San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot

[The Straight Story]

San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot

Most bans in San Francisco are enacted by the Board of Supervisors, but come November, it sounds like voters will have the opportunity to jump on the ban wagon by deciding whether to ban male circumcision.

San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield said Thursday he is “on track” to have enough signatures to place his proposed measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to “circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”

Schofield has until April 26 to submit 7,168 valid signatures to make it onto the ballot. He would not disclose how many signatures were collected at this point.

Schofield said he became the proponent of the local ballot measure after being asked to champion a local bill during a July symposium on circumcision held at the UC Berkeley. Schofield said he was approached by those affiliated with a group pushing for a federal bill to “end male genital mutilation in the U.S.,” according to its website, mgmbill.org.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/02/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-headed-november-ballot#ixzz1EPlaiisL

Gonna grab a six pack and some smokes along with a bowl of popcorn....

[shraby]

Aren't there more pressing thing a board of supervisors need

to attend to? This is putting them right in the hospitals where they don't belong. That is a decision that should be left to doctors and parents.

[onehandle]

1. This is the sort of thing that makes 'progressives' look ridiculous. nt

[MineralMan]

3. It's not a "progressive" issue.

Anti-circumcision advocates know no political party.

[MineralMan]

2. I suspect that SF's Jewish population will not be amused

by this. It's a bullshit initiative, and will not pass, even if this moron gets the required signatures.

[still_one]

6. It isn't just a Jewish issue, it is a Muslim issue also /nt

[MineralMan]

10. That's true, too.

Thanks for the reminder.

[still_one]

11. no problem /nt

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I am fascinated by the difference in response to FGM v MGM.

[The Straight Story]

5. Maybe one leads to less ability in the pleasure field than the other

:shrug: so one is more to punish/oppress and one is more for reasons other than to punish/oppress.

[cali]

7. to compare the two is repugnant and ridiculous

I'm not pro-circumcision- I didn't have my son circumcised- but one is mutilation on an entirely different level than the other.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. they are both ritual mutilations

done for religious reasons. It is certainly valid to claim that FGM is worse than MGM, but not that a little mutilation is ok, or that comparing mutilations is repugnant and ridiculous because one is so much worse than the other.

[cali]

14. um, wrong.

first of all, fgm is far more culturally rooted than religiously rooted. That doesn't appear to be true regarding circumcision. And yes, a little mutilation is a lot better than grotesque mutilation that damages in a way that circumcision does not.

[originalpckelly]

8. Mainly because people do remove the entire penis, or the glans during circumcision.

An analogous procedure to male circumcision would be removal of the clitoral hood, and there are actually some women who do that of their own free will.

Another is that modern male circumcision is relatively painless, at least when done for a baby, if a local anesthetic is used.

And finally, circumcised males appear to be enjoying sex quite well.

If it's done early enough, I'd suggest that the brain probably rewires itself to the changes.

If you put a circumcised male and a uncircumcised male in an MRI while receiving equal sexual stimulation and did an fMRI, I suggest you'd probably find similar activity in the brain.

Most of the enjoyment of sex is in the brain, ask anyone who's been on an SSRI or an anti-psychotic about that.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. an example in point of the absurd logic used to avoid the obvious

ritual mutilation for religious reasons is wrong, even if it doesn't cause a lot of pain, or remove a lot of stuff, or cause massive dysfunction.

I have no problem with voluntary self-mutilation. Mutilating children because god told you too is idiocy.

[Tejas]

9. I was so sure this would be an article by The Onion.

Wow, the things some people dedicate their waking hours to.

[lynne]

15. Countdown - 3 - 2- 1- until the right compares a circumcision -

- ban to abortion. Both should be personal, medical decisions - not political theater. They will ask how anyone can support a ban on circumcision and yet not support a ban on abortion. If you can remove the rights of the parents in one circumstance, can't you also do it for the other? Yes, yes, I know there are differences between the two situations (fetus vs. breathing baby) BUT there is no difference between the two in the opinion of some and that is the argument they will make.

BTW, this does make ALL Progressives look bad as SF is known as a progressive region. It is a pox that will stain all our houses.