Circumcision ban to appear on San Francisco ballot

[Xray]

A penis with an intact foreskin is more subject to infection and cancer. Removal of the foreskin is a health matter. It saves the child from the Curse of Smegma, the yellow cottage cheese from hell.

A foreskin is no birth defect. It exists for a biological reason: protecting a very sensitive part of the male body.

Re smegma: sufficent genital hygiene takes care of this problem.

When dealing with something like balanitis, providing "sufficent genital hygiene" is not as simple as you make it sound, including when administered by experienced doctors. Both underwashing and overwashing can cause balanitis. Finding the right amount of washing isn't easy.

Even if achieving sufficient genital hygiene here requires a certain effort because finding the right amount of washing isn't easy - parental care is almost always about finding the right balance for the child in all kinds other areas too, and this almost always requires considerable time and effort.

Here is link to a medical site where the Dr. Edell mentioned in your post comments on the issue:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/81112.html

[Xray]

Supppose believers in religion X regard is their duty to cut off the earlobes of their sons because their god demands this. They claim 'religious freedom' to perform this practice.

What would you reply to them?

Keep your hands off my dick and my earlobes.

That's a truly rational statement on your part

As to "suppose that..." we will deal with this hypothetical when it because real. In the United States religious ritual murder or substantial injury will not be permitted regardless of the First Amendment. Anything short of real harm to the children will be permitted. That includes circumcision. There will be no virgins tossed into furnaces to assure goods crops. Take the to the bank.

Since the picture of the god we have in mind evolves as we evolve, we don't accept human sacrifice anymore, and this non-acceptance has found its way into modern law.

It has been argued that sacrificing the foreskin (instead of the human individual) to the god can be regarded as a pars pro toto sacrifice.

While we are at it, what about holes drilled in the earlobes of little children wherein to insert jewelry? Should that be prohibited by law? Little or no harm harm comes from it.

I'm not against prohibiting it.

Wearing earrings can also be quite dangerous for kindergartners in sports or when playing outdoors.

We also cut the hair on helpless infants. That is a lessening of intactness. The Sikhs do not cut the hair of their male children and the rest of us do. That is not a matter for Law.

Cutting off hair as dead tissue is another issue altogether, and cannot be compared to the procedure required for earrings.

Article on male circumcision by Margaret A. Somerville:

http://www.intact.ca/canary.htm

The debate rages on.

What is the current position of the American Association of Pediatrics on the issue?

It looks like they no longer recommend routine male circumcision.

As for performing circumcision for purely religious reasons: I'm against it because I'm against imposing one's own religion on anybody, including one's children.

Looking back, I regret having our daughter baptized when she was 1 year old.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Xray

[Jonathan]

Even if achieving sufficient genital hygiene here requires a certain effort because finding the right amount of washing isn't easy - parental care is almost always about finding the right balance for the child in all kinds other areas too, and this almost always requires considerable time and effort.

What about when "finding the right amount of washing" isn't possible, even under the quidance of a physician? Are you saying that you've decided that circumcision is so horrible and barbaric that you'd rather have boys suffer the intense pain of various sores and infections, potentially for years of their lives, rather than undergo the relatively painless and brief procedure of circumcision during infancy (which they won't remember or be traumatized by)?

J

[BaalChatzaf]

Even if achieving sufficient genital hygiene here requires a certain effort because finding the right amount of washing isn't easy - parental care is almost always about finding the right balance for the child in all kinds other areas too, and this almost always requires considerable time and effort.

What about when "finding the right amount of washing" isn't possible, even under the quidance of a physician? Are you saying that you've decided that circumcision is so horrible and barbaric that you'd rather have boys suffer the intense pain of various sores and infections, potentially for years of their lives, rather than undergo the relatively painless and brief procedure of circumcision during infancy (which they won't remember or be traumatized by)?

J

I have set in several brit mihlotht ceremonies in which the young male infant slept through the operation. It is painless and surely less painless than colic.

So you are quite right: One virtually painless infant circumcision = many years without sores, infections, cancers of the glans and without the curse of smegma.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Even if achieving sufficient genital hygiene here requires a certain effort because finding the right amount of washing isn't easy - parental care is almost always about finding the right balance for the child in all kinds other areas too, and this almost always requires considerable time and effort.

What about when "finding the right amount of washing" isn't possible, even under the quidance of a physician?

In that case, I'd ask the pediatrician what he/she suggests is to be done about it, and would also (as I always do) ask for a second medical opinion.

Are you saying that you've decided that circumcision is so horrible and barbaric that you'd rather have boys suffer the intense pain of various sores and infections, potentially for years of their lives, rather than undergo the relatively painless and brief procedure of circumcision during infancy (which they won't remember or be traumatized by)?

See above. I'd ask the pediatrician.

I can imagine that severe problems in that area are often related to phimosis.

I'm a teacher of the young, and while there are occasial cases where children have to operated because of phimosis - if sores and infections were that frequent, this would be noticed. For the children would complain about pain.

As they do if a circumcision wound doesn't heal properly. Again, this does not occur often, but we have had cases where the child had to be taken to the hospital again because of post-operative complications.

The Wikipedia article on circumcision is very informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Edited June 13, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

The ban on circumcision has been ruled off the ballot in San Franscisco by a California judge. The people who back the ban say they will appeal.

See: http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-health/20110728/US.Circumcision.Ban/

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

The ban on circumcision has been ruled off the ballot in San Franscisco by a California judge. The people who back the ban say they will appeal.

See: http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-health/20110728/US.Circumcision.Ban/

It is not rare for judges to chicken out in view of the political influence exerted by religious groups.

But this matter will not come to rest.

From the article:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-health/20110728/US.Circumcision.Ban/

"SAN FRANCISCO — A judge on Thursday struck a measure from the city's November ballot that called for a ban on most circumcisions of male children, saying the proposed law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom and a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities."

Classic case of a premise which collapses at first scrutiny. For arguing with freedom of religion while at the same time denying said freedom to those subjected to circumcision is a blatant contradiction.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Classic case of a premise which collapses at first scrutiny. For arguing with freedom of religion while at the same time denying said freedom to those subjected to circumcision is a blatant contradiction.

So? The appeal will fail and the measure will be off the ballot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Classic case of a premise which collapses at first scrutiny. For arguing with freedom of religion while at the same time denying said freedom to those subjected to circumcision is a blatant contradiction.

So? The appeal will fail and the measure will be off the ballot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This does not mean new initiatives to ban circumcision won't be started elsewhere in the US.

Here is a moving letter from a Jewish father to his son, explaining to him why he chose not to have him circumcised, opting for the unbloody Brit Shalom ceremony instead where no ritual circumcision is performed:

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Classic case of a premise which collapses at first scrutiny. For arguing with freedom of religion while at the same time denying said freedom to those subjected to circumcision is a blatant contradiction.

So? The appeal will fail and the measure will be off the ballot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This does not mean new initiatives to ban circumcision won't be started elsewhere in the US.

They will meet the same fate. A collision with the first amendment.

Even if such a law were passed Jews and Muslims will still have their children circumcised.

I suggest you read up on the history of the Hasmonian Revolt against King Antiochus to see what happens when such laws are passed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

They will meet the same fate. A collision with the first amendment.

Even if such a law were passed Jews and Muslims will still have their children circumcised.

I suggest you read up on the history of the Hasmonian Revolt against King Antiochus to see what happens when such laws are passed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The difference being that we don't live in those dark ages anymore.

Instead, mankind is evolving toward more rationality and empathy. And in the process, irrational and unempathic religious principles and commands will lose their influence in direct proportion to this cultural evolvement.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

The difference being that we don't live in those dark ages anymore.

Instead, mankind is evolving toward more rationality and empathy. And in the process, irrational and unempathic religious principles and commands will lose their influence in direct proportion to this cultural evolvement.

Notwithstanding all that, We Jews will continue to have our sons circumcised at 8 days and Muslims will still continue their custom as well. Spitting in the wind does not stop it from blowing.

We Jews are a stiff-necked people. We are stubborn and a pain in the ass. As King Antiochus found out with a 35 year long revolt.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

The difference being that we don't live in those dark ages anymore.

Instead, mankind is evolving toward more rationality and empathy. And in the process, irrational and unempathic religious principles and commands will lose their influence in direct proportion to this cultural evolvement.

Notwithstanding all that, We Jews will continue to have our sons circumcised at 8 days and Muslims will still continue their custom as well. Spitting in the wind does not stop it from blowing.

We Jews are a stiff-necked people. We are stubborn and a pain in the ass. As King Antiochus found out with a 35 year long revolt.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Apparently not all Jews will continue to have their sons circumcised. The existence of an initiative called Jews Against Circumcision shows that things are in motion here.

Have you read the letter of the Jewish father (link in # 59) who chose the Brit Shalom ceremony for his son instead?

Edited July 31, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Apparently not all Jews will continue to have their sons circumcised. The existence of an initiative called Jews Against Circumcision shows that things are in motion here.

Have you read the letter of the Jewish father (link in # 59) who chose the Brit Shalom ceremony for his son instead?

To the first: I doubt that it will catch on very much

To the second: No I have not heard of this. Why not sing Kumbaya over the kid's cradle on the 8 th day. It sounds sweet enough to cause tooth decay.

I will give you a hint: Review Shel Silverstein's song -A Boy Name Sue- (famously sung by Johnny Cash).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Apparently not all Jews will continue to have their sons circumcised. The existence of an initiative called Jews Against Circumcision shows that things are in motion here.

Have you read the letter of the Jewish father (link in # 59) who chose the Brit Shalom ceremony for his son instead?

To the first: I doubt that it will catch on very much

To the second: No I have not heard of this.

Here is the link again.

Go to the purple square at the left side of the homepage, and click on "Letter from a Father to a Son".

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Edited July 31, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

A circumcision that went really bad, or did it?

Jury rules in favor of doctor who cut off part of Kentucky man's penis!!!!

Jurors were told that Seaton had gone to Patterson seeking a circumcision in October 2007, but

the doctor decided to amputate part of the penis after he found potentially deadly cancer during surgery.

Fascinating!

Adam