Circumcision Ban May End Up on S.F. Ballot
The city that will soon outlaw toys in McDonald's Happy Meals could have a measure banning circumcision on next November's ballot, reports CBS San Francisco.
"It's genital mutilation," said Lloyd Schofield, the author of a San Francisco ballot measure that would make it a "misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals" of a person under 18.
Baby boys in San Francisco may be relieved but not everybody agrees with a proposed ban.
"I just had him circumcised 3 weeks ago," said Heather Wisnicky of Sacramento, mother of Tyler, a 6-week-old baby boy. "It's a health issue. It's cleaner," she said.
Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public. Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, a CDC researcher reported a sharp drop in the number of American parents choosing circumcision in hospitals - from 56 percent in 2006 to less than 33 percent last year.
"Most medical groups have not come out with strong opinions regarding pro or con circumcisions," said CBS 5 medical reporter Dr. Kim Mulvihill. "Most are saying leave it up to the families, let them decide what's right for their son."
"Ah, that's a little much," said Earl Phillips of San Francisco about the proposed ban. "That goes a little bit too far."
"You shouldn't be performing cosmetic surgery for other people," said Schofield, who points out that female circumcision is banned, but was covered by Blue Cross insurance in the United States into the 1970s.
"It's your choice, it's your child…government can't rule us on everything we do," said Wisnicky, the Sacramento mother.
"Tattooing a child is banned as a felony and circumcision is more harmful than a tattoo," said Schofield, who believes religious traditions should change.
"People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else's body," said Schofield. "It's a man's body and…his body doesn't belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It's his decision."
The measure is not on the ballot yet. Schofield needs to collect more than 7,100 signatures
Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved. "It's genital mutilation," said Lloyd Schofield, the author of a San Francisco ballot measure that would make it a "misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals" of a person under 18.
Baby boys in San Francisco may be relieved but not everybody agrees with a proposed ban.
"I just had him circumcised 3 weeks ago," said Heather Wisnicky of Sacramento, mother of Tyler, a 6-week-old baby boy. "It's a health issue. It's cleaner," she said.
Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public. Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, a CDC researcher reported a sharp drop in the number of American parents choosing circumcision in hospitals - from 56 percent in 2006 to less than 33 percent last year.
"Most medical groups have not come out with strong opinions regarding pro or con circumcisions," said CBS 5 medical reporter Dr. Kim Mulvihill. "Most are saying leave it up to the families, let them decide what's right for their son."
"Ah, that's a little much," said Earl Phillips of San Francisco about the proposed ban. "That goes a little bit too far."
"You shouldn't be performing cosmetic surgery for other people," said Schofield, who points out that female circumcision is banned, but was covered by Blue Cross insurance in the United States into the 1970s.
"It's your choice, it's your child…government can't rule us on everything we do," said Wisnicky, the Sacramento mother.
"Tattooing a child is banned as a felony and circumcision is more harmful than a tattoo," said Schofield, who believes religious traditions should change.
"People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else's body," said Schofield. "It's a man's body and…his body doesn't belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It's his decision."
The measure is not on the ballot yet. Schofield needs to collect more than 7,100 signatures
Popular in Health
- A test for throat cancer caused by HPV?
- Facebook organ donor status option upped number of donors
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- Deep vein thrombosis: Don't ignore these silent symptoms
- Air pollution exposure while pregnant linked to autism risk
- Japanese "eyeball licking" trend carries blindness risk
- Moderate drinking during pregnancy may not harm baby's brain
- Eating red meat may boost Type 2 diabetes risk
----------------------------------
Science News "Half of adult males carry HPV" Male circumcision and the use of condoms have shown little protection against HPV infection, Monsonego says.
Swaziland Times "More circumcised men are HIV positive"
All Africa "Uganda: New HIV/Aids Messages Worsening HIV Situation"
CircumcisionAndHIV "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" Lot De Witte
The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) 2010 Circumcision Statement:
"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.
-------------------------------------------
SF is progressive and open minded. We are intolerant of sexism and inequality. This law brings males into the fold of protection currently enjoyed by females. Really simple equality for all.
So either your FOR Equal Rights or Not. Simple simple simple.
---------------------------------------------
How'd ya git t'be so STUPID? How'd git t'be so DUMB!
It's please pass the salt this foreskin lacks flavor. (Muslim) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKJnZ8YuHkk
AND You can't stop me from sucking on this baby's *****. I've been hired!
(Jewish) http://uncle-semite.com/menschhealth/
-----------------------------------------------------
Mesculin and Peyote are banned, those are used in religions, Pot is banned, Women in Florida are not allowed to wear their Bhurka's in official photos for Drivers permits. Female circumcisn is banned. Christian Scientists have been sent to jail by denying medical treatment to their children, Sihk's are not allowed to carry long daggers in public, etc&
So I don't know WHERE this idea sprang up among conservatives that the law has no power ever against religions.
As one man said, but in more colourful language:
"My family doesn't [urinate] with my [p enis],
my family doesn't [masturbate] with my [pe nis]
and my family doesn't [have sexual intercourse] with my [pen is],
so what business did my family have to go cutting part off of my [peni s]?
Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure when there is no diagnosis of defect
or disease, and no record of other less-destructive remedies tried before
resorting to the drastic last-resort step of amputation. "Male" is not a
diagnosis. Foreskin is not a birth defect.
Religion is no excuse for carving up your kid!! Your religion is not above the law of decent human ethics.
Next comparing male circs to female "circumcisions" is egregious. The purpose of the female version is to deprive the female of sexual enjoyment. This is not the case with male circumcisions which are part of a long standing religious ceremony and is believed by some to be a hygienic procedure.
Being a circumcised male I choose to have my male child undergo the same procedure. There are those that say that it is barbaric or unnatural but "civilized" Americas do unnatural things to their bodies daily.
The heart of the issue seems to be about choice and I respect that those against circumcisions for this, that they are trying to protect those who can not object to having something done to their bodies. The problem is that this is a procedure that makes sense to do while a newborn when the recovery is quick and mild as opposed to at 13 which is done in some cultures and I would estimate is very traumatic for the young male.
I understand wanting to restrict harm done to babies, but to restrict religious freedom is un-American and would not be constitutional.
The debate about sexual pleasure will never be truly answered because for a person to have intercourse both before and after being circumcised would require it being done after puberty which would be traumatic and the psychological aspect would never be removable from the perception.
I can speak to my experience and if given a choice to go back I would elect to be circumcised.
You say that Americans do unnatural things to their bodies all the time. Of course they do but you can't tattoo a child. You can't place a scalpel near a female's genitals without going to jail. Why do we allow a scalpel near a baby boy's genitals? You're confusing consentual body modification of yourself and non-consentual body modification of someone else. There is a difference. Would you allow a doctor to operate on your wife or girlfriend or mother or grandmother without their consent?
There is no medical necessity. ALL American medical associations acknowledge this. Because this is their statement this procedure is considered cosmetic. Cosmetic surgery on babies? What's next ... designer babies?
We live in a different time with updated values, but wouldn't you like to think that if you lived during those times, that you would be mortified by those ideals just as you are today?
Put aside your present ideals and just think about what circumcision actually is. Think how helpless that child is. You are cutting off a piece of his genitalia PERMANENTLY. How can you be morally serious and not consider this child abuse?
When the spirit of the times changes, don't you want your descendants to be able to look back and say you opposed this horrible crime, even when it wasn't socially acceptable to?
Those in favor of this ban are you against banning all underaged cosmetic surgery or do you have a double standard?
After reading about men who were furious that they had been circumcised as babies and why they felt that way I chose not to have my son done. The assumption that a boy gets more infections if he has a foreskin are bogus unless you are a pig who does not bother to keep clean. The sole reason for this is religion and religion should have no place in forcing people to cause children pain and potential misery as an adult. The first while of a child`s life needs to have close physical contact that is warm and loving in order for the brain to develop properly. No religion should have the right to deny them that.
You can not compare Islamic nations with the United States. The reason Islamic nations have such a high circ rate is because it is required by religious law. Same things with Israel and Jewish influenced nations. The reason why Islamic nations have such a low HIV infection rate is because of the deadly consequences of extra marital affairs and promiscuity.
OH! Did you know that the AIDS/HIV infections have risen dramatically in Israel lately? ... since like 2007? and Do you know why they are citing for the reason of this outbreak? Lack of the use of condoms. Yes. Jewish men think they are invincible with their circumcision. Circumcision does NOT prevent HIV/AIDS.
If circumcision does not prevent anything bad from occurring then why support it?
to those who support a ban don't you find it weird that people have to be told this what does this say about humanity?
Also Please do not insult the parents they were simply acting on what they knew and that you most likely would have made the same decision in the same situation with their knowledge.
I have a very strong feeling that a ban would do more harm than good since it might cause some to go underground and endanger more people kind of like when abortion was illegal.
Frankly I've heard a lot of hoopla on this argument
Personally if I ghave a son I wll likely not have him circumcised but I will not call a parent who does a barbarian because that would be like calling my mother a barbarian and I cannot do that. Also many of the cultures we call "barbaric" were actually quite intelligent and advanced. That and there are two things in western culture that kill much more people alcohol and tobacco we ain't banning them anytime soon.
It's all about individual rights to one's own body. That is to which it all boils down.
Can you imagine if a man were to authorize elective surgery on his wife to which she did not consent?
Oh, I see now....Can you imagine if a parent were to authorize aborting a baby to which the child did not consent....Oh yea, we already do that....hypocrites
Couldn't have said it better myself. Liberal pieces of crap just want mess things up all the time. Ban this, require that, no wonder san francisco is so bankrupt, everybody and their far-out ideas, stretching everthing in every direction, i hope an earthquake swallows the whole "great and abominable" city up.
So I ask again, can you imagine if a man were to authorize elective surgery on his wife or another man without their consent?