Archive for Thursday, May 19, 2011

Circumcision ban to appear on San Francisco ballot

May 19, 2011


— A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation’s first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter.

But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.

Elections officials confirmed Wednesday the initiative had qualified for the ballot with more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names to qualify.

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.

The proposed ban appears to be the first in the country to make it this far, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.

“Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what’s in the best interest of the child. It’s his body. It’s his choice,” said Lloyd Schofield, the measure’s lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident. He added the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.

But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.

“For a city that’s renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition ... it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states,” said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Leeds is a certified “mohel,” the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith.

He said for the past few months he has been receiving daily phone calls from members of the local Jewish community who are concerned about the proposed ban. But he said he is relatively confident that even if the measure is approved, it will be abruptly — and indefinitely — tied up in litigation.

Jews consider religious male circumcision a commandment from God. It also is widely practiced by Muslims, and while it does not appear in the Quran it is mentioned in the Sunnah, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. Most Christian denominations neither require nor forbid circumcision.

The initiative’s backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date in a decades-old, nationwide movement by so-called “intactivists” to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort by the Tarrytown, N.Y.-based group Intact America to introduce a circumcision ban in the Massachusetts Legislature last year failed to gain traction.

“It’s been kind of under the radar until now, but it was a conversation that needed to happen,” Schofield said of the debate over male circumcision. “We’ve tapped into a spark with our measure — something that’s been going on for a long time.”

Schofield’s group calls its initiative the San Francisco Male Genital Mutilation bill, though he said the city attorney has opted to call the measure “Male Circumcision” on the ballot. The group’s official website features a picture of a wide-eyed, delighted-looking baby and urges visitors to help “protect ALL infants and children in San Francisco from the pain and harm caused by forced genital cutting.”

Female genital cutting, a controversial practice that usually involves the removal of the clitoris, is illegal in the United States. A circumcision ban would simply extend the same protections to males, Schofield said.

International health organizations have promoted circumcision as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus.


Liberty275 7 years, 1 month ago

Small popcorn please. This being Lawrence, there will only be about 4 people that care about the constitution so the discussion should be pretty short. Oh, and a coke too.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

When will the first pro-government abortion opponent weigh in on this issue?

seriouscat 7 years, 1 month ago

Well it is an interesting juxtaposition of philosophies: on one hand it's legal to kill the baby up until birth, but then it would be illegal to cut a piece of skin off of the same baby right after it's born. Weird and barbaric indeed.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

No, it isn't legal to kill a fetus up until birth. That is simply not true, and if you believe it is then you need to do a little reading on the subject. Is your argument against abortion truly so weak that you need to spread falacies?

seriouscat 7 years, 1 month ago

Kansas law allows abortions after a fetus can survive outside the womb only if two independent doctors agree that it is necessary to save a women's life or prevent "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function," a phrase that has been interpreted to include mental health.

Third trimester induction procedures are performed beginning at 24-25weeks LMP (5.5cm BPD).

Medically Indicated Termination of Pregnancy Up To 36 Weeks

Crazy_Larry 7 years, 1 month ago

Umm, I think you just made beatrice's point.

Liberty275 7 years, 1 month ago

Still don't have the guts to call it a baby and murder, eh? No surprises there.

Euphemisms make it easy for the weak-minded to embrace horror without looking it in the face.

Crazy_Larry 7 years, 1 month ago

It's not a Euphemism, it's a scientific fact. You seem to me to be the weak-minded one here. Here's a quick biology lesson you should have learned in high school (had you attended regularly).

Fertilization occurs when two gametes (sperm and egg) fuse to form a zygote. The zygote will then implant into the mother (if you're lucky) and continue to develop; becoming an embryo. Is an embryo a baby? If it is, it's one weird baby because it's at the embryo stage of human development when twins, triplets, etc. are split. A process called, segmentation. I've never seen a baby segment before...have you?

The fetal stage of development begins the 9th week following fertilization. At this stage the fetus is approximately 1.2 inches long and weighs about 8 grams (that's about 123 grains for you gun nuts). At about 21 weeks a new mother will begin to feel fetal movements. The fetus is considered full-term between weeks 37 and 40.

It is important to note: the circulatory system of a human fetus works differently from that of born humans, mainly because the lungs are not in use. A fetus obtains oxygen and nutrients through the placenta and the umbilical cord. With the first breath after birth, the system changes suddenly. Oh, look, a baby is born and thus begins it's personhood.

Personhood begins at birth. Some attributes of personhood follow: agency, individuality, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, the possession of duties, and the emergence of rationality, among others.

Glad I could school ya. Now go crawl back under your bridge, troll.

Liberty275 7 years, 1 month ago

Five paragraphs and a sentence to do dress euphemisms up in a lab coat so you can approve of murder.

Be honest about the subject, like this, (this is my actual belief concerning abortion):

A mother should have the right to pay a qualified professional to murder the child in her womb until the moment it is born.

Until you can look abortion in the face and advocate the horror without trying to sugar-coat it, you don't deserve to call yourself pro-choice.

As for your schooling, I know all the words and I know the tactic. It reeks of cowardice.

Crazy_Larry 7 years, 1 month ago

Child: a person between birth and puberty.


Science and religion are natural born enemy, troll, and if you check the record; science always wins.

Back to your bridge, hag!

oldvet 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

RoeDapple 7 years, 1 month ago

Hmm . . Just watched an episode of Bizarre Foods With Andrew Zimmer, in Madagascar. There the young males (5 years old) are held and immobilized by uncles while the grandfather performs the procedure sans anesthesia. As part of the ceremony the grandfather then eats the flesh that has been removed. The child's father is not allowed to be in the building until it is over. My first thoughts were, could that be any less barbaric than the similar procedure done to young girls in other cultures? Next question. How do we keep government and the church out of our underwear?

H_Lecter 7 years, 1 month ago

Some cultures have rituals that are hard for us to swallow. Do they remove it with an instrument or use their incisors?
Uncle H would probably prefer to encase it in acrylic and present it as a trophy to the donor rather than enjoy it as a bite of calamari.

Liberty275 7 years, 1 month ago

First amendment. I'm surprised you had to ask.

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

The freedom of speech / religion amendment means that you can manipulate your child's genitals as you please. That's interesting.

Liberty275 7 years, 1 month ago

Circumcision is a well-established tradition of the Jewish faith. It is protected, period.

"manipulate your child's genitals as you please"

Strawman discarded.

"What about the fifth and fourteenth amendments?"

I know you know the constitution is only binding on government therefore the only clause you can be referring to is equal protection. You will need to prove the need for the government to "protect" (in parentheses because no real damage is done) the child outweighs the religious freedom of the parents.

L1, you are the sharpest stick on this forum but you are utterly wrong about this. I'm a little befuddled regarding why you are taking the position you are. Beatrice, did you take over L1s account?

jaywalker 7 years, 1 month ago

Geez. This sounds like a headline from Pakistan or Yemen. Aaah, San Fran!

WhiteDog 7 years, 1 month ago

I always just wonder how in the world our society got to a place where strapping down an infant and cutting away part of his sexual organs is seen as a positive and necessary thing.

yoornotmee 7 years, 1 month ago

Especially when it's so unnecessary and harmful!

sfjayhawk 7 years, 1 month ago

I dont think anyone could afford it. SF has many many more billionaires than all of the entire state of Kansas. As an example - did you see the IPO linkedin brought to market today? Just that single bay area company is worth 10X more than all of Kansas. Now that's embarrassing!

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

Seems ironic to talk about how "sicko" SF is when they are trying to ban people from cutting part of a child's penis off...

yoornotmee 7 years, 1 month ago

It'd probably just be like the rest of the world where circumcision (and erectile dysfunction) are impressively rare.

50YearResident 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

whatadrag 7 years, 1 month ago

Why can't the parents just choose whether to circumcise? Sounds like a waste of resources to debate the legality of something so minor.

yoornotmee 7 years, 1 month ago

Why can't the child have the choice? It's a cosmetic procedure, and it's his body. Unless you think parents have the right to amputate their baby's toes, then parents don't have the right to amputate their son's foreskin.

Here's a post about routine infant toe removal which uses many of the "reasons" for circumcision to justify removing toes at birth:

Ron Holzwarth 7 years, 1 month ago

"Unless you think parents have the right to amputate their baby's toes"

Actually, parents do have the right to have their baby's toes removed. A friend of mine's parents had no qualms at all about having his 6th fingers on each hand removed shortly after birth.

And later, just before kindergarden, they had his 6th toes removed also so that he would not be subjected to his classmate's ridicule.

Of course, he was a rather exceptional case, right up there with Anne Boleyn, the Queen of England from 1533 to 1536!

But, Anne Boleyn had 6 fingers on only her right hand.

WhiteDog 7 years, 1 month ago

Yes, but having extra digits is considered to be a birth defect which a parent can easily choose to have corrected.

Having a foreskin is not birth defect and therefore needs no correction.

RoeDapple 7 years, 1 month ago

Dang Gubmint! Wear a helmet! Don't wear a helmet! Always messin' with my head(s)!

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

Maybe the moil guild should have asked SanFran Nan for an Obamacare waiver.

fissuregirl 7 years, 1 month ago

Oh come on. That's so ridicules. You don't cut off your penis just because you MIGHT get penile cancer or your breast because you might get breast cancer. It's called a condom and with every STD you have a chance of contracting it if you have sex without a condom. No Glove NO love.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

"You don't cut off your penis just because you MIGHT get penile cancer..." Good thing nobody is suggesting that.

fissuregirl 7 years, 1 month ago

Actually they are suggesting it. Cutting of foreskin because you MIGHT get HIV...

thebigspoon 7 years, 1 month ago

However, some women have breasts remove for just that reason. My step- daughter did, and she's pretty level-headed about life and death. It's not for you to judge other parents' decisions as to what is best, in their minds, for their kids' futures.

fissuregirl 7 years, 1 month ago

Ok so lets make female circumcision legal because it's not my right or anyone else to judge what a parent decides is best for their child.

WhiteDog 7 years, 1 month ago

That's not true. There are many forms of female circumcision which involve only the removal of the clitoral hood (aka foreskin) - not the entire clitoris.

And you don't understand the anatomy of human reproductive systems if you don't understand that the both the male and female foreskins are more than just "extra skin."

Human beings should stop mutilating children's sexual organs - regardless of the child's gender. And it still amazes me that that statement even needs to be said.

Brock Masters 7 years, 1 month ago

Actually, some women do opt to have their breast removed because they are a high risk for breast cancer.

WhiteDog 7 years, 1 month ago

But they don't dig out girl's breast buds with immediately after birth. And I've never heard of a case where a woman's parents decided to have her breasts removed without her consent.

Alfred_W 7 years, 1 month ago

Actually if you read the article it would not likely be banned in those countries as it is a common Muslim practice.

Alfred_W 7 years, 1 month ago

Previous reply was a response to jaywalker, which didn't thread for some reason.

WiseOne 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

fissuregirl 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

TheYetiSpeaks 7 years, 1 month ago

Funny how a majority of the people pushing for the right to tell me what to do with my newborn son wouldn't bat an eye if my wife had decided to kill my son a month before he was born. Stunning hypocrisy.

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

Really? I didn't know there was a statistical study done which showed that most liberals favor abortions at eight months.

Probably because there isn't one.


TheYetiSpeaks 7 years, 1 month ago

By the way....If these people had ever seen an infection "down there" related to the foreskin still being on maybe they would sing a different tune.

Ron Holzwarth 7 years, 1 month ago

Yes indeed. I do personally know of one terrible case.

The almost universal practice of circumcision here in the United States a few decades ago had to do with the extremely high rates of infections "down there" that were contracted in the rather damp trenches during World War 1.

And as a side benefit, penile cancer is virtually unknown among circumcised men.

But, what difference do infections "down there" and cases of cancer requiring amputations "down there" make when discussing such an intellectual subject?

yoornotmee 7 years, 1 month ago

Have you heard of antibiotics? There are also creams for infections.

As for penile cancer - of course cancer can't grow on something that's been amputated, but you don't see parents having their infant daughters' breasts removed to prevent breast cancer, and there aren't routine infant lobotomies to prevent brain cancer.

Ron Holzwarth 7 years, 1 month ago

Yup, he needed antibiotics, that's for sure!

And you seem to have a misunderstanding about the amputations required for breast cancer and penile cancer - it is a treatment once the cancer has already started, it is not a preventative measure.

KansasPerson 7 years, 1 month ago

Actually there are women who have gotten radical mastectomies (bilateral ones) not because of any existing disease but because of the strong genetic predisposition toward breast cancer in their families.

Ron Holzwarth 7 years, 1 month ago

Here's something that bothers me:

In one case I know of, a woman's health insurance would cover the cost of having only one cancerous breast removed.

I think that in cases like that, both should be removed if the woman wants it to be done, even if it is for only cosmetic and self image reasons.

Plus, if one breast develops cancer, it's quite likely that the other will also.

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

That's because in North America, the rate of penile cancer is 1 in 100,000. It's higher in Africa. But there are a bunch of third variables which are possible, and there isn't a ton of data on the subject. And that's the problem - a whole lot of the arguments about this have to do with statistics found predominantly in places like Africa. We have these things here in the US, they're called condoms. Wearing them does a pretty good job of preventing STIs.

Some data supports the idea that HPV is carried more easily by someone with foreskin. That being said, we have a vaccine for that, which kids should honestly get anyway - is it easier to cut off part of a penis, or give a kid a shot?

I'm not staking out a side in this, necessarily. I just think it's a bizarre practice when you consider it in the context of our society. We generally wouldn't be comfortable with someone interacting with our children's genitals any other time, so why is circumcision considered not only normal, but passionately defended as a necessary practice?

Danielle Brunin 7 years, 1 month ago

I knew a family that insisted that their son not be circumcised, which was totally their right. However, they also didn't have any experience in caring for and cleaning his foreskin. He got a terrible infection and ended up being circumcised at three years old and was very traumatized by the whole experience. Needless to say, I'm rather torn on this issue. On one hand, it probably is antiquated, barbaric, and unnecessary. On the other, he would probably have been better off just having it done in the first place, especially if his parents weren't going to take the time to learn about the special but still simple care that their child would require. I still haven't come to a good conclusion one way or another.

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

That essentially means that they weren't bathing their child, or at least not regularly - honestly, I don't see how it's possible otherwise. It's not rocket science.

WhiteDog 7 years, 1 month ago

Rodentgirl, I would bet my bottom dollar that the child didn't need to have a circumcision. At somewhere around three years old, a boy's foreskin naturally begins the process of separating from the penis. Until that point it is attached as firmly as your fingernails are to your finger. During this process (which can take months or even years to complete), there is sometimes some swelling and even some discharge of the dissolving skin cells.

This process is as natural and normal as baby teeth falling out. There can be some blood and muck with that process, too, and we don't have childens' baby teeth removed to prevent it.

If, however, there really was an infection (which of course should be verified by a doctor who actually understands more about a foreskin than how to cut it off - a damn hard thing to find in this ridiculously backwards state), it needs to be diagnosed with a swab test and treated with the appropriate antibiotics. Just like would have been done for a three year old girl with an infection.

If you're on the fence about this, and you have a boy baby someday to make the decision for, please do lots and lots of research on actual medical sites.

gkerr 7 years, 1 month ago

Circumcision is an ancient practice that is a Religious sacramental ritual and has been shown for years to reduce venereal disease including aids. One of the advantages of circumcision was a reduction in cervical cancer because the circumcised male was somewhat less likely to carry virus and bacteria that promoted cervical dysplasia and neoplasia. For Males penile cancer was markedly reduced as well.

Fools in Liberal San Francisco are up with killing babies at any time prior to the moment of birth, But want to outlaw the minor surgical procedure that is actually life enhancing in some cases and is a deeply cherished religious ritual as well.

Those who have been demented by the culture of death ideology are simply insane. Gkerr

yoornotmee 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Once again on this thread, someone so unsure of how to argue their stance against abortion that they must lie about "killing babies" up to the moment of birth. In what state is this allowed? Please show your "proof" of this being the case or at least find someone who actually supports such an outrageous and gross practice. What you state is a blantant factual falacy. If you didn't realize this, I recommend you try reading up on the subject.

gkerr 7 years, 1 month ago


In what circle of hell do the misinformed consign themselves? Ask your protege, Dante, for the answer, but before you consign me there consider the following:

First, in 1973 The Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions legalizing abortion in all 50 states during ALL nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, ANY reason, medical, social, or otherwise.

Second, There are many abortion techniques that vary for different gestational ages of the baby. A few examples are: First trimester- Suction aspiration, Diitation and curettage (scraping), Ru486, methotrexate, Diitation and extraction D&E used to abort up to 24 weeks which is after the age of viability. Others include for 2nd and 3rd trimesters, i.e., 12 to 40 weeks of baby's uterine life, Salt Poisoning (scalding with hypertonic Saline), Urea a toxin and osmotic poison, prostaglandins and finally partial birth abortion and hysterotomy or C-section.

Beatrice, I'm sure you have heard of the infamous partial birth abortion, right. Perhaps you don't know how it is used and when it is used.

Partial-Birth abortion is the procedure in which the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal, except for the head which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervical os. The abortionist then punctures the base of the baby's brain with a forceps, inserts a catheter and connects it to suction to suck out the baby's brain. This causes the skull to collapse and the abortion doctor then delivers the head of the baby.

I'm sure you didn't realize that by 1997 according to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, tha there were about 3000 to 5000 of these procedures performed annually. And this was a low estimate. and the vast majority of them were performed in the fifth or sixth months of pregnancy on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Note by law partial birth and c-section abortions as long as the baby was killed before delivery were entirely legal as per Roe v. Wade. Now while most were performed in the 5th and 6th month by no means all were. Many each year, the devil only knows, are performed up to the 40th week. Also note at 6 months a baby is frequently viable and some are valedictorians' of their class who were born at 6 to 7 months.

Finally, dear Beatrice, I do know what I am talking about, but clearly you don't. The bottom line is this every state was overridden by Roe which mandates by law that abortion on demand was legal at any gestational age in every state for any reason. Abortionists have and continue to do full term hysterotomy abortions and partial birth abortions, how many and where they are done is not well publicized but that is one thing that Dr. Tiller did do in his late abortion mill.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

You are describing procedures, not circumstances. If you believe that perfectly viable and otherwise healthy babies are being killed (legally even!) in great numbers through partial birth abortions all the way up to the 9th month, then you obviously are mistaken, or have an agenda that doesn't allow you to consider the truth. But continue to think all abortions are the equivalent of these late term situations you describe. You won't be correct, but keep thinking that way.

Oh, and while you are at it, please answer the question I asked earlier. In what state can a woman get an abortion up to the final moments of the 9th month on otherwise perfectly healthy fetuses?

Sadly, you are mistaking the extremely sad and severe medical situations that often require a late term abortion because the child is not viable (brain dead inside the mother, is one example). These are the types of cases Dr. Tiller handled. Yet you pretend as if all late term abortions would have resulted in wonderfully healthy, bouncing babies if only given a chance.

And I suspect you also believe Terri Schiavo would have gotten up and gone dancing if only they had kept the feeding tube in a bit longer.

Personally, I do see why anyone should have an abortion in normal circumstances beyond the first trimester, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize why there is the need to perform medical emergency procedures, which include late term abortions.

As I stated before, it is sad to see someone continue to completely distort the truth in order to support an opinion.

gkerr 7 years, 1 month ago

Beatrice, Every state allows abortion in the 40th week of gestation on healthy baby's if the health of the mother is in danger.
Every state it is the law of the land dear Beatrice. Where have you been?

The rub of course is what constitutes how health of mother is determined.

Abortion zealots and they are legion among leftist elites, environmentalist activists, foundations of wealthy elites, such as Rockefeller foundation, Mellon foundation, audoban and the like have pushed almost anything as a health issue worthy of termination of in utero infants life so that health of the mother has become an elastic and worthless determinant of abortion need. The life of the mother issue has been abused from the beginning.


Ron Holzwarth 7 years, 1 month ago

It's very strange that no one has mentioned smegma yet.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

Will adult babies be covered under the proposed law?

Ron Holzwarth 7 years, 1 month ago

It's not clear - but I was under the impression that pubic propoals were for adults, and should always be covered.

yoornotmee 7 years, 1 month ago

Shouldn't be. Adults can consent, understand what's happening to them, and be effectively medicated.

Mike Hatch 7 years, 1 month ago

"on what has long been considered a private family matter"

Well, it is. I don't remember mine. I'm sure it didn't feel good at the time, but I sure don't remember it. I have heard that having it done as an adult is way worse, pain-wise and healing time.

This proposal is the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long time.

yoornotmee 7 years, 1 month ago

I'm glad you don't remember the pain you experienced. But by that reasoning, it's acceptable to violate someone as long as they won't remember it.

As for circumcising adults... An adult can consent An adult can be medicated for the pain An adult's healing wound doesn't sit in a dirty diaper

yoornotmee 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

RoeDapple 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

I lived in San Francisco for many years. This is nowhere near the craziest idea to come from that fair city. Their method of using propositions to govern is another example of a good idea taken to such an extreme that it has become a very bad idea.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

How about a compromise -- ban it in bars and restaurants.

Jay Keffer 7 years, 1 month ago

Check out the smack down delivered to your previous post above.


Libs should stop aborting their base - then these initiatives would slide on through - just like a knife through flesh. Or saline.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Smack down? What a laugh. More unsubstantiated claims and blatantly false statements, along with obvious distortions of the truth does not a smack down make. But if you want (or need?) to believe that evil doctors are performing partial birth abortions on perfectly healthy little babies then go right ahead. The rest of us will just recognize incorrect statements when we read them.

cato_the_elder 7 years, 1 month ago

Just remember that the same nutcases who are behind this, together with their philosophical confreres in urban enclaves around the country, are the ones who gave us Obama.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

More than 69 million Americans are "nutcases"?

Keep thinking that way.

cato_the_elder 7 years, 1 month ago

Yes, a number of misinformed, well-intentioned voters cast their votes for your hero, but without the nutcases, especially the far-left nutcases who gave him his start, he never would have been elected.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Not my hero, just the best choice at the time.

cato_the_elder 7 years, 1 month ago

Definitely the best choice for the nutcases to whom I earlier referred.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Yep, all 69 million plus. Interestingly, most people just call us "Americans."

cato_the_elder 7 years, 1 month ago

Unfortunately, far too Americans are nutcases. Many of them are called "liberal Democrats."

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

So you think the majority of Americans who vote are nutcases. Got it. Always good to know what conservatives think of their fellow Americans.

cato_the_elder 7 years, 1 month ago

Not at all. I said, "Many of them," not all of them. Try reading what I say first before your knee jerks so high that it hits you in the chin and you immediately submit another zombie-like, vapid post.

Of course, I know that reading is not your strong suit.

BigPrune 7 years, 1 month ago

My question is..............why hasn't something similar to SF's ban on circumcision been introduced in Lawrence???????

Come on all you lunatics.....let's see some initiative. Heck, the City should even let you run an ad with the Water Department bill.

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

Not that there's any real chance that you'll provide a reasonable response, but why in the world does this make people "lunatics?"

denak 7 years, 1 month ago

I have to respectfully disagree with Multi. The crying that a child does during a circumcision is NOT the same as any other crying. I had my son circumsized when he was about a week old. I did so because I was young and because it was what his father wanted. The doctor asked me if I wanted to step out of the room when it was done and I said no. The doctors knew what I didn't know. They knew exactly how much pain my son was going to be in and didn't want me to hear it. When they circumsized him, my son let out the most heart wrenching scream I have ever heard from another human being. It was what one would expect from a person who was essentially being skinned. Horrible, horrible scream. If I ever had to make the decision to have another son circumsized, I would not do it.

And I do think the procedure should be banned. However, I strongly object to any ban that does not have a religious exemption. It is just fool-hardy and a waste of time to pass a ban that one knows has no chance of ever being put in effect.

As for comparing male circumcision with female circumcision, there is absolutely no comparison. In female circumcision, the procedure is not done for any other reason that to destroy a female's sexual enjoyment. In some of the more barbaric practices, a woman's vagina is sewed almost shut so that when she gives birth, she either dies in child birth, the child dies, or she rips apart. And although I am not male, I'm pretty darn sure that being circumsized or not has nothing to do with one's ability to feel sexual pleasure. Both sides, those who are against, and those who are for circumcision, frame their argument in health terms, not as an argument against men and curbing their sexual nature.

Lastly, the whole argument may soon be moot anyway. I read an article a few months ago that shows circumcision to be down dramatically from what it was even a decade ago. With more and more parents deciding against circumcizing, and the influx of Hispanic immigrants, who tend to not circumcize, the old argument that one wants Little Johnny to be just like the other boys in the locker room no longer holds much weight.

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

It's really impossible to know it the other way, no? So, how could you know what is better or not? It's kinda pointless, isn't it? It's like cutting any other part off - if you cut off my pinky finger when I'm a baby, I probably won't miss it because I never knew what it was like to have it.

denak 7 years, 1 month ago

Well the reputable studies seem to indicate otherwise. From what I've read, men who are circumsized report that they have increased sensitivity and pleasure.

And contrary to llama's post, there are no pleasure nerves cut during circumcision. The nerves in the foreskin are there to protect the foreskin like many nerves in other parts of the body. The majority of the pleasure nerves are in the penis and glans. When the frenulum is removed, the nerves that are under the frenulum are actually closer to the surface and thus, more directly stimulated resulting in increased stimulation and pleasure.

So, if circumcision is about preventing masturbatory pleasure, as llama suspects, then the Jews and the Muslims got it wrong because it appears that it actually increases the pleasure.

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

Pages 10 and 11.

If you're going to throw out a bunch of claims, I think you could cite some sources for them. Or cite yourself, if you're a urologist or some other kind of expert on physiology.

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

"I'm pretty darn sure that being circumsized or not has nothing to do with one's ability to feel sexual pleasure."

It obviously has an impact on sexual pleasure - there are nerves there, after all. And, honestly, I'm not sure the religious reason isn't steeped in preventing evil masturbation, or something like that.

Armored_One 7 years, 1 month ago

Well, gee... cut off a chunk of skin, regardless of the size, and see if a kid giggles or screams bloody murder. How could you not know your child was going to shriek loud enough to wake the dead?

I've been cut a number of times and I have yet to giggle any time it has ever happened. These days, there is a lot more expletives involved than there probably was when I was circumsized.

I agree with you 120% about female genital mutilation is nothing close to what happens to a guy. Guys lose a little bit of skin. Women lose a whole lot more. Besides, it's more about subjugation than anything else. Yeah, I know you basically said it, but I'm not diplomatic enough to sugar coat it.

This ban, however, is a load of excrement on a hot summer day. If it actually endangered the child, then law enforcement should come into play, not politicians. Haven't read about any negligent parents being arrested because they got little Johnny snipped and clipped, if you know what I mean.

It's cool that you don't want it done to your next son, if you have another one. That is totally within your rights as a parent. Demanding a religious exemption, however, is flat wrong. That's in the same category as the marriage purists, as my wife calls them, saying gays will ruin marriage. Only thing that ruins marriage is divorce. Ban divorce lawyers. LOL

What I'm getting at, though, is you shouldn't exempt just one facet of American culture simply because it's their practice. An exemption to a law, regardless of how well intentioned it is, creates a privledged class of citizens within the eyes of the law, yet we are all supposed to be equal in those same eyes.

Can't have both cake and pie for desert.

denak 7 years, 1 month ago

Demanding a religious exemption, however, is flat wrong. That's in the same category as the marriage purists, as my wife calls them, saying gays will ruin marriage....

The analogy is faulty. Opposition to gay marriage is about DENYING a person their civil rights. Wanting a religious exemption is about PRESERVING a person's religious practices. Gay marriage should be recognized under the 14th amendment. The first amendment recognizes a person's right to practice their religion without undue government interference.

You can't use the Constitution to promote one agenda (gay marriage) while simultaneously denying or ignoring it in order to deny a person their right to practice their religion freely.

Armored_One 7 years, 1 month ago

Actually, marriage, regardless of orientation, is a personal choice, not a right. There are no laws anywhere in this country that state a person HAS to get hitched, just alws about WHO they can get hitched to. Big difference there.

The analogy is perfectly sound, though. Marriage, as a concept, is a religious practice, since the procedure isn't legal until a license is obtained. Anti gay marriage laws are, in fact, a type of religious persecution and enablement, just like any other exemption allowed for religion through legal means.

Joe Hyde 7 years, 1 month ago

If this proposed circumcision ban becomes law, 20 years from now a lot of San Francisco bubbas will have a handy place to stash their Skoal during lunch.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 1 month ago

I think the ban is stupid, though I am against circumcision.

However, I can not help but note the number of nutcases who are whining about government intrusion and nanny state that do NOT have the same problem with the more than 200 bills introduced during the last 133 days in our country redefining rape, forcing women to have babies against their will, even if raped by their fathers, penalizing women for buying private health insurance with their own money and writing medical mandates that have never been seen by a doctor, only politicians.

If someone had morals and values, they would be against both for the same reason, but when they apply one standard to liberal values and a different standard to conservative values, they actually have no morals or values, only sides and therefore are not thoughtful people, only people that regurgitate what they are told to believe.

They are failed people, no matter which direction.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 1 month ago

i bet you five dollars there are religious exemptions..making your point totally moot....further, if you bothered to read...or if you can would see that I am against the ban...

sorry to show your foolishness, but you left me no other option.

Charlie Bannister 7 years, 1 month ago

This is an Anti Semitic item up for vote in the People's Republic of San Fran, but then in an area like San Fran who adores the Anti-Semitic Obama, what do you expect? I had occasion to be at the docs this week and asked him about it. He said the obvious--it ought to be a private family matter. He further stated that personal hygiene is much easier being circumcised. Case closed for me.

Scott Morgan 7 years, 1 month ago

I've long envied non circumcised men over the neat place to store a chaw of tobacco while indoors.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.