San Francisco may voteban male circumcision(tuli)

[personalmgt]

---

So, I was just looking around in my gmail till I found this in the news/ads bar.

San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision | Reuters

(Reuters) - A group opposed to male circumcision said on Tuesday they have collected more than enough signatures to qualify a proposal to ban the practice in San Francisco as a ballot measure for November elections.

But legal experts said that even if it were approved by a majority of the city's voters, such a measure would almost certainly face a legal challenge as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion.

Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys, and is also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.

The leading proponent of a ban, Lloyd Schofield, 59, acknowledged circumcision is widely socially accepted but he said it should still be outlawed.

"It's excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that's forced on men when they're at their weakest and most vulnerable," he told Reuters.

His group submitted about 12,000 signatures supporting his proposed ban, said Rachel Gosiengfiao, campaign services manager for the city's Department of Elections. The agency has 30 days to verify the petitions. He needs 7,200 valid signatures to qualify.

The measure, which would only apply in San Francisco, would make it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years of age, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs. The maximum penalty would be a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Schofield, who would not discuss his current occupation but previously worked for hotels in the San Francisco Bay area, has found allies for his cause in the anti-circumcision groups Intact America and the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, according to his group's website.

However, some experts said it was doubtful such a measure would withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.

"The practice of Judaism requires a boy to be circumcised. I suspect the California courts would ultimately require the city to demonstrate the practice is harmful," said Jennifer Rothman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"I don't think there's sufficient medical evidence that it is, which would place the law's constitutionality in question."

But Josh Davis, professor and associate dean for faculty scholarship at the University of San Francisco School of Law, said the U.S. Supreme Court has previously indicated in rulings that "religions don't get a free pass."

"So if circumcision is the harm that's being targeted -- because circumcision is perceived as causing harm, and not because it is a religious practice -- it might well be a constitutionally valid law," he said.

Schofield's proposal would make exceptions for boys who need a circumcision for health reasons.

Nevertheless, Davis and Rothman both said voters would be likely to reject the measure at the polls.

"I think that people are very likely to react to it as interfering with religious practices," Davis said.

(Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Steve Gorman and Jerry Norton)

What a bunch of jerks who think circumcision is a religious practice.

Even if I was a die hard atheist, or a non-catholic, I will never find circumcision a religious practice. More like a sanitary/cosmetic idea.

[reptoid]

My problem with circumcision is that the child often has no say and at the end of the day it is a form of bodily mutilation. I don't even think parents have the right to pierce a child's ears. It should be a decision for the individual alone to make at an age when they are capable of making an informed choice.

[gareb]

What a bunch of jerks who think circumcision is a religious practice.

Even if I was a die hard atheist, or a non-catholic, I will never find circumcision a religious practice. More like a sanitary/cosmetic idea.

you have to admit though that it has roots in religion. the same thing applies with 'female circumcision'

it's more of a religious ritual than anything else. different religions/cultures all over the world have similar or equal traditions/rituals (tattoo, body piercings, scarring, reshaping of body parts) what one would say as 'mutilation' or 'bodily abuse' may be another's mark or imprint of being religious. if it is not religious, it's more likely a question of cultural identity.

it essentially depends on which perspective you come from. while i would personally wish that these things be left to the individual to decide later on in life, the impetus of cultural identity and religious tradition for such ritual would more often than not push parents to follow such.

what these people are doing, i believe, is to de-mystify this tradition and then label it as harmful, as a consequence of viewing the practice under their own cultural lenses. it is a bit dangerous as it can lead to xenophobia and may later slide down to racism. still, one's right to his/her own cultural identity and the freedom to exercise his/her own religious belief should not be hindered.

a compromise would be to let the individual decide for himself once he is of a mature age. this would allow the individual to retain his/her own cultural identity and chose for himself/herself the path that he/she wants to.

My problem with circumcision is that the child often has no say and at the end of the day it is a form of bodily mutilation. I don't even think parents have the right to pierce a child's ears. It should be a decision for the individual alone to make at an age when they are capable of making an informed choice.

i agree completely.

[diatabz]

Even if I was a die hard atheist, or a non-catholic, I will never find circumcision a religious practice. More like a sanitary/cosmetic idea.

Take it from someone who works in the medical field. Circumcision presents no unambiguous health benefits. It's more of a cultural and cosmetic practice, performed mainly on terrified children due to societal pressure.

[cool_guy]

Take it from someone who works in the medical field. Circumcision presents no unambiguous health benefits. It's more of a cultural and cosmetic practice, performed mainly on terrified children due to societal pressure.

i think naay health related issue about this, please read

Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[slakker]

right now, san fran is the gay capital of the world, soon they will also be the p-sot capital of the world...

[Lord_Ac]

We could be smart asses and try to discuss why circumcision should be banned and whatnot but at the end of the day, I'm proud that I was circumcised.

[reptoid]

Proud... Did you circumcise yourself AC? Now that would really would be something!

[Lord_Ac]

Proud... Did you circumcise yourself AC? Now that would really would be something!

You must be joking right?

Seriously, My parents didn't have me circumcised when I was an infant. I made that choice when I was in Grade School. Why? Maybe because of peer pressure.. most probably. But like I said, at the end of the day, I'm glad I made that choice.

Now, are you circumcised, reptoid?

[reptoid]

I'm only kidding AC. No, I'm not circed, but I can respect your position on this topic. We can agree to disagree.