Plan B Forum

Circumcision ban to appear on San Francisco ballot

May 18, 2011|By ROBIN HINDERY, The Associated Press

A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter.

But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.

Elections officials confirmed Wednesday the initiative had qualified for the ballot with more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names to qualify.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-05-18/n ... s-freedoms

Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names to qualify.

It's always seemed to me to be somewhat of a barbaric practice unless done for medical reasons. When all is said and done it is, after all, mutilation.

I don't know if I find the fact that this is put to a popular vote admirable as a democratic practice, or risible as you already have elected politicians to conduct your democracy.

Lord Jim wrote:Well that's your opinion Sean, and you're certainly entitled to it, but how do you feel about the idea of forcing that opinion on to others? (Which is what this initiative seeks to do.)

liberty wrote:I agree with Jim if it passed the ordinance would be unconstitutional.

Lord Jim wrote: Well that's your opinion Sean, and you're certainly entitled to it, but how do you feel about the idea of forcing that opinion on to others? (Which is what this initiative seeks to do.)

It's ridiculous to frame the defense of cirumcision as a religious issue, since the overwhelming majority of circumcisions are not done for religious reasons.

The physical difference is only a question of degree

cut off part of a newborn child's penis

Lord Jim wrote:Well I suppose you could consider this "cutting off part of the penis" in the same sense that you could call trimming your finger nails cutting off part of your fingers, since both have precisely the same affect on the functionality of the appendages in question. (This is actually a pretty good analogy since keeping one's nails trim also contributes to good hygiene; the biggest difference between the two is that circumcision only has to be preformed once.)

Circumcision, which has been practiced for centuries, involves removing an infant's foreskin. Although long motivated primarily by cultural and religious practices, evidence has been accumulating that it also has health benefits.

In addition to reducing the risk for urinary tract infections among infants, studies indicate that circumcision cuts the chances of adult men's getting penile cancer and becoming infected with a variety of sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, AIDS, herpes and the human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes genital warts in men and women and cervical cancer in women.

In 2005, the American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirmed a policy adopted in 1999 that backed away from routinely recommending circumcision, saying the evidence of benefits was insufficient to endorse the routine use of the procedure.

But evidence continued to mount about the possible benefits, most notably three large studies conducted in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda that concluded that circumcised heterosexual men were about half as likely to become infected with HIV as uncircumcised men.

"The evidence has gotten much stronger with the results of these trials of the potential benefits of circumcision," said Ronald H. Gray, a professor of reproductive epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, who led two of the recent studies.

In addition to reducing the risk for HIV, research indicates circumcision cuts the risk of getting HPV and herpes by about a third, according to a review Gray published last week in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine. Although the procedure does not reduce the risk of HIV infection in the men's female partners, women who had sex with circumcised men were less likely to get HPV and bacterial infections.

"Higher rates of circumcision would certainly prevent a substantial number of infections," Gray said. "The risks are extremely small and the benefits are substantial."
This Story

Reduced infection risk

Circumcision appears to reduce the risk for infections because the foreskin contains cells that are more easily penetrated by viruses and has a moister environment more conducive to the growth of viruses and other microbes. The foreskin is also prone to developing tiny tears during sex that increase the risk for infections, Gray said.

"Men who are uncircumcised are more likely to have a variety of infections under the foreskin, and the inflammation from those infections could increase the risk of ulcerations, which could also increase the risk of infection," Gray said.

Other experts agreed.

"If we had a vaccine that was as effective as this at reducing the risk, we'd be jumping up and down with joy," said Arleen A. Leibowitz, a professor of public policy the University of California at Los Angeles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03106.html