I can assure you they are not. They are the same people who want to ban the right to choose and to ban gay marriage. You know, the ones who are dead set against government involvment in our lives except when it's something they agree with. Then they are all for it.

I think much of this is being driven by the furry community. Hopefully the list of people who agreed it should be on the ballot will be made public so we can better understand the demograph that would like to end the practice.

One would think that there is line drawn somewhere in our society when a people must decide on exactly where the jumping-off point is when it comes to governmental regulations in one's own personal life. I think we reached it long, long ago. Obviously there are those who've become quite comfortable passing off their own responsibilities and basically want the government to lead them in every decision making process of their lives. This has reached the critical mass stage of political correctness gone wild! The decision to circumcise should be a private family matter and the government needs to just butt-out! Doesn't anyone think the government already has too damn much control in their lives as it is!? More government simply equates to more need for tax dollars and we have been bled enough! Can't anyone see what's going on in this country? Can we not focus on the bigger picture and see our basic freedoms being slowly usurped right out from under our noses!? This simply has to come to an end! The sooner the better for all concerned.

ThunderProof wrote "The decision to circumcise should be a private family matter and the government needs to just butt-out!"

The State (all 50 states) decided in 1983 to ban all female circumcision despite the will of any parents to declare it a religious or private matter.

"More government simply equates to more need for tax dollars and we have been bled enough! "

The elimination of routine circumcision saves money. Very little oversight is needed. Simply make the insurance coverage of the $500-1000 procedure (depends on location) illegal.

This is one bill no matter what side came up with that will never become law. Clearly a seperation of church and state violation in this Bill not to mention it should be a health choice left up to the family and not some dumbazz group that thinks they need to control everything people do.

Vincent, there is a big difference between the two. Male circumcision, you are removing a section of skin covering the genitals, female circumcision, you are removing the central nerve cluster responsible for stimulation during intercourse.

THANK-YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does anyone expect from a city that made it against the law to sit on a sidewalk during the day and tried to ban the happy meal toy from McDonalds in an attempt to govern what people buy for their kids.

It isn't bad enough that the city has a budget deficiet greater than most states but they allow anything on the ballot with just over 7,000 signatures.

What does anyone expect from Nancy Pelosi land though? Apparently not much.

besides its a cleanliness issue. circumcision makes both males AND their partners less susceptible to infection. This has been common knowledge for hundreds and hundreds of years. Whats next, the childs right to decide if they should be vaccinated?

EROCK17 wrote "This has been common knowledge for hundreds and hundreds of years. "

Have you read the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) statement on circumcision? They have stated that they have reviewed all the studies of so-called benefits of circumcision, and yet, they are unable to recommend circumcision. Do you know know more than the AAP?

"Whats next, the childs right to decide if they should be vaccinated?"

Every major American, European and Asian medical association recommends vaccination, but not circumcision.

sure outlaw circumcisions, how about all vaccines infants receive also since they are under 18 and cant choose for themselves. Wait how about an education why not wait till 18 so not to influence the child and they can decide themselves. <sarc>

well i know know you are stuttering while you t-t-t-type vincent.

btw Vince, did you know they are recommending circumcision in africa to try to curb the aids epidemic?

Religious freedom shouldn't give you the right to surgically alter someone else's body....even your child's. Nothing is preventing that child from having the procedure done when he is old enough to make the choice for himself but he can't reverse a decision that his parents made for him in his infancy. No freedoms will be lost and men will gain the freedom to make their own choice. Where is the harm in that?

There is no difference between male and female circumcison. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. The foreskin is one-third of the penis. It's full of nerve endings. Touch your lips with your fingertips. Feel that sensation? That's as much sensation as can be felt with the foreskin; you would know this if you had one.

Yes, circumcision is recommended to prevent aids in Africa. This is because AIDS is transmitted through sexual contact when there are lesions on both partners. The foreskin is composed of delicate tissue and therefore is prone to lesions. I recommend you not have unprotected sex with infected partners, that way, you won't have to worry about AIDS.

The part about infections is false. Obviously, the more tissue there is anywhere on the human body, the more likely it is that there will be an infection. Would you have all of your teeth extracted, just to prevent a cavity? I didn't think so.

There is a HUGE difference between male/female circumcision and to say otherwise shows your ignorance. Some studies show more nerve sensation with the foreskin, others equally show less. Some studies show improvement in penile dysfunction, some show less. Most studies shows little to no difference between men who've been circumcised and those who've not been. The fact is, the studies all conflict with one another and no one can tell us why. But the male foreskin is not necessary to feel erotic sensation, to engorge the penis, or to achieve full orgasm or ejaculation, or cause serious complications with procreation.

Clitorodectomy on the other hand, is a horrific practice that causes severe pain for years following, infections, physical disfigurement, UTIs, and partial/full loss of pleasure sensation, not to mention causing complications with birth.

Male circumcision doesn't just help with slowing the spread of male/female AIDs in Africa, but also with the spread of HPV worldwide. It's been shown to be medically beneficial for prevention of repetitive urinary tract infections in men/boys. Male circumcision has also been shown to provide some protection against penile cancer. Male circumcision is also associated with lower rates of other STDs. Is it a necessity? Not always, but in some cases yes.

The same benefits cannot be said for FGM. Not at all.

My son was circumcised, mainly because I watched several of my uncircumcised male cousins suffer with rashes and ulcerative blisters and none of the medicines helped. None of these infections were suffered by myself or my brothers as we were all circumcised. Everyone of the cousins had to have circumcisions and this corrected their recurrent infections, and if you think it's painful for an infant, it's worse for young boys, not to mention embarrassing as hell. And all of their male offspring have had the procedure too - as infants - so I'm not the only one in my family who remembers all the pain and suffering they went through. So my son got snipped, not for religion purposes and he's had zero health issues or sexual issues because of it, nor have I for that matter. He and his wife chose not to circumcise their son. I'm fine with that, it's their child after all.

Vincent

You misinterpreted the info.

"We encourage parents to discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with their pediatrician and then make an informed decision about what is in the best interest of their child."

"The policy concluded, however, that it is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this decision. It states that to make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision with their pediatrician."

They do not recommend it, but conclude that the decision is between parents and the child's doctor, which is what it should be. Not some gay group trying to control other people's lives.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990302063210.htm

Who started this in SF, the gay people? Nothing against them, but how crazy is that to dictate what parents can do and cannot do. This is what it is getting down to, telling people what they can and cannot do. But figure this one, partial-birth abortion is okay, when it is already a little baby just not born yet, it can just be killed. As everyone knows at the time partial-birth abortion takes place the baby/embryo can already survive and feels pain. I am just comparing the two, slaughter one, but knowing the health issues myself without circumcision, it will be forbidden to perform such a procedure. Painful blisters and constant rashes (imagine babies in diapers and wetting in them, how painful!) are two of the main reasons to perform circumcision, it is not always a religious rite. Believe me there will be many more rules dictated by this government and we are all sitting and waiting to see what comes next without doing anything. Well, I am writing to my state's politicians because I am not giving up my freedom in this beautiful country.

Another attempt by the idiots in San Fran to ban something. Yawn. Plastic bags, happy meals, guns, bums crapping and pissing on the sidewalk, perverts copulating like dogs on the streets, oops, how did those slip in there?

We were living near SF when our sons were born in the 80s. Our pediatrician group no longer did circumcisions even then and did not recommend them.

As an un-mutilated man, I have to say that the idea of anyone cutting off any part of my penis IS mutilation in my eyes. I don't care about the so called studies you cite, I know what the movement of the foreskin feel like during sex, and I cant tell you it feels fantastic. Some women who had never been with an intact guy before, thought so also.

For the record, I've never had any infection, and neither did my uncircumcised son during his childhood and young adulthood. I've never seen smegma on my penis, because I shower everyday.

If you think HPV is an issue, have your daughter vaccinated against it. My daughter is. Why should the sexuality of all men be reduced because of an hypothetical infection in the future when there is a vaccine against it.

Penile cancer is extremely rare, with or without a circumcision, and AIDS is less prevalent in Europe than in the USA, even though circumcision is practically unknown outside the Muslim and Jewish communities there.

You don't mention the risks of circumcision, that go from death (very rarely) to permanent disfigurement of the penis and painful erections in 3 to 10% of all circumcisions depending on who you ask.

The bottom line is that circumcision is a barbaric ritual with no medical justification.

You know, I'm recognizing repetitiveness in posts, even though they have different names to them. The same phrasing, the same rampant over-generalizations. Could it be we've got a whole lotta sockpuppets about? I'm thinking yes.

BS. There is medical justification. You may disagree with it, that is certainly you're prerogative, but to say there is NO MEDICAL JUSTIFICATION is an utter lie, easily disproved by proclamations of several different health organizations who did scientific studies to back up the claims.

Do you know the risks of those injections you forced your daughter to endure? Do you really? Are you aware they make those same injections for men? And why is it you can force your child to undergo an utterly unnecessary treatment - surely she doesn't have a mattress for a back - while having the utter gall to tell another parent they have no right to have their child circumcised, which some people believe to be an unnecessary treatment? How do you split your morals and ethics like that?

Your logic fails me.

Ally wrote " while having the utter gall to tell another parent they have no right to have their child circumcised, which some people believe to be an unnecessary treatment?"

US law prohibits medically-unjustified cosmetic genital surgery on girls but not on boys. How do you split your ethics in that one sex is protected more than the other?

@ Ally

Paranoid much?

For every study you can cite about the benefits of circumcision there is another with the opposite result.

My daughter was sixteen when she got the HPV vaccination, and she had the option to refuse it. The doctor explained the benefits and the possible risks of the vaccination to her and to us, her parents. There is absolutely no comparison to strapping a helpless baby to a board and cutting off a part of his body.

Your logic fails me.

Not at all paranoid, in fact, someone just confirmed my suspicions of sockpuppetry. Ah, and I see even your post is quite similar to Toasty's, some of it near word for word. Why is that do you think?

So you forced your kid to get the shot? Age 16 is still a child, you have medical power of attorney as it were. She has zero right to consent or dissent. So you forced her to get a perfectly unnecessary series of shots? Is she a slut or something? Just curious. Maybe instead of having forced unnecessary treatments be performed on your child, perhaps you should teach her to keep her legs closed. Barring that, to use protection when she sleeps around. See, no need for painful unnecessary treatment for something I presume she doesn't have and at 16 hopefully wasn't at risk of getting.

Your ability to split morals and ethics, to swing violent from one extreme to the other, baffles me. Your logic is illogical and asinine.

Half of a sentence from WW was similar to mine. Probably because it's the same point. If you'd like, I can point out the similarities in your posts and plant the suspicion of sock-puppetry in return.

Ah, now why chime in, Toasty? Guilty conscience? Are you really that interested in what I have to say? I think not.

Sorry, nope, I'm me. I've got the one tag on here and have had it for quite a long while now. No reason to pretend to be someone I'm not to make my point seem more valid or agreed with.

Well, it's 1:30 here in the South and I'm tired of dicking around with lunatics. I'm going to sleep. Ya'll keep on blathering you're idiocy. I'm sure there's someone out there who'll respond to the inane insanity.

Peace.

Right... Now go back in our post histories and see how many other threads we've posted together in and test that cute little theory of yours.

Are you people serious? Have you even seen a circumcision? To say that circumcision is worse and more painful than vaccinating your baby is just plain ignorant. Has anyone witnessed a child receive a tetanus shot? The whole abuse and pain argument just doesn't fly because the pain is minimal compared to most vaccinations babies receive. And circumcision can be just as medically necessary as vaccines. What do you do when your child suffers from infection after infection because of the foreskin? And as for the female circumcision argument......if you are stupid enough to actually compare the two then you need to consider educating yourself. Do a little research on female circumcision in terms of pain and medical benefits and then shut your trap about it because there is no comparison. Female circumcision is completely and totally unnecessary, excruciatingly painful, and is in fact dangerous and unsafe. This is just plain anti-semitism and it disgusts me to no end that a city that is supposed to be "tolerant" of people's personal choices is behind this. How could you possibly defend partial birth abortions if you are against this? Oh wait, pulling a baby (that feels pain and could survive outside of the womb) halfway out of the birth canal, jamming a tool into its head and sucking its brains out until its skull collapses is much more humane than circumcision.

My son was born with half a heart. After many informational sessions with his cardiothoracic surgeon, cardiologist, and ped, we were have elected to circumcise because one tiny yeast infection could actually kill him. Where does that fit into everyone's logic? is it better he die "whole" from something as relatively benign as a yeast infection, than to have a procedure (that can be done under anesthesia) that will virtually alleviate that risk? So by SF banning the practice, my son is put in undue danger? There's your medical justification. I don't want my son to die just so some a-hole can have maybe have slightly more sensation during sex!

I am wondering if the people wanting this ban are the same ones wanting same sex marriage?

Probably. The most radical of the liberals live in Northern California. I stay down here because they annoy me.

They banned Happy Meals from McDonalds. Meanwhile, we have a super big defecit and NO ONE is paying attention to it.

I am positive that I will never be with a man who has not had a circumcision. EW GROSS.

@Ally

Since you are in favor of forcibly mutilating babies when they don't have ability to oppose it, you assume that all parents are the irrational tyrants like you.

What are the chances of the doctor putting an injection on a sixteen year old girl if she opposes it? Do you think he would risk jail for retraining a young woman against her will?

The fact that you are reduced to calling a young woman you know nothing about, a slut, to defend your point, is pathetic and only shows your stupidity. The vaccine is offered to ALL girls by the pediatrician, the same way that all other vaccines are offered to ALL children. It takes a complete moron to assume that having the vaccine will make someone a "slut".

In the next paragraph you call vaccination a painful and unnecessary treatment.... and circumcision is what?

Asinine logic is what you excel at.

I don't see what the big deal is. I've never met a circumcised man who wishes he had his foreskin back. I had both of my boys circumcised for health/cleanliness/aesthetic reasons and see nothing wrong with it. The dr. numbed it, and they didn't even fuss or cry.

I think there are way bigger issues that need to be addressed. We are becoming a legislative happy society. I want everyone to be able to do whatever the hell they want to do. As long as it's not murder, rape or stealing who gives a @!$%#? A law to ban happy meals? Are you kidding me? Don't buy one! Don't agree with circumcision? Don't have your kid circumcised! Too many people are all up in other people's business. Gay people want to get married? Who cares! Let them have at it. The lengths that people go to make others live the way they think they should is astounding to me.

Actually, what I was wondering is how you could possibly reconcile this with a pro-abortion point of view. Can't make a health/religious decision to cut the foreskin, but it is okay to just completely terminate the life? No wonder they have Pelosi as their rep. They have no commonsense or logic there.

@lynlagro: What's to stop someone from, say, breaking into your house and hurting you or your family? This isn't murder or rape, not even stealing.

I presume you're comfortable with laws preventing someone from physically harming you. I'm sure you also enjoy your human rights. These same laws and protection for basic human rights should extend to protecting non-consenting infant babies from having a portion of their penises removed.

Karen in Los Angeles wrote "I am positive that I will never be with a man who has not had a circumcision. EW GROSS."

So much for European men. It is clean that American women have gained a taste for the appearance of cut male genitals much as African men have a taste for cut female genitals. Karen, what would you say if the father of your child insisted on a female circumcision for the purposes of appearance and the reduction of clitoral smegma?

I dumped a girlfriend that insisted that her future sons will be circumcised.

Now Santa Monica is joining these crazy San Fransciscans.

NUTS - ABSOLUTELY CRAZY.

I really wish our government paid attention to important issues.

You should hear their spokewoman. She sounds like she's 14.

Vincent

They ARE NOT AT ALL alike (Afrika female circumcision performed in a teepee v circumcision in a hospital). Bummer for you. I usually date Italian men, but not uncircumcised ones. Your loss, not mine.

Karen,

If the African females were circumcised in US hospitals, would that make the procedure better?

" I usually date Italian men, but not uncircumcised ones."

It's sad that women choose men on the basis of sculpted genitals. Pure discrimination, and it's exactly the driving force behind African female circumcision.

I'm thinking that circumcised men should be paired with women that also have circumcised genitals. Karen, why don't you get your clitoral hood removed so that you're as clean as your circumcised boyfriends? Though, do it US male infant tyle : sugared pacifier, zero or inadequate topical anesthetic, no prescription drugs after the surgery, urine poured on your wound for a week. This is what American mothers order for their boys despite the fact that NO medical association recommends infant circumcision.

That way, you both can have a sculpted genital fetish.

Since children are the product of male-female parents, I don't see how this is a "gay" issue.

Loki,

Great comment! Things like this could only come from Fransicko. What a bunch of peniphiles.

Good one loki!

Vince doesn't get it. lol

@Vincent,

Yeah, the mighty AAP also wanted FGM last year too. Search for it. It's true. But they retracted...

Another attempt by the idiots in San Fran to ban something. Yawn. Plastic bags, happy meals, guns, bums crapping and pissing on the sidewalk, perverts copulating like dogs on the streets, oops, how did those slip in there?

Gee MV, and here I thought EVERYONE was in favor of banning child abuse. Those pinko commie hippies, I guess...

its not abuse, its a procedure to effectively keep infection out of ur weenie.

i have not once ever heard a guy say "gee i wish my parents hadn't had me circumcised."

i think yall are just mad because ur parents didnt do that for you and now women look at u funny when you drop ur pants.

O so is SF going to ban the abuse of gay adoption?

The "Left-Coasters" are at it again! Who is dreaming up this crap? The most erotic sensations during intimacy are given and received through the lips and tongue. So, what's next? Rip off everyone's lips and tear out their tongues? That would put them out of business, wouldn't it?

What do gay rights have to do with this? And who are the "they" you refer to?

But isn't it religion that is opressing homosexuals?

Doesn't the Bible say an eye for eye?

are ears suddenly genitalia?

...What religion are you referring to? There are many....

As for 'an eye for an eye' , That is Old Testament of the Bible, and does not apply anymore. Christ came to abolish the law. We are now living in New Testament times...

p.s...Gossip is in the same paragraph as homosexuality....

Does it matter which religion? Besides, if you stayed current on events, you know which religions I am referring to. Playing ignorant is your choice.

You obviously read the Bible, so you know of one religion without being told. Even though it's in the Old testament, most Christians still live by it when talking about homosexuals.

Cherry picking from the OT is common practice.

"...That is Old Testament of the Bible, and does not apply anymore.. Christ came to abolish the law. We are now living in New Testament times...."

Sweet. so Creationism is out tha window. about time.

Ben,

Ears are not genitalia, of course. So are you saying it is ok to mutilate your child as long as it's NOT the child's genitalia?

I'm no police officer... But I think if you hold down an infant and forcibly puncture its ears, that's against the law too.

AlanEsq, you say that this is not something the government should be involved in, but if it does pass the government MUST get involved even further, inasmuch as the federal government must take on the case in federal court as a First Amendment case. This is unfortunate, as I am normally an ardent supporter of states' rights (10th amendment), but when rights come into conflict, in this case First Amendment (religious freedom, and/or parental rights to make medical decisions which a large percentage of medical practicioners DO claim to have merit in reducing the heterosexual spread of HPV and HIV) vs 10th amendment, then it is the duty of the federal judiciary to intervene.

Now for my own "editorial": If this passes and becomes local law, it is my most fervent desire that the rabbi/mohel in SF who was mentioned in the article, immediately performs his next brit milah on the steps of the SF city hall, surrounded by members of the Jewish Defense League. There will be absolute hell to pay if Queer City passes and tries to enforce this nonsense.

I'm guessing the last time a government anywhere on earth outlawed circumcision of infant males was sometime around 1938.

Never again.

The "religious" argument is stupid. If I said cutting off a newborn's pinky toe was necessary for "religious" reasons, would you want it to be legal.

Absolute stupidy.

Juice, fallacious arguments get you nowhere.

No, Juice's comment made perfect sense. How is cutting a baby's toe any different from cutting its penis? It's child abuse either way.

Ally, did you not perhaps mean to say, "phallacious arguments..."? ;)

Sorry, Toasty, but no. One IS child abuse, the other is NOT. That is, one IS punishable by law, and the other is NOT. Dramatic histrionics & over generalizations avail you nothing and have no place in a reasonable discussion.

And hey, I've a friend who had to have their toe cut off as an infant because her idiot parents put a toe ring on the baby and the toe grew around it - to the bone! Now THAT is abuse via neglect, with a medical toe removal remedy the only relief. Go figure.

@ Unit Toad, yeah, I was sorta avoiding the double entendre, but it does work, doesn't it?

So basically... "No, it's not abuse because it's his penis, not his toe." That's not a very convincing argument, Ally.

So basically I'm saying there's no law against it and therefore it's not abuse as recognized by judicial authority.

It's not abuse. Not in my eyes and not in the eyes of millions of other people.

But what I am saying is comparing foreskin to a digit is idiotic.

And what exactly is the distinction? Is it nerve endings? Because the foreskin has more than a toe. Maybe it's the presence of bones nearby that makes one abuse and the other kosher.

Ally-1815249 wrote "So basically I'm saying there's no law against it and therefore it's not abuse as recognized by judicial authority."

True. What you're seeing is a motion in San Francisco to make infant genital cosmetic surgery on boys equivalently illegal to the infant genital cosmetic surgery on girls. Boys will be protected equivalently several decades after girls are protected.

What I'm seeing in SF is more nonsense, utter nonsense. Perfect example of idiots with far too much time on their hands and wanting to be in everyone's business.

Vinnie, you know the difference between the two procedures, at least be a man and admit it.

Oh! I get it now! Give birth, give the child to a government agent and wait for them to vaccinate it, indoctrinate it, educate it, program it, feed it, house it, cloth it, send it off to war, and then bury it. It's about time the Kalifornians got it straight! Zieg Heil to the Progressives.

Ear piercing is the first thing I thought about too!!! I have tons of patients that get their baby's ears pierced at an early age. Not my favorite thing, but I don't think it should be illegal or fined at $1000! Crazy. If we're not going to "mutilate" babies with circumcision, then I think ears would be applicable too.

And by the way, I just had a 4 year old patient that was circumcised this week because he has a rare skin condition and the Geneticist and also the Dermatologist feared that the skin inflammation would spread over the groin area and scar his foreskin to the glans of his penis. So there ARE some reasons for medical circumcision necessity.

They really do pierce infant's ears? I thought someone just threw that out there as a random made-up example. That's a pretty creepy thing to do to an infant.

I'm saying mutilating genitalia is more serious, and plus pierced ear holes will often close up on their own if not used. Very different cases.

@Andrea: Yup, there are medical justifications for circumcisions. Should we perform appendectomies on newborns, too? Same preventative story, same logic trap.

Third_ey3 --- Not the same logic. I don't KNOW that a person will get appendicitis, so I wouldn't support doing an appendectomy prophylactically. But I DO know that this kid has an existing medical condition and the likely progression of the disease. It's different.

Ally wrote "Vinnie, you know the difference between the two procedures, at least be a man and admit it."

Ally, woman up and have a voluntary removal of your clitoral hood and labia minora, which are needed about as much as a foreskin. These painful genital sculpting procedures are forced on new born infants. If you can't take the pain or idea of losing your clitoral hood or labia minora without anesthetic as an adult, why force that on a baby?

No one is trying to tell you what you can do to your own body. They are suggesting you shouldn't be mutilating your children by lopping off their perfectly good body parts. Freedom? Let them decide for themselves, no?

I'm circumcised. I had my son circumcised. I was wrong.

My father is uncircumcised. His father was (RIP) uncircumcised. I'm circumcised. My son is uncircumcised.

What if some religion said that every third child should be sacrificed? Would you be okay with that? What about Sam Harris's point of, what if some scripture said every third child should be blind so they rip out their eyeballs? Same point should you protect that freedom of religion? I think S.F. has a compelling case. I would circumcise my children, but I don't know if it is truly ethical to do so. I'm just imparting my own personal biases in the decision.

DavidMG....when you throw out ridiculous comments like that you lose any and all credibility....and anything you said that had relevance will be lost.

How dare the government tell you what you can/can't do with your child's body? seriously? There are very many cases where the government already interferes in such. For instance, there was a recent case where a woman was sent to prison for withholding cancer medicine from her child.

For a country obsessed with FREEDOM , American sure makes a lot of laws that restrict freedoms ...there's law about who you can marry, if you can have abortion or not and now this ....

People don't have rights over their own bodies over their own children...parents are just guardians ...really ? WTF ?

MrIndia wrote "People don't have rights over their own bodies over their own children"

It is illegal to perform or order genital surgery on girls but not on boys. Do you protest that restriction?

As far as I'm concerned its child abuse. It comes down to whether or not you believe that parents own their children. In terms of the religious rite aspect...what's wrong with waiting until puberty when the child can decide for themselves? Why is religious indoctrination even considered ok?

The freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to abuse an infant.

If you are genuinely in favor of personal freedoms, then you wouldn't steal the freedom to make personal, intimate choices about his own body from your son and subject him to an unnecessary, irreversible and permanently altering surgery while he is a helpless infant.

You don't have the freedom to tattoo your child either...and that's at least reversible.

you do know circumcision is painful right?i am circumcised and proud;that's btw.if my child is to be circumcised at say 18,do you know how how many weeks if not months of pain he'll go through?better get it done now than later...

How stupid is your argument, future? It hurts like hell, so do it to them when they can't consent or can't complain, instead of later. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you, buddy?

Anyone posting on here who is for banning circumcision better not be pro abortion. It is contradictory to claim to be a champion for protecting defenseless baby boys from having some skin removed and then turn around and say a mother has a right to kill her unborn child. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

The difference is that one involves a baby, and the other involves a fetus or zygote.

I don't believe it will ever even make it to the SCOTUS, it will be killed either with a vote, or with the first court hearing.

For those of you saying how painful it is to babies, their brain is not developed enough to even remember the surgery much less the pain. It is also done for religious reasons, and for that reason alone, which has been going on for thousands of years, neither the vote nor court can reverse it.

If you want the nuts is SF to dictate what you do, thats your problem, misery is optional, and you could not pay me to visit there much less move there.

I find it amusing that some of the posters are the same ones yelling for less government and less government intrusion into our lives, but want this. How about we just legalize shooting idiots. Save a lot of time and money.

Another attempt by the idiots in San Fran to ban something. Yawn. Plastic bags, happy meals, guns, bums crapping and pissing on the sidewalk, perverts copulating like dogs on the streets, oops, how did those slip in there?

4.11 is proud to be circumsized....LOL...that is such an idiotic statement. Dude you were mutilated as a child...you should be pissed not proud you fool!

I know, those hippie commies and their "laws" to try and ban child abuse...

You mean that they haven't banned gay adoption yet??? How sad.

Anyone posting on here who is for banning circumcision better not be pro abortion. It is contradictory to claim to be a champion for protecting defenseless baby boys from having some skin removed and then turn around and say a mother has a right to kill her unborn child. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

You have it backwards. It's the anti-abortion people who should NOT be in favor of circumcision. After all, either they care about those helpless little babies AFTER they are born too...or they are just a bunch of windbags using fake concern for zygotes to try and control women's sexual behavior and care nothing for the actual infants/children/adults once they are no longer useful as "punishment" for sex.

no one is pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. big difference. pro-abortion is like telling people to go out and have an abortion. pro-choice is giving control of one's body to themselves. stop saying ignorant crap like that.

I am anti-circumcision, anti- abortion (except for medical reasons or incest/rape). My son is not circumcised because we did our research and found it was unnecessary. I also made the decision because a close friend of mine had her son circumcised and even though she was not in the room she could hear him screaming all the way down the hall. She said it sounded like someone was killing him and she regretted doing it. My Ob had a similar experience when she had her eldest son circumcised.

If it is so benign then why do these children scream like this? Because it HURTS. Hurting a child that cannot speak to tell you how bad it hurts does not make it ok!

agreed.

I don't know about that. We have laws forcing parents to put their kids in car seat for the kids' safety. We have laws forcing parents to send their kids to school for their well being. We have laws to track child sex offenders for the kids' protection ...

Yet, we allow parents to cut off a part of a baby boy's sex organ without their knowledge or consent. Seems pretty important to me.

We also allow mothers to kill their kids before they're born.

So that makes everything else OK? In that case, lets allow parents to kill their kids after they're born. How about even after they reach adulthood?

Drama queen much, Juice?

Unless a child is adjudicated by law to be an emancipated minor, a child cannot consent. Parents are responsible for their child. That's what the law says. So therefore, yes, parents do get to make important decisions like if/when to circumcise and how old a child should be if/when they get their ears pierced - and hey, there's a religion out there that is all about piercings, I kid you not.

Ally wrote "So therefore, yes, parents do get to make important decisions like if/when to circumcise and how old a child should be if/when they get their ears pierced - "

So, why are girls protected more than boys from cosmetic genital surgery? Are girls more important or entitled to more legal rights than boys?

Because FGM is extremely harmful, physically & mentally, and carries a high mortality rate as well, and that is fact, Vinnie.

If you're that attached to the skin, by all means keep it. You want your boys to have theirs, let them keep it. But don't tell me I don't have a right to make decisions for my own child.

Oh, and thank you, you've just totally confirmed my little pet theory of sockpuppetry in this blog.

Ally, you missed my point. If FGM didn't carry a high mortality rate as would be the case in the US, and the surgery were limited to partial or full amputation of the clitoral hood, would it be acceptable? But you're right. The reason that complete removal of the clitoris exists in some African nations is that the clitoris is not needed for reproduction.

Ally wrote "But don't tell me I don't have a right to make decisions for my own child."

So, why should you or US law be mandating genital integrity only for girls?

It's quite clear that you believe that male genitalia are less than female genitalia and that men are not entitled to the same legal protections as women. Are you a female supremacist that believes that women deserve more rights and legal protection than men?

Ally and others who have tried to make this point: Yes, parents are agents for their children. But, innocent and defenseless kids require protection. This is why we have laws designed to protect kids from harm, as Juice said. These laws also hold parents responsible for negligence. Of course, this thread is a question about where that line gets drawn.

Pierced ears? Benign if you ask me. Piercing one's ears is reversible, cosmetic, and falls low on the pain scale. I know babies that have their ears pierced, and while to me it's bad taste, I don't feel these kids are "wronged" in any way. On a dime the kid can decide to forego the piercings, end of story.

Circumcision? Infants don't remember any pain, sure, but it is non-reversible. The fact that men exist who wish the decision was theirs and not their parents’ is reason enough to me. And to claim it's medically prudent, as if it were an emergency appendectomy, is completely nonsensical as many uncircumcised men and mixed research results could attest to. Whether or not it is more or less painful as an adult is completely irrelevant. So too are your religious “rights.”

It is a medically unnecessary practice, therefore it is your decision and no one else’s.

In fact, to claim it is your right to practice your religion is, IMO, the worst argument pro-circumcision. Taking your deceased brother's wife as your own (Old Testament, same canon as circumcision) is a religious tradition but that does not make it your right to exercise it. Just as a widow cannot be forced into this arrangement, a male human should not be forced into having a part of his genitals removed. You simply cannot claim that it is benign or insignificant. “Your rights end where mine begin.” Just as lawmakers have drawn a line when it comes to religion and drugs - your religion does not give you permission to consume illegal drugs - it seems to me conclusive that the line should be drawn just shy of permanently removing a piece of genitilia from someone other than yourself. At least one’s decision to consume drugs only immediately affects oneself.

To claim it is your right as a parent is dangerous territory. It is not within anyone's right to permanently alter someone else's body without unanimous medical justification. This justification simply doesn't exist for circumcision.

I know. Ban child abuse and who knows what's next?

It's not child abuse, or are you saying that the majority of people out there that did that to their son is nothing but child abusers? You'd be calling my parents child abusers then Toasty McGrath! I take insult with that. I find an uncircumcised penis to be disgusting, no way would I touch my man if he was. It's unclean! Most guys I know barely wash their hands :\

One freedom at a time is being snuffed by a handful of people.

Yes, Ny, that's exactly what I'm saying. Hell, without going into too much detail, that would make my own parents abusers. I'm not sure they realized it at the time, so I clearly don't hold it against them, but the fact remains that if we outlaw this mutilation, it will stop others from being abused as infants.

Oh, and "uncircumcised penises are icky" isn't a legitimate excuse to mutilate the genitals of babies.

Toasty, I'm very glad to see that you don't hold your circumcised penis against your mother.

Honestly, circumcision hasn't been a problem for THOUSANDS of years. It shouldn't be a problem now.

Thorn, there are TONS of bad things we've had for thousands of years before we finally found our humanity and outgrew.

as an RN, you should know the practice has some benefits, namely a slight protection against STDs and penile cancer

While certainly not a mindblowing level of protection, hardly the barbaric ritual that needs to be outlawed as SF proposes

eric, do you realize that the complication rate from circumcision exceeds the benefit rate?

Eric, other "benefits" include you wind up with a smaller penis and one that is less sensitive. If given the choice today I'd pass. Someone should have told my parents that looking like everyone else isn't all its cracked up to be.

@Old Computer Dude...

Nice...spreading mis-information, always the best way to win an argument. That is absolutely not true, and just makes you look foolish saying that.

This is a waste of tax-payers' money. Female circumcision is mutilation, not male circumcision (which the medical community has shown to have some positive benefits).

This present waste of tax payers money will soon be recovered though, once the ban is passed.

It'll then be a misdemeanor and thereby subject to a court ordered monetary fine, hence profitable!

Typical government manuever . . . . Or more like typical government manure.

As a nurse, have you ever tried to clean/catherize someone who can't care for themselves & haven't been circumcised? Have you ever cared for someone who had to be circumcised in their 20's 30's or 40's [or 80's]? If so, you'd probably have a sightly different opinion. I've seen way too many infected foreskins and men with penile cancer in my career-I had my son circumcised.

peggy wrote "As a nurse, have you ever tried to clean/catherize someone who can't care for themselves & haven't been circumcised"

I wonder how all Europeans, Australians, Japanese, Taiwanese and pretty much every other nation in the world manages.

"men with penile cancer in my career"

Penile cancer rates have been shown to be similar in circumcised (US, Israel) and uncircumcised nations. Risk factors listed are smoking, age and HIV-infection, none of which are prevented by circumcision.

Not true Vincent. There have been a couple studies that show HIV infection may occur through infection of cells on the inner surface of the foreskin and the fraenulum of uncircumcised men. These areas contain HIV-susceptible Langerhans’ cells close to the skin surface of the skin, and are protected with only a thin layer of keratin. The study’s findings were published in the 13th July edition of AIDS. Up to 90% of the 18.7 million HIV-positive men in the world were infected through heterosexual intercourse. However, recent observational and randomised controlled studies have found that removal of the foreskin by circumcision can reduce the risk of female-to-male transmission by around 65%.

CassAnn, there are 50,000 HIV infection cases in the US. The two primary transmission paths are 1) anal reception of HIV-infected sperm 2) intravenous reception of HIV-infected blood. A third and comparatively minor path is male->female HIV infection by injection of HIV-infected sperm. A foreskin plays no role in HIV infection in the US or any other developed nation.

"Up to 90% of the 18.7 million HIV-positive men in the world were infected through heterosexual intercourse."

These infection conditions do not exist in the US. That is why no US medical association recommends circumcision.

So, exactly in how many countries around the world is circumcision rare or non-existent? China, Australia, all of Europe, Canada, Russia, and on and on. Doctors in those countries cite research against circumcision, while doctors in the US cite research promoting circumcision.

Sounds no one really knows the facts for a certainty, and in that case I would opt for reducing the rate of mutilation.

Enough said.

i've seen vincents comments on circs here before...

he fails to acknowledge the benefits shown in many studies in Africa

He fails to acknowledge that the WHO recommends it

sure, it has a greater benefit in Africa where aids is more rampant. But HIV exists here too, and our foreskins are no different

PHYSIOLOGICALLY speaking, if it worked there, why not here? REally, i'd like you to address this point most of all

You keep harping on the fact that the AAP does not endorse it. The answer is simple. The benefits are not great enough to recommend universal circumcision. There are much better/effective ways to prevent STDs

But none of that makes it HARMFUL. The fact is we allow many more harmful activities that circ. Why you single that one out is beyond me

eric, circumcision is a painful, bloody surgery performed on infants with some or no topical anesthetic that wears off after an hour or so. The pain level is probably similar to pulling fingernails and certainly more painful than skinning other parts of the body.

You don't seem to acknowledge that circumcision also includes risks. In doing the research on circumcision for my own son (I'm circumcised), I learned from the various sources on circumcision that the complication rate is about twice the benefit rate. Thus, the net is a loss, and I spared my son. Eric, perhaps when you have to make this decision on your infant son, you will also do the research and decide what is best for him.

"PHYSIOLOGICALLY speaking, if it worked there, why not here? REally, i'd like you to address this point most of all"

Since neither you nor I are an HIV/STD medical researcher, why don't you just follow the advice of the medical associations that have studied the matter for several decades? Their positions can be summarized as not recommending circumcision because the risks of the procedure do not outweigh the potential benefits.

"But none of that makes it HARMFUL. "

Circumcision can be harmful. Risks of circumcision include death (one every year in the US), a dozen penises rendered completely non-functional, many damaged or disfigured, and infant infection rates up to 10% depending on the classification of the severity.

Using penile cancer as an excuse for circumcision is ridiculous.

By the same logic, let's give double masectomies to girls just after they reach puberty. That way, they'll never get breast cancer.

Juice, really? Preventing penile cancer is a ridiculous argument?

Because when my son was receiving immunizations I was told he had to have a series of Hep B vaccinations because it would be beneficial to lower contraction rates of Hep B and it's also been proven to prevent a specific type of extremely rare liver cancer that affects less than .01% of the US population. And yeah, he got the shots. Couldn't go to school without them as they were mandatory.

You keep on with your silly overblown and utterly nonsensical rationalizations, though, they're getting funnier.

Circumcision is good for 2 things:

1- Hospitals can charge anothe $2000 for the procedure

2- Hand Lotion companies make Millions off of men needing to buy lube to jerk off.

Other than that its child abuse!

BS. Again, what you believe is abuse and what IS actual abuse are two different things.

How can pinning down an infant and cutting it with a knife solely for the parent's preference not be abuse?

Again, drama mama. *sigh* Why do you think pandering to the heart strings makes your argument more justified?

Ask your favorite politician honey, maybe they can explain the complicated web of knowledge called L-A-W to you.

You know, I've got the perfect thing to ban worldwide: Braces

I mean, look, they forcible extract perfectly healthy teeth just to give a kid a pretty smile and the kid's suffering doesn't end there, there's years of torture with those metal devices.

Point being, this is a medical practice performed by doctors or mohels, it has been proven to have some health benefit - I've personally had family members benefit from it and I've personally suffered no ill effects from it, nor has my son. This is a parental decision, not abuse, and should remain a family choice - religion or no religion.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with disease, wars, famine, real child neglect & abuse, the homeless, etc. There are a million and one things for me to worry over and be vocally against. This isn't one of them.

Braces are voluntary, Ally. That's a stupid analogy and you know it. And yes, I'm in agreement that circumcision isn't exactly a global threat to humanity. But it's child abuse, and it can be stopped far easier than disease, wars, famine, etc. Just because something's less evil than other things doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to stop it.

Ally wrote "Point being, this is a medical practice performed by doctors or mohels, it has been proven to have some health benefit - I've personally had family members benefit from it"

There are health (reduction in cancer of clitoris and reduction in UTI) and hygenic (less clitoral smegma) benefits to removing the clitoral hood. Is that a justification for female circumcision (amputation of clitoral hood)?

Can a minor undergo a 'voluntary' procedure without parental consent? I was under the impression that a child could not give consent even if he or she wants to but requires the parents consent instead.

I know I had braces when I was a kid. I wouldn't exactly call it voluntary. I wasn't a very eager participant in the whole thing... :)

Vincent I dont know where you get your so called statistics from, but you are WAY off base.

It is estimated that more than one million people are living with HIV in the USA and that more than half a million have died after developing AIDS and one in every five people living with HIV has not even had their infection diagnosed, let alone reported. That doesn't include HPV infections which are known to cause several types of cancers including oral, cervical, and anal cancer. If you think most of the population is going to consistently use condoms then you need to look at the stats on unplanned pregnancies and abortion. You cannot deny that the foreskin is a possible breeding ground for sexually transmitted diseases.

Euthanize me right now and there's a good chance that my risk factors for all varieties of cancer drop to 0%.

Seriously though, please don't euthanize me.

vincent,

Have you ever seen a circumcision? I've assisted on a few, and I can assure you it is neither bloody nor painful. Not to mention, I can't remember mine, and Im sure the same is true for the majority of guys. Now if it were horribly painful, why aren't we all scarred by the memory of it? Not remembering it wouldn't be a foolproof excuse, but it sure does help

Show me the study that says the complication rate is twice the benefit rate. That's patently false, and you know it

As far as you sidestepping the issue of the physiology, i find that very interesting. Not being an HIV researcher has not stopped you from asking other posters about the mechanisms of HIV transfer, but when you are asked a question, suddenly youre not an expert. I guess physiology is just important to you when you think it supports your arguments

Furthermore, I know I have shown you several studies demonstrating the benefit of circumcision in africa. These WERE written by experts. In addition, the WHO (made up in part by AIDS experts) endorses the idea of circumcision specifically as a way to reduce HIV transmission. Not, as you claim, that the benefits are outweighed by the risk. That is you editorializing. Again, just go to the WHO website if you don't believe

Show me evidence/sources for any of the claims listed in the last part of your post.

To summarize:

No where does any expert organization claim the risks are outweighed by the benefits. Please feel free to post any sources that say otherwise

You cannot provide any PHYSIOLOGIC reason why the same results seen in africa should not be seen in the US. Acknowledged is the fact that the apparent protection may not be as great owing to a lower disease burden, but whatever mechanism is responsible for this protection in Africa should be protective here. Feel free to post a PHYSIOLOGIC reason why that is untrue

Your stats are unsupported by any source. Feel free to post a source demonstrating these claims

eric wrote "Have you ever seen a circumcision?"

No, but here's a video . Do you not believe that peeling skin will cause any one to react during and after the procedure?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617&hl=en

"Furthermore, I know I have shown you several studies demonstrating the benefit of circumcision in africa. These WERE written by experts"

Just name a single major American, European, Asian or Australian medical association that recommends circumcision given exposure to the same studies you cite. The benefits of circumcision are not obvious to them. They probably understand the very risks of circumcision, including death, complete or partial loss of the penis, reduced function of the penis, infection, etc. more than you do.

i don't need a video, i've helped PERFORM them---its not peeling skin by the way

That video is NOT AT ALL the same technique used today

You keep hiding behind the fact that certain agencies do not endorse the widespread circumcisions of all infants

I have already explained to you that the benefits, risks, and cost analysis do not yet support the recommendation for universal circumcision

THAT DOESN"T MAKE IT HARMFUL!!!

HOW do you not comprehend that?

Plus, please, please, please address the fact that the WHO DOES endorse it

Those last risks you mention are EXTREMELY RARE and NOT the main reason circs are not recommended

You really have to get your head around the fact that not enough benefit does NOT equal HARMFUL

The ban is about affording male babies the same protection from routine genital cosmetic surgery that female babies have enjoyed for decades. Why should male circumcision be legal and covered by health insurance plans while female circumcision (including a ceremonial pin-prick) is illegal?

Um, with male circumcision only the foreskin is removed. With what is known euphamistically as female circumcision the clitoris and labia are removed [to ensure complete lack of sexual sensation]. TOTALLY different procedure. To compare-it would have to be a penectomy [removal of the penis], not just the foreskin.

Peggy, a female circumcision could be full or partial amputation of the clitoral hood. If you study the topic, you'll find a complete range of female circumcision just as old-world circumcision was a partial amputation of the foreskin. Why is *any* female infant genital cosmetic surgery illegal but amputation of the penile foreskin on a male infant is legal and covered by every health insurance plan?

Vincent: Spreading more fertilizer than a horse farm.

eric-2573068, that is only because of the mild effect on the rate of HIV transmission. On a continent where HIV is out of control, you try anything you can.

what's your point?

US law in every state does not allow the parent to choose cosmetic genital surgery for their female infant.

I will go one step further. There is no need for parents to interfere, either. Let the boy decide. It's his body.

Cindy I agree with you. Plus, I am sure any such ban would be judged as unconstitutional by the supreme court

john wrote " I am sure any such ban would be judged as unconstitutional by the supreme court"

A ban on female circumcision of any kind is illegal everywhere in the US. Why would a similar procedure on male genitals not be offered similar protection? Are men lesser in the eyes of the law?

The hell does circumcision have to do with abortion? I think you're off your rocker, Rummy.

Toasty don't play the idiot, you know exactly what I mean.

Rights taken from an unborn infant by the mother who decides the child's fate are just as important, if not more so than the right given to the mother to decide the fate of her child's foreskin.

Use the few brain cells you have to cognate upon that. The logic is plain, if not ironic.

And if people circumcised fetuses while they were still in the womb, you might be able to pretend you had a point.

I kinda thought that was what you were going to say

The issue Toasty (and I'm getting a little weary trying to make it through to you) is the issue of parental rights. Get it now?

Dude, there is no right to abuse your own child. That's the point I've been making all night.

u have no brain. if parents have a right to terminate a life, then what is this garbage?

I guess I could turn that around just as easily. You seem to think the parent has no right to abort a child, but you think they have all the license to abuse them?

At what point does a collection of cells become a baby? Have your own opinion on that? Based upon???

See what I mean? everyone has thier own definition... You are clearly entitled to your opinion against abortion... however you are not entitled to restrict my rights based upon YOUR opnion.... It is the woman's choice.... If she believes as you do then she won't have one.. no one is "forced" to have an abortion, one can only be forced not to.

OK, back to the real topic at hand... how much government interference in our lives are we going to allow... This might be a pertinent topic IF circumcision was required by law.. It is not.. therefore, once again... it is the people's individual choice... it should stay that way.

I have met men who say they wish they had not been circumcised. Just because you have never met any does not mean they don't exist.

scottyusa wrote "Where do these people come from? "

The US is the only Western nation with a high (currently 33%) circumcision rate. The rest of the world doesn't bother.

If you were circumcised as a baby, then you don't know what you're missing.

Flick the head of your penis. Does it hurt like hell? No, right? Why? Because you're penis has been desensitized from rubbing up against your underwear all your life.

If I flicked the head of my penis, it would hurt pretty badly. All my nerves are intact and I don't have a calloused penis. Therefore, during sex, I feel much more pleasure than you.

Are you still glad to be circumcised?

Juice, quit playing with yourself please. How many times do you have to be told? And will you get outta the bathroom already?

Once again, misrepresenting? Some circumcised men have less sensation than uncircumcised me, others actually have more sensation than uncircumcised men. Gee, why is that? Oh yeah, because even though men are men and women are women, they are each individuals and have different physiological responses.

Ally wrote "Some circumcised men have less sensation than uncircumcised me, others actually have more sensation than uncircumcised men. Gee, why is that? Oh yeah, because even though men are men and women are women, they are each individuals and have different physiological responses."

Perhaps this would also be the case in female circumcision (amputation of the clitoral hood).

Invalid reasoning One....

One really fed up boomer wrote "Ok, so now we are going to regulate dick cutting,"

Only on minors without a medical justification. Clitoral cutting is already illegal.

So you don't oppose dick cutting? Can I come over and cut your dick?

No? Didn't think so.

Are you a doctor, Juice? Or a Mohel? No? Didn't think so.

JimiMadison wrote " non-circumcised males tend to carry more stds, including the hiv "

An understanding of HIV transmission in the US is needed. The two primary paths of HIV transmission are 1) anal reception of HIV-infected sperm 2) intravenous reception of HIV-infected blood, typically from recreational drug use. Circumcision plays no role in preventing HIV transmission.

Incidentally, the HIV infection rate is higher in circumcised America than in Australia, any other European, and developed Asian nation, all of which are uncircumcised. STD transmission rates in the US are very similar to those of the aforementioned nations.

All those who have unprotected sex with STD-infected partners should be afraid of getting an STD. You think having part of your penis cut off protects you from STDs?

Your a bright one, aren't you?

Juice, if you're going to call someone out for being unintelligent, you really should know the proper use of you're vs your first. Otherwise you just wind up looking like an idiot.

If it was such breeding ground for bacteria how come humans survived long enough to when we started to think god wanted a little piece of every boys penis?

No US or European medical association has issued a statement recommending circumcision. Do you know more ?

"It really has nothing to do with "cosmetic surgery". Those who say that just aren't thinking deeply enough about why it was ever started to begin with."

According to the Old Testament, the reason is a covenant with God. Is that why your parents circumcised you?

John, in case you haven't noticed, this is the 21st century. We have this magical elixir called "soap."

Decades ago, circumcision among gentile families was indeed centered around certain health issues. With proper training in hygiene, this seems to be a non-issue now.

Guys should learn proper hygene regardless of foreskin possession. There are some dirty mo-fos if they can't even keep their cocks clean.

Are you a dirty mo-fo?

If parents were forced to pay $500-1000 (depending on hospital) for circumcisions out-of-pocket as in Australia and all European nations , the US circumcision rate would be the same as for those nations : very close to zero

I think it has more to do with insurance coverage than anything else.

I think you're right. Circumcision is a money maker for hospitals, and the cost is passed on to the insurance subscriber. Four million babies are born in the US - 2 million are male. 33% of male babies are circumcised at an average cost of $750/birth. It would be better to use that money more constructively.

Circumcision lowers AIDS rates in sub-Saharan Africa.

In that part of the world, AIDS is rampant because people have lesions everywhere that facilitate the spread of AIDS. Don't have sex with people who have AIDS and lesions, and you should be OK.

Circumcision does not lower HIV infection rates in the US because in developed nations, the two primary paths are 1) Anal reception of HIV-infected semen and 2) Intravenous-reception of HIV-infected blood.

A good read on the topic is a book that has been around for 15 years :

_Sex at Risk: Lieftime number of partners, Frequency of Intercouse, and the Low AIDS risk of Vaginal Intercourse— by Stuary Brody

Charley, I was wondering the same thing. Anybody know?

I seriously doubt that antisemitism was or is the motive force behind the initiative, particularly in San Francisco which has a large Jewish community. Certainly one must at least concede to SF the 'benefit of the doubt' on that issue of motive. I would say, though, that I sense a "cold indifference" to religious traditions of any kind, especially those of the more "mainstream" religions. For instance I could argue here that Mary and Joseph had Baby Jesus circumcised; did this not make Mary a "child abuser" according to the standard of this bill's proponents? But if I did that, the nihilists of our society (who form a political majority out in SF) would simply affirm that Mary was indeed a child abuser (but not a virgin). You can't argue with a nihilist.

If we want SF to remove this nonsense from consideration, then all we need to do is convince the Hare Krishnas to take up the practice of infant male circumcision, and then the nanosecond would be redefined as how long it would take for the ballot initiative to disappear.

Uh, Toad? I know you worked really hard on your theory, but I really don't think the neutrality of Hare Krishnas has anything to do with San Francisco's opposition to child abuse...

KUDOS!... I hear you there, richard! You won my vote for best display of practical common sense!

Yeah, the parents should be able to choose whether to abuse their infant or not.

Toasty, please. Whether you define it as abuse or not, the law doesn't.

Not in San Francisco, it seems, if this ballot passes. Kind of sad to think it took this long for people to come to their senses, to be honest.

Well, it will be immediately challenged and not just by people of the Jewish faith, but by many other faiths as well. I frankly don't care whether it's a religious rite or a medical necessity. It is still a parental choice. Despite hitting a ballot, it won't cut it as a law.

What's sad is that there are so many pitiful and small minded busybodies thinking they have a right to decide whether a parent can or cannot have a procedure performed on their child. If it were harmful, that would be one thing. The science doesn't support that position though.

And again, I have personal experience via male cousins who'd not been circumcised and had to have the procedures at ages 6, 9, and 12 to stop recurrent infections. And no, they didn't have infections due to neglect, if anything their mother was a germaphobe and was too fastidious with their hygiene.

There are genuine health reasons to the procedure, whether you like it or not.

Ally wrote "Well, it will be immediately challenged and not just by people of the Jewish faith, but by many other faiths as well."

What many other faiths have a religious justification for circumcision?

"What's sad is that there are so many pitiful and small minded busybodies thinking they have a right to decide whether a parent can or cannot have a procedure performed on their child. "

Why can't the equivalent procedure be performed on a woman? Is a woman exempt from religious tradition?

"male cousins who'd not been circumcised and had to have the procedures at ages 6, 9, and 12 to stop recurrent infections. And no, they didn't have infections due to neglect, if anything their mother was a germaphobe "

There you go. Their Mom had a fetish for polished surfaces and cleanliness and was unable to care for her sons as Asian, Australian and European moms care for their sons. We can understand your personal biases. No uncircumcised male (previous generation) had any problems in my family.

Also his body if he needs tonsils removed, but often is the case, that is a parents responsibility

Thunder tonsils are not removed unless there is a medical reason-this is not the same thing

CdB, I realize that. LOL :)

My point is that parents are the responsible party to make those decisions. NOT the government.

ThunderProof, do you believe that parents should be allowed to order cosmetic surgery on their daughter's genitals for religious, cultural or aesthetic reasons?

Here's a video :

http://video.google.com/vi deoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617&hl=en

Let's look at other religious practices shall we?

Polygamy- not permitted

Honor Killing - not permitted

Clitorictomy - not permitted

Stoning- not permitted

Just because something is part of a religion does not make it okay.

Martha wrote "s have practiced circumcision for thousands of years."

So, what's the excude for all of those not of a particular religious to order circumcision?

"In a state that calls for tolerance and equal rights "

Female circumcision or infant genital cosmetic surgery of any kind is illegal in every US state. Why are male infants excluded from this protection?

Female Genital Mutilation is not circumcision according to the World Health Organization. In Female Genital Mutilation, the labia and clitoris are removed and can result in fatal bleeding and leads to painful sex and almost impossible childbirth. Jewish infant male circumcision is not cosmetic, it is cultural. The organ remains intact only part of the foreskin is removed. Why is it that Jews are ordered to give up their culture while the rest of the worlds cultures are to be celebrated for their differences? By practicing this ancient ritual I promise that your wells will not be poisoned or your gentile children's blood be used in our matzah. Your hate and intolerance will not be stomached. NEVER AGAIN!

Martha, any cultural, religious or parental preference for female circumcision is outlawed in the US. I'm sure that there are a number of African immigrants that are upset that US law inhibits their cultural practice, but only on girls.

"Jewish infant male circumcision is not cosmetic, it is cultural."

It is a cosmetic surgery with a cultural tradition for males, but not females.

Not really, Vinnie, as most of the immigrants of third world countries practice FGM sans medical doctors. That's right, they do it themselves - which is why there's such a high mortality rate to it. Another HUGE difference between male/female circumcision.

Ally wrote "most of the immigrants of third world countries practice FGM sans medical doctors"

Are their male circumcisions practiced under superior conditions?

Ally, would you be OK with equivalent female infant genital surgery (in the US in hospitals with licensed doctors? Would that make it more acceptable for you?

Vinnie, I'd be okay with lobotomizing all idiots like you.

Again, FGM is a million times worse than simple male circumcision and what's more - You. Damn. Well. KNOW. IT.

Grow up.

Ally wrote "Again, FGM is a million times worse than simple male circumcision"

No, it isn't. Amputation of the clitoral hood is exactly the same procedure as amputation of the penile foreskin. If anything, female circumcision interferes less with reproduction. Are you uneducated in anatomy?

Apparently you are uneducated in female circumcision Vincent Denali. Because if you have ever witnessed the two procedures and then compared them, you would not be saying such stupid things.

"Amputation of the clitoral hood is exactly the same procedure as amputation of the penile foreskin."

Once again you are showing your complete misunderstanding of FGM. This practice is done to young girls because it is supposed to prove their virginity. Mothers have this done to their daughter to help them get married because in that world being a single woman is close to a death sentence. Because the vulva and vagina are so deformed the first time the girl has sex her partner has to, in some cases, use a knife to make the opening big enough.

This sends a horrible message to Jewish boys and other boys who are circumcised, that their parents mutilated their penises. Circumcised men have great sex lives and the wives of circumcised men are able to reach climax. The cases of complications are few and far between.

When you and your gay boyfriend adopt an African child then you will have the right to not circumcise of FGM just as I have the right to continue this ancient symbol.

Martha wrote "Once again you are showing your complete misunderstanding of FGM. This practice is done to young girls because it is supposed to prove their virginity.

No. Your bias for male, but female, infant/minor genital cosmetic surgery is showing. Is there a functional purpose for male cosmetic surgery, particularly for the 98% of the population that orders circumcision for no religious purpose.

"This sends a horrible message to Jewish boys and other boys who are circumcised"

Circumcision sends a horrible message to all other boys that their genital must be cut to please women.

"When you and your gay boyfriend adopt an African child"

I'm not gay, but I am circumcised. I am left wondering why my daughter has greater legal protection than my son from circumcision.

" I have the right to continue this ancient symbol."

Simply take a vacation to a country that offers the procedure, perhaps the area from which the blood ritual for boys, but not girls, originated.

Since the religious group in question is only 2% of the US population, what excuse is used to justify the vast majority of circumcisions?

Uh, Vincent? Christians make up 76% of the population, not 2%.

Toasty, reread my sentence. What justification do Christians have for circumcision? It certainly is not a religious one.

Well, the bible is full of circumcision. The justifications the christians lack are logical and secular ones.

Toasty, it's not clear to me if you're speaking as you are from lack of knowledge or prejudice. If the former, please take a moment to do some research. Circumcision is mainly a Jewish and Muslim religious tradition and there are several sections of the Bible dealing with Christians and circumcisions that state it is not a requirement for them. Nor is it a religious practice for most Christian in the US, it's a secular practice done in spite of religious belief.

The Catholic church denounced religious circumcision in 1442 at the Council of Florence. In the Bible, Paul says, "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised" - 1 Cor 7:18. There are numerous other Biblical references in the New Testament against Christians practicing circumcision.

Wikipedia has a good article on religious circumcision here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision

That may be the case, but that doesn't contribute to the discussion. Clearly it still needs to be banned, regardless of which religion prescribes it.

I was responding to the context of the thread and the incorrect statements proscribed for Christianity. As Vincent says, it isn't religion that has 80% of the people in the US circumcised. From my perspective, it's about wanting your children to fit in and the older US medical stance that it was a good thing. There hasn't really been a clear stance taken by the medical community that it is unnecessary.

I tend to be against banning it. I was circumcised, but would not circumcise my child as I don't personally feel it is necessary and it certainly can't be undone.

The AMA released a report that tends to indicate no benefits for circumcision, on the other hand there have been studies in 3rd world countries that indicate that circumcision may help prevent the spread of AIDS in heterosexuals. I personally think that condom use in the US probably negates that argument, but I also hesitate to stand in the way of a parent making decisions for their child when the medical community itself has failed to take a strong stance on this.

Then it's just a choice between mutilating a child for a bad reason, religion, or for no reason at all. That's a distinction without a difference.

Dean wrote "I was circumsized by choice at age 21 because I wanted to look more like the majority."

Did women express their taste for the appearance of a penis with an amputated foreskin? Would female circumcision be legitimized if men preferred a clitoris with an amputated foreskin?

One thing is for sure. Your logic skills stink.

No, T-Rev, all it does is highlight the illogic of the hardcore proponents of abortion on-demand at any time pre-partum, many of whom I suspect are the hardcore proponents of the male infant circumcision ban. That a viable fetus, which can and does feel pain, should have no rights at all, yet the same people who make that claim are oh-so-concerned about the just-born's rights and freedom from pain and suffering, when all that really separates one from the other is an adult female's abdominal and uterine walls, is an appalling example of illogic, which is the kindest thing that can be said of people who think like that.

Another way to look at it is that the same people who obsess over a fetus or zygote then turn around and say it's okay to pull out a knife and abuse a baby once it's born.