http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42784426/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/ Apparently the city of San Francisco could ban circumcision. I think that's in violation with the 1st Amendment, but I doubt that the city would just take on something like this if they didn't have a legal argument, does anyone know of a precedent on something like this? I know California's legal system is a little bit different from the other states, but I don't see how this could pass, especially when it's a highly practiced custom not just in the Abrahamic religions, but throughout the country. Any thoughts?
If people want to cut off their children's foreskin, let them. It doesn't confront me, the child won't remember it, and, apparently, it's more hygienic. San Fransisco is delirious. The ban would be useless. People would just go elsewhere to have the procedure done. Besides, there isn't really any reason to ban circumcision. Those council members must be really bored to even consider this ban.
I don't think this ban will hold up but I do see a precedent if female circumcision can be banned why not male? I understand that female circumcision is much more painful and than male but I doubt if female circumcision was done under anesthetic whether it would still be allowed. I guess if we are going to uphold one practice as religious freedom and ban the other why not ban or allow both?
It can easily be considered an abusive, barbaric practice. But of course it is shrouded under the protection of religious belief and cultural tradition. But, does your freedom of religion give you the right to mutilate your children? Would it be cool to cut off your babies earlobes? Tip of their nose? (circumcision does have some redeeming qualities, but these are just examples) In the name of your faith, or in the spirit of tradition? Probably not. So, I support the ban. Never mistake what is habitual for what is natural.
I support this ban, just like I support banning any other form of involuntary mutilation. To be clear, if an adult wants a circumcision, they should be allowed.
This is incredibly stupid. I don't support the proposal the way it is written now (ALL circumsions would be considered a misdemenor?) If you don't want your child to do it, then don't get it done. Simple as that. There are more important things to worry about than a ridiculously stupid proposal like this.
So some circumsions should be ok? Which are those? (as rhad pointed out, cognizant humans choosing to be circumsized is an entirely different matter) Somewhere, somebody in another country/culture where FGM is the common practice is probably saying... "If you don't want to sew your daughter's vagina shut, then don't do it. Simple as that." Just because they are your child doesn't mean you have the right to mutilate them as you see fit. There's always something more important to worry about. Granting children the right not to be scarred or mutilated by their parents seems like a fairly worthy cause though.
rtsy, at least, would actually paste the article so we wouldn't have to click any links. I'm not a fan of circumcision, but don't really favor a ban either, because of the religious encroachments. In any case, I think it's unlikely that it becomes law in the first place, and probably would be struck down on Constitutional grounds or else have a religious exception forced upon it.
I wouldn't call circumcision mutilation. The procedure doesn't disfigure or irreparably damage the genitalia. Jews would probably make the claim that it promotes cleanliness and makes it work better.
I think male circumcision should not be compared to female circumcision. Generally female circumcision involves complete removal of the ****oris making sex at best uninteresting, often painful. Having asked a guy who was circumcised at 18 whether it made that much of a difference he said sex was pretty much the same before and after. That's just one guys experience but I've never heard of a woman who went through it saying anything that positive.
Well, if we're just going to ignore vocabulary, I would call circumcision broccoli. Huh? Generally, when I permanently cut a piece of my body off, it's disfiguring. Then again, since you really don't seem to understand the concept of language and definition, perhaps you consider such an activity napkin. Irrelevant. Bizarre and irrelevant.
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. It didn't degrade my appearance or function.
There are other definitions, such as to make imperfect or to damage irreparably. If we are simply talking about appearance - well that's subjective but it's hardly uncommon to refer to alterations away from one's natural appearance as mutilation. (i.e. to disfigure)
The thing about leaving it up to the individual (really, after they are 18?) is that problems with hygiene infection etc. generally occur with young to very young. A friend's kid is going through this now, and they regret not having done it initially. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but there can be problems that are generally avoided by having the procedure. I would think a ban would be not only unconstitutional (for religious reasons, among others) but if we use the logic that they shouldn't be "affected" without their mature consent, there might be many things that could come into question that are generally thought of as being good in general. The only way this would make sense to me is if circumcision were only performed for religious reasons, and then a ban would be more controversial, but this is not the case. Don't want your kid to get a circumcision? Fine. Want everyone to do as you do or else? Not so fine.
