San Francisco man wants to ban circumcision

[PlaysLikeMyung]

https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/19/male.circumcision.sf/index.html?hpt=C2

(CNN) -- In the California city that banned Happy Meal toys,outlawed sitting on sidewalks during daylight hours and fined residents for not sorting garbage into recycling, compost and trash, Lloyd Schofield wants to add a new law to the books in San Francisco: A ban on all male circumcisions.
Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal. Circumcisions even for religious reasons would not be allowed. At this point, Schofield's proposal is an idea that would have to clear several hurdles to be considered.
Schofield and like-minded advocates who call themselves "intactivists" seek to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco.
The circumcision debate has passionate advocates on each side.
In some families, it's a cultural or religious tradition, or parents want sons to look like their fathers. Other parents decry it as mutilation. Medical evidence has shown mixed risks and benefits. Apart from the San Francisco proposal, circumcisions are under scientific scrutiny.
While widespread in the United States, circumcision rates could be falling, according to recent surveys. About 65 percent of American male infants born in hospitals were circumcised in 1999, according to latest data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
While nationally the circumcision rate has remained steady, the most dramatic decline occurred in the West, where it fell from 64 percent in 1974 to 37 percent in 1999. Earlier this year, there were unconfirmed estimates that the circumcision rate had fallen to fewer than half for boys born in U.S. hospitals, The New York Times reported last summer, citing a federal report at the International AIDS Conference.
The American Academy of Pediatrics task force on circumcision has been reviewing recent research before it issues an official new position on the issue, probably next year, one panel member said.
"In the past, we've said newborn circumcision has benefits and risks," said Dr. Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington. "Given the fact that neither the risks nor benefits are particularly compelling, this is a decision to be made by parents."
The American Academy of Pediatrics currently holds that there is evidence of circumcision's potential benefits, but not enough to recommend routine newborn circumcisions.
Both anti- and pro-circumcision forces have pushed their positions based on medical and quasi-health claims. Fifty years ago, people advocated circumcisions because of the false notion that it reduced masturbation, Diekema said.
"There have always been people opposed to it," he said. "One of the differences between today and 50 years ago is two primary things: Advocacy groups are better organized. They are much more vocal and the internet has allowed that expression in that way."
In San Francisco, Schofield's proposal is not a lone effort. He is part of the Bay Area intactivist group, which calls the procedure "male genital mutilation" and likens it to cutting female genitals.
Schofield's proposal has a long way to go, requiring 7,168 signatures by April next year to appear on the November 2011 ballot. Throughout the country, there have been similar measures, including a failed effort in Massachusetts earlier this year.
"It's up to the choice of the individual -- not the parents, society or religion," Schofield said. "This is a choice for body integrity. Just as females are protected from having a drop of blood drawn from their genitals, baby boys deserve the same protection."
Intactivists also say:
-- Circumcisions are not medically necessary and violate the child's body.
-- It requires a medical procedure, which carries risk of complications and pain.
-- Foreskins are part of the natural body to help protect the penis and may reduce sexual sensitivity in adulthood.
Proponents say:
-- Circumcision can reduce the risk of penile cancer, a rare disease.
-- It is part of traditional, religious practices in Jewish and Muslim faiths.
-- Men who are circumcised are less likely to get sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and human papillomavirus, according to a study of adult African men published 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Public health efforts have sought to increase circumcision rates in Africa to reduce STIs such as HIV/AIDS. It's unclear how circumcision lowers infection rates, but researchers speculate that the foreskin could foster a more favorable environment for viruses.
It's also possible to develop swelling and tenderness if the foreskin is not properly cared for.

"There are numbers of patients who had no clue what had to be done, because they didn't handle their foreskin correctly and they ended up getting adhesion," said Dr. Michael Brady, a professor of pediatrics at the Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. "That can happen; it's not a myth."

But Brady added, "That by itself, is not reason to circumcise an infant."
Most parents come to the doctor's office having already decided whether to circumcise, Diekema said. Only a small percentage of parents are undecided.
Amy Jo Jones of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, made the decision to have her two sons circumcised and it "wasn't about vanity."
After reading into the topic, Jones, writer and blogger who contributes to The Stir said: "The deciding factor for us was I wanted my son to be like his father. I didn't want him grow up and feel his body was different. It's not about how it looks or doesn't look. I knew there were some medical advantages, although it's not considered medically necessary. The deciding factor was for him feeling comfortable with body and like that of his dad."
Jesse Sterling of Albany, California, decided to not to have his 10-month-old son circumcised.
Despite his Jewish background, he said the surgery would have "put my baby through a painful situation because of some beliefs. At this point, people do it because it's a habit."
Sterling, who was not circumcised, said he was teased as a kid in school for how it looked.
"Ever since then, I was like, 'Whatever. I don't care.' Don't try to sway me, other than informing me more thoroughly," he said.

Now this is just ridiculous

[Rina]

Banning it would serve what purpose...?

[GuineaPig]

I think that there's a good reason to bring this to the table.  I don't know if I would support a ban, but it's a debate that I think needs to happen.

[Rina]

I think that there's a good reason to bring this to the table.  I don't know if I would support a ban, but it's a debate that I think needs to happen.

A debate/option/etc makes more sense, yeah.

[Chino]

It amazes me that people would even consider this as a priority.

[Adami]

I think that there's a good reason to bring this to the table.  I don't know if I would support a ban, but it's a debate that I think needs to happen.

You don't KNOW if you'd be in favor of banning a religious ceremony?

What about banning baptisms?

[yeshaberto]

I think the option of leaving it up to the parents is the best

[Adami]

I think the option of leaving it up to the parents is the best

Isn't that the case now?

[Ħ]

This is in violation of first amendment religious rights.  This is a religious act that does not infringe upon anyone else's rights.  I don't see any way this is going to pass.

[GuineaPig]

I think that there's a good reason to bring this to the table.  I don't know if I would support a ban, but it's a debate that I think needs to happen.

You don't KNOW if you'd be in favor of banning a religious ceremony?

What about banning baptisms?

Do you support female circumcision?

Baptism is a lot different than mutilation.  What if a religion advocated cutting off the right pinky finger at birth?

Time and time again courts have ruled that parents do not have the right to cause harm to their children based on religious beliefs.  I don't see how circumcision isn't debated in light of this.

[Chino]

Baptism is a lot different than mutilation.  What if a religion advocated cutting off the right pinky finger at birth?

... One step closer to Na'vi

[Adami]

I think that there's a good reason to bring this to the table.  I don't know if I would support a ban, but it's a debate that I think needs to happen.

You don't KNOW if you'd be in favor of banning a religious ceremony?

What about banning baptisms?

Do you support female circumcision?

Baptism is a lot different than mutilation.  What if a religion advocated cutting off the right pinky finger at birth?

Time and time again courts have ruled that parents do not have the right to cause harm to their children based on religious beliefs.  I don't see how circumcision isn't debated in light of this.

Did I say anything about female circumcision? The man wants to ban MALE circumcision as far as I read. That would kind of kill a lot of the jewish movement.

And I haven't seen any bad effects of male circumcision.

[Ħ]

I think that there's a good reason to bring this to the table.  I don't know if I would support a ban, but it's a debate that I think needs to happen.

You don't KNOW if you'd be in favor of banning a religious ceremony?

What about banning baptisms?

Do you support female circumcision?

Baptism is a lot different than mutilation.  What if a religion advocated cutting off the right pinky finger at birth?

Time and time again courts have ruled that parents do not have the right to cause harm to their children based on religious beliefs.  I don't see how circumcision isn't debated in light of this.

This post is actually making me reconsider my position.  Well done.

[GuineaPig]

I think that there's a good reason to bring this to the table.  I don't know if I would support a ban, but it's a debate that I think needs to happen.

You don't KNOW if you'd be in favor of banning a religious ceremony?

What about banning baptisms?

Do you support female circumcision?

Baptism is a lot different than mutilation.  What if a religion advocated cutting off the right pinky finger at birth?

Time and time again courts have ruled that parents do not have the right to cause harm to their children based on religious beliefs.  I don't see how circumcision isn't debated in light of this.

Did I say anything about female circumcision? The man wants to ban MALE circumcision as far as I read. That would kind of kill a lot of the jewish movement.

And I haven't seen any bad effects of male circumcision.

I realize you didn't say anything about female circumcision.  But (albeit to a far lesser extent) male circumcision decreases sexual pleasure as well.  It reduces sensitivity (and therefore the effect of sexual stimulation) and without the foreskin the body doesn't produce the same lubrication.

[Adami]

As a circumcised man, I experience quite a bit of physical sensitivity down there. Unlike female circumcision which basically completely kills any pleasure.

Nor if circumcision akin to cutting off your pinky. Circumcision does not cause a physical handicap in any way.


How about you compare it to beating your child too?

[GuineaPig]

I wasn't comparing it to cutting off your pinky.

The best analogy I can come up with is cutting off the nipples of a male at birth.  Yeah, it doesn't affect fertility, and men don't breastfeed.  But it still limits the sexual stimulation the child can receive later in life.  Is that a decision the parents have a right to make?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I'm cut, being Jewish, and personally I don't see what the big deal is about circumcision.

I don't remember it. I'm sure I was in pain at the time, but for God's sake I was only 8 days old. I still have PLENTY of sensitivity down there for sexual pleasure.

Trying to pass a law to ban it is just fucking ridiculous

[El Barto]

Surprised that nobody's brought this up, but the issue isn't with religious freedom, it's that Americans have gotten to the point where it's just one of the first things you do after having a male child because you're expected to.  It's really more habit and custom than anything else, and that's what I'd liked to see changed. Nobody other than Jews give a shit about the religious aspect.  If you wanna snip your son because you're part of the tribe, then knock yourself out.  But don't just cut part of his dick off because you're American and you want him to be like everybody else.  Somehow or another, it just became the accepted thing to do, and honestly, circumcision should be the exception, not the rule.

As for the lack of sensation, who could tell?  Unless you were stupid enough to have it done after you were old enough to have been sexually active, you have no frame of reference. 

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I have a lot of female friends, and the vast majority of them think penises that are uncut are gross. I'm not sure that's representative of females as a whole, but it makes me kinda glad that I'm not uncut

As for doing it because it's what everyone else is doing... I'm not sure I believe that. Certainly there are health aspects to it that may influence the parents decision to have their son cut, but I doubt the main reason is because 'well, other people are doing it, so why not us?'

[GuineaPig]

You'd be surprised.  Society has a big influence on this.  I know that in Newfoundland, the circumcision rate is almost 0, but overall for Canada it's about 30%.  And that's compared to the States which iirc is somewhere in the range of 50-60%.

[William Wallace]

I think that there's a good reason to bring this to the table.  I don't know if I would support a ban, but it's a debate that I think needs to happen.

I'm all for a legitimate debate, but I'm annoyed that we must have it in light of a potential ban. Policy always goes miles ahead of the available evidence.

[yeshaberto]

I think the option of leaving it up to the parents is the best

Isn't that the case now?

yeah, and I say leave it as it is

[Rina]

I have a lot of female friends, and the vast majority of them think penises that are uncut are gross. I'm not sure that's representative of females as a whole, but it makes me kinda glad that I'm not uncut

As for doing it because it's what everyone else is doing... I'm not sure I believe that. Certainly there are health aspects to it that may influence the parents decision to have their son cut, but I doubt the main reason is because 'well, other people are doing it, so why not us?'

I'm not really of any opinion on the matter, but my co-workers have expressed severe disgust when it comes to being "uncut" but then some other girls might not care at all. And doing it just to copy others seems really dumb.

[El Barto]

I have a lot of female friends, and the vast majority of them think penises that are uncut are gross. I'm not sure that's representative of females as a whole, but it makes me kinda glad that I'm not uncut

As for doing it because it's what everyone else is doing... I'm not sure I believe that. Certainly there are health aspects to it that may influence the parents decision to have their son cut, but I doubt the main reason is because 'well, other people are doing it, so why not us?'

Women's preference isn't exactly a fixed thing.  They could change their minds at any second.  And likely will since circumcision rates in America seem to be plummeting. 

As for the health benefits, they appear to be conflicting.  The AMA and other more specialized medical organizations seem to be passively opposed to routine circumcision.  Give the parents accurate information and let them decide.

[Adami]

Who cares why parents do it?

Banning it is still completely stupid.

If people want to do it for religious reasons, let them. If people want to do it because they think it's expected, then let them.


Seriously, who cares?

[TheVoxyn]

I have a lot of female friends, and the vast majority of them think penises that are uncut are gross. I'm not sure that's representative of females as a whole, but it makes me kinda glad that I'm not uncut

As for doing it because it's what everyone else is doing... I'm not sure I believe that. Certainly there are health aspects to it that may influence the parents decision to have their son cut, but I doubt the main reason is because 'well, other people are doing it, so why not us?'

I think that's just dependant on where you live. Here it is more common to be uncut than cut (I think) whilst I get the opposite idea from the states.

[rumborak]

I have a lot of female friends, and the vast majority of them think penises that are uncut are gross. I'm not sure that's representative of females as a whole, but it makes me kinda glad that I'm not uncut

Go to Europe, and it's exactly the other way around.

BTW, there is also a medical aspect to this. Circumcision can have some nasty nasty side effects.

My stance is, there's a reason nature put it there.

rumborak

[Rina]

I guess it depends on where you're from/etc. But I honestly don't think it's a big enough deal to where people would care a lot. I mean, you won't die if it's cut. You won't die if it isn't. There's no awful result either way.

[j]

BTW, there is also a medical aspect to this. Circumcision can have some nasty nasty side effects.

There aren't any medical side effects that occur with any regularity.  The research is pretty neutral on circumcision being detrimental vs. beneficial.  It's just kinda there.

I guess it depends on where you're from/etc. But I honestly don't think it's a big enough deal to where people would care a lot. I mean, you won't die if it's cut. You won't die if it isn't. There's no awful result either way.

Basically this.

Some women may claim to prefer one or the other, but I'm sure they'll get over it if they really like you.

-J

[Rina]

Most non-shallow girls should. Definitely.

Or maybe with the shallow ones you can just play the I'm-exotic-and-therefore-more-attractive card.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I have a lot of female friends, and the vast majority of them think penises that are uncut are gross. I'm not sure that's representative of females as a whole, but it makes me kinda glad that I'm not uncut

Go to Europe, and it's exactly the other way around.

BTW, there is also a medical aspect to this. Circumcision can have some nasty nasty side effects.

My stance is, there's a reason nature put it there.

rumborak

Any medical procedure can have some nasty side effects.

I just don't get why it should be banned. I was 8 days old and I don't remember a damn thing from it. And, better then than being as old as Abraham when he cut himself; 90 years old. HOLY FUCK THAT MUST HAVE HURT

[GuineaPig]

The heart of the debate for me, PLM is this: do parents have a right to physically alter their child?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Don't parents have the ability, and right, to decide on medical procedures for children? I thought they did anyway. I mean, an infant can't really decide whether he or she wants some sort of surgery, so it's up to the parents to decide. What about that?

[ehra]

Don't parents have the ability, and right, to decide on medical procedures for children? I thought they did anyway. I mean, an infant can't really decide whether he or she wants some sort of surgery, so it's up to the parents to decide. What about that?

A live saving surgery is a bit different from a completely superfluous form of mutilation that is, supposedly, being done for entirely religious reasons that the kid never gets any say in. Too bad for him if he ever decides later down the road that the Jewish faith isn't for him but mom and dad already made this particular choice for him.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

It's not always necessarily life-saving though.

In any case, I don't understand why everyone is calling it 'mutilation'. It's hardly so. And if you're not circumcised you don't really understand what me or Adami are talking about.

But from a legal standpoint I don't think this law would hold up if only because of the Jewish aspect of it.