Proposed San Francisco Ballot Initiatives could prevent Muslims from fully practicing Islam in the c

A proposed 2011 ballot initiative for the city of San Francisco would outlaw circumcision. (circumcision ban may end up on S.F. Balltot, cbs news article)

“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.

Islam promotes the practice of circumcision, as a sign of loyalty to God's covenant with Abraham. The penalty in San Francisco would be $1000 plus jail time. The author of the initiative has registered the proposal, and needs 7,100 signatures to get in on next year's ballot.

Muslims are not the only ones who circumsize their males. Many Christians also do so as well. I think some people have fallen away from doing this, because it is seen as mutilation. In a way there is no evidence that it is less healthy to have a foreskin. Also, many males believe that intercourse can be more pleasurable because nerves are not cut in the area. I guess it just depends on what you believe about why you are doing it. If you just do this for health reasons, then you can just learn how to clean the area and teach the child to do so later. If you do it for religious reasons, then I don't think anyone should take the right away. Some people fully believe that this is a sign of faith that they do this.

I don't see a reason for female genital mutilation. I think it is only the males that have to be circumsized. In females, I don't see it as anything but mutilation that denys a woman pleasure, and also effects how she is able to even go to the bathroom.

I am all for outlawing anyone doing this to a female. As for males, I can understand why people do this for religious reasons. For health reasons, I can not understand, as the research shows it doesn't really matter if a person cleans the area then they will not be unhealthy.

Also, some people do this just for looks. The circumsized part is more socially acceptable in our culture and people are not really used to seeing it the other way. I think it may become more acceptable with time, as cultural views change. But many people do not do it for health or religious reasons, just to be accepted. No one wants to be that kid in the locker room who looks different.

reply to post by jessieg


Yep, someone did not do their homework.

I'm almost sure this was a deliberate attempt to target the circumsise friendly Christians, but in the process they've found themselves pissing off the Muslims as well.

It will be funny watching them back peddle on this issue, after all, no pacifist Leftie would even dare to upset Islam.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


Circumcision is a Jewish religious right, preformed in a ceremony called the bris milôh.

en.wikipedia.org...

Given that, I doubt this will pass.

Although this is San Fran we are talking about, where they have managed to ban just about everything except taxes.

reply to post by Alxandro


My point precisely.

They don't care about a Jew or two that might live in San Francisco; but this will certainly be shot down if it offends "THE" religion.

And if it discomfits some fundy Christians, well, that was the point in the first place.

I found the whole thing pretty ironic, given that SF is otherwise so tolerant of alternate ... um.... body modifications.

I am just wondering if this is anything to do with female circumcision. I mean, I just can not understand why they'd want to outlaw male circumcision as many religions practice this.

I know a while back there was a big outcry about female circumcision being done in Africa and other countries, especially after a beautiful African model described how it was done to her and how it effected her life.

I don't know that anyone in the U.S actually does this to women, and I would see it as mutilation, so maybe they should word their law a bit differently if it is meant to outlaw this being done to women.

Really? Given the state of bankruptcy in California, the freakshow that is San Francisco is worried about Happy Meals and circumcision?

These idiots are in a different universe out there....

How would this affect neonatal docs, who have just delivered a hermaphrodite? Would they be forbidden from performing any corrective surgery, until the patient is 18????

The decision of the parent about what to do with their child could now be abolished in San Francisco. Well it is not like they have any respect for tradition or culture, the city that began the Environmentalist movement is presumably not a city based around culture, respect, or liberty. It appears to me that these Liberals only have a problem with Western Civilization I mean think about it.

They want to remove everything about Western Culture and replace it with some Socially ‘Progressive’ and selectively Secular society. What kind of people attack Christianity but defend Islam? Attack hunting and promote vegetarianism? Are overwhelmingly unmarried but support gay marriage? Mostly don’t have children but support adoption for gay couples and adoption of foreign babies? Promote politically correct and attack freedom of speech? Support immigration of manual laborers and mostly work in academia?

These people are far out of touch with reality and America in general, pushing their causes upon us all then treating us as inferior and ignorant when we are forced to deal with the consequences of their actions. We should have the Liberty of being left the hell alone by these lunatics and their activist judges which blatantly violate the will of the people.

It’s a constant sense of superiority over their fellow Americans. They create these ridiculous laws which only affect us non-Liberals.

Wait... isn't circumcision safer? Doesn't being circumcised protect you from certain infections and even a type of cancer? I know some non-religious people that have it done just because it keeps everything cleaner and more healthy in the long run.

reply to post by sisgood


They will show you a bunch of studies that say all the ideas of health and circumcision are propaganda.

2nd line.

Where exactly does it "ban circumcision"?

I see banning to persons under 18. Nothing more.

I don't see any problems with banning a permanent procedure until the person it DIRECTLY affects is old enough to weigh the decision as an adult.

Originally posted by peck420

I don't see any problems with banning a permanent procedure until the person it DIRECTLY affects is old enough to weigh the decision as an adult.

Cool. So now you are adding tonsilectomy and appendectomy to the list? How about hernia surgery?

Ammunition for your arguments:

A pro-snip website .. They quote the American Academy of Paediatriacs most recent position, which is that the circumcision DOES have clear benefits for health throughout life.

A Neutral website that tends to shy away from enumerating specifics, but says it is not medically warranted as a routine procedure.

An anti-snip website that goes so far as to say that circumcision is the root of all mysogyny.



Have fun.

Here's a 2007 article about the prevalence of circumcision.

Basically, the numbers are around 50%, being much higher in the Midwest and South.

Numbers are already lowest in CA in the bay area.

"The San Francisco Look"

reply to post by jessieg


untill you realize it was because the other children had ignorant religious people for parents.... then as a son you might be proud of your parents not being so pittifully delusional that they take a knife to their kids genitals.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


When foreskin becomes a potential life threatening or debilitating issue, than you can lump it in with those.

There are very, very few cases of required circumcision (thank you modern medical sciences).

Currently circumcision to infants is used for religous and asthetic reasons only.

It is literally, no different than a tattoo. If you want one, you can have one...when you are old enough.

reply to post by peck420


I cede your point; although recent research is questioning the value of removing the tonsils, though it will surely endure because "it feels safer."


A lot of baby girls get their ears pierced, for purely aesthetic reasons....nobody worked up about that, as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by jessieg

 

untill you realize it was because the other children had ignorant religious people for parents.... then as a son you might be proud of your parents not being so pittifully delusional that they take a knife to their kids genitals.

lol.... I've not heard of parents performing the procedure themselves. Where'd you get that idea? Oh, yeah, you were driven to make it up by your loathing for people who don't share your value system.

Someone was charged in your country for performing a home circumcision just recently.

So yes, some idiots try it.

I didn't circumcise my son. If he wants it, he can get it when he's old enough to make the decision himself. I leave him with all options. I am comfortable that this is the most respectful way to treat him.