Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 181

Thread: SF Puts Circumcision Ban on the Ballot

  1. #1

    Default SF Puts Circumcision Ban on the Ballot

    Intactivists got enough signatures to put a circumcision ban on the ballot in San Francisco. It would ban the practice in SF wholesale, no exceptions. It probably violates the federal constitution (probably). And people could just step out of town to get their peens sculpted.

    So...how weird is this debate going to get? Let's start with a passionate paean on the fracking editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to circumcision.


    OPINION | MAY 25, 2011

    Circumcision Saved My Life

    San Francisco's proposed ban on the practice could lead to more HIV infections.

    By DIANE COLE

    This is the story of how my husband's circumcision saved my life.

    It's a personal story, but let it also serve as a public health rebuttal to the proposed ban on male circumcision that will be on the San Francisco ballot this November.

    San Francisco's ballot initiative would prohibit circumcision on all males under the age of 18. It would allow no religious exemptions, and it apparently gives no regard to the numerous studies demonstrating that male circumcision can substantially reduce—by more than 50%—the transmission of the HIV virus during sex.

    "Communities, and especially women, may benefit much more from circumcision interventions than had previously been predicted, and these results provide an even greater imperative to increase scale-up of safe male circumcision services," concludes a study published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Sexually Transmitted Infections.

    Peter, my husband, was born with hemophilia, best known as the disease of Victorian royals (and for good reason, since the guilty gene passed through the brood of Queen Victoria right down to the doomed young son of Russia's last czar). Those who suffer from hemophilia lack the crucial factor in the blood that makes it clot.

    When we are cut, we all bleed—usually, we need only a Band-Aid and some pressure to stem the flow. Except for the most minor injuries, hemophiliacs almost always need more. Specifically, they need a transfusion of the blood factor of which their DNA made them bankrupt.

    As a result of one such clotting factor transfusion prior to 1985, Peter became HIV-positive.

    Today, the U.S. blood supply has been cleaned up significantly, reducing the chance of such transmission to almost nil. But before the risk was known and blood screening had been introduced, the risk to hemophiliacs was enormous.

    Peter and I had met and fallen in love at college. We married in 1977, and by the 1980s we were getting ready to have children. I had already suffered two lost pregnancies and we were eager to try again.

    I remember reading the earliest news stories about AIDS, a mysterious new blood-borne disease, and freezing with the intuitive knowledge that whatever was borne through the blood could be borne into Peter's blood—and, by accident, perhaps mine, too. Since we were trying to get me pregnant, we had stopped using any birth control. How innocent it seems in retrospect that even when I suffered our second lost pregnancy in 1984, Peter had gamely whispered in my ear, "Don't worry. I'll knock you up again."

    But we had no chance. Soon thereafter, it was confirmed that the very blood products that had helped save and heal and improve the lives of so many hemophiliacs also had the power to infect them with AIDS. As for sex—as they say in Brooklyn, fuggedaboutit. In politer terms, Peter's hematologists advised us to cease and desist getting pregnant again. Our mutual, sad assumption in the months that ensued: Not only had our love not produced a baby, but it may well have doomed me, too.

    And then our very own HIV test results—his and hers—arrived. Peter was positive. I was negative. How had it happened that I never became HIV-positive myself?

    It wasn't until recently that we knew: He was circumcised. Actually, I should say, now I know. Peter died in 1999.

    But here is the reason I am alive today: In the same way that circumcision vastly diminishes the chance of infecting women with the human papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer, studies suggest that circumcision also helps guard against the transmission of the HIV virus. In both cases, cells on the inside of the male foreskin are implicated in spreading the virus. But if the foreskin is removed, a source of infection is also removed.

    So there you have it: My husband's circumcision saved my life.

    That reprieve allowed us to make the decision to adopt a child (our son, now 22, who will soon graduate from college). And it impressed on me the importance of public health decisions that unwittingly can save a life—which in this case happened to be mine. If the San Francisco initiative passes, and encourages other communities to do the same, who knows whose lives won't be saved.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...869888506.html

    Yeah, this debate will probably get really weird, so probably worth making a repository thread on it now. Hopefully we can at least keep this civil and have a good chuckle.

  2. #2
    Funny how the extremes eventually meet. Conservatives and Progressives, both gettin' up in our junk, legislating what we do with our gonads, both claiming some angle of pro-life.

  3. #3
    I think it wondrous that the modern world puts to public ballot a question about one's nether regions. I wonder how satisfied a child would be who had, say, a breast lopped off rather than an arm, as decided per an American Idol type debacle? Either the body is inviolate, the property of the child not yet a fully legal entity, or the parents have limitless rights to amputate those parts their gods find offensive...It's definitely 'weird' alright, thought maybe not for the reasons the OP paints.

    Also, 'fraking'.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  4. #4
    Nessus filling in for Moradin eh?

  5. #5
    Those foreskins won't save themselves!

    I was musing on the notion, not necessarily condemning it. A child can live with a single arm, without a breast, without the pinky fingers on his or her hands. A child can live without a foreskin. As Fuzzy likes to point out when this comes up, the removal of the fore-skin has some life quality improving properties, such as added protection from the human immuno-deficiency virus.

    Similarly, deaf parents might choose to make their children deaf as well, as it improves their chances of connecting with the culture of the parents; this is, after all, the reason for ritual removal of the foreskin, integration into a community. At least for the Jewish people, you and I both know that the Christian majority of US residents engage in foreskin removal due to the anti-masturbation movement of the 19th century. The same reason people eat corn flakes!

    Of course fore skin removal, and the consumption of flakes manufactured from corn kernels, has long since established and rooted itself in the grand American narrative, it is a facet of being a member of main-stream US society. It is not unreasonable to ask one's child to consume corn flakes, and maybe it is equally valid to ask them to part with their fore-skin. But considering the teleology of the practice among the Christian members of the population, can we at least agree that it is a practice ridiculous and without rhyme or reason? We probably cannot, but that's life.

    In the case of the Jewish culture, it is marginally more meaningful given the history of the people who've self-identified (or been labelled by others) as Jewish. The medical and sexual consequences of the habit are not as severe as with FGM, so society can discuss and debate among its own whether Jews be allowed the practice, while the Negro denied theirs.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  6. #6
    Never seen this discussed, don't see a reason either to do it to a child or to ban it personally.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I think it wondrous that the modern world puts to public ballot a question about one's nether regions. [...]
    California loves ballot initiatives, that's the problem. I've never understood why, other than politicians afraid to legislate without constant public approval.

  8. #8
    I was musing on the notion, not necessarily condemning it. A child can live with a single arm, without a breast, without the pinky fingers on his or her hands. A child can live without a foreskin
    I don't think their on the same level. The scale being on how the act would affect the child's abiliities in life in the future. I think it's very easy to draw the line on what we should merely frown upon, and what we should consider illegal to do to your child.

    If you want to say cutting of an arm is the same as giving your child a tattoo, your welcome to it, but in the way human being live and operate now, in this context, with our current environment and biology, they are on vastly differently levels.

    California loves ballot initiatives, that's the problem. I've never understood why, other than politicians afraid to legislate without constant public approval.
    I for one encourage the idea that if you can obtain public input readily then do so. I would even contend it's an obligation of good governance.

  9. #9
    When we passed that Prop 8 abomination, we proved our public input was unworthy.

  10. #10
    Never said you have to listen to public opinion, i think our representative democracy works out pretty well. I still think it's a good idea to get their input even when they give bad ideas (one their ideas opinions won't always be off base), and two it tells us what we need to work on as a society where our populace is at on different issues.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon View Post
    Never said you have to listen to public opinion, i think our representative democracy works out pretty well. I still think it's a good idea to get their input even when they give bad ideas (one their ideas opinions won't always be off base), and two it tells us what we need to work on as a society where our populace is at on different issues.
    The sticky part is, the initiative process bypasses the representative legislation.
    It's direct democracy, not representative.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Well this was bound to come up. İ don t really see how it violates the contitution; child protection appears to come sort of higher upon the ladder than parental rights at the best of times. And once the child is adult he can exercise his constitutional rights still.

    İ personally am quite happy my parents did not have to deal with such obstacles and people who think having a foreskin is something positive to me are rather alien. İ don't understand them at all.
    Congratulations America

  13. #13
    Boy I'm glad we screen for HIV so that hemophiliacs don't have to worry about having their foreskins chopped off for no good reason
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowheart View Post
    The sticky part is, the initiative process bypasses the representative legislation.
    It's direct democracy, not representative.
    I suppose ballot initiatives first had to be recognized by CA representatives, to create a law their constituents wanted?

  15. #15
    It's likely unconstitutional because some male circumcisions are done for religious reasons.

  16. #16
    religious weed?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    It's likely unconstitutional because some male circumcisions are done for religious reasons.
    Same argument made by the female genital infibulators?

  18. #18
    Well and thus the argument begins over whether they are equivalent in any meaningful way besides name.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Well and thus the argument begins over whether they are equivalent in any meaningful way besides name.
    The "argument" should be left to medical doctors, deciding which procedures are medically necessary, cultural, or cosmetic.

  20. #20
    Except it's clear that foreskin snipping can be like a venn diagram of "all of the above"...or none at all. That's sort of the issue behind this.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Except it's clear that foreskin snipping can be like a venn diagram of "all of the above"...or none at all. That's sort of the issue behind this.
    Not really. "Medical Necessity" for circumcision has changed a few times over the decades, as medical knowledge has changed. The only thing left to argue about is age of circumcision. And who performs the infant Bris, and how.

  22. #22

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So...you're against banning it wholesale?
    Is that what I said? No, that's not what I said.

    If religious Jews want to keep infant circs viable and acceptable, they need to follow current medical science and how infections are transmitted. We had posts on this in other threads about Rabbis doing the oral-contact-spit method....which unfortunately led to infants boys dying from Herpes virus transmission. Leading to new uses of pipettes instead of direct oral contact.

  24. #24
    I wanted to take a moment to remind readers that there is NO medical benefit to Female Genital Infibulation. None. In fact, it's been connected to urinary tract infections, vaginal infections, coital problems, and problems during childbirth.

    Female Genital Infibulation is much more than male circumcision. There are varying levels, none nice to read about or witness. Worst case scenario is cutting off the labia majora, the clitoris and its hood, and suturing closed the entire vaginal orifice. Imagine trying to urinate under those conditions, let alone having a menstrual period every 28 days. No wonder Islamic fundies keep women cloaked in burkas, limit their public interaction and education. Convenient cyclical misogyny?

    NSW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_majora

    This can't even be compared to male circs, in any way.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    It's likely unconstitutional because some male circumcisions are done for religious reasons.
    Parents are permitted to make decisions about their childrens bodies, and the ability of the government to interfere with people's bodies is strictly limited. Any ordinance has a fair chance to falling afoul of the same basic theory that protects abortions. The fact that the proposed ordinance apparently bans all circumcisions with no exceptions, meaning adults can't even choose for themselves, pretty much guarantees the courts would strike it down if it somehow passed *I doubt it will pass in the first place, personally* Then there's also the issue of enforcement. The city has pretty much no authority to regulate health issues. If this is for the county than available authority is somewhat broader but I'm still not certain it is broad enough to encompass this sort of ban. It would have to be directed at local medical facilities, they wouldn't be able to prohibit practitioners in general. That falls under the purview of state licensing authorities.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  26. #26
    All valid points, fuzzy. However, we need to recognize the power of the state to "interfere" with minor's bodies and parental consent. Not simply in things like infant circumcisions but also ear piercings and tattoos. Plus other very important public health issues like vaccinations that parents can't deny their children, and health officials DO definitely have authority over that.

    Case Study: the new HPV vaccine intended to protect girls from cervical cancer. Because their exposure comes from having vaginal intercourse with males. The males carry the virus, but it's the girls getting the vaccinations. Encouraging voluntary vaccinations for 12 yr old girls then moved to state health boards requiring 12 yr old girls have the vaccination before they can enroll in public schools.

    Kinda crazy, huh? Only very recently have physicians and public health officials started to recommend the HPV vaccine for males as young as 12, with boosters every couple of years. Since it's the males transmitting the virus to females, that just makes sense. So why did our CDC and NIH recommend the vaccination for girls first?

    Last edited by GGT; 05-29-2011 at 03:52 AM.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    religious weed?
    Peyote-use is illegal, except for Native American religious ceremonies, so there is precedent. If you tried to claim you had a religious reason to use weed though the authorities aren't going to take it seriously. Which is fair since you're not really taking it seriously either.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #28
    Fuzzy quote

    Any ordinance has a fair chance to falling afoul of the same basic theory that protects abortions. The fact that the proposed ordinance apparently bans all circumcisions with no exceptions, meaning adults can't even choose for themselves, pretty much guarantees the courts would strike it down if it somehow passed *I doubt it will pass in the first place, personally*
    The counter-argument for both abortions and circumcisions seems to be.....just drive to the next jurisdiction that allows these medical procedures. If you want them, then be prepared to pay for them. Hint: anyone with enough money can meet their medical needs, even it they're banned in one jurisdiction. Poor people can't, but who cares about them anyway.

    Procedures with any moral component are considered controversial, and can only be afforded by the wealthy.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Peyote-use is illegal, except for Native American religious ceremonies, so there is precedent. If you tried to claim you had a religious reason to use weed though the authorities aren't going to take it seriously. Which is fair since you're not really taking it seriously either.
    So, under a law such as this one, you'd have to be a serious jew or muslim?






    PS. Can parents botox their kidlets? Give them breast implants? Tattoos? Clitoral rings?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  30. #30
    I have heard of minors getting breast implants with parental consent before their 18th birthday, stupid as that is. But I believe things like Botox are specifically deemed by doctors to be unsafe for minors.

    Circumcision, tattoos and clitoral rings would probably be considered a different category.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •