Circumcision ban will go to vote in San Francisco

Circumcision ban will go to vote in San Francisco

www.newscientist.c om

San Franciscans will be given the chance in November to vote on whether to ban male circumcision - pitting evidence that circumcising boys is the best way to reduce the spread of HIV against concerns that the process is a form of culturally accepted genital mutilation.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org
www.time.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Circumcision decision: City's proposed ban adds to debate

Interestingly, this is one among very few debates about public health that seems to defy reason....

Intactivists say circumcision is a form of torture and liken the practice to female genital mutilation. They also point to studies showing that the foreskin enhances sexual sensitivity and may protect against infections.

"The US is the only developed country in the world to routinely practice circumcisions for non-religious reasons," says Jonathon Conte, one of the signature gatherers.

The state's relying on a health argument...

The ballot measure has raised the ire of public health professionals, who say that a large body of research suggests that circumcising boys is crucial to preventing the spread of HIV.

The short, but good article contains links which address the contradictory studies.

Of course, here is the crux of the matter.....

If voters approve the measure in November, any city resident who circumcises a boy under the age of 18 could be subject to a $1000 fine and imprisoned for up to a year.

They are now trying to criminalize the act.

Rather than employing their money and efforts to educate people and allow them to make their own choices, they simply want to rewards the state (with a revenue reward) to put an end to the practice which most of them find repugnant.

... What get's me is this.... They DO know that circumcision can be reversed don't they?

Uncircumcision

If this is about a choice... should it about people deciding they would prefer to take the risks and be uncircumcised? Or is this about revenue... .as usual?

But even without a ban, the number of circumcisions in the US has been dropping. Part of that decline is due to monetary reasons. Several states have stopped directing Medicaid funds to circumcisions to save money.

Have at it ATS... what say you?

www.newscientist.c om
(visit the link for the full news article)

i appear to be suffering from the delusion that condom use was the most effective means of preventing STD infection

So if this passes does it mean a Jewish family cannot have their baby boy circumsized in San Fran?

California, especially San Fran is a weird place. Cannabis is practically legal, yet they have some of the most oppressive laws in the USA. I am glad I do not live there.

reply to post by Maxmars


I really don't understand the discussions at this late date. I have 3 sons one born in 1981, 1982, and 1984 . At that time the hospitals in Kentucky had already stopped the practice. It wasn't a matter of choice. They simply refused to do it. I found a family doctor who performed it on my oldest son. However subsequently refused on the two others stating that he was no longer allowed to perform the surgery. I didn't know the procedure was being done anywhere unless for the purpose of correcting a problem later in life. Was it stopped simply in the state or was it reversed again and the procedure being performed again?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i appear to be suffering from the delusion that condom use was the most effective means of preventing STD infection

I suspect that particular delusion is healthier than most.

I would not discourage you from hanging on to it.

It occurs to me that your delusion would inspire the following bumper sticker..... "Foreskin: Nature's Condom"

reply to post by jrod


Nah, religious practices are "Free Speech," and can't be legislated away barring lot's of lawyers getting richer.

Honestly, it seems a little silly.

The argument that it is cruel or a form of mutilation is also pretty silly - especially when they claim that leaving the foreskin enhances sensation but turn around and criticize female 'mutilation' that is a common practice in other countries (generally in the form of labia stretching) - which is done because it enhances the physical sensation.

I am circumcised. I wake up every day and curse my parents for their choice and weak up, screaming, having nightmares about sharp instruments near my manhood. ..... Really - I've never known anything different, and it isn't worth a huge argument over whether or not doing it is right or wrong.

I believe we should leave it up to families and medical professionals to make the decision as to whether or not it is a choice that is right for them.

We are getting way too dependent upon legislation. Our knee-jerk reaction to something we don't like is to try and get congress to write a law against it. I'm of the opinion this is generally a bad trend (writing laws against everything personally objectionable).

reply to post by redrose123


Yes, it did seem "out of the blue" as an "issue" to me. That's what made me bring it here. I thought maybe I had been out of the loop on current affairs. One has to consider the question, "Why San Fransisco, in particular?"

What makes this community so sensitive to this issue?

Perhaps parental rights? The association with HIV? I really don't know for sure.

This shouldn't be put to the voters... it should not even be an issue, LEAVE PEOPLE THE HELL ALONE.

Freedom, IT AIN'T LEGAL IN SAN FRANCISCO!

Originally posted by HUMBLEONE
SNIP

Obviously, you are joking. If you have smegma, it's because you're a dirty human being. Enough said.

Let people decide what the hell they want to do with their bodies.

Wholesale circumcision was fist done on soldiers heading to WW1 to prevent or help prevent the contraction of STD's . It didn't work and had no effect on contraction rates compared to Brit soldiers who were mostly uncircumcised . Now it's being sold as a preventative measure for AIDS . It's also sold as general health including cancer of the penis . 80% of American men are circumcised while 80% of Europe isn't including England and there is no difference in the rates of STD contraction nor HIV nor infections nor cancer . Then comes general cleanliness . Very young boys can easily be taught to roll the foreskin back and clean it . Americans have been programmed to believe a circumcised penis somehow looks nice but we are about the only ones on the planet who do it to our boys outside of those who do it for religious reasons . Totally unnecessary procedure . Canada has a 50% circumcision rate . I researched this when my son was on the way as our Doctor was prepared to do it so i asked him if he could think of a good reason to do it . He said the only reason he does it is because some parents demand it but there is no medical reason if a young boy is cleaned until he is taught and can clean himself . No different than washing behind your ears in the shower or the bath . I checked American , Canadian and Brit studies from Americans with an 80% circumcision rate to Brits with an 80% rate of not circumcising . Not difference in the rate of anything related to health and wellness . The one difference i found was that it was recommended by American doctors far more based on the same questionable studies and surveys going back to WW1 . If the results were correct for uncircumcised boys and men then negative health effects should be very evident in Canada and England , but they aren't . That leaves nothing but a cultural preference based on the look a culture prefers . Don't base a decision on American studies alone because they are no different than studies done during and after WW1 when conclusions were reached and then science was adjusted to match the conclusion .

Here is a great article outlining the medical benefits of circumcision........it's a boy

Hopefully there are some in left in this city with some common sense!

s&f Maxmars!

Pax

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i appear to be suffering from the delusion that condom use was the most effective means of preventing STD infection

or being Really ugly and stinky

The only problem i see here is parents not receiving a choice EITHER way.

My mother didnt have a clear idea what they were doing. They brought a form, asked her to sign it, barely explained the procedure and did it.
Which is why when she had me she declined it.
The only issue I think is lack of education given when the time comes to do it at the hospital and letting parents know what they are doing and why before signing.

I personally dont agree with circumcision, Im glad I wasnt, but I dont force my belief of "keeping the little extra". Likewise it shouldnt be forced of cutting it off either.

I wont bother going into smegma.....hygiene is important, no matter whether you are cut or uncut...wash the damn thing and you wont have an issue.

San Fransisco has bigger problems than this, don't they?

The state is in crisis. The economy is terrible. Just to name two.

On topic, you get circumcised as a baby to avoid issue later in life.

uncircumcised 60+ males, with diabetes, for example will have their skin foreskin grow together.

Since no one is stopping the corporations from putting poison in our food, diabetes gains in numbers.

Imagine if we start causing more medical issues that won't surface for 50+ years because we dont prevent it at birth.

That is just one example.

This country lost its mind some time ago and priorities are way out of line.

reply to post by paxnatus

Try this link: [url=http://www.aboutcirc.com/newbaby.htm[/url]

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by paxnatus

 

Try this link: [url=http://www.aboutcirc.com/newbaby.htm[/url]

I found one as well. Shows the divide in information among the two sides www.nocircpa.org...