Circumcision has been a hot topic for many years, with some saying it provides medical advantages and some saying it is an unnecessary procedure forced on young male children. Pro-foreskin forces in San Francisco have worked to collect signatures to have a possible ban brought before voters.
According to CBS News, their proposal would make it a misdemeanor, and anyone who chose to violate the ban could be slapped with a $1,000 fine and a year in jail. Legal experts say this possible ban on circumcisions would face a constitutional battle as it is a religious ritual for Muslims and Jews, and would challenge their religious freedom.
According to the American Academy of Pediatricians, as with any medical procedure, there are pros and cons. Circumcision has been shown to reduce bladder infections and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. On the downside, it is an extremely painful procedure and holds the risk of complications. Studies have shown that it can reduce a man's sexual sensation. Rare complications can even lead to amputation of the penis.
In recent years, after the Academy said it was not a necessary procedure, there has been a steady decline in the number of newborns undergoing circumcisions. In 2006, 56% of newborns underwent the procedure, but in 2009 that number had dropped to 32.5%.
For the most part, the decision to have a male child circumcised has been left to the parents and their beliefs, and the advice of their pediatrician. The idea of making it an illegal act may be taking it a bit too far. Better education on the pros and cons to pregnant mothers might just be a better option. If it does become a law and a new mother allows for her newborn son to be circumcised, will San Francisco need to create a nursery-style jail to hold these mothers and newborns? Will pregnant mothers be taking the trip down to L.A. to deliver? What side of the circumcision debate do you sit on?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 21
In 1997 the US banned even a pin-poke to draw one ceremonial drop of blood from female genitals, with no religious exemption. We just need to protect boys too.
Each parent must be free to choose the option they see is best for their family.
Did you expect your son to come maintenance free. If so, you're going to be disappointed.
(And since circumcision is no part of Christianity (Gal 5:2), "crusade" is hardly the word. Jihad, perhaps?)
The 14th ammendment demands equal protection under the law.
Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure when there is no diagnosis of defect or disease, and no record of other less-destructive remedies tried before resorting to the drastic last-resort step of amputation.
NOT ONE national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision.
As a Father, I had my three sons all circumcised to avoid any health issue as I know my family health history.
As a gay male I far prefer cut partners, they are cleaner, they do not stink, and the sex is more satisfying to both of us. I have had both cut and uncut and prefer the cut any day. I know some of you will be appalled by this statement but it a fact of life people grow up and get over that part of MY life. . Looking at this issue from a religious point of view ( and I am NOT religious in any way) I can understand the fact that both the Jewish and Islamic cults require it as a bond or covenant with God. That is their right under the law. Its like Same sex marriage, its is a religious point and not otherwise, But to impose ones religion on others is wrong. That is to say because you are Catholic, or Mormon you have your opinion and rights but should not force them upon someone who is Jewish or Lutheran. Nuff said here. I leave you all with a single thought. All our Thanks to the military brave men and women who killed Osama Bin Laden.
Which law is this? If you had a daughter and were Muslim would you circumcise her according to your religious "rights?" In fact, this right doesn't exist. Go read the First Ammendment and you'll see. Religious peoples claim it does and apparently by repeating it so much, they have convinced people it does. It doesn't.
"Lowering the risk" is not worth the possible risks and certain harm of circumcisin itself, if the risk is already very small and the lowering is not very big. For example, by the circumcisionists' own figures, more than 440 circumcisions would be wasted to prevent one urinary tract infection, more than 1000 to prevent one penile cancer in an old man.
Mr H, you do not seem to know that ALL cutting of females, no matter how minor, is against US law (and much of the the developed world's law). Last year, the AAP flirted with allowing a token ritual nick of girls, "much less extensive than male genital cutting" but they were howled down. Why the double standard? How about the Constitutional right of Aztecs to practice virgin sacrifice, according to their religion? Or my religion, NoEarsism? Stand still, please.