Foreskin Law in San Francisco

[3113]

This November, voters in San Francisco are expected to weigh in on a controversial topic: whether parents should be allowed to circumcise their baby boys.

Pro-and-con health discussion here.

Whadda think? Should it be illegal for parents to circumcises their baby boys? Obviously, should this law pass in San Francisco (I have my doubts that it will), Jewish residents will likely take their babies out of town to be circumcised. So I don't know that it will do much good on that score. On the other hand, San Francisco hospitals won't do it routinely as it's now done, as if doctors should do this and not give parents the option.

My husband, by the way, had not heard of this news and when I asked him his opinion he said: "I'm in favor of the ban, however, I don't think any but orthodox Jewish men will be getting a circumcision when they're old enough to decide for themselves. It's one thing to do it to a baby who isn't going to know what he's missing, but for a man to decide to do it knowing what he's going to be missing...."

He has a point. And I don't know that we could infuse the "manhood" ritual element into having it done, which is how earlier, middle-eastern and African cultures got older boys and men to go through with it back when.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

But a bris takes place when they are a baby.

 

[3113]

But a bris takes place when they are a baby.

Um, yes, Zeb. This would outlaw the bris isn San Francisco--which is why it's causing a bit of an uproar. The creators of this law would argue that babies shouldn't be mutilated for even religious reasons, and, arguably, we don't allow religions to do anything they want to babies or children, why should we allow them to do this?

Only consenting adults would be able to have themselves circumcised, just as only consenting adults can have themselves pierced, tattooed, ritually scarred, etc. But, as I said, if this law were to pass then the observant Jews of San Francisco would likely have the bris elsewhere.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Even if it passes it will run face first into the First Amendment. Whether or not one thinks it's appropriate (and there are a whole list of health benefits proven for the practice) it ain' gonna happen. This is just more typical San Francisco silliness, like the law that some of them want to pass making it illegal to sell any animal as a pet while allowing the live animal trade in Asian food stores to go unrestricted. I swear, that city can get a wild hair up its ass for some of the most damned fool reasons. Remember, this is the place that was still arguing about the aesthetics of rebuilding from the Loma Prieto quake long after L.A. had had the Northridge and completely recovered.

 

[3113]

This is just more typical San Francisco silliness...I swear, that city can get a wild hair up its ass for some of the most damned fool reasons.

I don't see that it's any more "typical" silliness than cities that mandate schools teach creationism, or allow citizens to carry concealed weapons into bars (because it's such a smart thing to have drunks carrying loaded handguns). I think San Francisco gets unfairly mocked for its silly laws. Other cities are absolutely equal if not more silly in their laws...they just don't get the press that San Francisco does.

And I'm not sure this is a silly law. Check out the pros-and-cons. Most of the hygiene benefits of circumcision are small, post-puberty and having to do with sex. Again, something an adult male could decide to do he felt it would benefit him. Why should hospitals perform this essentially unnecessary, mainly cosmetic operation on babies?

 

[PennLady]

After my son was born, he spent six days in the NICU and somewhere in there they did the circumcision. As I recall, the dr recommended it. My hub, who is also circumcised, did not object. Religion didn't enter into our discussion; I'm Catholic and my husband wasn't raised in a faith.

The other thought I have, and I hope I get this across properly, is that just because we're born with something, that doesn't mean it's necessary or an advantage. I'm doing just fine sans gall bladder, thanks.

I guess I can't take a solid side on this issue. If someone wants to and it's determined not to be harmful, then I wouldn't object. If they don't want to, I wouldn't object. As far as religion goes, I also wouldn't object provided no harm is done.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the law would make an exception of sons born to a Jewish mother, if she requests it. As for piercings, etc., I have seen some very young children with piercings.

If I lived in SF, I would vote against the law, but I also believe it should not be a required procedure, the way it has been, for practical purposes, in the past.

SF does have some crazy laws.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Sorry, Box, but the law makes no exception for anyone. That's why it will get shot down in court.

And allowing people to carry loaded firearms into a bar far transcends silly. We're talking about Darwin Award stupidity. San Francisco is silly. Different matter entirely.

 

[3113]

After my son was born, he spent six days in the NICU and somewhere in there they did the circumcision. As I recall, the dr recommended it. My hub, who is also circumcised, did not object. Religion didn't enter into our discussion; I'm Catholic and my husband wasn't raised in a faith.

But I think that's an important point here. Why should this be done so casually and commonly? Why not leave it alone?

And, no, not all things we're born with are an advantage, but your gall bladder wasn't removed just after you were born, was it? Why remove something that is not a disadvantage until it is a disadvantage? I've still got an appendix, but hell if I'm going to have it removed just because it might one day be a disadvantage to me. And that's certainly more of a danger and less of a benefit than a foreskin is to a man. Ask men with foreskins--they tend to like them, not find them problematic.

Obviously, there *are* some problems that men might have with foreskins (too tight and such), but that's similar to some women having hymen problems. You get the surgery done if you need it. No one cut your hymen as a baby, right? Why not? It's not an advantage. Circumcision seems to be something we take for granted that maybe we should not take for granted. Because once that foreskin is gone, it's gone. Shouldn't the guy have a chance to decide on this--it's his foreskin.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

But I think that's an important point here. Why should this be done so casually and commonly? Why not leave it alone?

And, no, not all things we're born with are an advantage, but your gall bladder wasn't removed just after you were born, was it? Why remove something that is not a disadvantage until it is a disadvantage? I've still got an appendix, but hell if I'm going to have it removed just because it might one day be a disadvantage to me. And that's certainly more of a danger and less of a benefit than a foreskin is to a man. Ask men with foreskins--they tend to like them, not find them problematic.

Obviously, there *are* some problems that men might have with foreskins (too tight and such), but that's similar to some women having hymen problems. You get the surgery done if you need it. No one cut your hymen as a baby, right? Why not? It's not an advantage. Circumcision seems to be something we take for granted that maybe we should not take for granted. Because once that foreskin is gone, it's gone. Shouldn't the guy have a chance to decide on this--it's his foreskin.

While you can live without your gall bladder, as long as you watch what you eat and take medication, the gall bladder is a essential member of your endocrine system, a foreskin is not.

Removing a foreskin doesn't require you to be medicated for the rest of your life, unless they find out your a hemophiliac, nor does it require invasive surgery.

Sure, a guy should have a choice, but...up until recently it was a routine, still is actually, bit of snipage that could be done at a time in the mans live to minimize the pain during recovery.

My grandson wasn't circumcised at birth, yet as he grew, due to an anomaly in his anatomy, was required to have one by the time he was ten. Whether it was something missed by the doctors or just something that was hereditary and because everyone on both sides of the family had been circumcised never showed itself, is a source of great debate.

 

[3113]

Sorry, Box, but the law makes no exception for anyone. That's why it will get shot down in court.

I'm not so sure about that. We do have laws against child abuse and even a person's religion can't allow them to abuse a child in the name of god. Granted that a slippery-slope argument is not a valid one, but at what point is it child abuse in the name of god and at what point is it a religious tradition to be honored? This is hardly like sprinkling water on the kid's head.

And the anti-circumcision folk aren't saying that no one can be circumcised, only babies. Which means that any adult Jew can keep his covenant with god. There is certainly legal precedent for outlawing things done on participants in the name of religion as compared to participants doing it to themselves willingly and consentingly.

I don't know that it's so judiciously cut-and-dried as you think.

 

[PennLady]

But I think that's an important point here. Why should this be done so casually and commonly? Why not leave it alone?

I didn't say we didn't discuss it, because we in fact did. I'm just saying that religion wasn't an issue for us in this particular discussion, as neither of us are Jewish or part of any other faith that requires circumcision.

And, no, not all things we're born with are an advantage, but your gall bladder wasn't removed just after you were born, was it? Why remove something that is not a disadvantage until it is a disadvantage? I've still got an appendix, but hell if I'm going to have it removed just because it might one day be a disadvantage to me. And that's certainly more of a danger and less of a benefit than a foreskin is to a man. Ask men with foreskins--they tend to like them, not find them problematic.

I know it's not the best comparison. No, my gall bladder was removed when I was nearly 30 b/c it was inflamed and full of tiny little gall stones (and re: another response, I don't take any medication; I'm sure it's different for everyone, but no one I know who had a gall-bladder-ectomy takes meds b/c of it). My point was, I think, that it's something else our body has that evolved and is not entirely necessary.

Obviously, there *are* some problems that men might have with foreskins (too tight and such), but that's similar to some women having hymen problems. You get the surgery done if you need it. No one cut your hymen as a baby, right? Why not? It's not an advantage. Circumcision seems to be something we take for granted that maybe we should not take for granted. Because once that foreskin is gone, it's gone. Shouldn't the guy have a chance to decide on this--it's his foreskin.

I'd agree the hymen seems to serve little purpose, but I'd also say it's different, as it's internal. I'm also not saying we should take circumcision for granted. I would, though, point out that it's something that's been done by a lot of people for thousands of years, and repetition does often make people stop questioning.

I recently read an article, probably on Salon.com, that talked about this, and of course one problem with guys is that the vast majority were circumcised, or not. Very few could make a comparison.

 

[3113]

While you can live without your gall bladder, as long as you watch what you eat and take medication, the gall bladder is a essential member of your endocrine system, a foreskin is not.

Granted, but the comparison between gall bladder and foreskin wasn't made by me. It was made by Pennlady, and I was answering her when I referred to the gall bladder. I, personally, think the comparison to the hymen more apt. Should baby girls routinely have their hymens cut so that later in life they don't have to go through the discomfort of sex for the first time?

The hymen seems more likely to give a girl a problem later in life than the foreskin is likely to give a boy a problem. Why would we hesitate to snip that baby girl's hymen, but we don't think twice about circumcising a baby boy? Once again, read the pros-and-cons article. Assuming no problems, if you'd grown up un-snipped, would you be wailing and crying about how horrible things were for you now? Would you be wishing someone had removed that foreskin?

So why assume that circumcision should be unilateral done on baby boys?

Speaking to everyone here, not just you, Zeb, the article said, in the majority of the world, men aren't circumcised. Why is our culture so entrenched on this that we somehow think it silly to consider doing away with it? Other nations, many of them civilized and medically advanced don't do it and they seem to be doing just fine. Which means that its benefits, barring situations like those of your grandson, are negligible. Which, to me, means that this proposal isn't' all that absurd and and ought to be given some consideration, not dismissed as "silly."

Understand, I'm willing to listen to good reasons for doing it to every baby boys in America if you've got 'em...but so far most of the reasons I'm hearing are "it does no harm" (not good enough, sorry. By that reasoning, letting them keep the forskin "does no harm," too), and "it's silly," which, again, is not a reason. You got facts to back up why it should be the norm, let me hear 'em. Otherwise, I'm gonna ask, why not make non-circumcision the norm?

 

[Quiet_Cool]

At least the government found somewhere not to allow any cutbacks...

Don't know if it's the area most in need of attention...

Q_C

 

[3113]

At least the government found somewhere not to allow any cutbacks...

An interesting "pro" argument. Not cutting would bring down hospital costs and insurance rates...

Hm. Could circumcision be argued as one of those extra costs hospitals add on squeeze a little more money out of patients?

 

[TE999]

I'm not sure if male circumcision in the US is really mandatory or 'it's the way we've always done it.' This pro and con debate has been raging for some time all over the world, with the Hebrew and Islamic faiths ritualizing the procedure. Some have made it a pro-choice matter like abortion, ie: a persons right to choose ... of course there's no comparison between a fetus and a foreskin.

I'm not sure an outright ban on the procedure in one city would make one bit of difference. In fact, I cannot understand why this has become an issue in Frisco at all. Surely there must be more pressing matters in the city to deal with. The Board of Supervisors must have too much time on it's hands.

Here's Wiki on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Granted, but the comparison between gall bladder and foreskin wasn't made by me. It was made by Pennlady, and I was answering her when I referred to the gall bladder. I, personally, think the comparison to the hymen more apt. Should baby girls routinely have their hymens cut so that later in life they don't have to go through the discomfort of sex for the first time?

The hymen seems more likely to give a girl a problem later in life than the foreskin is likely to give a boy a problem. Why would we hesitate to snip that baby girl's hymen, but we don't think twice about circumcising a baby boy? Once again, read the pros-and-cons article. Assuming no problems, if you'd grown up un-snipped, would you be wailing and crying about how horrible things were for you now? Would you be wishing someone had removed that foreskin?

So why assume that circumcision should be unilateral done on baby boys?

Speaking to everyone here, not just you, Zeb, the article said, in the majority of the world, men aren't circumcised. Why is our culture so entrenched on this that we somehow think it silly to consider doing away with it? Other nations, many of them civilized and medically advanced don't do it and they seem to be doing just fine. Which means that its benefits, barring situations like those of your grandson, are negligible. Which, to me, means that this proposal isn't' all that absurd and and ought to be given some consideration, not dismissed as "silly."

Understand, I'm willing to listen to good reasons for doing it to every baby boys in America if you've got 'em...but so far most of the reasons I'm hearing are "it does no harm" (not good enough, sorry. By that reasoning, letting them keep the forskin "does no harm," too), and "it's silly," which, again, is not a reason. You got facts to back up why it should be the norm, let me hear 'em. Otherwise, I'm gonna ask, why not make non-circumcision the norm?

Not arguing either way, I'm way past caring...lost mine at birth. Don't know if I missed anything, don't care now. And all the reasons for doing it have been replaced by other methods or reasons.

Having said that...is legislation the way to go or should there be a change in the thinking of OB-GYN's, surgeons, etc.

What's a circumcision worth to a surgeon? Is it the money now the reason they don't change the practice? While I believe in general doctors are caring and compassionate individuals, they can be swayed in their thinking. Say in the area of drug prescriptions, name brand over generic. Why insist in name brand when there is a generic available? Especially when the generic is made by the same company?

Just questions, no answers.

 

[roomfor1more]

The ban on male circumcision that prohibits Jewish residents of San Francisco from excercising a religious right, in my opinion, violates the First Amendment and I would suspect that if it makes it to the Supreme Court that the law would be overturned. In addition if it did not violate the First Amendment, I believe, the law would be overturned by it being discriminatory on religious grounds. Unlike female circumcision, which has no useful purpose, male circumcision according to some research lowers the risk of HIV and lowers urinary tract infections. Plus the logic beyond the ban is unsustainable and worrying if it is expanded to cover other situations, since it means that no procedure could be performed on a child under the age of 18 without their consent. The implication either means there is a push to lower the age of consent or a move to transfer more decision making to children who do not posses the ability to make informed decisions. Therefore my feeling, the law might be passed but at some point it will be overturned.

 

[estragon]

There will certainly be a Constitutional challenge on First Amendment "free practice" grounds. To counter the attack, someone will raise the old anti-polygamy case Reynolds v. US, 98 U. S. 145 (1878), specifically when Chief Justice Waite, writing for the Court, stated, quoting Jefferson's Statute of Religious Liberty: "'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,

"that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.'

"In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State." 98 US 145, at p. 163. "Overt acts against peace and good order." This the Supremes found to be the case with Mormon polygamy in Utah. Now is that the test for circumcision?

One can argue that surgical intervention on a newborn, absent immediate and compelling medical necessity, is a criminal assault, as a newborn cannot consent and is incapable of forming a religious conviction that would permit him to consent. If capable of being consulted, the young person might reply "the only things to approach that particular organ are mouths, vaginas, anuses (plural of anus, y'know) and fingers, but all with good intentions."

The contrary: "Peace and good order"? What are the heinous consequences if Muslim or Jewish parents desire their son to be circumcised, as has been their religious custom for millennia? The overwhelming majority of circumcised boys grow up with no apparent ill effects. In fact, it has been argued that they have superior staying power, thus promoting domestic tranquility.

Now for the judges to get their hands on it (pun definitely intended).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The ban on male circumcision that prohibits Jewish residents of San Francisco from excercising a religious right, in my opinion, violates the First Amendment and I would suspect that if it makes it to the Supreme Court that the law would be overturned. In addition if it did not violate the First Amendment, I believe, the law would be overturned by it being discriminatory on religious grounds. Unlike female circumcision, which has no useful purpose, male circumcision according to some research lowers the risk of HIV and lowers urinary tract infections. Plus the logic beyond the ban is unsustainable and worrying if it is expanded to cover other situations, since it means that no procedure could be performed on a child under the age of 18 without their consent. The implication either means there is a push to lower the age of consent or a move to transfer more decision making to children who do not posses the ability to make informed decisions. Therefore my feeling, the law might be passed but at some point it will be overturned.

While I agree with you post in part...not the part which I have bolded...I have to call bullshit on the bolded statement. The only thing that will reduce the risk of HIV is a condom. As for urinary tract infection, if you're to lazy to wash your own cock, you might just deserve an infection. And guys who get urinary tract infections have been puttin' their pencil where it don't belong or swimming in the wrong pools.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

...I have to call bullshit on the bolded statement. The only thing that will reduce the risk of HIV is a condom.

Do you, now? Funny, the Center for Disease Control thinks differently.

 

[peachydreams]

As for urinary tract infection, if you're to lazy to wash your own cock, you might just deserve an infection. And guys who get urinary tract infections have been puttin' their pencil where it don't belong or swimming in the wrong pools.

You might want to consider checking your facts on this statement as well, urinary tract infections can be caused by a number of factors, including diabetes, some medications, kidney stones, and enlarged prostate, just to name a few.

 

[estragon]

Whose urinary tract infection? The man's or his partner's? And whatever happened to the old story about uterine cancer in Jewish women being less prevalent because foreskins harbored HPV?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

3113 Frowns On Haircuts Too. And Nail Trims.

 

[Boxlicker101]

3113 Frowns On Haircuts Too. And Nail Trims.

This is an interesting concept. If the city of SF wants to outlaw circumcisions before the age of 18, I wonder if they would also outlaw shaving, trimming nails and cutting hair until the same age. These are all normal growths that parents frequently remove from the persons of their children.