Thursday, 24 February 2011
-
Is It Legal For a City to Place a Ban on Circumcision?
It's about to happen in San Francisco: the city that already banned Happy Meals and sitting on the sidewalk.
But is banning circumcision on boys under the age of 18 and taking parents to jail if they fail to comply taking it a bit too far?
Boys have been circumcised since the beginning of time. The Jews were told to circumcise their baby boys to set them apart from other religions. Jewish boys today are still circumcised, but one man is looking to change that by placing the option on the ballot in San Francisco next November to ban this practice, even for religious purposes. Is this even Constitutional?
City residential Lloyd Schofield proposed the ban and says that he is on track to gain enough signatures for his proposal. He says that waiting until boys are 18 to perform a circumcision is the safer decision. The American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association do not recommend routine circumcision. Some studies, however, indicate that circumcision reduces the risk of STD transmission.
Several Jewish organizations have weighed in against the ban as well, pointing out that circumcision rituals play an important historical role for many Jews. Schofeld counters that under his proposed law, adults would be free to opt-in to circumcision, but infants would not be allowed to have the procedure until they reach 18.
If it passes, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. Seems like a hefty price to pay, doesn't it?
Do you think that banning circumcision is an infringement on the Bill of Rights?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to momaroo's Momaroo Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in momaroo's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: lovepurplex3@xanga
- About Me: The nostalgic memories, rants, ramblings, inner thoughts, and inspiration of a young wife and mother still struggling with herself.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 2 Views: 0 7428 Comments: 0 403 View all posts by lovepurplex3@xanga
Comments (363)
@DyingInDaylight@xanga - They are NOT forced to cram. Sorry for the typo. Keep in mind that newborns cannot recieve anasthesia and commonly go into shock. Adults can recieve anasthesia without the shock. Yeah, a raw wound coming into contact with urine and the diaper is SO much easier to clean than simply wiping a foreskin. I have a question: females are prone to UTI's. Females don't have any of their parts chopped off at birth. Why do you think that is? What do you think happens when a female gets a UTI?
@DyingInDaylight@xanga - "veiled insult to gay men" Where the hell did you even come up with that? lol If an adult chooses circumcision for himself, that's fine. If a guy is gay, that's fine. Believing that infants have rights to genital integrity has nothing to do with being anti-gay you idiot. lol Especially since I am far from it, as I said.
@VampireOfSeduction@xanga - But he doesn't remember before. From my understanding, adults who had it as adults, didn't experience a difference. Therefore, it's kind of douchey to ban someone's religious practice.
@FoliageDecay@xanga - It's kind of douchey to chop up a newborn's body, causing him to go into shock, and claim "religious practice". This is especially douchey considering most "religious" people don't follow anything else their religious books tell them to do.
@DyingInDaylight@xanga - One last thing. I'm guessing you are American since you are so cut-happy and speak English relatively fluently. (Most English-speaking countries are no where near as cut-happy as the U.S.) The national mutilation rate for the U.S. only started dropping within the last three or four years. How could you "have probably been with more uncut men than" I have?
@a12906@xanga - You should avoid inserting your prejudices in when trying to decide what is fair in the eyes of the law.
All I'm saying is that before we jump the gun and persecute someone's religious practice is that we must provide solid evidence that it is actually harmful. Otherwise it sets the precedent that takes away the right from parents to make medical decisions for their kids.
Whether a law is legally acceptable is based on precedent.
If the government can ban a religious practice, before proving it's harmful, then when the religious nuts hit the voting booths they can ban other things upon unproven claims that they are harmful as well.
You may recall that an argument against allowing gays to adopt is that it's harmful for children to have gay parents. They should be expected to prove that, just as the anti-male circumcision crowd should as well.
That I know of, no adult that remembers the before and after of circumcision has risen as a spokes person against it, if it really is so terrible, you'd think there would be hundreds at the very least.
@FoliageDecay@xanga - I'm pretty sure chopping up a newborn's body, causing him to go into shock, is harmful. You don't have be a mutilator to be a Jew or Muslim, nor do you have to live with your foreskin after age eighteen. This ban would only apply to minors.
@DyingInDaylight@xanga - I'm definitely not calling you out on being a bad mother :) I just find it interesting that America is the only "western" country which actively encourages circumcision. You mentioned kids getting teased in the locker rooms for being "different" in that area - surely that's some sign that some people are doing this for cosmetic reasons, as opposed to medical ones?
@individually_surveys@xanga - I didn't dispute that it is mainly cosmetic. That was one reason that the doctors suggested that I circ both my boys because we didn't want to put them through the wondering of "Why does daddy's peeper look different?" when potty training time comes. Also, based on the fact that both men and women in my family frequently get UTI's and kidney infections, the doctors suggested that it would be easier to avoid those problems if we circ'd the boys.
@a12906@xanga - Neither of my boys went into shock. I suppose next you'll be condemning me for having both boys by c-section? Also for the last 22 years I have had frequent UTI's. If there was even a scientific theory that removing parts of my vagina would have solved that problem, I would have done it. They are painful. Very much. Don't assume I don't know what I am saying. Not only that but they happen scarily often to the men in my family. Both my brothers and my dad have had multiple cases over the years, and my grandpa has also had several AND kidney infections that resulted in kidney stones.
Just so you know too, the raw wound doesn't even come in contact with the diaper. It is covered with gauze wrap and antibacterial cream to decrease the risk of infection which I personally have never encountered. Cutting the umbilical cord is more dangerous than circumcision, due to the fact that the intestines could herniate. Are you against cutting the cord as well?
have they considered when it is medically necessary?
@DyingInDaylight@xanga - I notice you didn't address anything else I said, particularly my inquiries about my supposed "veiled insult to gay men" - whom I support- nor where you found enough uncut men in this country to probably outnumber however many I've had. How do you know they didn't go into shock? Were you there? Even if they didn't, that doesn't make the mutilation any less mutilating. Well, it depends on why you had C-sections. If there was even a scientific theory that removing parts of your sons' peni would have solved the problem of UTI's in males (as opposed to the anitbiotics that females, who generally have all their parts in this country, recieve), I would not be here trying to talk some sense into you mutilators. Let me guess, the men in your family are circ'ed? If there's enough blood to need gauze, it's probably not a good idea to put a newborn through it as they bleed to death very easily- after losing 2.3 ounces I believe. By the way, 2.3 ounces is very, very easily absorbed by a diaper. As far as the cord, if I knew why people cut it, or at least why they cut it at birth, I might be able to decide whether I'm against it.
@FoliageDecay@xanga - It is NOT HIS religious practice. He is an atheist. It was his bitch mother's decision. Some (if not all) places don't even care whether or not *both* parents approve or want it done.
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/03/no-longer-intact-my-sons-story.html