yes. I was having the same argument with a family member. too me it is definitely not the same. But they are both done for ritualistic reasons, and its hard to get passed that.
Well it's definitely not the 'same'. There are comparisons that we can make which make sense and there are comparisons that we can make which don't really hold up so well.
What if a 13 year old Muslim boy chooses to be circumcised? the law as written does not allow him to be circumcised till age 18. Now if a 13 year old can get a nose job with the consent of her parents, why can a 13 year old boy not get circumcised with his parents consent.
If that is indeed the case (that a 13 year old can get a nose job without consent and that a 13 year old Muslim boy cannot get circumcised without consent, I'm not certain if either of those examples would result in open-and-shut cases necessarily) then it points to a glaring contradiction to me. As far as I'm aware, even the opponents of circumcision have yet to provide any disadvantage as severe as major surgery. Even if the claim that males experience up to a 40% reduction in sensitivity is true (as a circumcised male, I have to say it sounds like a bogus claim to me) I still don't think that's quite comparable with the real risk of death that accompanies major surgery.
Not to the degree of No Circ. Perhaps they should protest the mutilation of baby girl ears in kimputurin heims. Piercing baby ears is also "mutilation" on babies too young to consent.
Honestly, I think at this point ear piercing is so normative to our culture that it's not deemed negative at all. While it is certainly an act of mutilation it enjoys far more widespread popularity than any other kind of comparable body modification that I can think of. So common that even calling it mutilation (even though it literally is) is likely to make someone sound rather like a lunatic, even with babies. I don't get it personally (I can't imagine anything that would look less appropriate to me than an infant in earrings) but I concede that there doesn't seem to be much risk, it's more of an aesthetic displeasure on my part.
So if you're talking about ear piercing then nobody is going to get on that bandwagon with you, whether or not it makes rational sense. But if you're talking about nose jobs or botox or something with actual potential for severity, then you will find many in this crowd joining the mainstream to say "That's not okay."
But there's usually no need to rally against such things as cosmetic nose jobs for 8 year olds because the mainstream culture tends to agree that it's not okay (even if it is legally permissible, which it very well may be). Whereas our culture mostly tends to think circumcision is A-Okay. That apparent contradiction (to some people) makes it more glaring than other examples where any average, normal person would agree that you should not treat a child that way.
I am not particularly bothered by this ballot initiative, because I truly do not believe that it can constitutionally stand. What does bother me is that people are trying to legislate parents rights. Where does it end? today its circumcision, tomorrow it may be taking children away from obese parents. There have already been children seized because they were not vaccinated, and for homeschooling. to me ballot issues like this is more about parents rights then the actual circ issue.
That's a worthwhile concern. I don't think this initiative will even get close enough to being ratified to call that issue into question but there have been interesting cases along those lines (the kid who was removed from his home for his name in particularl [his name was Adolph Hitler <Surname>]). But if this initiative does get close enough to that issue to be relevant then I agree with you that I have no desire for the state to enforce morality on my family (the US government being as immoral as any other government I could think of off the top of my head).