Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by aleftcurve, Nov 12, 2010.
This should be interesting.
Circumcision Ban May End Up On SF Ballot - cbs13.com
Here's a video link for the story
http://video.sacramento.cbslocal.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=5287094&at1=News&h1=Circumcision Ban May End Up On San Francisco Ballot&flvUri=&partnerclipid=
what a load of crap
just because you are too lazy to teach him to clean himself you have him cut
that is so wrong
Hey, when this one makes it as far as television advertising for the next election will some of you in the bay area please save the commercials for this. The issue on this one is really not circumcision. The fact is that there are legal precedents that this could set that would make for future major quagmires in the court system.
My view on this subject appears on many places already. However, trying to codify this or make some kind of statute is incredible and stupid. Win through education not through stupidity and an idiotic ballot measure guaranteed to face court review.
What happens when a child under 18 has paraphimosis ? This requires an EMERGENCY circumcision, so the child would have to be airlifted outside the bounds of the city to get his treatment.
or perhaps parents will just travel out of the city after childbirth to get their son done.
I am sure if it were banned it would not include circumcision for medical reasons. It is illegal to cut someones leg off if it was healthy and nothing wrong with it but it was infected with necrotizing fasciitis it would not be.
Perhaps they could travel outside the city and many would. But, the fact they had to would make them think about it a bit more. This would be similar to Australia where circumcision is banned in public hospitals but not private. In any case it would be start.
airlift out of the city? there aren't any airports or heliports in the city. San Francisco International Airport is in Millbrae, San Mateo County. at:
the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has been out of it for years.
i'm cool with that with exceptions for medical emergencies.
This is only for non-therapeutic circumcision. Trying to say they wouldn't allow it when a medical practicioner prescribed it as treatment for an ailment is ludicrous.
Didn't realize that bit about FGM being covered by insurance into the 70's. Kinda scary.
I am one who is not for circumcision without reason, and nobody, not even in San Francisco would be stupid enough to write a law denying circumcision if there were a medical reason for doing it.
That being said, no Court will uphold this. The problem with this kind of thing is that it would legislate denial of medical treatment as it is being quoted. If San Francisco were per se to pass this one some other group opposed to "organ transplants" could come in and ban organ transplants within the same jurisdictional boundaries. Though a law like this could sound as if it had a bias that some would perceive as "liberal" the ones most profiting from it could be "conservative extremists". First, the same law could be implemented at whim on any other cosmetic procedure that had similar guidelines. This law could also be twisted by extremists from either side. Approving this could also lead to a city ban on abortions. Then you could get a city ban on rhinoplasty, a city wide ban on face lifts because in San Francisco everybody should look as old or older than they are. Again the legal precedents are the problem on this one. If it passes, it will be a "free-for-all" with screw ball organizations trying to get one thing or another banned within their city limits.
No cosmetic surgery, whether it is rhinoplasty, a face-lift or circumcision has any logic when performed on a child. Unless the nose or face is deformed by birth or accident. An intact penis is neither... Circumcision should only be performed when it's medically warranted which is usually only an issue in early adulthood.
I'm not for it either... but I think instead of a "Law", they need to make it a general precedent among the medical profession that if it's not necessary, leave it alone.
Change the way it's billed. For "At birth" circumcision, make it only 30% coverage since it IS cosmetic.
For emergency circumcisions, cover it at 100% or 80/20.
Think about it.... Doctors reserve treatment for the common cold... they tell you to tough it out. They should do the same for this.
Some would say that the practice of circumcision is "incredible and stupid". And some people are unwilling or unable to be educated. Not just the children but there are parents who will deny knowledge of certain things from their children. So you can't just rely on education. You can't even rely on common sense.
With so many Americans saying the uncut penis is dirty or unhygienic or a health risk...what do they think about countries like the UK and most of Europe where circumcision is almost non-existent. Uncut penises work just fine and have done for centuries.
What happens when a baby under six months old is the victim of a botched circumcision and loses its penis? That child can't be airlifted anywhere and there is no corrective procedure! (As in the case of a paraphimosis sufferer).
Never mind that the probability of either of those events is <1%. You're just being a sensationally sensationalist twat. I would rather have paraphimosis than have no penis at all or a penis with limited function due to a "complication" from an unnecessary procedure that I did not even want.
RIC should be banned and even in cases like phimosis or paraphimosis there are other options that don't require circumcision. Stretching and frenuloplasty are viable options that leave the foreskin intact.
I'm waiting for pediatricians and urologists to do the right thing, and refuse to circumcise babies. That would make even consideration of such a law unnecessary. I'm afraid that won't happen in the U.S. where 15 minutes of surgery results in several hundred dollars being pocketed. And it's no skin off the doctor's dick. Such gutless wonders.
You're sure that a San Francisco ordinance would have a rational safety valve? Apparently you don't follow SF politics. Those people are getting even nuttier.
Great! United States is waking up on that issue!
The government has no business interfering in personal choice.
yeah, this is a bit much, and sounds like the start of an awful lot of lawsuits. religious/medical exemptions, anyone?
the better way to go is with what someone said earlier, to change public attitudes. otherwise, it can turn into a debate that sounds an awful lot like the abortion debate in the US...
You know, I don't like infantile circumcision, but the anti circ people who think this may be a victory are fooling themselves. It would be a direct violation of the first amendment because the practice is essential to the Jewish and Muslim religions. To tell someone they can't do these things because some people don't agree with them and consider their religious beliefs barbaric is not going to get anywhere. If this law passes, it will be struck down by the courts.
And just to reiterate, I am against circumcising children at all...even for religious reasons, but that doesn't mean that I believe this is going to pass and survive.
Follow my posting history and you will see that I love and admire uncut cocks. You can see clearly in my gallery that I am cut. Am I curious what it would have been like if I was left intact? You bet. I can even guess that I may have preferred being uncut. However, it in no way has been detrimental, or caused any problems, being cut. This is not something that needs to be a law