Will S.F. ban circumcision? (iStockphoto)
Last November, when San Francisco effectively banned McDonald’s Happy Meals, we wondered what it would try to ban next. The answer? Circumcisions. From the AP:
A group seeking to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has succeeded in getting their controversial measure on the November ballot, meaning voters will be asked to weigh in on what until now has been a private family matter.
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that the initiative had received enough signatures to appear on the ballot, getting more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must receive at least 7,168 signatures to qualify.
If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
As one of the limited males in the world who can probably speak objectively on this topic; I was circumcised at the age of 25, of my own volition (there were underlying medical reasons but those were of my own making).
How dare anyone ever make that choice for me! Parents make a lot of choice for there kids, however very few are permanent. Unfortunately this one is that is and should not be forced upon kids at/close to birth. Traditions religious or otherwise which call for the infliction of permanent physical or mental changes on children should be prohibited.
I think 18 is a bit steep, I think you could say 12 with the understanding that the doctor must explain to the kid what will change with his body.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
5
18 isn`t steep at all, the reasoning centres of the brain develop into our early thirties.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
6
This is pretty amazing.
Why would anyone want to do this? Do you have a link that provides some rationale?
Your question is unclear – do you mean why would someone want to do this to a baby, or why would someone want to make it illegal?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Can we ban ear piercings for anyone under the age of 18 as well then?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
16
Comparing a tiny hole on the earlobe with cutting off a functional part of the male genitalia is ludicrous.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
14
Maybe 18 is a bit high for ear piercing, but there should be a limit for that, too, yes. It makes me profoundly uncomfortable to see preschoolers with pierced ears. You don’t get to do that to another person.
But for teenagers that want it I think ear piercing is ok, although it leaves a mark it doesn’t have to be permanent. I don’t think 12 year old kids are able to withstand the (religious) wishes of their parents, though and it’s permanent, so 18 for circumcision.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
Yes! Ban ear (and other body part) piercings, tattoos, giving your kid Botox injections so they can compete in pre-teen beauty contests, and basically all non-medically necessary mutilations of a kid’s body. Kids are people, not their parents’ toys or property, and they deserve the chance to make these decisions for themselves when they’re old enough to do so.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
0
Yes! We should ban everything. Ban children from speaking because the reasoning centers in their brains are not yet developed (as previously stated) and they will probably say something stupid or unreasonable or god forbid something contrary to you.
The issue is consent. A teenager can consent to have body modifications. And infant cannot.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
Actually many places will not do piercings below a certain age and/or without parental/custodial consent (specifics vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction)
All this really proves in aprox. 7700 will sign a petition to get this on the ballot in San Francisco.
I could probably get twice that many in 2 weekends to sign a petition to allow goat herding in City Hall
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
9
Sir, my entire family would sign that.
Genital mutilation (male as well as female) is some ancient rite, difficult to get rid off. Despite a lot of effort by many great people, female genital mutilation is still persistent in many African countries. The long term effects on women might be more severe, but accidents during male circumcision make it impossible for some to have a sex live.
As few choices as possible should be made by the parents for their children. My parents had me christened when I was a child, something that I didn’t agree with when I grew up. That was luckily something that could be reversed at the cost of 50 EUR.
The argument about lower HIV is risky, it might lower the use of condoms, which would make it de facto impossible to contract HIV during intercourse.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
3
You do realize that a christening can be reversed by doing nothing, right, since it has no effect? Where did you blow your 50 EUR?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
3
in Germany you need to officially unregister. this costs 50 EUR
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
In some countries, being part of a religious group has bureaucratic implications and changing that status carries a fee.
I suspect that joshi is from Germany, where the government collects a “church tax” together with income tax, on behalf of a number of churches and religious groups, from people who are members of these religions. You get to become a member of the Christian churches by being christened, and in order to officially become a non-member (and stop paying the tax) you have to go to your town hall, fill out a form and pay a fee.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
“on behalf of a number of churches and religious groups” – i guess that number is two
Nope, it’s six – five Christian churches and the Jewish communities:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer_%28Deutschland%29#Kirchensteuereinzug_durch_den_Staat
Actually, many well respected survivors of Female Genital Mutilation have said that the result for boys is oftentimes much worse than those for girls. They fight to remove the cultural bias from Americans with regards to their own genital mutilation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
4
Why pay to renounce your christening? Just ignore it. Is this another crazy Germany thing like not being able to change your name?
My son is intact (not circumcised) because his foreskin has several functions and a rightful owner. I support a ban on non therapeutic circumcision of minors. It’s not about taking religious or parental rights away from parents, it’s about protecting a childs right to bodily integrity. Doctors should First Do No Harm and not be soliciting circumcision to parents of healthy children, instead parents should be taught the functions and purpose of the foreskin and how to care properly for their intact sons, which is really very simple. Many myths myths perpetuate this archaic practice of cutting childrens genitals. The FGM law protects female childrens genital integrity, why are males being denied equal protection of the law?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
7
I ‘m surprised no one has discussed the medical benefits of circumcision. (http://goo.gl/Cha94) Even if you disagreed with the studies that support the medical benefits, forbidding other people from circumcising their children seems like a bizarre, could only happen in California, outcome. Of course, since it only requires 7168 signatures to get on the ballot, many bizarre ideas must get on the ballot there. I am reminded of the Penn & Teller episode when they were getting people to sign a petition proposing a ban on hydrogen dioxide.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
24
Although there are some medical benefits of circumcision, they don’t warrant performing it preemptively on a child who’s too young to give consent. Infants aren’t at risk of contracting HIV or other STDs, so what’s the rush? Wait until he’s old enough to decide on his own.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
2
Infants can and do contract HIV and STIs – however, usually in utero or during childbirth. Otherwise I agree with the thrust of your statement, leave the infant intact and allow the young man make his own decision when he is old enough to legally make a medical decision for himself on this or any other issue.
There are better ways to protect against STDs. Relying on circumcision on that matter is like “pull and pray” as a method of contraception.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
“Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.” — The American Academy of Pediatrics
Who cares what pediatricians say… let’s put it to the voters, just like we should all medical procedures.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
4
This is such an obviously slick statement. However, the rights of the parents are put above the rights of the child in it, and this is the real problem, the one that no doctor will ever be able to sort out.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0