1 vote

SanFran to ban circumcision?

"If it passes, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. Only people over the age of 18 would be allowed to have their foreskins removed."

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/116618063.html?1



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not all religious entities

are 501-c3.
There are plenty which are not.
Each individual church/temple/whatever makes that decision independently.
Licensure is not forced.

The rest of your "argument" is jibberish.

This is just muddying the issue

It's still clear a law banning circumcision with no exemption for religion is unconstitutional.

Ruth: Not if that religious act violates an individuals

right to the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Is the child an individual whose rights can be upheld and suspended by whim? Maybe a baby is only 3/5ths person?

If it is then you are correct.

If the baby has "rights" (the same as an adult) then we must argue the child be kept whole.

If I smack my cow I will not be arrested -- my property.

If I smack my child I will -- If I mutilate him in the name of a dark age philosophy, then that's okay? Because it's a religion? Riiiggghht.

Unfortunately,

for your argument, your whims are not in accordance with law.

The child is under his parents care, and the decisions will be made by them. He is not an "individual" until the age of majority, despite your amusing assertions to the contrary. If their reason for circumcision is religious, it IS protected under the 1st Amendment, regardless of your mixing fantasy with reality on your "argument".

The 1st Amendment was created, in part, to protect people from zealots like you, who wish to disregard their religions, and insert your "big idea" in place of it.
You're out of bounds, Octobox.

It really is a laugh to watch "libertarians" lobbying for gov't force, under a pretense of non-violence.

While it may be commonly seen on this site, making up your own rules, declaring yourself correct, and inserting that in place of the law, as if it holds any weight, is comical.

RIC is unethical

It is illegal for parents to circumcise their daughters, irrespective of religious custom. It is also illegal for parents to abuse their children in the name of religion. The Bible calls for the execution of disobedient children, but obviously such a rule is not permitted under modern American law.
Even though children are minors they still have certain rights, and non-therapeutic circumcision may be argued as a violation of those rights. It is illegal to physically or sexually assault a child, and religious circumcision is clearly an assault upon the person and the psyche.
Not all Jews decide to circumcise their sons, and a male does not need to be circumcised in order to be Jewish. Many non-observant or even atheist Jews circumcise their sons, but this is for cultural reasons and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment.
In any case, the vast majority of boys circumcised in the USA are not Jewish. The RIC of gentile boys is not protected by the First Amendment and can easily be argued as unconstitutional and a violation of the rights of the child to genital integrity and self-determination. Girls are protected by law in the USA from genital mutilation, and boys should be afforded the same protection.

something that might ease ur mind

They do it on the 8th day after birth. And the 8th day is kind of magical. Your body clots blood faster on that day than any day of ur life. Plus at that age the pain receptors are not the same as when you are 18 (jeez I hate to think of getting it done at 18) Now to me thats plain torture. They did mine when I was a baby I have no memory of it I assure you. Do I hate my mother for doing it? Not at all. It's actually more healthy to have it done than not to. Also my family are christians so its not manditory. It was done for hygene back them. I am totally happy with mine so please dont get the government to force me to sow mine back on. Or maybe my life liberty and happiness are not worth as much as ur big ideas of getting ride of religion. If you think about it. The big bang made alot of radiation that causes me to get cancer. Maybe the big bang folks should work with your God to clean up the mess he made. It is harming everyone! Even the little innocent babies! Maybe I should go to the government and file a law suit against all the members of the big bang church and make them pay me restitution for what thier God has done to me with all that radiation. sarcasm of course. People should pay more attetion to themselves and thier own family and stay out of other peoples business. With responsability parents get authority end of story. They have to feed the child and cloth the child and provide the child with everything he/she needs till he/she reaches the age of acountablity so they should be the authority not some stranger who disagrees with what they believe in.

Can you

post the link to the video?

D'oh! My bad... Here ya go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0mRtz3yg_0&feature=related

Gotta thank Octo for that, this one was in the list right next to the one he posted, the only reason I found it.

BTW, Ruth, I find your patience and logic in this debate admirable. You keep your cool when the others don't.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

It's easy!

When you find yourself getting too emotional, just step back from the monitor, take a few deep breaths and ask for guidance from God before typing again.

To tell the truth, though, if you scroll down and read a few of my other comments, you'll probably see you're giving me a bit too much credit for keeping my cool, but thank you for the compliment!

This is the San Francisco Gov't not the Central Gov't

----If you are a fan of Ron Paul then you believe that states should handle these decisions (you can vote with your feet)

----If you are against abortion for Ron Paul's reasoning (the child has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) then you should be against chopping off healthy tissue.

----If you are FOR the separation of church and state, then you should be in favor of the end of circumcision; because it's a religious and not medical pervue.

----If you DO NOT live in San Francisco (relax) it's a state-issue and does not concern you. Even if this did pass the odds of it passing anywhere else in California would be in terms of decades. Could you imagine this passing in Florida, Midwest, or Bible Belt?

False.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution guarantees the protections in the Bill of Rights to all States and jurisdictions.
No state or local jurisdiction may make a law which violates the Bill of Rights, and expect it to withstand challenge.

2 things:

#1 you are right about jurisdiction. CONGRESS shall make no law. that said, state regulation of religion is just as evil, and worth speaking out against.

#2 equating abortion and circumcision is misguided. to my knowledge, nobody is saying abortion is a protected religious procedure (although it wouldnt surprise me if there were some kooks out there who started an abortion religion). i totally get the medical argument against it, but there is no acceptance of the parental role in childhood decisions, and that includes religious decisions.

the easiest way to get something done isnt to change the behavior; its to change the meaning of existing behavior. like a cut isnt a cut, torture isnt torture, its enhanced interrogation. war isnt war, its kinetic military action. declaring war now appare

You had me at CONGRESS shall make no law

.....Then you lost me at "religion" or "religious" decisions.

#1 Mutilation is not a "right"

#2 Is San Francisco attacking a religion in their arguments or are they saying they want to ban circumcision?

Circumcision is a medical procedure that is not backed by medical science.

Since religious institutions seek licensure by the State and Federal Gov't -- they are bound by the Rule of Law.

Submitting a child to amputation (in any other context) would be hard fought by the religious community.

Look at their attitudes toward Piercing and Tattoos.

There is no moral - ethical - or medical ground to stand on; since they are welfarists of the Statist machine (licensure - lobbying) then let them reap what.....cut off.

disagreements...

1) I am a fan of RP, and yes, states should handle it, but STILL even the state should not ban circs.

2) Can be against abortion and favor banning that, but still there is a BIG difference between abortion & circumcision. Life vs. a tiny piece of skin. BIG difference.

3) Not necessarily a religious thing, wasn't for me. Plus, what Ruth said below...

4) What happens in Wisconsin concerns us all, could be a domino effect. Thus, San Fran infringing on freedom should concern us.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

comment deleted

comment deleted

Corrections

Circumcision carries with it the risk of death and serious injury. Every year babies die in the USA from this terrible procedure, and many more are left with mutilations that will affect them for the rest of their lives.
The foreskin is not "a tiny piece of skin". The foreskin is more densely nerve-laden than any other part of the penis. Far from being a little snip, infant circumcision destroys the inner and outer folds of the foreskin, which in the average adult male comprise almost one-third to one-half the penile shaft skin, or about fifteen square inches of erogenous tissue. Fifteen square inches comfortably fits fifteen quarters. This analogy helps us to understand that the adult foreskin contains over 240 feet of nerves and up to 20,000 nerve-endings - five times as many as the glans penis and two-and-a-half times as many as the clitoris. This makes the intact penis capable of sending more nerve impulses to the pleasure centers of the brain than a penis that lacks a foreskin. When you're missing 12-15 square inches of exquisitely designed, highly complex and very nerve-laden tissue from your penis, it has to affect the pleasure dynamic and the function of the penis.
The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. It is there for a reason has functions. Among them are maintaining the glans and inner-foreskin as internal structures, protecting them and keeping them moist, soft, and sensitive. It also provides slack skin for erection, while allowing the shaft skin to remain mobile and versatile.
Non-religious non-therapeutic circumcision is unnecessary cosmetic surgery performed for cultural reasons and, as such, has absolutely no protection under the first amendment. It is genital mutilation of an infant, plain and simple. If you want to perform such penile reduction surgery on yourself then go ahead, but stay away from the genitals of infants and children who have no say in the matter.
Parents do not have the "freedom" to remove their little girl's prepuce. (They are not even allowed to prick their baby's clitoris with a pin.) Boys should be afforded the same protection under the law. Children should have a right to the genitals they were born with, and to be free from unnecessary harm. They are individuals who will grow up to have their own opinions and beliefs, and they can make their own decisions regarding cosmetic surgeries. Millions of men are unhappy about being circumcised against their will, and some have sued the hospital that circumcised them.

Buggy

Chopping off healthy tissue is not a matter of freedom it's a matter of child abuse.

You couldn't smack the same child in the face for crying in front of a cop without losing your child or being public admonished -- yet you can't make them scream bloody murder chopping off healthy tissue over dark ages superstition?

Hahahahaha

Circumcision is the abortion of one part of the body -- I'm against all forced un-necessary medical procedures on children.

Are you against Gov't forcing vaccinations?

It's an absurd argument -- it is torture to the baby and is barbaric.

Great post, Octo. You make

Great post, Octo.

You make a comparison with smacking a child in the face. Let's go a bit further down the body, 'cuz that's really the issue here. A man (or woman, too, I suppose) if caught merely stroking a baby's penis is in for a lifetime of misery. Yet that same man can, if he has the proper credentials, cut off a sensitive, useful part of that same penis. Leaving that penis looking like a piece of fresh raw liver and leaving its owner screaming every time he urinates for the next 2 weeks.

Not finished yet. If a man should suck on that baby's penis, he may as well kill himself the moment he's caught. But if he is a member of the appropriate religious group, he can not only cut that penis, he can literally suck it afterwards, also. It's legal in America.

There's folk here who have issues.

You lose credibility with your exaggeraton, Octy

Torture? Torture implies continued and brutal infliction of pain. This procedure is quick, and the pain is short lasting. Yes, I know, I have 2 sons that I was present with throughout the day when they had theirs. Torture is an immature exaggeration.

I am against forced vaccinations.

And as I've said, it may be wrong to circ kids, but it's not such a brutal act that the gov needs to get involved. Education and persuasion, not force is the libertarian way.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

You are in denial. HOw do

You are in denial. HOw do you know the pain is "short lasting"? Because the baby quit screaming? They quit screaming because they are spent, they can scream no more. Like animals in labs who have unspeakable things done to them; after the initial howls, they zone out. But they are still in pain; that's the whole point of "pain studies".

In any case, sometimes they do keep up the racket. I read the account of a man, now an adult, whose mother told him that after the cut he screamed nonstop for 12 hours.

But it's okay because he "doesn't remember". I am correct here, aren't I?

Wyan...you've clearly never had kids...

else you'd know that a parent knows when the baby is happy, content, in pain, unhappy. Or if you had kids, you weren't there for their birth and first days. You'd know if they were in pain.

And for time # umpteen. It may not be the best thing for the child, but it's not worth getting the government involved.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Oh, I certainly am a parent -

Oh, I certainly am a parent - of uncut males! Normal births, by me. Not adopted.

Parents know when their children are in pain from circ'n but the real gung-ho circumcision fetishists don't care. It's more important to them, because of some issues they have regarding genitalia, to see someone helpless suffer. They don't have the guts to take on another adult, so they wet their little underpants looking at that bloody bit of cut meat.

Anyone with at least 2 brains to rub together knows you can't slice into genitals and have the pain go away the moment the cut is complete. Healing takes up to 2 weeks. Can you imagine the diaper rubbing against an open wound? When there is further, unintended injury, there is pain for years. Look it up. Lots of guys out there with seriously damaged sex organs.

And for Time #Umpteen: WHEN do we all decide when something is so bad for a child that we want the govt involved? I appear unable to get answers to this. There are limits, aren't there, to what adults should be able to do to children? I agree that there is too much interference and control over the family. That doesn't mean we should ignore real violence, though.

The REAL violence

is when you send gov't men with guns to the house to arrest the parent for doing this with his own family, and send him to prison. That's what you are advocating, in the name of "non-violence".

You are all "anti-violence" until you want to do some, and then it's fine.

I think maybe it's time to suggest a "law" to put the parents of uncircumcised boys in prison for not doing it, because "I say they shouldn't, and they might get an infection, so it's child abuse". I decide for you and your child's well-being, based on what I want.
How would you like that?

You tyrants are all the same.

Is it tyrannical to have laws

Is it tyrannical to have laws outlawing genital cutting on unconsenting females? There appears to be a direct correlation in some African countries between low rates of AIDS and all females being cut. Whereas in countries where only the males are cut, AIDS is much higher.

The difference between outlawing the cutting of baby boys and outlawing intactness is that cutting off foreskins from babies hurts, bleeds & doesn't grow back.

Infections are both preventable and where they do happen, curable by simple means.

Further, you can have a piece of paper outlawing just about anything, but who's to say that law is going to be respected down the line? Is the Constitution respected? It hasn't been in at least 100 years, maybe more.

Bugman: The Gov't IS involved

The Gov't provides the Licensure and backs the mutilation in force-agency (court system).

The Laws are lobbied for by the same Gov' Licensed Tax-Certified Organizations.

How can you see the hypocracy of collectivism in UAW but not see it in organized religion.

Religion does not equal "path-way" to God -- that's Spirituality and according to Christ "lies within"

Jesus was obviously an individualist and broke the back of the Right-Seeking (fully Gov't Lobbying) Church of his day.

I mean we all know this -- historically.

Saint Peter was against Circumcision and most of the old "big name" Old Testament characters were either uncircumcized themselves or they did not circumcize their children.

If you're

in favor of the government no longer licensing churches and synagogues, and those performing circumcisions (doctors and mohels), fine, but keep in mind it won't have the result you desire: it will only drive the practice underground where it could be potentially even more harmful than your current perception.

Ruth: You just gave the #1 reason Pro-Choicers do not want

abortion to end -- because they argue women will seek out "shady" criminalized basement abortionists.

Non-Licensure is the GOAL of every free-market individualist.

Licensure makes organizations beholden to Ballot Box Bing / Lobbying Cartels.

Plain and Simple.

So?

I'm pro-choice, although I would like to see the end of Roe vs. Wade and the decision turned over to the states.

Ruth! I thought you were Christian.

Did you mean Pro-Life?

If you are pro-choice then I can see why a little thing like amputation is no big deal to you.

Are you a fan of Austrian Economics?

If so then you need to read about the non-aggression principle and self-ownership, because circumcision violates both.

Unless you think the baby being dependent and helpless is thus "property" of the parents?

I'm against full-body amputation (abortion) and partial-body amputation as authority granted by Big Gov't.

I didn't realise your broader stance.

A person who is pro-choice has no deep concept of ethics, morality, or liberty.

I've never heard of a pro-choice christian.

The right to kill -- wasn't that a 007 movie?