Circumcision Ban May End Up On San Francisco Ballot

[Snozzle]

The government has no business interfering in personal choice.

This proposal would guarantee personal choice to the person most directly involved. If an adult person chooses to have himself circumcised, this will not stop him.

 

[jp]

Circumcision topics are the most commented on threads. I think the choice should be up to the owner of their own penis. But I'm not anti, let them make that decision whenever they want, but don't coin me as anti-circ. I think a ban may be a step too far.

 

[Snozzle]

It would be a direct violation of the first amendment because the practice is essential to the Jewish and Muslim religions.

My freedom to practise my religion ends where your body begins, don't you agree? If not, hold out your ....

However, it in no way has been detrimental, or caused any problems, being cut.

OK, that's one. Only 99,999,999 more to check.

I would be surprised if it passes, but it's a good consciousness-raising exercise.

 

[JacobFox]

My freedom to practise my religion ends where your body begins, don't you agree? If not, hold out your .....

Just another person who doesn't seem to understand what I am saying. I am not saying that it should be this way, but I commenting on the fact that this is the way it will happen regardless of how I feel about it. Do I agree with you? Of course, I think I made that perfectly clear. Regardless, there are more than enough people who don't and if this law passes, that will be made clear. Please read all of my post, not just the part you decide you want to argue against.

And just before anyone makes a comment about me accepting things the way they are, it's not what I am doing. Simply commenting on how I feel it will play out regardless of how I feel.

 

[deleted15807]

Great! United States is waking up on that issue!

I'm afraid the United States has far bigger issues it needs to address. This is simply rearranging the deck chairs. Oh but you're already banned. Buh-bye.

 

[falsup]

I'm glad to see its down to 33%, that pleases me. Its not any harder to clean than a vagina. Parents who still do this, do it for cosmetic reasons. I'm really, really glad that my parents chose to forego this procedure. As a matter of fact, I'm tugging on my foreskin right now, and smiling...like this,

As far as the religionist are concerned, if they wanted to chop off fingers and toes should we allow them to do that too? Religion should never be allowed to trump the law and common sense.

 

[JacobFox]

As far as the religionist are concerned, if they wanted to chop off fingers and toes should we allow them to do that too? Religion should never be allowed to trump the law and common sense.

And I totally agree, but it's unlikely it will play out that easily.

 

[Sapien]

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.

While I am against all infant/child circumcision for non-medical reasons I agree that including banning circumcision for religious reasons will likely be a major factor in preventing the bill from being passed.

However, we also don't know what Lloyd Schofield's strategy is. Perhaps, having it rejected for those particular reasons will enable a second attempt exempting the circumcision for religious reasons easier to pass?? It will at least boost awareness on this topic.

The Royal Dutch Medical Associations published viewpoint on Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors concluded that such circumcisions should be banned for human rights reasons. However, they recommended that it not be because it would likely result in "back alley" type circumcisions that would cause an significant increase in circumcision related issues.

I agree that circumcision is part of the Muslim and Jewish religions but do not agree that circumcision is "essential" to those religions. There are plenty of Jewish and Muslim groups that do not believe in circumcision. In fact in 1999 an Israel anti-circumcision group tried to get circumcision ruled illegal by supreme court. Of course, the attempt was unsuccessful, but nevertheless it illustrates that not all members of these religious groups agree with this component of their religion.

 

[Mastur]

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.

Couldn't have said it better!

 

[Mastur]

The government has no business interfering in personal choice.

Are you for real? So, Child Protection Services (i.e. Government) also have no business interfering when Mr Paedo in the pursuit of living his personal choices, molests his own child...? Or when a parent, under the guise of parental rights to corporeal punishment, abuses his/her children... Should the government excuse itself seeing that the parent is living out his/her right to 'personal choice' over the rights of the defenseless child?

 

[noirman]

Are you for real? So, Child Protection Services (i.e. Government) also have no business interfering when Mr Paedo in the pursuit of living his personal choices, molests his own child...? Or when a parent, under the guise of parental rights to corporeal punishment, abuses his/her children... Should the government excuse itself seeing that the parent is living out his/her right to 'personal choice' over the rights of the defenseless child?

Yes, I'm for real, thank you. My perception of the purposes and limitations of governemnt are different from yours, but that doesn't mean that I think child abuse should go unpunished, etc.

 

[Countryguy63]

My freedom to practise my religion ends where your body begins, don't you agree? If not, hold out your ....
OK, that's one. Only 99,999,999 more to check.

I would be surprised if it passes, but it's a good consciousness-raising exercise.

You checked me without me knowing??? How dare you

Next time, I at least to "check" you too :tongue:

 

[buddy629]

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.

Agreed!!

 

[Sapien]

The government has no business interfering in personal choice.

Yes, I'm for real, thank you. My perception of the purposes and limitations of government are different from yours, but that doesn't mean that I think child abuse should go unpunished, etc.

In this case it is not so much as the government interfering with personal choice. It is for the protection of the human rights of others - it is protecting personal choice.

We all should have the right to the body parts that we are born with unless there is an urgent medical need. This is a human rights issue and this is why it non-therapeutic infant male circumcision has been banned from public hospitals in Australia.

This proposal would guarantee personal choice to the person most directly involved. If an adult person chooses to have himself circumcised, this will not stop him.

Exactly

 

[JTalbain]

While I am against all infant/child circumcision for non-medical reasons I agree that including banning circumcision for religious reasons will likely be a major factor in preventing the bill from being passed.

I think it will actually highlight how it is not essential to modern Judaism. Some people will argue against it for sure, but there are groups of Jews that feel it is barbaric and unnecessary. Some Rabbis even pointed out that the procedure was intended to "weaken the male organ" and quoting their traditional texts, "The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." Many Jews now feel the explicit purpose was to decrease sexual pleasure, and hence sexual excess, for both partners. Index

The Royal Dutch Medical Associations published viewpoint on Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors concluded that such circumcisions should be banned for human rights reasons. However, they recommended that it not be because it would likely result in "back alley" type circumcisions that would cause an significant increase in circumcision related issues.

I doubt it would come to a back alley deal. One of the biggest reasons why there is a legitimate concern for this about abortion is that the life of the woman will be irrevocably changed, and her opportunities changed as well, by having a child. There will be many more responsibilities levied upon her because she is now a parent. Circumcision isn't like that. People don't have to worry about thousands of dollars in expenses because they have a foreskin. Having a foreskin won't eat up hours of your time for the next eighteen years. People get it done out of conformity, not for any real pressing reason. When confronted with the facts, most people will back down from getting their child circed. There would be no pressing reason to do so.

Another possibility which may be forgotten is that circumcision is hard to cover up the evidence for. Simply by physical observation at any point by a doctor, cross checking with the child's birthdate and the date of passage of the law, the parent could be found guilty of whatever they term the crime to be. It's not like they can just hide it.

Ironically, a lot of parents feel they don't want to have their child "look different" in the locker room from their peers. The circumcision rates being what they are and continuing to fall, choosing to circumcise their sons will result in exactly that.

 

[noirman]

In this case it is not so much as the government interfering with personal choice. It is for the protection of the human rights of others - it is protecting personal choice.

We all should have the right to the body parts that we are born with unless there is an urgent medical need. This is a human rights issue and this is why it non-therapeutic infant male circumcision has been banned from public hospitals in Australia.



Exactly

I didn't come to this site to debate, but since I posted and got your civil reply, unlike the previous snarky one, I will elaborate on my thinking. My parents made the decision to circumcise me, not for religious reasons but because they thought they were doing what was best for me based on the knowledge of the time. They didn't then (or now) think it was barbaric, nor do I. It was their choice, and I respect them for making it in what they perceived to be my best interest. They made similar choices about my immunizations. Most of the parents I have the well being of their childen in mind.

I don't want any government to decide how I live my life. I will alienate half the members of this site by saying this, but I am also pro-choice re abortion and think drugs should be legalized or decriminalized. When parents or others make bad choices or abuse children, they need to be held accountable.

If, however, the majority of voters disagree with me and vote to restrict abortion or illegalize circumcisions or drugs or guns, I will abide by the law or move elsewhere.

Open debate is the best way to help people make decisions, not namecalling or insulting opposite viewpoints. I have heard all the arguments about protecting the rights of the unborn and newlyborn, and while I respect them, I think the loss of freedom of personal choices of the whole community is a far worse peril than the rare disfigurement or the relatively few women who opt for abortion as form of birth control.

I won't even bother addressing the issue of the government's deciding on the validity of my sexuality.

I appreciate your civility, Sapien.

 

[FuzzyKen]

I am against unnecessary circ's, but I am also against endless Court cases and appeals which cost the taxpayers incredible sums of money. This is one that could stay in the Court system for many years without settlement. I hate the circ's, but I hate a waste of taxpayer dollars just as much.

Based on how extreme some viewpoints are on this subject we can see the handwrighting on the wall just in this board let alone where it would go in public.

Millions of dollars in Court Costs later. . . . . ?

 

[Sapien]

I think it will actually highlight how it is not essential to modern Judaism. Some people will argue against it for sure, but there are groups of Jews that feel it is barbaric and unnecessary.

That is quite probable. That may be one of the reason Schofield has decided to include banning religious circumcision in the proposed bill.
There are also Muslims that argue the Qur'an does not require circumcision in fact to circumcise is an offense to Allah since he created perfection in the human form.

I cannot put the link because it site has infant photos etc. that are not allowed but Google "QuranicPath" and select the 2nd search item "QuranicPath / Circumcision - Does the Quran Approve it?" Some relevant sections are as follows:

In numerous Verses of the Qur'an, Allah tells us that He has created everything, including human beings, in the most perfect form. In the following verse, Allah explicitly states this with regards to the human creation:
"We have indeed created man in the 'best of moulds'." (Qur'an 95:4)

This means when a baby leaves the mother's womb, he or she is in the most perfect of shape down to the finest detail. Nothing needs alteration. With regards to the development of the baby, Allah states the following:

"Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the 'Best of all Creators!' " (Qur'an 23:14)

Notice that Allah states that He is the best creator - the resulting completed creation of the baby is thus in its optimal form.

In another verse, Allah states:
"The work of Allah who has 'perfected everything' (He created)." (Qur'an 27:88)

Also in two other Verses, in relation to human beings, Allah says the following:
"The One Who has 'perfected everything' He has created and began the creation of human beings from clay" (Qur'an 32:7)

"Allah is the One who made the Earth a habitat for you, and the sky as a structure, and He designed you, and has perfected your design. " (Qur'an 40:64)

All these verses tell us that Allah creates human beings, male and female, perfectly in the mother's womb. The design of the foreskin on the male is an intentional act of creation. Allah did not make a 'mistake' in designing the foreskin of the male. He does not need mankind to take a knife and start cutting off bits from all males, as if though it is a 'corrective procedure' to a design flaw.


"You will not see any flaw in what the Lord of Mercy creates." (Qur'an 67:3)


The proponents of circumcision say there are reasons such as hygiene and other benefits behind them doing this. This is actually an insult against Allah. Because, had it been 'better' in anyway to not have the foreskin, Allah would have designed all male babies without that bit of the foreskin - as Allah states, he has perfected His creation as is stated in several verses in the Qur'an. As per the Quranic understanding, medical research shows that the foreskin serves numerous useful purposes and is designed intentionally by Allah to serve these purposes.

Islamic people against circumcision are probably as vocal or organized as Jewish people against it due to the nature of their religion.

I doubt it would come to a back alley deal. One of the biggest reasons why there is a legitimate concern for this about abortion is that the life of the woman will be irrevocably changed, and her opportunities changed as well, by having a child. There will be many more responsibilities levied upon her because she is now a parent. Circumcision isn't like that. People don't have to worry about thousands of dollars in expenses because they have a foreskin. Having a foreskin won't eat up hours of your time for the next eighteen years. People get it done out of conformity, not for any real pressing reason. When confronted with the facts, most people will back down from getting their child circed. There would be no pressing reason to do so.

I probably did not include enough detail in my reference to the Royal Dutch Medical Association's viewpoint on this issue. Their concern was that banning circumcision (including circumcision for religious reasons) in the Netherlands would lead to an increase in "religious" circumcisions by unqualified people. After they concluded that Non-therapeutic was a human rights violation they reluctantly recommended not to ban it precisely for this reason.

I agree with them that this is a legitimate concern. Perhaps as much of a concern for a ban in a particular U.S. city but for a country - yes.

 

[Sapien]

I didn't come to this site to debate, but since I posted and got your civil reply, unlike the previous snarky one, I will elaborate on my thinking. My parents made the decision to circumcise me, not for religious reasons but because they thought they were doing what was best for me based on the knowledge of the time. They didn't then (or now) think it was barbaric, nor do I. It was their choice, and I respect them for making it in what they perceived to be my best interest. They made similar choices about my immunizations. Most of the parents I have the well being of their children in mind.

If, however, the majority of voters disagree with me and vote to restrict abortion or illegalize circumcisions or drugs or guns, I will abide by the law or move elsewhere.

I appreciate your civility, Sapien.

I agree that parents make such choices because they think it is the best decision. It is very rare that a parent would purposely make a decision that was not in the best interest of their child.

However, those decisions were made in an era when there was little knowledge on the anatomy and physiology of the foreskin. Well now the studies have been done and there is strong evidence that the foreskin is highly erogenous and has functional purpose.

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is the only cosmetic surgery that is allowed by our laws. It is unique because of its practice over several thousands of years and the religious implications. However, even a symbolic pin prick in female genitalia to satisfy religious beliefs is not tolerated in our society.

Yes it is still legal and parents can make that choice but the question is should it be. I really don't think in this case a change in our laws would be the government infringing on our rights. It would be correcting a situation that is wrong. There are a lot of circumcised men that are not happy that this choice was made for them without their consent. The fact that we now know better and that a significant percentage of "informed" circumcised men prefer to be intact justifies such activism to have the laws changed. Our laws should protect male and female genitalia equally.

I do appreciate your civility too, it definitely makes for a better discussion. It is an emotional issue and people tend to over react sometimes (including me - though usually after being goaded into such a response).

 

[toadstool]

Another topic that should be decided by parents not by GOVERNMENT when will governments step out of parenting issues what a load of crap