1,000 fine or up to one year in jail. There will be no religious exemptions. The bill has a minuscule chance of passing, but the intactivist movement should be taken seriously, for their arguments represent a particularly egregious form of liberalism, one that runs counter to pluralist values, and encourages a conformism that is more typical of totalitarian societies (it is no coincidence that circumcision for religious reasons, and infant baptism, was outlawed in the Soviet Union in 1924) than multicultural democracies.

And what about a child born with an ugly facial birth-mark? If the mark could be removed through a simple but slightly painful medical procedure, would the intactivists call the parents who decide to have the birth-mark removed child abusers? And on what grounds? Intactivists are quick to allege that those of us who are opposed to banning circumcision are simply conditioned by our traditions, but couldn’t the same be said of those who want to remove ugly birth-marks? And are the intactivists immune to conditioning?