This is going way too far!

19 May 2011 13:31 #1 by ScienceChic
This is a decision that should be made only by parents, not mandated by the government as the pros and cons of the health benefits of the procedure are still up in the air, and otherwise it's a aesthetic decision.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/11/san ... cision-ban
Getting Snippy About Circumcision
— By Josh Harkinson
| Wed Nov. 17, 2010

On Monday, San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield filed notice that he intends to get a proposal to ban male circumcision onto the city's fall 2012 ballot. The initiative, which would ban the "genital cutting of male minors," was written by a San Diego-based nonprofit group, MGMbill.org (MGM=Male Genital Mutilation), which has tried unsuccessfully to push similar measures through Congress and 14 state legislatures.

Across the country, the question of whether to snip one's newborn son or not has become something of a parental conundrum. Circumcision may prevent infections and the transmission of STDs, but it also may decrease sexual pleasure.

Many parents don't need a law to convince them to spare their sons from the scalpel. The portion of newborn American boys that gets snipped fell from 64 percent in the late '70s to 56 percent in 2006, most likely due to immigration from circumcision-averse regions.

Circumcision is, of course, an important sacrament for many Jews, and some lawyers have already suggested that Schofield's ballot initiative could be an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom.


"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2011 14:06 #2 by pineinthegrass
Too bad the baby can't decide! Then it would probably never happen... lol



But yes, what a dumb bill. Even in SF I'd be shocked if it could pass.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2011 14:11 #3 by FredHayek
I haven't made up my mind about this. Would you be OK with parents giving their kids tattoo's for religious reasons? How about body piercings?

I know male circumcision is a smart health choice but it does seem quite painful for a little baby. And I am totally against female circumcision.

I do agree with Pine and doubt this will pass even in SF.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2011 14:54 #4 by JMC
Replied by JMC on topic This is going way too far!
The decision should be made by the boy just before puberty around 12 years old. I would guess there would not be many performed. I wish I had have been given a choice.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2011 15:24 #5 by 2wlady
Replied by 2wlady on topic This is going way too far!
My uncle had to be circumcised when he was in his 50's. He was stationed in Korea. Love those Army doctors!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2011 17:59 #6 by daisypusher
It is mutilation of a baby and like female circumcision should be ban.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2011 20:37 #7 by major bean
Men are most probably too damned lazy to pull back the skin and wash the area while showering. Uncleanliness has adverse health effects for their sex partners. Many women suffer from "honeymoon kidney" infection. I had circumcision done as an adult and have never regretted it.

Regards,
Major Bean

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 May 2011 00:20 #8 by Local_Historian
Just a point - baby Indian (India type) have their ears peirced.

Comparing female circumcision - done to repress the female sex drive, done without anethesia most of the time, often done with a razor blade, causing even more damage, and done by non medical professionals too often - to the removal of the foreskin, done by doctors, with anethesia, without any damage the vast majority of the time is ridiculous. They are by no means the same.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 May 2011 08:08 #9 by daisypusher
Performing unnecessary surgery on helpless babies cannot be justified and is unethical.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 May 2011 08:17 #10 by Sunshine Girl

daisypusher wrote: Performing unnecessary surgery on helpless babies cannot be justified and is unethical.


Even though I don't agree with this statement (my son was done shortly after birth and he's VERY glad I had it done) if someone wanted to write an Argumentative Essay on this subject and take the position to argue against it, then this would be a PERFECT thesis statement! Good job DP! :thumbsup:

" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.153 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+