Editor’s comments: Circumcision is an unnecessary, barbaric act with so much literature that proves the procedure as such (This comment is based on research knowledge unlike most readers that fall victim to theoretical knowledge that profits others). However, as much as one may disagree with the procedure, individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions, or should they? There are laws such as wearing a seat belt and against talking on the phone while driving, which are laws designed to prevent danger; however, this law actually prevents the actual cause of danger. One only has to read a little bit of literature (Studies) to understand and educate themselves on the extreme, unnecessary dangers of circumcision. One only has to refer to nature: anatomy tells us that we are born with or develop all we need to survive and thrive in this world, as do other animals; further, how can any religion challenge their creator by cutting something that was provided by “Him?” (This view – opinion – is directed to those who belong to a religion that condones this procedure.) It would have to be seen as assuming that “God” was not perfect to cut a part of “His” creation. For millions of years, the human organism has survived without this unnecessary, brutal act; so why do we have to start cutting it off now? For more information on circumcision search for intact America in your search engine (They are one of the best sources on the subject – some might say one of the world’s foremost authorities), and educate yourself before you do something you might eventually be sorry for. Let us not fall into the trap of doing something just because it is the “norm.” Ignorance is bliss for the ones that benefit from it. As a good scientist, you must first test the hypothesis. And as far as synthetic pot goes… Anything that is not natural from nature in its original state is a threat to our world.

(Los Angeles Times – Oct. 2, 2011) Reporting from Sacramento — Local governments will be unable to ban male circumcision under a new state law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The bill, by Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Silver Lake), was drafted in response to a proposed San Francisco ballot measure that would have prohibited any foreskin cutting that was not deemed medically necessary in that city. That proposed ordinance was struck from the ballot by a Superior Court judge in June, amid protests from doctors and religious groups. A similar measure was proposed in Santa Monica but was later pulled back by proponents.

Gatto said his measure, signed Sunday, would “protect parental rights and liberties.” Read more