Posted on 06/02/2011 7:26:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
In 2010, San Francisco supervisors banned Happy Meals. They showed no regard for parental choice. So it should not come as a shock that activists have managed to put a measure on the November ballot that essentially would outlaw the circumcision of baby boys.
If it passes, parents won't be able to choose to circumcise their infant sons. The penalty for the "genital cutting of male minors" will be a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail.
The ballot measure bills itself as a ban on "forced genital cutting" and "mutilation." Clearly, the authors want to confuse voters by equating male circumcision to female genital mutilation, the barbaric, unsanitary butchering of a young girl's private parts in a procedure that has been known to leave girls severely infected and in pain.
The purpose of female genital mutilation is to reduce a woman's sexual pleasure. The World Health Organization says it has "no health benefits for girls or women." On the other hand, a WHO report recommended that male circumcision be recognized as "an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention."
The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that parents be informed that "newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."
Palo Alto pediatrician Erica Goldman follows the guideline. She informs parents of the plusses -- reduced chances of urinary tract infection and sexually -transmitted diseases -- as well as the risks -- it's a permanent cosmetic change.
"It really is a decision to be made on a personal and cultural basis," Goldman told me.
"I personally believe the medical benefits outweigh the medial risks," Goldman added.
I do not believe San Francisco voters will pass this measure. Yes, City Hall nags freely butt into people's private business. Witness Special City bans on Happy Meals, plastic supermarket bags and a law barring the sale of cigarettes at pharmacies. But city voters tend to demonstrate more common sense than the swells they elect to office. In 2008, for example, San Franciscans rejected ballot measures to name a sewage plant after George W. Bush and to decriminalize prostitution.
Sadly, because a fringe group garnered the necessary 7,168 signatures, San Francisco once again will be the butt of derision until common sense prevails on Election Day.
I saw the next few months of San Francisco looking silly rolled into one interview Friday. CNN pitted "intactivist" Lloyd Schofield against a rabbi. Schofield argued that if the measure passes, then males can get circumcised when they're 18. (He left out the part about the procedure being riskier and more painful for adults.) Rather than discuss Jewish and Muslim tradition concerning circumcision, the rabbi tried to stick to medical issues. Before asking the rabbi not to be "too graphic," anchor Drew Griffin observed, "I'm just floored that San Francisco's going to vote on this."
How wonderful it must feel to be floored at Ess Eff's latest exercise in self-parody. The bill fits. A busybody law? Check. Does it address a problem most folks did not know existed? Check. Pun opportunities? Oh, yeah. First they came for the Chicken McNuggets, then they came for my son's...
the courts allow a 14 yr old to select abortion. Other than religion, (note other than), there is really no harm in waiting for an adult to decide what to do with his own body. It keeps current court case law and requires an choice.
This is a queer promotion deal, nothing more or less.
And I’ll bet there are many in that Folsom St. fair that have that same body part pierced. Are they going to ban that, too?
Contacting HIV is only a concern if you are a homosexual/bisexual male, or an IV drug user... 98% of all cases fall into these two classes. Sure there are stories of tainted blood transfusions and the like, but the VAST majority is still within the two groups mentioned.
“On the other hand, a WHO report recommended that male circumcision be recognized as “an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.”
Notice that the WHO doesn’t recommend outlawing homosexual acts or illegal drug use to prevent HIV/AIDS. (too political).
Personal decision based on faith. You hit the nail on the head. Why then is S.F. NOT allowing it to be a personal issue based on faith? That’s a key issue here, that this circumcision issue is even on the ballot in the first place.
Yes, there are doctors on both sides, and personal opinions and values on both sides. Yet enough people in SF believe it is NOT a personal or family choice. Otherwise it wouldn’t be voted on in the first place.
“Yet enough people in SF believe it is NOT a personal or family choice”
Not enough people in San Francisco believe in family...
liberal woman mantra:
my body, my choice
my child’s body...if I ever have one...my choice
your child’s body, government’s choice
operative word is child.
this law does not outlaw the practice, it just defers it to the age of majority. (with a religious exception)
another thread here on FR indicated there is a faith and moral belief clause.
is abortion on a minor deferred to age of majority?
I believe part of the outrage is - there is no religious exemption. Effort to include one was voted down
“No account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.”
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/11/san_francisco_circumcision_ban_1.php
Oh yeah?
Oh, what would I do without my urban dictionary.
Actually, they have evidence that circumcision does reduce the risk of a man getting HIV during normal sex (IIRC, it is a large decrease in risk). The folds of skin trap the virus apparently. As with many Jewish traditions, circumcision is a health based practice as is Kosher. In Leviticus, work practices for mold remediation were spelled out and the Rabbi acted as the consultant on mold issues.
34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
35 And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:
36 Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:
37 And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall;
38 Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days:
39 And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
40 Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city:
41 And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place:
42 And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.
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.