San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
buddy431
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby buddy431 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:37 am UTC

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/28/circumcision.ban.voting/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Spoiler:
(CNN) -- San Francisco residents will not be voting on whether male circumcisions should be banned in the city this fall.
A Superior Court judge ordered Thursday that the proposed measure, which had initially made it onto the November 8 city ballot, be removed entirely.
The measure proposed banning male circumcisions with the penalty of jail time or a $1,000 fine. It would not have granted religious exemptions.
From the beginning, the controversial ballot measure faced strong resistance from medical, religious and civil liberties groups.
Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi wrote that male circumcision is "a widely practiced medical procedure" and that medical services are left to the regulation of the state, not individual cities.
The judge's ruling was hailed by the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Anti-Defamation League and others who had sued to remove the measure from the ballot.
"While we are confident that the overwhelming majority of San Franciscans would have voted to defeat this extreme measure and are grateful for the outpouring of support from every sector of the community, we believe the right decision was made in the right venue," said Abby Michelson Porth, associate director of Jewish Community Relations Council.
The plaintiff's efforts were also supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and San Francisco's Medical Society. And even the San Francisco City Attorney's office expressed concerns about whether the measure was constitutional.
"It's unusual for a judge to order an initiative off the ballot, but the proposed circumcision ban presented that rare case where the court should block an election on an initiative," said ACLU Northern California staff attorney Margaret Crosby in a released statement. "Not only is the ban patently illegal, it also threatened family privacy and religious freedom. The court's order protects fundamental constitutional values in San Francisco."
Anti-circumcision advocates who had gathered more than 7,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot expressed disappointment and said they would appeal.
"To remove an initiative before it comes on ballot is an extraordinarily irregular thing to do," said Lloyd Schofield, who is part of a Bay Area advocacy group that says the surgery violates human rights and likens it to "male genital mutilation."
"To go to this length to have it struck from the ballot is undemocratic," he said. "It's very, very unfortunate."


When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussion about circumcision?

Anyway, what I find more interesting is not the proposal itself, but rather that it was removed by a judge, even though it garnered the required support to put it on the ballot. The judge has said that a city cannot regulate medical procedures (that's the state's job), which is at least a plausible sounding reason for the ruling. Does anybody know how true this is? I can't think of any cases of cities trying to regulate medical procedures, but I'm not real familiar with this area of medicine and law.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:48 am UTC

Yeah, I'm not seeing how a ban is very legit. But lets rehash all those arguments again and have at it.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:57 am UTC

A quick Googling revealed something which the CNN article didn't say (shoddy reporting, imo, unless it changed in the intervening time). The CNN article makes it sound like a total ban on circumcision for any reason, which I would consider over the top. As far as I could tell, it was a total ban on providing circumcision for those under 18. I'm still unclear, however, on whether there were exceptions for medical reasons (there explicitly weren't for religious ones). If it's a total ban for those under 18, and not a "you can opt in with parental approval", then it has me grumbling more stridently about age-of-consent stuff, but that may be necessary to prevent "My paren-*looks over shoulder* I mean...um..."I" am electing to get this surgery..." situations.

Quibbles over the wording of the bill aside, though, the judge's objection seems reasonable enough, at least to me. This completely orthogonal to the issue of whether I think involuntary male circumcision should be permitted (which I'm sure is the real target, not "pre-adulthood" male circumcision).
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Tirian » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:57 am UTC

I'm impressed that this time the court challenge happened *before* the abuse of direct democracy. Sweet move, California!!

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:03 am UTC

buddy431 wrote:The judge has said that a city cannot regulate medical procedures (that's the state's job), which is at least a plausible sounding reason for the ruling. Does anybody know how true this is?

Completely, in California.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby curtis95112 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:13 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
buddy431 wrote:The judge has said that a city cannot regulate medical procedures (that's the state's job), which is at least a plausible sounding reason for the ruling. Does anybody know how true this is?

Completely, in California.


So the removal was based on a technicality about state rights/city rights and nothing to do with the ban itself?
Then not much to discuss here, it seems.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:14 am UTC

No, but it's not like that ever stopped N&A from having an argument.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:20 am UTC

First time for everything?

(There is a terrible commercial on a local radio station that says "There's a first time for everything. And that means there must also be a last time." And then my head explodes.)
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:22 am UTC

As someone very much against circumcision, I'm okay with this. Not making an exemption for religious purposes is kind of a big fuck you to Judaism. And big derp on the not figuring out they couldn't even do this.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:31 am UTC

Isn't Islam big on it too? And like, a handful of other culture/religions as well?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby KittenKaboodle » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:55 am UTC

buddy431 wrote:When's the last time this forum had a reasonable discussion about circumcision? [Strikethrough text removed for clarity]

I may be going out on a limb here (but not by much)
Given that {discusions about circumcision} are a subset of {all discusions} not vice versa, I'm going to say never.

I'm was having trouble finding the text of the actual measure which I think would be useful to have in case of a reasonable disscusion, (not that that would happen in any case) snark aside, if anyone has a link it would be apreciated. I tried a little harder; http://www.sfmgmbill.org/Site/Home.html

Only minors*, so my idea of suggesting ban on other body midifications (peircing, tats, scarification, etc.) would be stupid. And anyway the sponsor didn't turn out to be the tattooed freak** I was sort of expecting, he looks like your friendly neiborhood serial killer (too much hair for a "skinhead"), serouiusly, he makes my skin crawl, I don't know why, I'm not jewish, but there is just something about him..

*Male minors that is, odddly specific that.
** that is tattooed && freak, NOT tattooed == freak, but hey, as the OP said, bitter argument

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:57 am UTC

... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby curtis95112 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:06 am UTC



Isn't this a related but separate issue?
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:09 am UTC

It's a rather long discussion about the legitimacy of male circumcision.

And incidentally, considering that thread was about the CDC pushing an agenda of circumcisions for all, and this thread is about SF pushing an agenda of circumcisions for none, I think they're actually quite related.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby KittenKaboodle » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:42 am UTC


Is that directed at me?
allow me to clarify:
[snark]
"When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussionabout circumcision?" just about three years ago
"When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussion about circumcision?" I'm going to say never
the following taken out of sequence:
Heisenberg wrote:
Zell wrote:Except "that no circumcisions for any" is a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices?

Enslaving Africans was a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices, also. So... we're going to need something better than an argument ad populum.

Zell wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Enslaving Africans was a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices, also. So... we're going to need something better than an argument ad populum.
How about this: Circumcision is fucking stupid and almost all the places where that barbaric practice still survives are places where more people believe in some form of the Apocalypse than evolution. Please. Stop it. People are laughing at you. By the gods, why do I have to explain this to every American I talk to?

Izawwlgood wrote:Because your factless, heavily [citation needed], opinion makes you sound...

Izawwlgood wrote:BS in Biology. You? Is this turning into a pissing contest?


While I realise that doesn't prove my point (which was a joke anyway) it might illustrate what I was getting at
[/snark]
To contribte something to this thread;

wikipedia wrote:According to the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 17:10-14) God commanded the Biblical patriarch Abraham to be circumcised, an act to be followed by his descendants:

This is My covenant between Me, and between you and your offspring that you must keep: You must circumcise every male. You shall be circumcised through the flesh of your foreskin. This shall be the mark of the covenant between Me and you. 'Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old. [This shall include] those born in your house, as well as [slaves] bought with cash from an outsider, who is not your descendant. [All slaves,] both houseborn and purchased with your money must be circumcised. This shall be My covenant in your flesh, an eternal covenant. The uncircumcised male whose foreskin has not been circumcised, shall have his soul cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.


The Constitution of the United States Of America wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

wikipedia wrote: Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.


[edit] Oh me yarm! I just read every word (I just skimmed it before) of the bit I quoted from Genisis; "as well as [slaves] bought with cash from an outsider" I didn't realise that was there when I chose the quote from Heisenberg, I'm not sure now if he was arguing with Zell or agreeing with him, maybe I should have just limited myselt to the quotes from Izawwlgood, would have been shorter.
Last edited by KittenKaboodle on Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:01 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby mmmcannibalism » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:50 am UTC

Spoiler:
\
KittenKaboodle wrote:

Is that directed at me?
allow me to clarify:
[snark]
"When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussionabout circumcision?" just about three years ago
"When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussion about circumcision?" I'm going to say never
the following taken out of sequence:
Heisenberg wrote:
Zell wrote:Except "that no circumcisions for any" is a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices?

Enslaving Africans was a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices, also. So... we're going to need something better than an argument ad populum.

Zell wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Enslaving Africans was a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices, also. So... we're going to need something better than an argument ad populum.
How about this: Circumcision is fucking stupid and almost all the places where that barbaric practice still survives are places where more people believe in some form of the Apocalypse than evolution. Please. Stop it. People are laughing at you. By the gods, why do I have to explain this to every American I talk to?

Izawwlgood wrote:Because your factless, heavily [citation needed], opinion makes you sound...

Izawwlgood wrote:BS in Biology. You? Is this turning into a pissing contest?


While I realise that doesn't prove my point (which was a joke anyway) it might illustrate what I was getting at
[/snark]
To contribte something to this thread;

wikipedia wrote:According to the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 17:10-14) God commanded the Biblical patriarch Abraham to be circumcised, an act to be followed by his descendants:

This is My covenant between Me, and between you and your offspring that you must keep: You must circumcise every male. You shall be circumcised through the flesh of your foreskin. This shall be the mark of the covenant between Me and you. 'Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old. [This shall include] those born in your house, as well as [slaves] bought with cash from an outsider, who is not your descendant. [All slaves,] both houseborn and purchased with your money must be circumcised. This shall be My covenant in your flesh, an eternal covenant. The uncircumcised male whose foreskin has not been circumcised, shall have his soul cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.


The Constitution of the United States Of America wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

wikipedia wrote: Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.


So if I start a church that requires the amputation of all newborn pinky fingers...
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby curtis95112 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:53 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Spoiler:
\
KittenKaboodle wrote:

Is that directed at me?
allow me to clarify:
[snark]
"When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussionabout circumcision?" just about three years ago
"When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussion about circumcision?" I'm going to say never
the following taken out of sequence:
Heisenberg wrote:
Zell wrote:Except "that no circumcisions for any" is a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices?

Enslaving Africans was a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices, also. So... we're going to need something better than an argument ad populum.

Zell wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Enslaving Africans was a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices, also. So... we're going to need something better than an argument ad populum.
How about this: Circumcision is fucking stupid and almost all the places where that barbaric practice still survives are places where more people believe in some form of the Apocalypse than evolution. Please. Stop it. People are laughing at you. By the gods, why do I have to explain this to every American I talk to?

Izawwlgood wrote:Because your factless, heavily [citation needed], opinion makes you sound...

Izawwlgood wrote:BS in Biology. You? Is this turning into a pissing contest?


While I realise that doesn't prove my point (which was a joke anyway) it might illustrate what I was getting at
[/snark]
To contribte something to this thread;

wikipedia wrote:According to the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 17:10-14) God commanded the Biblical patriarch Abraham to be circumcised, an act to be followed by his descendants:

This is My covenant between Me, and between you and your offspring that you must keep: You must circumcise every male. You shall be circumcised through the flesh of your foreskin. This shall be the mark of the covenant between Me and you. 'Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old. [This shall include] those born in your house, as well as [slaves] bought with cash from an outsider, who is not your descendant. [All slaves,] both houseborn and purchased with your money must be circumcised. This shall be My covenant in your flesh, an eternal covenant. The uncircumcised male whose foreskin has not been circumcised, shall have his soul cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.


The Constitution of the United States Of America wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

wikipedia wrote: Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.


So if I start a church that requires the amputation of all newborn pinky fingers...


No, no, no. If only you started one five hundred years ago... :P
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby mmmcannibalism » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:01 am UTC

Spoiler:
curtis95112 wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:[spoiler]\
KittenKaboodle wrote:

Is that directed at me?
allow me to clarify:
[snark]
"When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussionabout circumcision?" just about three years ago
"When's the last time this forum had a bitter argument reasonable discussion about circumcision?" I'm going to say never
the following taken out of sequence:
Heisenberg wrote:
Zell wrote:Except "that no circumcisions for any" is a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices?

Enslaving Africans was a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices, also. So... we're going to need something better than an argument ad populum.

Zell wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Enslaving Africans was a sane, mainstream political opinion backed up by liberalism and a dislike of primitive blood sacrifices, also. So... we're going to need something better than an argument ad populum.
How about this: Circumcision is fucking stupid and almost all the places where that barbaric practice still survives are places where more people believe in some form of the Apocalypse than evolution. Please. Stop it. People are laughing at you. By the gods, why do I have to explain this to every American I talk to?

Izawwlgood wrote:Because your factless, heavily [citation needed], opinion makes you sound...

Izawwlgood wrote:BS in Biology. You? Is this turning into a pissing contest?


While I realise that doesn't prove my point (which was a joke anyway) it might illustrate what I was getting at
[/snark]
To contribte something to this thread;

wikipedia wrote:According to the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 17:10-14) God commanded the Biblical patriarch Abraham to be circumcised, an act to be followed by his descendants:

This is My covenant between Me, and between you and your offspring that you must keep: You must circumcise every male. You shall be circumcised through the flesh of your foreskin. This shall be the mark of the covenant between Me and you. 'Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old. [This shall include] those born in your house, as well as [slaves] bought with cash from an outsider, who is not your descendant. [All slaves,] both houseborn and purchased with your money must be circumcised. This shall be My covenant in your flesh, an eternal covenant. The uncircumcised male whose foreskin has not been circumcised, shall have his soul cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.


The Constitution of the United States Of America wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

wikipedia wrote: Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.


So if I start a church that requires the amputation of all newborn pinky fingers...


No, no, no. If only you started one five hundred years ago... :P

[/spoiler]

My nonexistantdescendents shall implement the plan.

On topic, perhaps the most infuriating thing I have heard in a while was someone who said parents should have the right to choose for their children because of religion. Because as we know, children are born the same religion as their parents. Likewise, how does parental rights justify a completely cosmetic* procedure that a child is (I'm assuming) quite unlikely to want if he made the choice later in life.

*from my understanding, any medical benefits are small and simply make up for bad hygiene; willing to read evidence to the contrary.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:40 pm UTC

KittenKaboodle wrote:Is that directed at me?

Yup, it is. I linked you to an 8 page thread involving a pretty long discussion. You quote sniped a fight with an obnoxious troll from the first 1-2 pages of the thread. Most of that fight is actually referencing a previous thread, which I see you also failed to find. So, in response to your question, that last time a reasonable discussion about circumcision was had seems to have been about 2009 or so. If you want to rehash it, cool, just be prepared for people who probably have been over the bullet points you brilliantly have to contribute.

Re; Severing pinky: Yup, that was hashed over too.
EDIT: I"m not a moderator, I can't tell people not to discuss things. I am however just pointing you to previous discussions on the matter, which if you are interested in having a debate, you might want to be aware of.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:27 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:On topic, perhaps the most infuriating thing I have heard in a while was someone who said parents should have the right to choose for their children because of religion. Because as we know, children are born the same religion as their parents. Likewise, how does parental rights justify a completely cosmetic* procedure that a child is (I'm assuming) quite unlikely to want if he made the choice later in life.


I think it's reasonable for now to refer to it as a cosmetic procedure, as the health benefits and affect on sexual performance and such are pretty much negligible. Anyways, while I haven't really formed an opinion about whether or not it's right for parents to make a permanent cosmetic change to their kid, if they do have that right, then it isn't religion granting them that right.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby meatyochre » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:25 pm UTC

The activists have succeeded in bringing this issue to nationwide attention. People who weren't aware that circumcision was viewed by many people as harmful are aware of that now, and the numbers of genitally-mutilated babies will go down year by year. Until 500 years from now, when people of our era will be seen as barbarians.

Yes, it was never going to get passed as a city bill. And as much as I hate the frivolity under which circumcision is usually chosen, I want people to have the freedom to circumcise their children for religious purposes. Bris would still happen even if it were outlawed; we'd just be fining or imprisoning Jewish parents, which is stupid.
__
BTW Jews don't view this as a cosmetic procedure. Even if such a law were passed, there would need to be a religious exception. You can argue about pinky fingers all you want, but this is not going to change. Judaism is a mainstream religion in our world. Jewish people are a powerful lobby, and powerful rich people get what they want. Yes, I get that religion is just a very large cult and these parents have been brainwashed blahblahblah. It's too fucking late to change that, though.
Last edited by meatyochre on Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:32 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:30 pm UTC

Calling circumcision genital mutilation is just inciteful rhetoric, and this forum would be a better place without it. Circumcision is a cosmetic change, not a functional one. Do you also consider members of those African tribes who stretch out their lips and necks and such to be self mutilators? Arguably, those changes have much more of an impact on their lives.

meatyochre wrote:Jews don't view this as a cosmetic procedure.

We do in it's relationship to actual effect on the body.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby meatyochre » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:32 pm UTC

The act has a greater context of sacrifice and shit, doesn't it? (I'm not Jewish)
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:33 pm UTC

meatyochre wrote:The act has a greater context of sacrifice and shit, doesn't it? (I'm not Jewish)

Yes, there's also a traditional purpose, but as far as its effects as an actual procedure go, we recognize that it's really just cosmetic. Well, a lot of us probably argue that it's beneficial for the baby, but in reality it's about neutral.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:58 pm UTC

meatyochre wrote:Jewish people are a powerful lobby, and powerful rich people get what they want.

Which is why religious freedom is something to be protected, amiright?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Falling
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Falling » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:05 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Calling circumcision genital mutilation is just inciteful rhetoric, and this forum would be a better place without it. Circumcision is a cosmetic change, not a functional one. Do you also consider members of those African tribes who stretch out their lips and necks and such to be self mutilators? Arguably, those changes have much more of an impact on their lives.


Hate quoting dictionaries, but here we go:
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Now I agree that mutilate carries some connations that make it seems a little excessive, but I can't say that it doesn't seem accurate, especially after reading what we miss out on.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:06 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Do you also consider members of those African tribes who stretch out their lips and necks and such to be self mutilators?


Whether one does or not is irrelevant, because circumcision isn't being called "self" mutilation, and the lack of consent is the entire thing under discussion.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby meatyochre » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:10 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Which is why religious freedom is something to be protected, amiright?

There are two different arguments being conflated here. One is the constitutional issue of stripping away religious freedom--which is very important to consider, from a legal perspective, when considering whether to allow a religious exemption from the law.

The other is the pragmatic argument--that even if no religious exemption were written into the law, Jewish people won't stop circumcising their kids anyway. And if this law were proposed on (hypothetically) a nationwide level without the religious exemption, public outcry and lobbying would stop it in its tracks--so why bother wasting time? Write in a religious exemption and be done with it.

It's analogous to how most people KNOW that alcohol is more dangerous and deadly and long-term-health-problematic than several other substances which are illegal. But if anyone seriously proposed illegalizing alcohol too, they'd get shouted out of the arena. There's a history and a public acceptance backing circumcision and consumption of liquor, even if we as a nation would be better off without both.

It'd be better to cajole and win over would-be circumcisers who don't have a religious purpose for it than to outlaw it, anyway. But that's tangential.

sourmilk wrote:Yes, there's also a traditional purpose, but as far as its effects as an actual procedure go, we recognize that it's really just cosmetic. Well, a lot of us probably argue that it's beneficial for the baby, but in reality it's about neutral.


Do all sects of Judaism agree with your neutrality about it? Even the really orthodox ones? Meaning, if this law were to hypothetically pass, all Jews would stop circumcising their kids and not really care either way? That's hard to believe, given how ritualized it has become.

Male circumcision is unarguably genital mutilation. In many (if not most) cases, the procedure is designed to make the male fit in better with other males, and to appear more attractive to the opposite sex. It's directly analogous (physically) to removal of the labia in females. Ew, that would look weird.
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Soralin » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:15 pm UTC

meatyochre wrote:And as much as I hate the frivolity under which circumcision is usually chosen, I want people to have the freedom to circumcise their children for religious purposes.

And I want the freedom to not be circumcised against my will, no matter what my age is. Although that does bring up the question of how long are people currently allowed to circumcise their children for? Does it end at 18?, or before that? Could you legally hold down a 17 year old and circumcise them against their will? Why is it any more ethical to do it earlier than that?

meatyochre wrote:BTW Jews don't view this as a cosmetic procedure. Even if such a law were passed, there would need to be a religious exception. You can argue about pinky fingers all you want, but this is not going to change. Judaism is a mainstream religion in our world. Jewish people are a powerful lobby, and powerful people get what they want. Yes, I get that religion is just a very large cult and these parents have been brainwashed blahblahblah. It's too fucking late to change that, though.

It's never too late to try. And religious exceptions are never the right choice(or the constitutional choice), legal for all, or legal for none.
sourmìlk wrote:
meatyochre wrote:The act has a greater context of sacrifice and shit, doesn't it? (I'm not Jewish)

Yes, there's also a traditional purpose, but as far as its effects as an actual procedure go, we recognize that it's really just cosmetic. Well, a lot of us probably argue that it's beneficial for the baby, but in reality it's about neutral.

Wouldn't it mean much more if it were actually freely done by the person in question, rather than forced on them? You can hardly say that you made a sacrifice if you don't have a choice in the matter. And I wouldn't call it beneficial, especially if it's done without anesthetics or analgesics, pain in infants has been shown to have long term negative effects of increased sensitivity to pain and stress experienced as adults.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:23 pm UTC

Soralin wrote: And I wouldn't call it beneficial, especially if it's done without anesthetics or analgesics, pain in infants has been shown to have long term negative effects of increased sensitivity to pain and stress experienced as adults.

The health benefits of circumcision are arguably within the child's favor.

And I want the freedom to not be circumcised against my will, no matter what my age is.

You have no will as an infant. I think of it this way: if parents could choose to switch their child's natural eye color, would somebody consider it mutilation if they took that option? Would it be immoral for them to do so?

meatyochre wrote:Do all sects of Judaism agree with your neutrality about it? Even the really orthodox ones?

No, the orthodox ones probably don't. Fuck 'em, I have no tolerance for religious fundamentalists.

Male circumcision is unarguably genital mutilation. In many (if not most) cases, the procedure is designed to make the male fit in better with other males, and to appear more attractive to the opposite sex

No and no. At least, not ritually. And it still doesn't qualify as mutilation: if I were to have the opportunity to change an infant's eye color from brown to blue, then doing so wouldn't qualify as mutilation, even if that were the motivation.

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

The foreskin is not essential.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.

It's not damaging, and it's technically not even irreparable I think.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Perfection, in this case, is I think far too subjective.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:24 pm UTC

Cosmetic surgery for infants. It's the latest craze from Bronze Age Sumeria ! Haha.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Lucrece » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:27 pm UTC

If you introduced a religious exemption, wouldn't you already have a loophole for people to pretend to be Jewish just to get the circumcision?

I never understood why religion should get special treatment. Their superstitious interpretation of circumcising someone holds the same weight as "I think my child's dick will look prettier circumcised".

There should be no reason whatsoever why you get to have perks for being religious over the non-religious. If religious people can opt out of laws, so should secular people. In which case, why even bother with the ban.

It isn't going to pass and better effort would be spent educating the populace so that when there is such a ballot measure, that it will pass. Hell, you might even convince a good number of Jews that the practice is outdated and barbaric as stoning women/insert other death penalty also prescribed by divine law.


sourmìlk wrote:2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.

It's not damaging, and it's technically not even irreparable I think.



Yeah, you ask the squealing child whether it's damaging or not.

I myself am circumcised and do not think of myself as broken or maimed or missing out on some mysteriously great sensation that I already feel. Condescension aside, I would not choose it for my child because it is entirely unnecessary .

It's the same stance I'll take with earrings for my girls. They might resent me for it, but I want any bodily alterations that include a fair amount of pain and permanent change to be THEIR decision.

It's askin to facial scarring, would you deem it OK if my culture demanded that I take a knife to my newborn's face and carve him out in manners that will still not incapacitate or maim him in any way, but impose an appearance or self-perception they might not have wanted?

Why should your child be subject to pain for your personal satisfaction?
Last edited by Lucrece on Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:49 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 pm UTC

I agree with Lucrece in the sense that there shouldn't be an argument made here for religious exemption. Morally, I don't really see much of a difference between circumcision for aesthetic and circumcision for religious reasons. It's about neutral.

Iulus Cofield wrote:Cosmetic surgery for infants. It's the latest craze from Bronze Age Sumeria ! Haha.

I honestly can't say why the hell they did it back then. I think the first guy who thought that would be a good idea was fucking nuts.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Chuff
CHOO CHOO I'M A TRAIN
Posts: 1018
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:45 am UTC
Location: The Purple Valley, Mass

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Chuff » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:30 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:You have no will as an infant. I think of it this way: if parents could choose to switch their child's natural eye color, would somebody consider it mutilation if they took that option? Would it be immoral for them to do so?
If they did so by stabbing the kid in the eye, absolutely.
The Great Hippo wrote:The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.
addams wrote:How human of him. "If, they can do it, then, I can do it." Humans. Pfft. Poor us.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:31 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Cosmetic surgery for infants. It's the latest craze from Bronze Age Sumeria ! Haha.

I honestly can't say why the hell they did it back then. I think the first guy who thought that would be a good idea was fucking nuts.


This is why you're a Jewish atheist.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:32 pm UTC

That's eerie Iulus; that prat who was arguing in the last circumcision thread used almost that exact same quote.

Here, lets add some talking points because people seem to want to rehash tired and flawed arguments;
1) Circumcision is a brand of body mutilation that bears zero negative and zero positive physical effects. Go ahead and cite me an article that finds either a positive or a negative effect, and I'll cite you a dozen that show the exact opposite.
2) Infants, some would argue, have a right to not be altered. I disagree, and instead feel that infants have a right to not be negatively impacted. until someone shows without a shadow of a doubt that circumcision bears a negative impact (and 'being circumcised' will not suffice here for 'negative impact'), I'm not going to agree that infants are protected from being circumcised.
3) All sects of Judaism believe in this practice; this isn't like keeping kosher, which some Jews do and some Jews don't.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Box Boy » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:35 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Cosmetic surgery for infants. It's the latest craze from Bronze Age Sumeria ! Haha.
I honestly can't say why the hell they did it back then. I think the first guy who thought that would be a good idea was fucking nuts.
There has to be a tasteless joke in here somewhere.......
Signatures are for chumps.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:35 pm UTC

Chuff wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:You have no will as an infant. I think of it this way: if parents could choose to switch their child's natural eye color, would somebody consider it mutilation if they took that option? Would it be immoral for them to do so?
If they did so by stabbing the kid in the eye, absolutely.

What if they did it via a painless method? (I'm assuming anesthesia for circumcision: I don't support it without.)
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:38 pm UTC

Well, he just said Abraham was fucking nuts. It's the obvious conclusion.

I'll give you a negative effect: It hurts, during and after. I'm not a doctor, but if anyone with medical training would chime in, I'd like to know about potential adverse side effects of anesthesia on infants. By your argument, Izawwl, it's okay to cut your baby to give it cool scars, perhaps with the qualifier that the scars can't be visible when the child is wearing pants and a long sleeve top.

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

Postby Box Boy » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:What if they did it via a painless method? (I'm assuming anesthesia for circumcision: I don't support it without.)

Still wrong, because that doesn't give the kid their eye back.
Signatures are for chumps.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Prefanity and 24 guests