Posted on 05/18/2011 6:48:45 PM PDT by massmike
A group seeking to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has succeeded in getting their controversial measure on the November ballot, meaning voters will be asked to weigh in on what until now has been a private family matter.
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that the initiative had received enough signatures to appear on the ballot, getting more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must receive at least 7,168 signatures to qualify.
If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It isn’t a perfect comparison, but in both cases you’re chopping off an infant’s body part, without its consent, effectively making sex less pleasurable for the rest of its life.
I would not support a ban like this, it probably should be a family (and religious) decision, but I do argue against families making that choice.
Really? No compelling state interest? People are performing a painful and unnecessary surgical procedure on infants, without their consent, affecting them for the rest of their lives, for superstitious and aesthetic (i.e. self-centered) reasons. The state always has an interest in protecting children from abuse. That will be the argument, and I’m not sure I disagree with it.
That said, I wouldn’t support a ban like this. It should be a family decision. But I really don’t think non-Jewish parents (for instance) should consider it the “default” (the “health reasons” are bullshit in a first world country), or that a father should decide to circumcise just because he was.
To offer a personal testimonial: I’m circumcised. I was born (actually, in California) during an era when essentially all male babies born in hospitals were circumcised. I’m glad I’m circumcised. My wife is glad I’m circumcised. It’s probably a personal preference, and most of us will probably be happy with the way we are because that’s the way we are.
Is it just me or are some people hardcore drugees who are too stoned or high to think straight about what laws to propose? This is about as logical as the idea that tobacco be illegal while pot be legal
I posted that I would rather have an exception for Jews, and to eliminate routine infant circumcision for others by social stigma rather than by law. Most circumcisions are done by Drs. for bogus "health" reasons (really to make $), not by mohels for religious reasons.
Anyway, there are Jews already questioning the use of religious circumcision. And other practices which were once absolutely central to Jewish worship, like animal sacrifices, have already been abandoned.
In short...there were two villages. One village all the males were circ'd and in the other none....The incidence of HIV in the non circ'd men was much higher than with the other.
Actually was pretty interesting....
So I don't think it's bogus...Besides that...most of the hospitals I've worked at...it's a choice. And I highly doubt Drs. are making a killing on circ's.
FWIW
But even if the State of California decided it had a compelling interest that it could defend -- very unlikely in this case because no public interest is involved -- it's very difficult to imagine ANY municipality that could justify it. Municipal authorities in most jurisdictions do not have a grant of this kind of authority: in this case it's not so much the compelling that's pertinent as it is the interest itself. An authority that runs parks and appoints dog catchers isn't competent (in both the original and modern sense) to make such determinations. By its past actions, clearly San Francisco has demonstrated it is not.
Thank God I don't live in California anymore, or in a state where they think this is the government's business.
The pervs want a penis they like.
2) Since when are newborn babies at risk for HIV (unless they caught it from their mothers)?
3) The propagandists for circ. have been cranking out studies like this for years. They used to claim the foreskin caused cervical cancer, till that was disproved. They claimed the foreskin caused penile cancer, although there are more deaths caused by botched circumcisions that by penile cancer. You have to read the history to learn that this surgery became standard in America because crackpots thought it would reduce sexual sensation and thereby discourage masturbation! Then it just became a matter of habit and ingrained stupidity.
4) Any ethical Dr. should know that unnecessary surgery is contradictory to the Hypocratic oath, and should refuse to perform it. Some of the leading opponents of routine circ. are Drs. and nurses. This surgery was performed for decades with no anesthesia, and I know women who heard their sons screaming from clear down the hallway. Any Dr. who did that, over and over, should have been drummed out of the profession, or at least shunned by any patient. Some Drs. are heroic, but the profession has its share of scumbags.
5) There are non-violent, non-surgical solutions for all the problems allegedly caused by lack of circumcision.
6) Whether you believe in creation, intelligent design, or pure evolution, the foreskin is there for a purpose, like almost every other part of the body. We are not talking about clipping fingernails here. The foreskin contains about 1/3 of all the skin area and nerve endings in the penis. The foreskin is designed to protect the penis and maintain maximum sensitivity. Now if some adult actually wants to have his removed, that's his business. If he wants to get himself castrated, that will probably really reduce his risk of HIV, penile cancer, etc. But arguments for infant circumcision are pseudo-scientific garbage.
Sir?
Just that here's WHAT YOU SAID, "Most circumcisions are done by Drs. for bogus "health" reasons (really to make $)"
And I pointed out to you..a study that made your statement kaput. But yet you continue.......
You may and will have the last word, or rant. Which ever.
Since you continue to push this as a "Jewish" issue, and claim to be conservative, I will reply in kind. Will you agree to use your influence to stop Jewish Drs. from pushing this surgery on non-Jews? Will you use every opportunity to lobby every Jew you know to stop supporting every Marxist who runs for office in the U.S.? Will you oppose lawsuits, many brought by Jews, to expunge every trace of Christian heritage from American public life?
As I pointed out, your African study is flawed, and circumcision of promiscuous, unhygienic, already diseased Africans has no relevance whatsoever to the alleged need for circumcision of innocent little infant boys in America. The rate of HIV in America where most boys are circumcised is about the same as in European countries where circumcision is rare. Case closed; you lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.