California prevents ban on male circumcision

[alp227]

Source: Reuters

California Governor Jerry Brown announced on Sunday that he signed a bill preventing local authorities from banning the practice of male circumcision.

The bill, which takes effect immediately, comes in the wake of an effort by a San Francisco group opposed to male circumcision to enforce a city-wide ban of the practice in a November ballot measure.

That effort was struck down in late July by a California judge who said it would infringe on religious freedom. The measure was removed from the November ballot.

The measure, which garnered 12,000 signatures of support, would have made it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years old in San Francisco, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/02/us-california-circumcision-idUSTRE7911X720111002

[Poll_Blind]

1. Dickhead.

:hide:

PB

[ZombieHorde]

2. Those who love cutting up baby's dicks can rejoice, for now.

The practice will eventually be banned across the US. Slowly, but surely, societies gradually become less barbaric.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

6. You failed hard

Do you like it? I do.

[ZombieHorde]

9. High school is rough, but don't worry, you'll get through it.

;)

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

14. You lost!!!!

We won. Bunch of control freaks IMO.

[ZombieHorde]

16. You're right.

Cutting up a baby's dick is pretty controlling.

We win eventually. Just a matter of time.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

8. Besides, it clearly violates the establishment clause.

You want to know the truth, Zombie? The government actually has MORE authority to tell you that you can't get as big as you want by eating as much food as desired than it does to ban circumcision.

[ZombieHorde]

22. The government has been able to ban some religious practices,

baby-dick cutting will go as well.

[demosincebirth]

11. You want religion out of government? How about gov out of religion.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Yes and no. Consider the FLDS compound. Sometimes government

has to infringe people's religious practices.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

15. You just compared part of a religious ceremony practiced by Jews for thousands of years

To a group of child molesters. You lost the argument. Go eat some donuts.

[ZombieHorde]

19. If that argument is not PC enough for you, then consider Peyote. nt

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

49. You have a problem with peyote use in ceremonies?

Nt

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

44. There are many who consider removing an infants foreskin "Child Molesting"

Just like there are those who think removing a girls clitoris "Child Molesting"

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

50. Mind your own business big

Ok?

[AtheistCrusader]

54. You should get together with the people in the Gungeon that oppose state pre-emption of local firear

m laws. You'll make a great team.

Meanwhile, if I have a male child, you can be damn sure there will be no bronze-age savagery performed upon him. Not until he reaches the age of majority, and chooses it for himself, if at all.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

62. You're a male,

so before you need worry yourself about what you would or wouldn't do with your hypothetical child, worry about finding someone to mate with first or a child to adopt. Good luck. My guess is ten years from now you'll still be childless and talking hypothetically about what you'd do with your child.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. I already have an adopted son.

And a wife. He was circumcised before he was put up for adoption, so we had no choice in the matter.

Way to be a 10 year old about it.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

69. That must burn you up inside right?

If only you could go back in time and change that. Too bad no surgery exists for it.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I would not have done it.

If I could, I would un-do my own. I like how flippant you are about people cutting on their own children, for dubious reasons.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

77. I'm glad my parents did mine

I'm glad that it reduces my risk of contracting HIV by at least 50% without decreasing any sexual pleasure, and I am also glad that my sexual organ no longer resembles an ant-eater.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Cite to evidence.

"without decreasing any sexual pleasure"

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

63. Until then,

keep your nose out of our business, those of us who actually have children.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Boy, did you miss the mark.

[demosincebirth]

21. Oh, okay, but on your terms only. I see. nt

[ZombieHorde]

23. Who else's terms should I use? Why shouldn't I advocate for my own opinions? nt

[still_one]

35. Government should stay out of this period. Brown was right to sign it. /nt

[Warpy]

3. Good, it violates the establishment clause, intrudes unnecessarily into families

and whether or not parents want to give their sons a 60% lower HIV transmission rate when they grow up or they want to leave them intact is none of the state's fucking business. The state can only regulate the conditions in which it is done and/or by whom it is done and assign penalties if it is done carelessly and injury results.

[demosincebirth]

7. +1

[Cronus Protagonist]

57. Child mutilation is the state's business

Protecting the innocent and the weakest among us. And if circumcision lowers the HIV transmission rate, please explain its origination in the west in the US where there was almost 90 percent circumcision rate extant.

I know you feel your own loss, but that's no reason to go off kilter in support of this bronze age hacking up of infants.

[Warpy]

74. Your opinion isn't enforceable, sorry

And that's all it is, you know, YOUR opinion.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

4. Good. San Francisco JUST GOT PWNED by the California legislature

Counties and cities are simple creations of the STATE LEGISLATURE. They can be dissolved at any time. Remember that, San Francisco, before you start getting out of line again.

The freaks that wanted this on the ballot have no respect for the Constitution or for parental rights. My parents circumcised me and I'm glad. We had a kid in our gym class who wasn't and the kids abused him without mercy. It was horrible -- and I'm glad that kid wasn't me.

[EFerrari]

51. Why are you bashing San Francisco for what a group of whackjobs did?

And, San Francisco is not the creation of the state of California, it was there long before the state existed. In fact, it's probably older than the United States.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

70. Probably because their BULLSHIT agenda on this issue

is very popular on this website, and it makes me sick. San Francisco earned my respect when they disobeyed state law and handed out marriage licenses, but this attack intended to curtail religious freedom was disgusting.

[EFerrari]

72. What part of San Francisco didn't do this is unclear to you?

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

76. Did San Francisco residents not put this on the ballot?

nt

[EFerrari]

78. So if some random nut in your town puts a petition together, I can blame you?

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

80. It's not just one random nut

Thousands of residents signed the petition to put it on the ballot. The petitioners submitted 12,000 signatures from San Francisco residents over 18 years of age. They only needed 7,200.

[EFerrari]

81. It was a random nut that put the petition together, not the city or the county.

San Francisco is 200,000 people. What about the other 178,000 people who didn't sign it?

[Bonobo]

5. Because it is unconstitutional to infringe on religion. Duh. nt

[ZombieHorde]

12. Peyote, and faith-only healing for children, can be prosecuted.

So religion can be infringed upon in the US.

[Bonobo]

18. Good point. I support those too. nt

[ZombieHorde]

20. Are you saying parents should be allowed to let their children die

from easily treatable illness? Am I misunderstanding your perspective?

[Bonobo]

24. Yes, you are misstating my position. nt

[ZombieHorde]

25. OK, what is your position? nt

[Bonobo]

26. You mean on the "Faith-Healing" thing?

Well, I suppose my position would be that they could try whatever "faith-healing" they wanted to a point.

But if the child's life was endangered, the state would be able to step in and force life-saving procedures.

[ZombieHorde]

27. I completely agree with that position, and that position infringes on religion.

It also infringes on parent's rights.

[Bonobo]

28. I am glad we agree. So then we also agree that it is not black and white. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Yet, it's done all the time.

[Lasher]

10. Good move, Governor Brown.

There are times when people should mind their own fucking business. This is one of those times.

[still_one]

36. Absolutely /nt

[Odin2005]

17. So does that mean we have to legalize polygamy, peyote, and human sacrifice?

Those are some people's "religious beliefs" after all.

[snagglepuss]

30. Good question.

[BenzoDia]

29. It's time to retire the practice of circumcision.

[pnwmom]

32. The World Health Organization says its time to reconsider it.

Since long term large scale studies show that it decreases the transmission of HIV by 60% even among men who use condoms.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

46. Here is the information. Sorry if you can't make sense of it.

But I won't accuse you of lying. Just being wrong.

From the World Health Organization

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:
- the provision of HIV testing and counseling services;
- treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
- the promotion of safer sex practices;
- the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.




http://www.aidsmap.com/Expert-panel-picks-best-buys-for-HIV-prevention/page/2090952/

If $10 billion of new money can be spent on HIV prevention over the next five years, the priorities should be more investment in vaccine research, mass infant circumcision, preventing mother to child transmission, safer blood supplies and a scale up of antiretroviral treatment, according to a panel of five of the world’s most distinguished economists.
Their recommendations, released on 28 September, are the product of a review process managed by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think-tank funded by the Danish government to evaluate the most effective solutions to global development problems.
SNIP
Introduce medical infant male circumcision
Circumcising all male infants in countries with a high HIV burden, at a cost of $3.15 billion over five years, would be a better investment than campaigns for adult male circumcision. This is partly because the panel feared that circumcision campaigns will lead men to have more unprotected sex in the long run because they feel less vulnerable to infection. It is worth noting that five-year follow-up of men who took part in the first major randomised trial of circumcision for HIV prevention found no evidence of an increase in risky sex.

[BenzoDia]

42. And the British Medical Association, the Royal Dutch Medical Association, Canadian Pediatric Society

have all recently said that circumcision should not be a routine procedure.

According to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (which came after the WHO's recommendation):

http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E

"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons."

[pnwmom]

47. And parents and their doctors can certainly consider that, too.

But CITIES shouldn't be making these medical decisions for their residents.

From the World Health Organization

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en /

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:
- the provision of HIV testing and counseling services;
- treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
- the promotion of safer sex practices;
- the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

[Blacksheep214]

37. The practice or the choice?

????

[pnwmom]

31. Good. This is a decision for parents and their doctors.

It's not the job of cities to be making medical decisions for their residents.

Both the American Pediatric Association and the Urological Association say that there are some benefits to the procedure, as well as some rare but significant risks. Their recommendation is that parents make the decision with the guidance of their doctors; not the Town Council.

[SoapBox]

33. I wish these "activists" would keep their SNOUTS out of a guy's crouch AND a woman's!

Stop trying to dictate like this.

...bravo to Jerry.

[Remmah2]

34. Without foreskins?

How will they make republicans?

[emilyg]

38. Good.

[davidwparker]

39. "a San Francisco group opposed to male circumcision" - so

this group need not get one if they are so opposed.

[slackmaster]

40. Jerry Brown comes down on the side of religious freedom and personal choice once again.

Go Jerry!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

43. It's not your personal choice if you are the baby boy who is getting part of dick cut off.

I think it's barbaric and unnecessary.

As an adult female I can tell you that uncut penises are better sexually because the man slides around inside his foreskin instead of rubbing the woman's vagina raw.

Mother Nature does this to make sex easier and more pleasurable and the damn morality police want to make sex uncomfortable and perform a totally unnecessary operation.

Just because it's been done for thousands of years in the name of religion, or health, doesn't make it right.

:wtf:

[pnwmom]

48. Just because you disagree with the practice doesn't give the cities the right

to make medical decisions for parents. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Urological Association say that there is no clear choice: there are benefits and risks and the decision should be left up to the parents. The World Health Organization says that circumcision can reduce HIV transmission by 60% -- even among men who use condoms.

[joeglow3]

68. Get your damn facts out of here

We have no place for them in this discussion.

Seriously, I would like to know which of the people opposing this decision here belong to an organized religion. I would bet the majority don't like organized religion and are letting that cloud their judgement and manifest itself in their opposition to this legitimate procedure.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

84. Lack of religion clouds their judgment???

That's the best laugh I've had all day.

Religion is not factual. Religion is belief and superstition. It is not a good guide to morality. It is not science.

:rofl:

[joeglow3]

85. Point proven

There is a clear scientific benefit for this. However, you, completely ignore this because it was originally utilized as a function of religion.

Thus, someone who claims to be such an ardent follower of science as you are so damn quick to ignore it because it does not benefit your pre-ordained view as a result of your thoughts on religion.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

86. Scientific evidence is not absolute in this case.

Read up thread about the British and Canadian opinion.

I see no good reason for it. None whatsoever. Religious tradition of mutilating a perfectly functioning child's penis does NOT get a pass. They should wash it. That would cure their problems.

Did you know that a doctor has to BREAK THE SKIN APART to get the foreskin off the head of the penis? The skin is supposed to stay stuck together for however long it takes before it separates. sIt's also extremely painful and has been said to ruin the child's bond with the mother.

It's barbaric and stupid and pointless. There are no confirmed health benefits. I still say, as a female, that the foreskin has a distinct purpose and it should not be messed with.

I do not have a son, but if I did I would not mutilate him like that.

[joeglow3]

87. There are clear benefits

You can argue that the costs outweigh the benefits and I have no problem with that. However, removing that option from every single parent because YOU don't like it is arrogant, at best.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cronus Protagonist]

75. +1000

You said it better than I could.

[lynne]

45. Good! While I'm not a fan of circumcision -

- and didn't have my own son circumcised, I don't think this is something that needs to be monitored by the government.

It's a private matter. For some its a medical matter, for others its a religious matter, and there are those that consider it a matter of conscience. It sure doesn't need to be a government matter, too.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. Mutilating children's genitals in the name of religion does not make it right.

All these guys who think circumcision is fine, who were circumcised as infants, do not know what they are missing.

Foreskins make sex easier for both parties. Therefore, the morality police who want to reduce sexual pleasure are busy cutting off thousands of nerve endings.

Maimonides admitted that circumcision weakened the organ.

As an adult female, I think circumcision is barbaric and unnecessary. But most parents don't give their boys that choice.

:banghead:

[24601]

52. Thank God my rights are safe - because I've been considering

Chopping it back to 9 or 10 inches. Any advice?

[ronnie624]

53. Do it. n/t

[pnorman]

56. "misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years old "

Perhaps the same rule should apply to baptisms before the age of 18?

[ronnie624]

59. Your analogy doesn't work,

as baptism doesn't include the removal of body parts without the owner's consent.

[CTyankee]

60. Oh, drat! Did I miss the popcorn? Is it all gone?

geez...

[defendandprotect]

64. Yikes!! ... but eventually sanity will win the day, I'm sure ... difficult I imagine

for males who have already been circumcized to acknowledge that they may be

missing something important!

[closeupready]

67. What bullshit. None of the state's business. It should be challenged on principle alone.

nt

[Lil Missy]

73. Good. It shouldn't be mandatory either way. n/t

[hughee99]

79. It's high time a local government stood up and said

We don't care what you've been doing for thousands of years, WE know what's best for you. That's what people want from their local elected officials, LEADERSHIP.

[Devil_Fish]

83. All we have to do is alow disfigured males to sue as adults.

MY BODY MY CHOICE!