Because Jews and Muslims do it – we have to BAN it
puremagic
Posts: 1,907
San Francisco Circumcision Ban To Appear On Ballot
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 ... r=Politics
SAN FRANCISCO — A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter.
But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.
Elections officials confirmed Wednesday the initiative had qualified for the ballot with more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names 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.
The proposed ban appears to be the first in the country to make it this far, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs.
Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.
"Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," said Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident. He added the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.
But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
"For a city that's renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition ... it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states," said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Leeds is a certified "mohel," the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 ... r=Politics
SAN FRANCISCO — A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter.
But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.
Elections officials confirmed Wednesday the initiative had qualified for the ballot with more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names 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.
The proposed ban appears to be the first in the country to make it this far, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs.
Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.
"Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," said Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident. He added the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.
But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
"For a city that's renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition ... it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states," said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Leeds is a certified "mohel," the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Godfather.
In other words, it just San Francisco being San Francisco.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
it's a silly tradition born out of ignorance of the times. it's going to fade out in the non Jewish world eventually. most doctors won't even consider it where I live. If I had a boy I wouldn't have. But I have two girls, so the decision evades me.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
myth.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
so if youve got a foreskin youre less likely to clean your penis as thoroughly??? hmmm :think:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
:? oops
to add... all i knew about judaism and circumcision was from that episode of Friends...
i'm not well versed in the details of religions
Obviously for some it's a religion thing but for a lot it's just 'how it is' (aren't most american males circumcised?). Though why would one do this is beyond me, especially when you understand the function of the foreskin. One important function:
"Boyle et al. state that "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."[20] The AAP noted that the work of Taylor et al. "suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin."[21]"
Out of curiosity... and I mean this with all due respect... how does lopping a flap of skin off someone's penis signify the inclusion of a child into the covenant between god and Israel? How did that start?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
My semite brother, why not just focus on educating the girl, instead of highlighting her lack of knowledge?
I'm sorry, but, it's 2011. God of the gaps is the only god.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Girl OR boy... right?
C'mon.... What the hell... it's the parent's decision!!!
Yiyeee
No- definitely would not want to go there!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
With regard to the pain the infant feels, I've been to a whole lot of these ceremonies, and the fact is that the baby almost always stops crying pretty quickly after the ritual is completed. I guess babies do have incredibly short attention spans, but still, if the pain was that severe you'd expect (or at least I would expect) a more prolonged response.
As for where the ritual comes from, in the Bible God tells Abraham to circumcise himself and all the males of his household as a symbol of the covenant between them. Think of it in terms of signing a contract in blood, with the added symbolism that God has promised to make Abraham the father of a great nation, and the sign of this covenant is "inscribed" on the very organ that will bring this about.
If you want to get it done as an adult... go right ahead.
But some babies have died from shock... some have gotten so infected their penises have had to be amputated.
It causes extreme pain to babies. I can't imagine how bad a parent you'd have to be to do that.
Actually.. yeah, they have. And there was recently a case where a two babies were infected with herpes because of it. One of them died.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/ns/ ... ts-herpes/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 234AA7N4Jt
It's a barbaric practice and should be illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah
http://blogs.webmd.com/sexual-health-se ... mcise.html
And what you're talking about is an infringement on the rights of a child who can't speak for himself.
if you want to cut the end of your dick off... be my guest. But wait until the child is 18 and able to make that decision for himself. I mean... it's not even moral to pierce a baby girl's ears, if you ask me.
considering your "god" doesn't actually exist and the baby boy's rights do... I'm going to say that you're wrong and I'm right.
2) You're right, a baby can't speak for itself, which is exactly why the parents are empowered to make decisions on the child's behalf. You are trying to frame the issue as an infringement on the child's rights, except that the parents speak for their child, so that if circumcision is performed on the parents' wishes no rights have been violated.
Because that's what male circumcision is. As a mother, I could never do this.