SF Voters Asked to Ban Circumcision

[Dok]

SF Voters Asked to Ban Circumcision

A ban on circumcision could end up on San Francisco's November ballot.

A voter in the city says he will submit more than 12,000 valid signatures to the elections office today. That's more than the 7,200 needed to get the measure on the ballot.

The proposed new law would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a person before they are 18-years-old.

"We don't come at this from a religious angle," Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. "We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It's a felony to tattoo a child."

The Department of Elections has 30-days to review the signatures and determine if the measure qualifies for the November ballot.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Voters-Asked-to-Ban-Circumcision-120698339.html

[Kilika]

Lord have mercy! That city has gone insane. What business is it to the government? Here's the key...

"We don't come at this from a religious angle," Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. "We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It's a felony to tattoo a child."

This is a nanny-state attitude, that parents can't be trusted to raise their own children, or at least that's what they want people to believe, so these people can step in and show parents how to raise their own kids the way the state wants them rasied.

Not owners of children eh? That's straight out of the UN Rights of the Child garbage.

[aknoto]

I wonder if they thought about passing laws against homelessness, hunger, poor education, domestic violence, etc.....but passing laws on this....has a sinister overtone to me. 

[lamourlady]

What anyone should realize is that circumcision was not only a rite, distinguishing God's people, but all of His laws were given for a purpose and for their benefit.  Even medicine today relays the health benefits of men to be circumcised.  I suppose they wish to distinguish themselves upon principle, rather than looking into why such a thing was even presented in the first place and balancing the pros and cons. 

They use tatoos as an example, but I know of many parents who pierce their little girls ears as young as 9 months (or younger) and I don't hear an uprising about that.  Although, piercings can close over, it is still making a decision to physically alter their own children's bodies.  We could go so far as grooming their hair, powdering their bums, clipping their toenails, all things parents much choose to keep their children sanitary and safe; should we also ban these things which intrude upon the physical bodies of their own children.

But, whatever, it is telling that a penis, only part of the child, is given more rights outside the womb, than those whose whole bodies are disposed of and thrown away while still alive inside the womb.  How society has become so twisted and everyone just accepts it is even more telling.

[lamourlady]

I wonder if they thought about passing laws against homelessness, hunger, poor education, domestic violence, etc.....but passing laws on this....has a sinister overtone to me. 

No freaking doubt!

[_CREATIONIST_]

This is one of the few areas in which I agree with their principle to ban circumcision. I wrote a 5 page paper on circumcision back in college and I know it goes back to bible times but it's origins in the USA and popularization is complete and total Bullshit that was hyped up and popularized by hardcore eugenicists like Dr Kellogg for example. As far as I'm concerned, circumcision on newborn males who CANNOT give consent is flat out child abuse because there is NO MEDICAL REASON to circumcise other than for aesthetics. I had that choice stripped away from me when I was a newborn and would do anything to be uncut because it's MY BODY and I had a vital piece of my penis chopped off for no medical reason. I hate to rant but circumcision and people who advocate circumcision on newborns who cannot consent to having part of their body cut off really drive me up the wall. If you are an adult and want to get circumcised, go ahead, its your decision, but dont push it on innocent kids who dont know any better.

[Dok]

SF Circumcision Ban To Appear On November Ballot

In November, San Francisco voters will be asked to weigh in on what was until now a private family matter: male circumcision.

City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that an initiative that would ban the circumcision of males younger than 18 in San Francisco has received enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The practice would become a misdemeanor.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that should not be forced on a young child.

But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.

The initiative's backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date of a decades-old nationwide movement to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort in Massachusetts last year failed to gain traction.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/27941438/detail.html

[poncho]

This is one of the few areas in which I agree with their principle to ban circumcision. I wrote a 5 page paper on circumcision back in college and I know it goes back to bible times but it's origins in the USA and popularization is complete and total Bullshit that was hyped up and popularized by hardcore eugenicists like Dr Kellogg for example. As far as I'm concerned, circumcision on newborn males who CANNOT give consent is flat out child abuse because there is NO MEDICAL REASON to circumcise other than for aesthetics. I had that choice stripped away from me when I was a newborn and would do anything to be uncut because it's MY BODY and I had a vital piece of my penis chopped off for no medical reason. I hate to rant but circumcision and people who advocate circumcision on newborns who cannot consent to having part of their body cut off really drive me up the wall. If you are an adult and want to get circumcised, go ahead, its your decision, but dont push it on innocent kids who dont know any better.

Amen!!!!
25% of the nerve ending of Males Genitals are snipped away.  Go to Europe and see how many men would prefer to have thier junk, mutilated....
I would never have concented.  But as an infant, part of my body was taken away from me, without my concent.

Sense some people seem to be so, ready to remove the foreskin, lets also remove all kinds of stuff to be safe.
Lets remove arms, such that a child never hurts his arm.  Lets remove tongues, because kids stick thier tongues on frozen mailboxes and get hurt.
 Let's remove the entire genitals of both sexes, but first save sperm and eggs so kids can be made.  That way we can remove all STD's!!!!

Seriously, god made us a certain way.  Anyone who butchers infants, even for religeous reasons, is in the wrong.

[Kilika]

Seriously, god made us a certain way.  Anyone who butchers infants, even for religeous reasons, is in the wrong.

I have no idea what god your talking about, but God Almighty gave Moses the Law and circumcision is part of that Law, but since Jesus Christ is the fulfilling of the law for all mankind, it's no longer by the law but by grace, and as scripture says circumcision is of the heart and not of the letter.

Butcher? Take that up with God. Besides, by your argument, then parents are "butchering" their infants that pierce their infants ears.

But your missing the point. Kids are the responsibility of the parents, and government has no right to tell parents what traditions and religion the parents follow. To justify the socialists nanny state attitude, they claim it's unhealthy, a practice that has been done for thousands of years safely on countless male children over the ages.

So your logic is saying that you think parents aren't allowed to practice their religion unless you approve? Ever heard of freedom of religion? Apparently not. It's in that piece of paper called the Constitution.

[poncho]

I have no idea what god your talking about, but God Almighty gave Moses the Law and circumcision is part of that Law, but since Jesus Christ is the fulfilling of the law for all mankind, it's no longer by the law but by grace, and as scripture says circumcision is of the heart and not of the letter.

Butcher? Take that up with God. Besides, by your argument, then parents are "butchering" their infants that pierce their infants ears.

But your missing the point. Kids are the responsibility of the parents, and government has no right to tell parents what traditions and religion the parents follow. To justify the socialists nanny state attitude, they claim it's unhealthy, a practice that has been done for thousands of years safely on countless male children over the ages.

So your logic is saying that you think parents aren't allowed to practice their religion unless you approve? Ever heard of freedom of religion? Apparently not. It's in that piece of paper called the Constitution.

Thank god for the Constitution.  And guess what, my right to protect body and limbs was violated when I was circumcized.  End of story.
You think god made us a certain way, only to tell moses to alter us?  Really?   (Are you Jewish? Or is your flavor of religeon warped by Judism?   Ask yourself why most European men are not circumcizeed.  Most men in the world, for that matter are not.)

The rights of Religeon shouldn't allow mutilation.  You cannot equate piercing ears with a knife removing flesh that will never grow back.  Cut off your eye lids or go get your ears pierced; All the same to you...

You probably don't even know what your missing.
If you want circumcision, fine, but let it be the choice of the young child or adult at the very least.

[Kilika]

If you want circumcision, fine, but let it be the choice of the young child or adult at the very least.

  Isn't that what I said? It's the parents choice to make decisions for the child, not the state. It's not something that should even be voted on.

And had you read a little better what I said, you'd see I agree with you that it is a silly religious practice, that circumcision is now suppose to be of the heart by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost for theose that believe in Jesus Christ, not some cutting of flesh, which is at best ritualistic and of the law.

And no, your rights were not violated when you were a child because you didn't have the ability to defend yourself. You were not able to make any decisions about yourself. That's why we have parents. If you as a human being were somehow violated physically, that would fall on your parents. But then the UN makes the same kinds of arguments your making, claiming children have rights. Look into the UN "Rights of the Child" I think it's called. Children have the right to life and be free from harm, but all of that is the responsibility of the parent, not the public, the UN, nor you.

Seriously, what's your real complaint against circumcision? Medically speaking, there is no harm proven, no more than the claim being uncircumcised is unhealthy.

Both have their argument but neither prove anything other than some men have bad hygiene habits. So medically, it's a moot point. That leaves religious reasons. Which begs the question, who really are the people that are protesting circumcision?

Who defines mutilation? You? Apparently the whole United States thinks otherwise, and finds no mutilation to it, and thus circumcision is legal in the US.

They don't think punching a hole in a child's ears is mutilation either, which is actually spoken of as a sin in Levitical Law. For Christians, is piercings okay? It is discouraged and considered unedifying and vain. It serves more as a distraction. It's a form of self-expression that is born of vanity and glorifying one's self and not God, when Jesus says we should be humble and take the low seat and not run around making a scene.

[poncho]

Sorry for misunderstanding you.

But we disagree on many points.
When you say an infant has no rights... you are wrong.  They do.  When the parent does bodily harm, it is beyond thier right.  Another example is the religeous argement; to circumsise in the name of your religeon is, for example is pressing upon your infants right to freedom of religeon!!!!  They have not chosen yet...

You cannot go to a doctor, and insist on having your child's finger removed.  But the foreskin is ok?  How about an earlobe?  The webbing between the fingers?   It's just here in America and Isreal that this practice is so widespread.
FGM is banned in America to protect women (Muslim practice).  So why cannot men have the same protection?

What do I have against circumcsion? 
First, I'm scarred from it!  The scar tissue hurts where I should feel pleasure. 
Second, while you may not care about the loss of the second most sensitive part of your body, I DO!!!!  The only part that is more sensitive, is the glans, which the foreskin protects and keeps moisturized.
I would love to feel more pleasure with my wife.  That is something that was taken from me.


All the crap about it's hard to keep clean, for example is bunk.  Armpits are hard to keep clean. So are feet.  So are gums.  And what about the anus?  Not to mention the female genitals both internal and external.  All hard to keep clean.    And guess what?  In the middle east, the same reasons they justify FGM there, we use here.  It's easier to clean if there is less flesh.
Less chances of STD's.  Same excuse used with FGM.  And that is why I said, tongue in cheek to remove all sex organs and store sperm and eggs.  That would really cut down on the STD rate. 

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Can you fix it?  Nope.   That senstive skin is gone forever (25% of the penis's nerve endings gone.) 
Ear piercings close....

Why do you like Circumsion?  Did you have it done as an infant?  Do you not even slightly wonder what you had, albeit briefly?

[lamourlady]

Sorry for misunderstanding you.

But we disagree on many points.
When you say an infant has no rights... you are wrong.  They do.  When the parent does bodily harm, it is beyond thier right.  Another example is the religeous argement; to circumsise in the name of your religeon is, for example is pressing upon your infants right to freedom of religeon!!!!  They have not chosen yet...

You cannot go to a doctor, and insist on having your child's finger removed.  But the foreskin is ok?  How about an earlobe?  The webbing between the fingers?   It's just here in America and Isreal that this practice is so widespread.
FGM is banned in America to protect women (Muslim practice).  So why cannot men have the same protection?

What do I have against circumcsion? 
First, I'm scarred from it!  The scar tissue hurts where I should feel pleasure. 
Second, while you may not care about the loss of the second most sensitive part of your body, I DO!!!!  The only part that is more sensitive, is the glans, which the foreskin protects and keeps moisturized.
I would love to feel more pleasure with my wife.  That is something that was taken from me.


All the crap about it's hard to keep clean, for example is bunk.  Armpits are hard to keep clean. So are feet.  So are gums.  And what about the anus?  Not to mention the female genitals both internal and external.  All hard to keep clean.    And guess what?  In the middle east, the same reasons they justify FGM there, we use here.  It's easier to clean if there is less flesh.
Less chances of STD's.  Same excuse used with FGM.  And that is why I said, tongue in cheek to remove all sex organs and store sperm and eggs.  That would really cut down on the STD rate. 

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Can you fix it?  Nope.   That senstive skin is gone forever (25% of the penis's nerve endings gone.) 
Ear piercings close....

Why do you like Circumsion?  Did you have it done as an infant?  Do you not even slightly wonder what you had, albeit briefly?

You may want to tell this to the millions of parents who decide to kill their children while still in the womb.  This is the most hypocritical part of this whole freaking argument, worrying about a small piece of skin as opposed to a child's life.  Do you or anyone else not see this?  Abortion is a parent deciding a child's future by snuffing it out before it even begins so how does this fit into what parents are allowed to decide or not?

[Brocke]

Well if you believe that HIV actually exists then there is pretty compelling evidence that Male Circumcision lowers the risk of HIV transmission to the circumcised man.

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

International Observational Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

Another review that included stringent assessment of 10 potential confounding factors and was stratified by study type or study population was published in 2003 [6]. Most of the studies were from Africa. Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results. The one large prospective cohort study in this group showed a significant protective effect: the odds of infection were 42% lower for circumcised men [7]. The remaining 19 studies were conducted in populations at high risk. These studies found a consistent, substantial protective effect, which increased with adjustment for confounding. Four of these were cohort studies: all demonstrated a protective effect, with two being statistically significant.

read more: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm


Prison Planet Forum Threads of Interest

Bill Gates Helps Fund Mass Circumcision Programme
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=111617.0


Circumcision offers HIV protection
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=77058.0


Male Circumcision Exposed
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=search2


Conveyor Belt Circumcision - 80% of Zimbabwe young men-UN aim
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=180452.0


Circumcision hegelian dialectics used to polarize and cause civil strife
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=175664.0


Anatomy of an Epidemic - the HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=196053.0

[Kilika]

Sorry for misunderstanding you.

But we disagree on many points.
When you say an infant has no rights... you are wrong.  They do.  When the parent does bodily harm, it is beyond thier right.  Another example is the religeous argement; to circumsise in the name of your religeon is, for example is pressing upon your infants right to freedom of religeon!!!!  They have not chosen yet...

They haven't chosen because they don't have the ability to know what to choose. If a parent tells a child not to cross the street, is the parent infringing on the child's right to travel? The parent tells the child not to cross the street because the parent knows the child could get hit by a passing car. But then the parent could instead not infringe on the child's right to free travel by not teaching them to look both ways before crossing a street, and instead let the child fiind out on their own the realities of life.

As for freedom of religion, the child does have the right to change their religious beliefs as they gain more knowledge in life. Some decisions made by parents are not reversable such as circumcision. That's what we have to live with, that our parents did the best they knew how. We can't choose where we were born either. Such is life.

You cannot go to a doctor, and insist on having your child's finger removed.  But the foreskin is ok?  How about an earlobe?  The webbing between the fingers?   It's just here in America and Isreal that this practice is so widespread.
FGM is banned in America to protect women (Muslim practice).  So why cannot men have the same protection?

Saying it isn't widespread doesn't prove that is the case. I don't know. I do know it is a practice of both Jew and Christian, so that covers a lot of people. Part of religious freedom is allowing people to practice their religion without others meddling, so by law, if a religion is to cut off the pinky finger of the first born males, then by law shouldn't that practice not be infringed on? There is a difference between maiming somebody or botching a medical proceedure, and something that amounts to comestic alterations. FGM is banned for a very good reason; it can seriously negatively affect the woman. There is a point where it goes from cosmetic and medically neutral, to medically damaging and harmful.

You say the child right's are violated, so what if there is a law that says parents must wait till the child is old enough to understand the situation, say 7-10 years old? That won't work for certain religions, such as Judaism...

9   And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 
10   This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 
11   And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 
12   And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed. 
13   He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 
14   And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Genesis 17:9-14 (KJB)

What do I have against circumcsion? 
First, I'm scarred from it!  The scar tissue hurts where I should feel pleasure. 
Second, while you may not care about the loss of the second most sensitive part of your body, I DO!!!!  The only part that is more sensitive, is the glans, which the foreskin protects and keeps moisturized.
I would love to feel more pleasure with my wife.  That is something that was taken from me.

That is a case of a botched proceedure, not a normal result of the proceedure. It's terrible you suffer because the doctor was inept, but like I said, your results are not normal.


All the crap about it's hard to keep clean, for example is bunk.  Armpits are hard to keep clean. So are feet.  So are gums.  And what about the anus?  Not to mention the female genitals both internal and external.  All hard to keep clean.    And guess what?  In the middle east, the same reasons they justify FGM there, we use here.  It's easier to clean if there is less flesh.
Less chances of STD's.  Same excuse used with FGM.  And that is why I said, tongue in cheek to remove all sex organs and store sperm and eggs.  That would really cut down on the STD rate. 

Like I said, both sides present their evidence, but in the end, history shows it's medically not a dominate issue either way. Both are equally reasonable arguments.

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Can you fix it?  Nope.   That senstive skin is gone forever (25% of the penis's nerve endings gone.) 
Ear piercings close....

I agree, it can't be undone.

Why do you like Circumsion?  Did you have it done as an infant?  Do you not even slightly wonder what you had, albeit briefly?

I never said I liked it. I actually have said "it's a silly religious practice". No, my parents had it done for me when I was an infant. I'm indifferent as to whether I think they were wrong or right. It was their legal choice to make for me. Nothing I can do about it now anyway.

Wonder what I had? What's the point? I guess to be honest, I must have pondered it, however briefly. Surely I have at some point over the nearly 50 years of my life. But I honestly don't have any issue with the decision, and it has really never been an issue. With your medical issues, I can see where it's been at the forefront of your thoughts all your life.

[Dok]

Ban on Circumcision Could Become Law in Santa Monica

Circumcising a boy under the age of 18, even for religious reasons, may soon be against the law in Santa Monica.

A proposed ban on circumcision is already on the November ballot in San Francisco.

Now supporters of the MGM Bill, which stands for male genital mutilation, are hoping to do the same in Santa Monica.

Female circumcision, or also called female genital mutilation, is already outlawed in the U.S.

Jenna Troutman, a spokeswoman for the group MGM Bill and founder of the website wholebabyrevolution.com, says males should get the same protection.

The group describes circumcision as a painful and unnecessary procedure.

But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV, urinary infections and the transmission of STD's.

Circumcision of male infants is a religious requirement in Judaism and some say a ban would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The proposed measure in San Francisco would "make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18,"

Under the San Francisco measure, circumcising a boy would result in a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-circumcision-ban-santa-monica,0,857021.story

[Dok]

Judge moves to block San Francisco circumcision ban vote

San Francisco residents will not be voting in November on whether to prohibit circumcision after all, according to a tentative ruling by a Superior Court judge made public Wednesday.

Judge Loretta M. Giorgi ordered the city’s director of elections to strike the measure from the ballot because she said  it was “expressly preempted” by the California Business and Professions Code.

Under that statute, only the state is allowed to regulate medical procedures, and “the evidence presented is overwhelmingly persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure,” the ruling said.

Proponents of the ban argue that circumcision is akin to male genital mutilation and should not be allowed. A group of doctors, families and community groups sued last month to get the measure off the ballot, arguing that it was anti-Semitic and violated state law.

Giorgi ruled that “it serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot after such a ruling has been made.”

She is expected to finalize the decision at a hearing Thursday morning.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/judge-moves-to-block-san-francisco-circumcision-ban-vote.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+delicious%2Fgqlf+%28Christian+Headlines+Top+Headlines%29

[Dok]

Male circumcision rates at hospitals dip: CDC


The number of baby boys getting circumcised in hospitals has dropped slightly in the past decade, health experts said on Thursday.

Researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from three national surveys to track changes in hospital rates of circumcision, which involves removing the foreskin of the penis.

In one survey, newborn male circumcision rates fell to 56.9 percent in 2008 from 62.9 percent in 1999. In another, rates of circumcision fell to 54.7 percent in 2010 from 58.4 percent in 2001. In a third, rates fell to 56.3 percent in 2008 from 63.5 percent in 1999.

The CDC said the figures likely underestimated the actual rate of circumcisions because they did not include circumcisions performed within communities.

rest: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/02/us-male-circumcision-idUSTRE78141H20110902

[Jordan]

This is one of the few areas in which I agree with their principle to ban circumcision. I wrote a 5 page paper on circumcision back in college and I know it goes back to bible times but it's origins in the USA and popularization is complete and total Bullshit that was hyped up and popularized by hardcore eugenicists like Dr Kellogg for example. As far as I'm concerned, circumcision on newborn males who CANNOT give consent is flat out child abuse because there is NO MEDICAL REASON to circumcise other than for aesthetics. I had that choice stripped away from me when I was a newborn and would do anything to be uncut because it's MY BODY and I had a vital piece of my penis chopped off for no medical reason. I hate to rant but circumcision and people who advocate circumcision on newborns who cannot consent to having part of their body cut off really drive me up the wall. If you are an adult and want to get circumcised, go ahead, its your decision, but dont push it on innocent kids who dont know any better.

I think I read this argument in another area here - I don't feel you are speaking for those that know how taking one right away leads to more - you are willing to sacrifice that because you have foreskin envy. I don't agree it's a good reason. You think about your penis too much get a new hobby.

[Caffeinator]

I think I read this argument in another area here - I don't feel you are speaking for those that know how taking one right away leads to more - you are willing to sacrifice that because you have foreskin envy. I don't agree it's a good reason. You think about your penis too much get a new hobby.

Maybe that's his problem...his hobby is his penis.

[Dok]

German Court Makes Circumcision for Religious Reasons a Crime

A German court has ruled that circumcising male infants for religious reasons, as Jews in particular have done for thousands of years, constitutes grievous bodily harm and is a crime, regardless of parental consent.

A public health specialist who is also a traditional Jewish circumciser called the ruling “stupid,” suggesting Wednesday that while “politically-correct modern liberal thinkers” would not be open to persuasion about Jewish values, they should at least consider studies finding wide-ranging health benefits from the procedure.

Anti-circumcision groups – “Intactivists” – welcomed the ruling and urged courts elsewhere to follow suit.

In a ruling bound to fuel a long-running debate over circumcision, a regional court in Cologne said Tuesday that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents.”

“A child’s body is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision,” German media outlets quoted the ruling as saying. “This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later about his own religious affiliation.”

“The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised,” it said.

For Jews, however, circumcision of baby boys at eight days has been a key tenet of faith for some 4,000 years. Prescribed by God in Genesis 17, it symbolized that a person was in covenant with his Creator.

The removal of the foreskin is also a rite of passage in Islam – sometimes at birth, sometimes at seven or at puberty. In some African cultures, circumcision plays a part in manhood rituals in the mid- to late-teens.

Millions of parents in America and other western countries routinely circumcise their baby boys, for reasons including hygiene, health benefits or family tradition.

The case in Germany arose when prosecutors charged a doctor in a lower court with grievous bodily harm, after a four-year-old Muslim boy he circumcised experienced complications and bleeding.

That lower court acquitted the doctor, on the grounds he had acted with the parents’ consent and so had been within the law.

In Tuesday’s regional court decision, the acquittal held, since the court said the doctor was not aware that the procedure was illegal. Now that the court has declared it so, the ruling may well set a legal precedent applicable in future cases.

The head of Germany’s Jewish Central Committee, Dieter Graumann, called the ruling an “outrageous and insensitive act.”

Prof. Fred Ehrlich of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Australia has circumcised thousands of boys, both as a surgeon and as a mohel, an official Jewish circumciser.

Invited to respond to the court ruling, he told CNSNews.com Wednesday it was “stupid, if nothing else, but then we know the law is an ass.”

“There is no way of persuading politically-correct modern liberal thinkers of the role of Jewish values, but they missed the latest statistical research data,” Ehrlich said.

Over the past decade or so, studies have found significant health benefits from the practice, including a lower risk of contracting HIV-AIDS among heterosexual men, lower rates of infection from the virus that causes cervical cancer among the wives or partners of circumcised men, and most recently, a slightly lower risk of developing prostate cancer.

“Circumcision is akin to vaccination,” Ehrlich said. “It has significant benefits in preventing urinary infection in infants, with its small but not negligible mortality rate, in preventing AIDS in adulthood, in preventing penile cancer as well as cervical cancer in female partners.

“There is no doubt about the benefit of circumcision, so all we need to do is find out the best time.”

The ideal age was undoubtedly the biblically mandated eighth days after birth, Ehrlich argued.

“Our Patriarchs were on the ball because neonates profit most – urinary infection, phimosis – the operation is easiest and can be done with local anesthetic and the earlier the better,” he said. (Phimosis is the inability to retract the foreskin.)

“The first few days of life may be associated with excessive bleeding but the blood clotting mechanisms are improved by about one week of age,” Ehrlich said. “So, the eighth day is close to the perfect time to carry out this public health measure – forget about the Jews.”

Critics, such as the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in the U.S. and the International Coalition for Genital Integrity (ICGI) strongly oppose what they regard as a medically-unnecessary procedure, which some critics say amounts to mutilation.

“We applaud the German court ruling, that acknowledges the rights of all children to genital autonomy and believe that courts worldwide should follow suit,” NOCIRC executive director Marilyn Milos said in response to queries.

“From the baby’s perspective, circumcision is an assault,” ICGI director Dan Bollinger told CNSNews.com. “The German court realizes this, too.”

“The consensus among Intactivists I’ve talked to is that this ruling is the latest in a long line of rulings and legislation increasing children’s rights,” Bollinger added. “Intactivism is at the same chaotic stage as Women’s Liberation was fifty years ago and Abolition was a century-and-a-half ago.”

He said the U.S. Constitution “guarantees that all citizens, including children, have an inalienable right to be secure in their own bodies. Parents cannot run roughshod over children’s rights whether they are being mean or mean well.”

Georganne Chapin, executive director of another group, Intact America, called the ruling “clear-headed and consistent with the principles of universal human rights.”

“Just as western democracies have adopted laws against the genital cutting of girls, irrespective of the culture or religious beliefs of their parents, we believe that it is only a matter of time before all western democracies refuse to tolerate religious or cultural justifications for the genital cutting of boys.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/german-court-makes-circumcision-religious-reasons-crime

[Dok]

German Circumcision Ban Rooted in Anti-Semitism?

In a ruling that should give Jews in Germany pause for thought, the District Court of Cologne outlawed circumcision. The court further stated that parents don't have the right to impose their faith on a child.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center told CBN News, "There's not a snowball's chance in h--l the Jewish people would ever look to a German court, especially when it comes to how we should define our values or fulfill our traditions."

"The declaration of one person in a German court will have zero impact on the Jewish people who have been filling the commandment of brit milah (the covenant of circumcision) since the time of Abraham," Rabbi Cooper said. "The judge should have found another way without declaring that circumcision is illegal. His ruling is illegal."

A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry told CBN News they were not ready to comment yet because they don't know how binding the ruling is since it's only a district court.

The ruling followed a botched circumcision by a Muslim doctor on a 4-year-old boy. The court ruled that circumcision constitutes physical "damage" to children and therefore could not be protected under freedom of religion. Muslims also practice male circumcision though not necessarily during infancy, with some also advocating female circumcision.

Germany's Jewish community leaders called the ruling "outrageous and insensitive."

In Judaism, brit milah has been practiced for millennia. It is based on God's commandment to Abraham and initiates the newborn into the faith of his forefathers. The procedure takes place when a male child is eight days old, the day when the infant's potassium level, which helps blood to clot, peaks, medical researchers later discovered.

This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations … And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant. (Gen. 17:10-14)

The ruling by Cologne's district court is not the first evidence of anti-Semitic leanings in the city.

The Jerusalem Post reports that in 2010, Cologne's public prosecutor dismissed a petition against a cartoon depicting a man with a Star of David eating a Palestinian child using a fork draped in an American flag, a knife with the word "Gaza" etched on it, and a glass filled with blood next to the plate.

The prosecutor ruled the cartoon did not qualify as anti-Semitic because it didn't fulfill the criteria of incitement to hatred.

Germany is not alone in the attempt to ban ritual circumcision. Sweden, Norway, Holland and Finland, as well as two groups in California, have also tried.

In 2011, a group in San Francisco gathered 12,000 signatures in support of a measure outlawing male circumcision under the age of 18 regardless of a family's religion. But a judge in California ruled the ordinance would infringe on religious freedom and it was removed from the ballot. Gov. Jerry Brown later signed a bill preventing future such attempts by local authorities.

Rabbi Cooper says all of it comes from the same root.

"Whether it's a court in Germany or an elitist group of politicians in Norway or activists in San Francisco trying to protect the health of American youngsters, it all goes back to the same root," he said.

"The Jewish people's commitment to brit milah outlived Stalin, Hitler and all the other tyrants who understood the importance of brit milah to the Jewish people. In the former Soviet Union, Jews put their lives on the line in order to get a brit milah," the rabbi said.


http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2012/June/German-Circumcision-Ban-Rooted-in-Antisemitism/

[Jackson Holly]

Circumcision is genital mutilation, pure and simple
and should not be allowed as a standard procedure.
Parents should be fully informed ... if they decide
to allow it in a religious rite (as the Jewish bris) fine ...
and may God have mercy on their souls.

[Dok]

and may God have mercy on their souls.

It was his idea to begin with

[Jackson Holly]

 ... to create a perfectly designed protective
foreskin and then to have it chopped off
barbarically at birth?

[Dok]

act of obedience.

[Jackson Holly]

European Jewish and Muslim leaders combine to voice their
growing anger at 'affront to human rights'

TONY PATERSON

EXCERPT:
European Jewish leaders furiously condemned a German court's ruling outlawing circumcision as the "worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust" yesterday and demanded that Chancellor Angela Merkel's government intervene to protect the practice as a religious rite.

The damning remarks came amid growing European Jewish and Muslim outrage over a ruling by a Cologne court last month declaring that the circumcision of young boys could be considered a criminal offence because it caused bodily harm and infringed a child's right to integrity.

Yesterday, Moscow's Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the president of the Conference of European Rabbis who made the Holocaust comments, added: "I see no future for Jews in Germany if the ruling is upheld".

Opinion polls conducted after the ruling found that a majority of Germans approved of the court's decision. Rabbi Goldschmidt said the poll's findings were "shocking". He said the court's ruling suggested that Muslims and Jews were no longer socially acceptable in Europe.


 ... just saying'.   

MORE HERE ~ ~ ~ > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/circumcision-ban-is-the-worst-attack-on-jews-since-holocaust-7939593.html

[_CREATIONIST_]

European Jewish and Muslim leaders combine to voice their
growing anger at 'affront to human rights'

TONY PATERSON

EXCERPT:
European Jewish leaders furiously condemned a German court's ruling outlawing circumcision as the "worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust" yesterday and demanded that Chancellor Angela Merkel's government intervene to protect the practice as a religious rite.

The damning remarks came amid growing European Jewish and Muslim outrage over a ruling by a Cologne court last month declaring that the circumcision of young boys could be considered a criminal offence because it caused bodily harm and infringed a child's right to integrity.

Yesterday, Moscow's Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the president of the Conference of European Rabbis who made the Holocaust comments, added: "I see no future for Jews in Germany if the ruling is upheld".

Opinion polls conducted after the ruling found that a majority of Germans approved of the court's decision. Rabbi Goldschmidt said the poll's findings were "shocking". He said the court's ruling suggested that Muslims and Jews were no longer socially acceptable in Europe.


 ... just saying'.   

MORE HERE ~ ~ ~ > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/circumcision-ban-is-the-worst-attack-on-jews-since-holocaust-7939593.html

Good for the Germans, circumcision is Mutilation and a human rights violation

[Dok]

Good for the Germans, circumcision is Mutilation and a human rights violation

heck ya, its not like they havent done this before...

[Dok]

Germany pledges to protect religious circumcision

The German government on Friday pledged quick action to protect the right of Jews and Muslims to circumcise baby boys on religious grounds, after a court ruling that prompted international outcry.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters it was "concerned" about the judgement published by a Cologne regional court last month calling the religious rite of circumcision a criminal act.

"It is absolutely clear to the federal government that we want Jewish, we want Muslim religious life in Germany. Circumcisions carried out in a responsible way must not be subject to prosecution in this country," he said.

"It is urgently necessary that we establish legal certainty."

He said that aides from Merkel's office would now discuss with the relevant government ministries ways to put the "ancient rite" on firm legal footing.

"It is clear this cannot be put on the back burner. Freedom to practise religion is a cherished legal principle," he said.

A spokeswoman for the justice ministry said that there were three options for new draft laws to protect circumcisions on religious grounds that were under "intensive" review.

The leader of Merkel's conservative parliamentary group, Volker Kauder, called for a cross-party resolution to this effect to be passed in the Bundestag during a session next Thursday, in an interview to be published Saturday in the daily Die Welt.

The Cologne ruling said religious circumcision of male infants was tantamount to grievous bodily harm, a criminal act subject to prosecution.

It concerned a case brought against a doctor who had circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy in line with his parents' wishes.

When, a few days after the operation, the boy suffered heavy bleeding, prosecutors charged the doctor.

The court later acquitted the doctor himself of causing harm but judged that "the right of a child to keep his physical integrity trumps the rights of parents" to observe their religion, potentially setting a legal precedent.

German diplomats admit that the ruling has proved "disastrous" to the country's image abroad, particularly in light of its Nazi past, following uproar from officials in Israel as well as Muslim countries.

European Muslim and Jewish groups banded together this week to criticise the ruling and called on German MPs to pass legislation protecting the practice.

Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the Conference of European Rabbis, who organised an "emergency" meeting in Berlin of around 40 Orthodox Jewish clerics Thursday on the judgement, called it "perhaps one of the gravest attacks on Jewish life in the post-Holocaust world."

Goldschmidt, also head of the rabbinical court of the former Soviet states, said if other judges went along with the Cologne ruling "it would mean that a large part of the (Jewish) community does not have a future in Germany".

Opposition leaders said Friday they would back a new law, with the head of the Social Democrats Sigmar Gabriel calling for "legal clarity" on the matter and Renate Kuenast of the Greens welcoming the fact that a "storm of outrage" had "finally led the government to see reason".

Legal experts, however, note that drafting legislation could prove tricky in balancing religious freedom on the one hand against "physical integrity" on the other.

Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger noted this week that even with a new law, a federal court would likely have the last word on the issue.

The Cologne judges' ruling is final and cannot be appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court.

But although it only applied to the case at hand, as long as no other judgement contradicts it and no new law is passed, attorneys say that doctors and parents run the risk of prosecution under the status quo.

http://news.yahoo.com/germany-pledges-protect-religious-circumcision-111738000.html?_esi=1

[_CREATIONIST_]

heck ya, its not like they havent done this before...

So your comparing banning Male Genital mutilation on UNCONSENTING newborn males to nazism somehow? If a consenting adult wants to cut his junk up, I don't care. I have a MAJOR Problem with people who force a completely unnecessary and drastic surgery on an UNCONSENTING person, all in the name of god...lol, as if he actually Cares if your penis is mutilated.

[Kilika]

So your comparing banning Male Genital mutilation on UNCONSENTING newborn males to nazism somehow? If a consenting adult wants to cut his junk up, I don't care. I have a MAJOR Problem with people who force a completely unnecessary and drastic surgery on an UNCONSENTING person, all in the name of god...lol, as if he actually Cares if your penis is mutilated.

I really would hate to see how your kids turn out if your allowing them to make their own decisions like an adult.

Have you considered that it may be a religious requirement for a child to have someting done, but as a child they don't know that, thus aren't able to make the decisions for themselves. And what if that thing must be done as a child only? How can the child know what they are called to do? They don't, that's why they have parents!  

If a child is sick, and in need of surgery, do the doctors ask the child if they want their body cut on? NOPE. They ask, and get consent from, the PARENTS, as the child is not able to make mature adult decisions.

A child is not an "unconsenting person". They are a child, incapable yet to make life decisions as an adult.

What you propose sounds just like the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/

[jerryweaver]

http://rapeofinnocence.com/

The Rape of Innocence
Female Genital Mutilation & Circumcision in the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QtN7JmMUfZE
circumcision is barbaric mutilation part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzBJoW-iJ6E&feature=related



Doesn’t sound like a long, hard debate but common sense…

Don’t do to anyone else what you wouldn’t want for yourself… One woman said, “i wouldn’t want to be circumcised.” AMEN… end of debate.

        
Circumcised as an adult…
Posted: January 29th, 2011 | Author: admin | Filed under: Circumcision, Sex | Comments Off
“When I got circumcised at age 27, I lost 40 to 50% sensation. Now I have to put most of my mind into it instead of feeling anything.”



Remember, men can restore!

        
FGM & circumcision in the USA
Posted: December 17th, 2010 | Author: admin | Filed under: Children, Circumcision, PTSD | Comments Off
The Rape of Innocence:
Female genital mutilation & circumcision in the USA

Most people do not know that in the 1800s, the masturbation theory of disease was in vogue and consequently, childhood masturbation was severely discouraged. Children were outfitted with medical devices to prevent them from “touching themselves”.

Doctors, not content with restraining children, cut parts of their genitals off. The theory was, that without the exquisite sensation the very richly innervated preputial flesh offered, children would no longer have an urge to touch themselves.

The theory didn’t work, for even if the really good feelings were gone, the body’s hormones drive humans — and all creatures large and small — to reproduce and to use the reproductive organs, even if they have been surgically altered.

The “touching yourself is taboo” slid into the 20th century and circumcision and clitoridectomy were both big business in the USA. Male circumcision still is.

My parents jumped on the clitoridectomy bandwagon and I learned from the experience that circumcision can not only ruin a body, it can also ruin a life. It can throw a child into fear and dread, anxiety, anger and depression. I was suicidal from age five or seven, at least until age 26.  I had night terrors until I was 54. Losing the body parts important for sexual satisfaction, I never bonded with a man and I never had a family.

Mine is only one story in many millions. “All the lonely people… where have they all come from?”

I guess it is not surprising that I feel very passionately about the subject of circumcision, human rights, health, healing and miracles. It is no surprise that I want to do all I can to protect children from adults who wield sharp knives.

Learn more.  Please buy my book or the ebook. Tell others too. The Rape of Innocence makes a good case for the end of circumcision of both males and females. No one should have to endure it.

Children need to be protected from knives, myths, superstitions, sales pitches, tissue pirates, fear, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  Since children cannot speak for themselves, they rely on us adults to speak for them. Please help make this travesty, history. .

[jerryweaver]

philippians 3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.

2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh

Anyone who makes a religious argument for cutting on babies is not a christian.   

[jerryweaver]

      

   



WE HAVE TO REACH OUR GOAL BY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT!

The AIDS conference is less than a week away, and everything has to be paid for by midnight tonight. We only have $2,900 to go!

Will you make a tax-deductible contribution now help us make an impact in Washington?




The International AIDS Conference is just a week away—and with people around the world arguing about circumcision, from Germany and the Netherlands to London, Australia, and here in New York— it’s critical for Intact America to have a strong presence inside that conference center.

We know that circumcision does not prevent AIDS. We know that condoms are much more effective in stopping the spread of HIV. We know that money is being squandered on mass circumcision efforts based on bogus science.

Now the rest of the world needs to know, and we need your help.

We have to raise $2,900 by midnight tonight to cover the final costs of the conference. Will you help push us over the edge, so we can speak loudly and clearly for the world’s men who are being robbed of their birthright?

We’re down to the wire, but I know that—with your help—we will make it.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

Sincerely,


Georganne Chapin
Executive Director, Intact America
www.intactamerica.org

 


P.S. Remember, the deadline is midnight tonight! PLEASE GIVE NOW.

 
Intact America
PO Box 8516
Tarrytown, NY 10591
   
© 2012 Intact America. Please do not reply to this email. If you would like to contact us, please go to our contact page. If you would like to unsubscribe from the Intact America list, you can visit your subscription management page.

[Modzilla_Kicker]

“There are five things from the fitrah (natural disposition of man): using metal (blade for removing the pubic hair), circumcision, trimming the mustache, plucking the armpit hair, and cutting the nails” [Bukhari, 5509]

Grooming & Circumcision

Acts that correspond to the Nature of Mankind:
Allah has chosen certain acts for all of His prophets and their followers to perform. These acts distinguish them from the rest of mankind, and are known as sunan al-fitra, (the acts that correspond to the nature of mankind).

Circumcision:
This prevents dirt from getting on one's penis, and also makes it easy to keep it clean

More: http://www.islamiska.org/e/g1.htm

[Modzilla_Kicker]

Apparently, these are the most sublime expressions of naturalness and should be left intact:



More: http://www.digitalbusstop.com/freaky-long-fingernails/

[EvadingGrid]

Actually the popularization of circumcision in the USA was an attempt to prevent the sin of masturbation.

I'm being only partly serious.
But, yes historically it is true cause of the popularity of circumcision of males in the USA

My question is did it work ?
 

[_CREATIONIST_]

I really would hate to see how your kids turn out if your allowing them to make their own decisions like an adult.

Have you considered that it may be a religious requirement for a child to have someting done, but as a child they don't know that, thus aren't able to make the decisions for themselves. And what if that thing must be done as a child only? How can the child know what they are called to do? They don't, that's why they have parents!  

If a child is sick, and in need of surgery, do the doctors ask the child if they want their body cut on? NOPE. They ask, and get consent from, the PARENTS, as the child is not able to make mature adult decisions.

A child is not an "unconsenting person". They are a child, incapable yet to make life decisions as an adult.

What you propose sounds just like the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/

A Child IS an UNCONSENTING person. I was mutilated at birth, And was Never able to give my consent to circumcision. All Im saying is let a person decide when they are 18 and able to give an informed choice for themselves. By your logic therefore, it's glad to know you have no problem with Female circumcision or how about let's start cutting off people's noses at birth because their is a big chance it will get clogged because of a cold and you will produce snot.

Circumcision in the USA was pushed by HARDCORE Eugenicists at the turn of the century. THERE IS NO MEDICAL REASON FOR A CIRCUMCISION. I have no problem with circumcision by itself, what I do have a major problem with is pushing it on a newborn baby when there is no medical reason for it to be done.

[Kilika]

Circumcision in the USA was pushed by HARDCORE Eugenicists at the turn of the century. THERE IS NO MEDICAL REASON FOR A CIRCUMCISION. I have no problem with circumcision by itself, what I do have a major problem with is pushing it on a newborn baby when there is no medical reason for it to be done.

Good grief! 

For the religious, it's not about medicine you clown. It's about exercising one's faith. And no, I don't support literal female circumcision. It's not in the bible for starters, and secondly, it's not about the physical. It's spiritual circumcision. Literal circumcision is of the old Judaic Law that Jews go by.

How do you feel about people trying to dictate how you worship? But because you got an attitude about your own flesh (or maybe it's just about your hatered of religion?), you think it's okay to force your opinions on others? Hypocrite.

And quit using scriptures that you don't even believe in.

If you had really bothered to find out the truth, you'd know that circumcision is that of the heart, and not of the flesh for Christians.