San Francisco to ban Circumcision?

[Santa_Claus]

Probably not quite yet, but who knows............

http://theweek.com/article/index/209382 ... -be-banned

"A San Francisco man, Lloyd Schofield, is trying to get his city to ban circumcision. If he can somehow gather about 7,100 signatures, San Franciscans will vote next November on whether parents who "circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the foreskin, testicle, or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18" should face a $1,000 fine and/or a year in jail"

Some good comments on the Article as well.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I feel a woot coming on!

[Azathoth]

I bet if it goes through there will be an exemption for circumcision on religious grounds.

[Millefleur]

I feel a woot coming on!

Have one o' mine

[lordpasternack]

I bet if it goes through there will be an exemption for circumcision on religious grounds.

Because it's alright to breach someone's human rights if you're doing it for the sake of Bronze Age "tradition" and any of your various imaginary friend(s). With boys that is - girls are already legally protected from any medically unnecessary removal of any part of their genitalia. Having said that - even that is seldom enforced in some places, even where full clitoridectomies are suspected, for fear of coming across "intolerant", in whatever fucking way you want to put it.

[Pappa]

I bet if it goes through there will be an exemption for circumcision on religious grounds.

That would not surprise me.

[Trolldor]

Nonsense, because the religious scriptures allow circumcision to be done in adulthood so they would have no grounds for exemption.

[Pappa]

Nonsense, because the religious scriptures allow circumcision to be done in adulthood so they would have no grounds for exemption.

That doesn't mean they won't get an exemption though.

[lordpasternack]

Nonsense, because the religious scriptures allow circumcision to be done in adulthood so they would have no grounds for exemption.

That doesn't mean they won't get an exemption though.

I can't help but facepalm at the relgiots who seem to think that THEIR freedom of religion extends to branding OTHER, nonconsenting individuals, with a mark of their religion. Who think that their freedom of religion extends to infringing upon that of another, of unnecessarily impinging upon the bodily integrity of someone else. How many times must it be stated that babies are OTHER PEOPLE, and clearly not willing practitioners of any faith group. Your freedom to cut bits off bodies in the name of religion ends at your own body, or with anyone old enough to consent you to do so.

Nobody even considers for a moment that our laws prohibiting mandatory stoning of adulterers infringes upon the freedom to "practise religion". Few people are likely to change their stance on the legality of all forms of FGM with respect to religious tradition. Why would ANYONE fall for similar spurious shite with respect to male circumcision.

[Warren Dew]

How many times must it be stated that babies are OTHER PEOPLE, and clearly not willing practitioners of any faith group.

Does that mean it's okay to kick babies out of the house and let them do the best they can on their own?

[GreyICE]

How many times must it be stated that babies are OTHER PEOPLE, and clearly not willing practitioners of any faith group.

Does that mean it's okay to kick babies out of the house and let them do the best they can on their own?

Of course, because the two issues are clearly comparable.

[electricwhiteboy]

I bet if it goes through there will be an exemption for circumcision on religious grounds.

Because it's alright to breach someone's human rights if you're doing it for the sake of Bronze Age "tradition" and any of your various imaginary friend(s).

A tradition that at first was only practiced by the batshit insane Pharaohs and priest classes. I think the first ever reference to the practice is something like, “hold him down and make sure he doesn’t pass out.”

The origin of the tradition seems to almost universally be some kind of offering to some dread Goddess so she didn’t steal the rest of your bits. In the Jewish tradition it was to protect you from Lilith. The Australian Aboriginals in some cases opened up a “penis womb” in the urethra, which would occasionally be re-opened to bleed in a show of imitative magic.

Whichever culture you look at the practice came from utterly fuckwitted reasoning and superstition. The Ancient Greeks hated the idea of it, as they only considered a man to be truly naked when he rolled back his foreskin.

[lordpasternack]

How many times must it be stated that babies are OTHER PEOPLE, and clearly not willing practitioners of any faith group.

Does that mean it's okay to kick babies out of the house and let them do the best they can on their own?

I really see the point you're making here. Errrrrrr…

Children are entrusted into the care of adults, but they're still persons, and not belongings - and you aren't allowed to mess around with their bodies, and particularly their genitals, as suits your whims. People generally accept this theme when it comes to girls' genitals in the West nowadays (even though forms of female circumcision were in fact once popular in parts of the US, and covered by Blue Cross insurance until the 70s). With any luck they'll stop cutting bits off kids' penises soon, too.

[Warren Dew]

I really see the point you're making here. Errrrrrr…

I wasn't making a point; I was asking a question. I am curious about where you draw the line, if you do. Are parents slaves of the children, obligated to fulfill all the childrens' desires without being allowed to make any decisions for them? If they are allowed to make some decisions for their children, which ones?

For that matter, if people are not allowed to decide to be circumcized at age 1 day, but are allowed at age 20 years, what age is the relevant cutoff? Is it the same age the cutoff for giving permission for injections allegedly beneficial for health?

I suspect that most people here who object to adults making the decision to circumcize prepubescent children are still okay with adults making the decisions not to permit the children to have sex, inconsistent as those two positions are. The reason I'm interested in your views is because your views don't seem to have such an internal inconsistency.

[lordpasternack]

Eh? No, both the questions of sexuality, and cutting bits off the genitals of minors (male or female) are consistently in line with protecting a minor before they are capable of giving or refusing consent themselves - the latter more so, since it's a permanent and significant alteration to the anatomy - whereas sexual activities are far less cut and dry in their potential lasting effects and risks to the minor - and less cut and dry (to me at least) with respect to what faculties for "consent" should be present, and what consent means…

You're right that there are lines in the sand to be drawn between the autonomy of parents, and PROTECTING certain parts of the autonomy, and future autonomy, of children - between what carers should be expected to provide, the decisions they should be allowed to make, and potential "decisions" that that children in their care should be protected AGAINST. I draw a line at medically unnecessary surgical procedures - particularly involving erogenous tissue.