San Francisco Circumcision Ban Could Be On Ballot Next November (VIDEO)

San Francisco residents may vote on a ballot measure next year that would outlaw circumcision.

The initiative, which requires 7,000 signatures before it can be added to next November's ballot, would make it a misdemeanor to "circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the...genitals" of all minors, and would not make exceptions for religious reasons.

The decision to permanently remove a boy's foreskin should not be made by parents, says Lloyd Shofield, the proposal's author.

"People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else's body," Schofield told CBS affiliate KCBS. "It's a man's body and...his body doesn't belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It's his decision."

But some parents interviewed by KCBS disagreed.

"It's your choice, it's your child...government can't rule us on everything we do," said Heather Wisnicky. The Sacramento mother told the news station that she had her son circumcised just 3 weeks prior. "It's a health issue. It's cleaner," Wisnicky said.

In July, a researcher from the Centers for Disease Control presented statistics showing that just 32% of boys underwent the procedure in 2009. While the figure does not include circumcisions done outside of medical facilities, it's a precipitous drop from the 56% of boys who were circumcised three years earlier in 2006.

Some supporters of male circumcision argue that the practice helps stop the spread of HIV and is more hygenic. Opponents say it can be painful and robs men of greater sexual sensation. The CDC has not yet released a recommendation for or against the practice.

In 2009, New York magazine published a series of stories and testimonials from parents and men who were both pro- and anti-circumcision. The strong opinions and the detailed description of the procedure are worth a read.

WATCH: KCBS report on circumcision ballot initiative

Comments

[georgiegirl]

09:26 PM on 01/07/2011

This is complete bull. The parents have the decision to circumcise or not.....and that is the way it should remain. The people that say it causes the babies so much pain, and only they should be able to decide when they are older to have the circumcision are way out in left field as far as I'm concerned. Talk about pain....ask a 20+ year old how it feels to have one due to medical issues and see what he says.

[MikeyJaii]

05:34 PM on 12/29/2010

Circumcision is up to the parent, it's a right they have.

[3dtrix]

10:30 PM on 12/24/2010

This is a subject, like many others in American culture and society, where irrationality is given free reign - and one's personal beliefs and opinions, however ill-founded or bereft of factual support, are held to be equal to those based on reason and data.

I suggest an excellent article posted on the USA's most popular health-related web site, Healthcentral.com authored by Dr. Dean Edell - known as America's Doctor, having broadcast the #1 rated health-related radio show for 30 straight years.

He offers an inclusive list of the arguments against circumcision - and thoroughly debunks arguments in favor.

If you aren't persuaded - you're a cultist, pure and simple.

And yes, it IS genital mutilation of innocents unable to give consent...

[Ray Gulyas]

08:46 PM on 12/24/2010

This ban cannot be enforced, I think. Does not the California Constitution outlaw religious persecution or bannishment? If it does, this ban would be denying jewish parents from circumsizing their boy children as required by the Torah.

Non-jewish parents have the right to do what they think is right for the children. Please show us how many children have died from circumsion done in the hospital?
Idare you san francisco.

[RunBeezy]

05:50 PM on 12/24/2010

Let's start banning PIERCED EARS on little girls & SMOKING in cars with children.

Oh yah! I'm talking to you!

[seventh sojourn]

11:00 PM on 12/23/2010

Let me see if I understand this correctly… Progressives are ok with aborting their children in the womb, but they want to outlaw the cutting of the child’s foreskin after he comes out.

What if they do the procedure in-utero? Would that be kosher enough for ya?

[seventh sojourn]

10:29 PM on 12/23/2010

Lloyd Shofield just wants to get everyone in SF to talk about their sex organs.

[eshu21]

01:00 AM on 12/09/2010

You are not the only gay person here. No one is talking about not correcting defects, but about removing normal healthy pleasurable tissue without the person's consent. I lived in Miami; NEVER have I seen smegma. That you call uncut genitalia "hideous sausages" shows you are not impartial, but start with a hatred of normal penises.

Smegma is not a disease, but a natural lubricant (http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP-care.html) that is easy to wash away. It's also in female genitalia - do you want to cut those too?

Tight foreskin is treated with gentle stretching. Some doctors think it a problem caused by unnecessarily forcing back an infant's foreskin.

Bacteria - foreskins produces substances that actually help keep it disease-free, such as Langerin, which helps slow HIV from entering the body.

Color of a glans varies not due to foreskin, but as a natural condition (only the ignorant would consider this an excuse to mutilate). Excessive sensitivity - shouldn't that determination be left to the individual? Isn't it a pathetic excuse for mass-mutilation? If men knew what pleasures they were missing due to circumcision, the practice would be dead.

Nothing you say justifies circumcision; you only demonstrate the lack of education around real male genitalia, the way they were meant to be, and function best. If you believe that foreskins are a defect, you will find whatever proof you want for your twisted attitude. Flawed thinking does not give you the right to inflict mutilation on anyone.

[Jeromeo]

07:38 PM on 12/03/2010

I have to be the one to give 'a gay perspectiv­e' on foreskin..­.
Let's get this out of the way--yes, I know it's natural and it's the way we were meant to be, but, hey, some people were meant to have screwed up teeth--gen­etically. Misaligned teeth causes headaches, trapping of food particles, and, of course, hideousnes­s (which results in psychologi­cal problems and the inability to find friends/co­mpanions).
I am not prejudiced­, I am an elitist. My penis is beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.­..
Living in Miami, I have hooked up with many internatio­nally 'uncut' guys before.
Do you know what it's like to peel back a hideous sausage skin to find cottage cheese? Smegma is a DISEASE. It rarely happens to a circumcise­d penis. Inarguable­--it is more difficult to flush soap behind elongated foreskin. Bacteria/f­ungus flourishes in damp, dark, moist places. This is scientific fact!
Do you know what it's like to meet a guy whose foreskin is so tight that it cannot be pulled back behind the head? It's a deformity! I have a teeny-tiny bit of foreskin left that I can pull over the head (should I force it), but mine doesn't trap the head for all time in a cave from which it can never escape.
Have you ever seen a penis with a purple head--poli­shed from the rubbing of tight foreskin?
How about excessive sensitivit­y issues? Try adding condoms to sensitivit­y issues!
Final conclusion­=FrenchCut is ideal...

[ddanimal]

01:43 AM on 11/25/2010

What if a parent wants to cut off the fingers of their child, because they believed its cleaner? Or what if they wanted to have the childs anus and rectum removed, and replaced with a colostomy bag? hey, its cleaner!

I think I will perform a sex change operation for my new little boy, because I always wanted a girl.

Do parents have the freedom to mutilate the body of their child any way they see fit? Even if there is no medical reason for it?

This entire debate depends on whether there is medical science demonstrating benefits to circumcision. My understanding is that there is not benefit. Hence, circumcision is no different from other possible forms of bodily mutilation. And parents do not presently have a right to mutilate their children.

[JRBC12]

01:12 PM on 11/23/2010

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11814300

http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched1.html (graphic images)

Stanford University Circumcision Complication list:

http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html

[JRBC12]

01:04 PM on 11/23/2010

Circumcision provides document worsened erectile function on males (Journal of Urology):

http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(05)65098-7/abstract

[JRBC12]

11:59 AM on 11/23/2010

And circumcisions can permantnently damage or cut of a boy's penis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11814300

In this case the parents then castrated the boy (can you beleive it?) and brought him up telling him he was a girl. He eventuially comitted suicide...

Do we need all this? Why not just leave childrens' private parts alone...

[ddanimal]

01:22 AM on 11/25/2010

wow thats a messed up story.

[Bob X]

12:37 PM on 11/22/2010

Male circumcision is a safe, popular, healthy & beneficial procedure for individuals & parents to choose. It provides benefits such as 12x less likely for UTI, +22x less likely for cancer, 28% less risk for herpes, 35% for HPV & 60% for HIV/AIDS. The risks are about 0.2% and are typically minor & easily corrected.
Parents should research circumcision and make an informed decision for the health & well-being of their son.

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

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/1/104

http://www.circinfo.net

[JRBC12]

12:29 PM on 11/23/2010

I have NEVER heard of ANY male getting penile cancer. I'm sure it happens, in low numbers, but does it justify routinely cutting off children's privates and producing sexual problems later?

Surveys have shown Indian men (99% uncircumcised) as "very happy" with their sex lives, but "dissatisfaction" in a large percentage of US and Pakistani men and heavily circumcised countries. Look where Viagra was invented and why! Not just for very old men, but for a broader scope of US men. The largest user of penile implants worldwide to help get it up is Israel (go figure). So why still cut?

See: http://www.noharmm.org/

I DO hear of many women getting vaginal infections, vaginal yeasts etc. That should be an area to focus on....but I don't hear anybody clamoring to cut off womens private parts - why not?

What about the clitoral hood, the exact equivalent piece of skin on females which harbors the same infections you mentioned. Should we cut that too so we are not "gender discriminatory"? Doesn't it sound disgusting, yet millions of people actually DO THIS to little boys.

This gory desire to cut off little boys' privates AND later damage their sex lives is an affront to our claimed "civilized society". It is a blood ritual hiding under the disguise of "cleanliness". Tribes in North Africa claim this when they cut off girls' clitorises. We are not better than them until ALL genital mutilation stops in America - except for ACTUAL immediate medical necessity.

[JRBC12]

01:08 PM on 11/23/2010

Male cicumcision is "safe"???

What about the boy whose penis was cut off entirely by a botched cicumcision:

http://www­.bbc.co.uk­/news/heal­th-1181430­0

What about all the other "botched" circumcisions?
Seeing the REAL results of circumcision evidence is tough to refute.

http://www­.circumsti­tions.com/­Botched1.h­tml (graphic images)

What about all the medical conditions and problems circumision causes in later life such as phimosis and many others - Stanford University Circumcision Complication list:

http://new­borns.stan­ford.edu/C­ircComplic­ations.htm­l

If such damage occurred to other parts of the body or to females' bodies we would certainly be VERY upset and trying to stop the causes. In this case the cause is deliberate acts driven by myth and not by any immediate medical necessity.

If a boy wants to be circumcised, then let him make that informed choice at 18 years old (how many will then do it??)

[mamamab]

12:58 AM on 11/21/2010

Circumcision is a violation of a baby's body.

It is a primitive ritual.

All the doctors out there who are desperately trying to create medical reasons to support this practice are simply in major denial.