The effort by a San Diego-based organization to ban circumcision in Santa Monica on boys under the age of 18 has generated plenty of letters to the Daily Press over the last week, with people passionately expressing their support and opposition to the proposed ballot initiative, which will need a little more than 6,000 signatures from registered voters to qualify.

We stand with those who are against this effort to strip away the right for parents to decide what they think is best for their child. We see no pressing reason for a ban at this time. We believe the procedure, if performed correctly, does not pose any danger to the child. We believe circumcision, not only a religious rite of passage, is beneficial to the health of the child, protecting against bacterial infection.

All this talk about diminishing sexual pleasure doesn’t carry weight with us. We’ve never heard from any of our male employees or associates that they wish sex could be more pleasurable. They seem to enjoy it just fine.

The same goes for the argument equating female circumcision to infant male circumcision. Female circumcisions, which remove the entire clitoris, are done with malicious intent, denying the women the pleasures of sex while simultaneously exposing them to a life of pain. That is not the case with male infant circumcision.

What this is all about, from our view, is an attack on religion, in particular the Jewish faith, and an attack on parents’ rights to raise their children in the manner they see fit. If this were to pass, what’s next: a ban on homeschooling; a ban on piercings; or a mandate that all children be forced to eat only plant-based foods in schools and at home? While we do not always agree with the choices parents make, we cannot strip them of their rights to be a parent. What we should be doing is educating parents about the pros and cons of circumcision and then let them make up their own minds. If their child grows up and resents them for snipping off his foreskin, let them deal with it in on their own terms. Isn’t that what therapy’s for?