Quote :

"A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter. But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights. Elections officials confirmed Wednesday the initiative had qualified for the ballot with more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names 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. The proposed ban appears to be the first in the country to make it this far, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs."

Rest at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/19/circumcision-ban-appear-san-francisco-ballot/ (AP)

I'm a little torn on this. On the one hand, the science seems to be legitimately mixed on whether the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. Most medical association in the US seem to recommend only that these pros and cons be presented to parents for their consideration.

On the other hand, the opponents of this law that I've spoken with, even relatively non-religious ones, as well as news organizations such as the Associated Press, seem to want to frame it in the context of religious liberty. This strikes me as absurd. How on earth is the branding of an ideological affiliation into the penis of an unknowing infant in keeping with the notion of liberty?

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:22 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2011 12:20:24 PM

Religious freedom. It's unconstitutional. And it's stupid, because the science is against these idiots with regards to the biggest risks of not circumsizing. I'll bet they also believe in homeopathy.

Thank God my family is all in San Joaquin County, because I'd hate to think they're supporting this.

5/20/2011 12:23:34 PM

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary.

Religious freedom is letting arabs/jews/quakers wear funny little hats. Chopping up your kid's genitals is barbarism.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 12:25:31 PM

^^ And there you go. Whose religious freedom is more at stake here? The parents, or the person about to have his physical appearance irreversibly altered? I don't think I would vote for the law due to the medical ambiguities, but the religious freedom argument seems ridiculous to me.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2011 12:26:19 PM

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

CDC says it lowers the risk of contracting HIV.

So if you never have sex with anyone who hasn't proven to you their HIV free, then sure, have your law.

Still, why the hell should you be BANNED from circumsizing if you're worried about HIV?

^It's been pretty well-established as a practice of a number of Abrahamic groups in the United States.

Fact of the matter is this: why would you ban something that may or may not be harmful? Why not ban other things that have benefits and possible drawbacks for your health?

And the consent argument is bullshit. How many other things do kids not consent to? Should we ban compulsory schooling until the kid's old enough to choose whether or not to go? Parental decisions are pretty well established as not usurping the kid's rights as long as they aren't abused.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:30 PM. Reason : x]

5/20/2011 12:27:45 PM

You know what else prevents HIV? Wearing a funny little hat...on your dick.

Hell I bet chopping your dick off entirely would prevent the spread of AIDS even better.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:29 PM. Reason : FUNNY LITTLE HATS.]

5/20/2011 12:28:51 PM

I'm all for pissing off the Muslims but we need to coddle the Jews right now since they're butthurt about Obama's speech.

Therefore let's make this ballot initiative "Ban circumcision of male children in San Francisco born to Muslim parents".

That'll work.

5/20/2011 12:30:49 PM

Ok, let's reduce it down to a simple question:

Why ban it and not ban parents from making other decisions for their kids before they can consent?

Because the consent issue is the only real legal argument I could see anyone rationally trying to make against this. If it's a health thing, then it's bullshit.

Quote :

"Whose religious freedom is more at stake here? The parents, or the person about to have his physical appearance irreversibly altered?"

It's pretty well-established that parents can do this sort of thing. See: sex assignment surgery in the case of ambiguous genitalia. I haven't heard of a single successful suit against parents for doing that.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:36 PM. Reason : x]

5/20/2011 12:31:41 PM

I would be intrigued to hear the opinion of y0willy0 on this matter.

5/20/2011 12:32:26 PM

Quote :

"Why ban it and not ban parents from making other decisions for their kids before they can consent?"

What other routine and physically irreversible decisions to parents make for their kids? I'm not talking about shit like choosing what school they go to...I'm talking about physical things that are taken from them that cannot ever be returned.

5/20/2011 12:40:17 PM

My son will have a forehead tattoo by age 10.

5/20/2011 12:44:01 PM

i see this as an all-out assault on oral sex.

i mean after all, who wants to put THAT in their mouth?

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ?]

5/20/2011 1:01:39 PM

He said irreversible. Maybe you should say your son will have his forehead removed by age 10.

5/20/2011 1:02:55 PM

How about we settle for a hot branding. If I can cut his dick surely a little branding would be alright.

5/20/2011 1:04:29 PM

its not irreversible-

foreskin can be restored- a simple google search will affirm this.

5/20/2011 1:05:37 PM

No thanks.

5/20/2011 1:07:32 PM

It's like putting a turtleneck on.

5/20/2011 1:09:27 PM

I never even knew this was controversial enough to warrant people trying to get a law passed.

I can't speak for Muslims, but as for Jews having a circumcision is one of the most important things that makes them Jews from what I remember...so yeah, I'd say there's plenty argument there for religious freedom.

Also, and I can't speak to this with any certainty, but just from reading stuff on the internet over the years it seems that more females than not would prefer a guy not to have foreskin...so IMO you're doing the kid a favor there.

5/20/2011 1:14:00 PM

i dont remember this happening to me- i doubt i suffered.

my scar makes it kinda look like the space shuttle's external fuel tank.

im a fan.

5/20/2011 1:19:42 PM

Quote :

"What other routine and physically irreversible decisions to parents make for their kids? I'm not talking about shit like choosing what school they go to...I'm talking about physical things that are taken from them that cannot ever be returned."

Well, I mentioned the cases of ambiguous genitalia when parents have consented to reassignment surgery. These cases have been common among people who later undergo a sex change later in life. If you can find me a case of a successful suit against a parent in one of those isolated cases, go ahead. I'm just saying there's no precedent.

And it won't hold up on religious freedom grounds, more than likely. It's too central to Abrahamic Religions. I'm sure this will end up tied up in the courts for a long time.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 1:55 PM. Reason : s]

5/20/2011 1:53:45 PM

God damn it, I hate agreeing with smc on something...

Quote :

"I can't speak for Muslims, but as for Jews having a circumcision is one of the most important things that makes them Jews from what I remember...so yeah, I'd say there's plenty argument there for religious freedom."

Newborns aren't practicing Jews or Muslims. Religious practices that mutilate a child's penis are barbaric. If your god needs your child's foreskin, he can have it when the child is old enough to make that decision for himself. I don't know how you can suggest it should be a person's right to mutilate their child. Circumcision is child abuse and the only reason you can defend it with a straight face is because of religion. What the fuck, world?

Quote :

"Also, and I can't speak to this with any certainty, but just from reading stuff on the internet over the years it seems that more females than not would prefer a guy not to have foreskin...so IMO you're doing the kid a favor there."

Then why are you speaking to it at all? What percentage of the population of this world do you think is actually circumsized? 30%. We're doomed if only cut men can get laid. (obviously this isn't the case). Additionally I've seen videos (watch Penn & Teller's episode on circumcision for one reference) of women who have had both and preferred uncut. Not that this is evidence, but you seem to like anecdotal evidence.

Quote :

"i dont remember this happening to me- i doubt i suffered. my scar makes it kinda look like the space shuttle's external fuel tank. im a fan."

Well, shit if "he's not going to remember it and he may dig the scars" is a good enough reason to let me cause physical harm to my child....

5/20/2011 2:14:38 PM

then fucking tell the doctor not to do it when they ask you cunt-

it's not mandatory.

...and if you wanna stick it to the man for taking your foreskin against your will then get a vacuum pump and bring it back.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM. Reason : FORESKIN]

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ...]

5/20/2011 2:26:41 PM

I wonder what position the supporters of this ban hold on abortion.

5/20/2011 2:27:03 PM

Quote :

"then fucking tell the doctor not to do it when they ask you cunt- it's not mandatory. ...and if you wanna stick it to the man for taking your foreskin against your will then get a vacuum pump and bring it back."

How exactly can a newborn tell the doctor not to do it?

Quote :

"I wonder what position the supporters of this ban hold on abortion."

I'm against aborting newborns as well.

5/20/2011 2:33:30 PM

*sigh*

i was talking about when your child is born.

5/20/2011 2:34:20 PM

And that's my point. Whether or not to mutilate your child should not be a decision a person can make. You should not mutilate your children.

It doesn't matter whether there are possible health benefits, social benefits, cosmetic benefits (all of these are dubious at any rate).

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 2:36:02 PM

i think you should brush up on the definition of mutilate.

5/20/2011 2:41:18 PM

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilate

Quote :

"mu·ti·lat·edmu·ti·lat·ing Definition of MUTILATE transitive verb 1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>"

I am of the opinion that circumcision fits this definition perfectly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilate

Quote :

" mu·ti·late (mytl-t) tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates 1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1. 3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts."

The 2nd and 3rd definitions in this dictionary are apt.

5/20/2011 2:48:03 PM

Quote :

"Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death."

facts not in evidence.

some say its pretty, some say its ugly, some say it makes sex feel better/worse.

id rather have had it done when i was a newborn and could have CARED LESS about my penis being optimized and was mostly concerned with WHERE THE FUCK AM I? IT'S BRIGHT!

but really how much time has been wasted on the goddamn board arguing opinion? it wont pass- considering the atmosphere in san fran, if it's already drawing fire, it's surely doomed.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ,]

5/20/2011 2:55:45 PM

san fran is returning to ridiculous I see

5/20/2011 2:59:01 PM

Quote :

"some say its pretty, some say its ugly, some say it makes sex feel better/worse. id rather have had it done when i was a newborn and could have CARED LESS about my penis being optimized and was mostly concerned with WHERE THE FUCK AM I? IT'S BRIGHT! but really how much time has been wasted on the goddamn board arguing opinion? it wont pass- considering the atmosphere in san fran, if it's already drawing fire, it's surely doomed. "

Then why do you keep talking? I think it's worth discussing because it blows my mind that anyone would defend a person's right to mutilate their children. Well, it doesn't blow my mind because I understand how powerful and destructive a force superstition is. Any time countering it is not a waste of time.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I tell you what, describe to me how permanently disfiguring a penis is NOT mutilation.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 3:00:10 PM

Well I think mutilate is too strong a word, and I don't care about any religious attachment to this.

Penis' are better because of this miracle, and I'm saying that in the least-gay way possible.


-----------------------

Define disfigure?

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM. Reason : Did Michelangelo disfigure a rock?]

5/20/2011 3:01:55 PM

Should juggalos be able to give their babies face tattoos of clown makeup? Asking for a friend.

5/20/2011 3:02:24 PM

Better in what way exactly?


--------------

Quote :

"Define disfigure?"

What the fuck is wrong with you? I didn't think these were SAT words.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 3:03:50 PM

lol, theyre not.

thats why your misuse of them is so amusing.

you uneducated louse.

5/20/2011 3:07:05 PM

Ok, then. Describe to me why taking a scalpel and excising skin permanently from a penis is not mutilation, as defined in my post above.

Excising means cutting off, btw.

5/20/2011 3:12:19 PM

Because Herschel, Moishe and Schlomo said so. Ok. There.

5/20/2011 3:19:47 PM

...it doesnt actually damage the organ.

detractors can AT BEST point to *possible* loss of sexual sensation...

while proponents can point to heaps of studies where various diseases are significantly reduced? as well as increased attractiveness? it isnt even comparable to female genital cutting, which is obvious mutilation.

ITS OPTIONAL ANYWAY!

why not make a ton of shit that happens to babies illegal? you want my kids to opt out of vaccinations and give your kid the plague? how about leaving the cord attached and jump-roping that shit all the way to school?

get a fucking clue instead of just trying to make a point- youre obviously not the most religious person around and youre only making a fuss because of that connection to circumcision. furthermore you leap at any excuse to 'stick it to the man.'

sorry but when youre a baby you dont know shit and guess what? your parents do and they get to make certain calls. there is also tradition and history and all that ish that goes along with it.

oh and did i mention its optional?

youre more than welcome to usher in your new-future-forward-looking-elite-america-grassroots-uberliberal-united-coalition-of-enlightenedfolk-withugly-penises-movement if you would like?

nobody gives a fuck.

its just san francisco being san francisco.

most sane people realize this.

its going to die in vote.

your kid will have a funny penis.

youre probably online buying a foreskin restoration pump right now.

the world ends tomorrow at 6pm.

yay.

5/20/2011 3:26:15 PM

Quote :

"...it doesnt actually damage the organ."

It doesn't? Wasn't it you that said you had a cool scar? How would you get a scar without damaging the organ? Cutting off a piece of the organ seems to fit the definition of "damage" perfectly. I don't understand your line of reasoning at all.

If I were to take a knife and remove skin from my son's back and leave a permanent scar, would that also not be mutilation?

Quote :

"sorry but when youre a baby you dont know shit and guess what? your parents do and they get to make certain calls. there is also tradition and history and all that ish that goes along with it."

This is the saddest fucking reason to cut our children I have ever heard.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 3:32:24 PM

I'm going to move to san fran and become a back alley mohel, and get rich as shit.

5/20/2011 3:33:51 PM

Quote :

"If I were to take a knife and remove skin from my son's back and leave a permanent scar, would that also not be mutilation?"

no because there was no benefit. it would be comparable to circumcision if said backskin removal lowered his risk of cancer or other diseases though.

or if it made girls think he was sexier.

im not even going to address your second point- you completely ignored what i said after that quote and its obvious you arent a practical or realistic person in general.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ly]

5/20/2011 3:43:43 PM

So mutilating for a perceived benefit is suddenly not mutilating. Got it.

What makes you think that circumcision "lowers the risk of cancer or other diseases" exactly? I am not convinced of this claim. I am aware of studies done in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda and even if my child lived there, hygiene, and safe sex practices would completely obliterate the risk of cancer and disease.

Quote :

"or if it made girls think he was sexier."

And you're convinced of this, how? What if he's going to be into guys? What if he's going to be a celibate? If by the time he's old enough for girls to think he's sexy and they want him to be cut, he can get it done. I don't see the problem here.

Quote :

"im not even going to address your second point- you completely ignored what i said after that quote and its obvious you arent a practical or realistic person in general."

Because what you said afterward was a stream of consciousness bullshit that looked exactly like this:

5/20/2011 3:59:08 PM

i meant for you to comment on every other decision you make regarding your child at birth.

maiming the cord? maiming with needles / vaccinations? anything else that equals boo-hoo?

are you going to deliver your child at home and keep it shielded from the rest of humanity in caveman fashion?

and how about searching for medical journal articles instead of googling "why circumcision is bad / cons of circumcision?"

just an idea.

explain to us just exactly what you think should happen at birth and what you think a parent can and cannot do? sounds like typical liberal micromanaging my life horseshit to me-

5/20/2011 4:08:35 PM

Quote :

"i meant for you to comment on every other decision you make regarding your child at birth."

Okie dokie.

Quote :

"maiming the cord?"

Severing the umbilical cord is a natural part of the birthing process. This analogy is laughable.

Quote :

"maiming with needles / vaccinations?"

Injections do not cause scarring or permanent damage and vaccinations *actually* prevent disease. Equating an injection with a permanent scarring of the penis is horseshit.

Quote :

"are you going to deliver your child at home and keep it shielded from the rest of humanity in caveman fashion?"

What in the fuck does this have to do with anything? I have two children, and both were delivered at the hospital.

Quote :

"and how about searching for medical journal articles instead of googling "why circumcision is bad / cons of circumcision?" just an idea. "

I have read the studies that are often cited in support of circumcision as well as the APA and the CDC guidelines. I remain unconvinced that there is any reasonable justification for cosmetically altering a child without his consent.

Quote :

"explain to us just exactly what you think should happen at birth and what you think a parent can and cannot do? sounds like typical liberal micromanaging my life horseshit to me-"

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that parents should not be allowed to harm their children. I'm sorry that you feel you have the right to do physical harm to your children and that the law should have no say in the matter.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 4:25 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 4:24:03 PM

Quote :

"I have read the studies that are often cited in support of circumcision as well as the APA and the CDC guidelines. I remain unconvinced that there is any reasonable justification for cosmetically altering a child without his consent."

and we're done!

i was unaware i was dealing with such an expert! oh how ive wasted my time!

5/20/2011 4:30:53 PM

The AAP is also unconvinced. What's your point?

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM. Reason : acronym fail]

5/20/2011 4:31:52 PM

If you have a problem with it then DON'T DO IT.

Otherwise leave everyone else the fuck alone and stop trampling on their rights.

5/20/2011 4:33:59 PM

Quote :

"If you have a problem with it then DON'T DO IT. Otherwise leave everyone else the fuck alone and stop trampling on their rights."

So chopping the skin off of a newborn's penis *should* be a right?

5/20/2011 4:39:26 PM

considering its been generally accepted for thousands of years and has many benefits proven by modern science yes it should be a right.

5/20/2011 5:53:55 PM

You know, this debate has come up on the wolfweb several times. In no instance of it have I seen anyone say, "Damn my parents, I wish they hadn't had me circumcised!"

Nor have I ever heard any uncut people say, "Why, why didn't my parents circumcise me?!"

Quote :

"Cutting off a piece of the organ seems to fit the definition of "damage" perfectly."

A friend of the family had this kid with a giant fucking mole on his forehead. Looked ridiculous, but medically it was benign. They had it removed when he was a few months old. Did they damage him?

Quote :

"Severing the umbilical cord is a natural part of the birthing process."

Severing it is. Tying it into a ridiculous knot that may develop into an equally ridiculous-looking outie is not.

---

My issue is that I'm not seeing much evidence of circumcision doing actual harm. If anything the evidence suggests that it does some little bit of good. I can't help but feel like this is another one of those issues people want to get worked up about because it has religious overtones, not because it's actually hurting anybody.

5/20/2011 6:06:44 PM