A San Francisco ballot measure would ban circumcision. Is that legal?

[iangillan]

An initiative to ban the circumcision of male minors—with fines up to $1,000 or one year in jail—made it onto San Francisco's November ballot on Wednesday. More than 7,700 San Francisco residents have signed the proposal, which deems foreskin-snipping an invasive medical procedure. Jewish and Muslim communities, in which circumcision is an important tradition, claim the ban would violate their constitutional freedoms.

Can the government prevent a religious group from practicing a religious rite?

Or we need just kill all Jews and Muslims,and leave America just for Christians.

This law seems to go a little to far! What do you think?

[Amnesiac]

An initiative to ban the circumcision of male minors—with fines up to $1,000 or one year in jail—made it onto San Francisco's November ballot on Wednesday. More than 7,700 San Francisco residents have signed the proposal, which deems foreskin-snipping an invasive medical procedure. Jewish and Muslim communities, in which circumcision is an important tradition, claim the ban would violate their constitutional freedoms.

Can the government prevent a religious group from practicing a religious rite?

Yes, actually. In some cases, individual rights take precedence over religious freedom. That's why things like polygamy and sacrifices are illegal in the United States. The unwarranted surgical procedure we call circumcision is something that should require the consent of the person it's being performed on. Therefore, it makes sense to ban it until the kid's old enough to make the decision for themselves.

Or we need just kill all Jews and Muslims,and leave America just for Christians.

This law seems to go a little to far! What do you think?

I don't think it goes far at all. "Religious freedom" means the ability to practice your religion freely without it being forced on others. Babies don't have a say in circumcision, therefore, the religious practice is being unlawfully forced on them. The individual rights of the child are more important than the so-called religious rights of the parents.

[Genghis Khan]

Other than not being able to get informed consent from the child, is any real physical damage being done by performing the circumcision? yet.]

[embers]

Other than not being able to get informed consent from the child, is any real physical damage being done by performing the circumcision? yet.]

Yeah, there's a (very) low risk of the child being permanently damaged, I don't know about fatal injuries though.

[iangillan]

I Agree in couple parts with you LithiumAnurysm.
But this law go soo deep in religious things.
See this. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/13/for-faithful-san-fran-ban-on-circumcision-a-cut-to/
Remember first amendmant.....
`To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny. Ronald Regan,president`
And off course,what with parental rights (they gave a life and they think what is good for children.Parents know better then government.
Terminate the rights of Parents and rights for religion is against human rights.

[Amnesiac]

I Agree in couple parts with you LithiumAnurysm.
But this law go soo deep in religious things.
See this. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/13/for-faithful-san-fran-ban-on-circumcision-a-cut-to/
Remember first amendmant.....
`To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny. Ronald Regan,president`
And off course,what with parental rights (they gave a life and they think what is good for children.Parents know better then government.
Terminate the rights of Parents and rights for religion is against human rights.

I'm all for having parents take care of their children, rather than the government. That's why I don't think the FCC should regulate media, and that nothing should ever be censored to "protect the children".

I agree that some medical decisions, like immunizations, should be made by the parents for the children. However, circumcision is a surgical procedure that is irreversible. Performing something of that magnitude on a child, without their full consent, simply shouldn't be legal. You have to realize that a balance has to be struck between religious freedom and individual rights. Normally, I'd support any non-permanent medical practices to be left in the hands of the parents, but circumcision is more than just an injection, or some stitches. It's irreversible.

You talk about the religious rights of these people performing the circumcisions, but what about the religious rights of the child that's being circumcised? Doesn't he have a say on whether or not he wants his foreskin cut off? The individual rights of the child who is unable to give consent should always trump anything else.

[Korashk]

Other than not being able to get informed consent from the child, is any real physical damage being done by performing the circumcision?
It's estimated that 100 infants a year die because of complications caused by circumcision.

[iangillan]

I'm all for having parents take care of their children, rather than the government. That's why I don't think the FCC should regulate media, and that nothing should ever be censored to "protect the children".

I agree that some medical decisions, like immunizations, should be made by the parents for the children. However, circumcision is a surgical procedure that is irreversible. Performing something of that magnitude on a child, without their full consent, simply shouldn't be legal. You have to realize that a balance has to be struck between religious freedom and individual rights. Normally, I'd support any non-permanent medical practices to be left in the hands of the parents, but circumcision is more than just an injection, or some stitches. It's irreversible.

You talk about the religious rights of these people performing the circumcisions, but what about the religious rights of the child that's being circumcised? Doesn't he have a say on whether or not he wants his foreskin cut off? The individual rights of the child who is unable to give consent should always trump anything else.

Again partly agree.
I don`t talking whether the infant circumcision is correct or incorrect.(this is individual).I talking about human and parental rights.In couple years I would be a Father and I want to make decision for my child not my government.
From fertilization till our 18 years,everything is our parents decision,our birth,health care,feeding,school,religion,circumcision....everything.
I don`t want that state and government decide should I baptise or circumcise my children.
I want my children to be my decision.

[iangillan]

It's estimated that 100 infants a year die because of complications caused by circumcision.

This is true if you talking about circumcision is performed in african tribes,without correct health care.I heard that is about 0,5 % problems caused by circumcision in the whole world and 0,05 % deaths caused by circumcision.

But this thread is about human/parental/religion rights.

[Commander Thor]

This is true if you talking about circumcision is performed in african tribes,without correct health care.I heard that is about 0,5 % problems caused by circumcision in the whole world and 0,05 % deaths caused by circumcision.

But this thread is about human/parental/religion rights.

Do you even know what .5% of 7 billion is? 35 million. .05%? 3.5 million.
There's simply no way that 35 million people have complications, and 3.5 million people die from circumcision.
You're talking deaths that near the amount of poeple that die from smoking.

Next time, before you pull numbers out of your ass, cite your sources.
.5 & .05% sounds small enough to be true, but when you're talking a world population of 7 billion, it turns out to be huge.

[Korashk]

This is true if you talking about circumcision is performed in african tribes,without correct health care.
No, the study (http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=a7e4df114a4f484e99525345bea4e32d&pi=5) was done in America. If you include other crap countries the number of deaths is way higher.

It's also not the number that are killed by the procedure itself. It's the number that die because of the procedure. Like, if they died because of an infection on the wound that would go towards the total.

Do you even know what .5% of 7 billion is? 35 million. .05%? 3.5 million.
There's simply no way that 35 million people have complications, and 3.5 million people die from circumcision.
You're talking deaths that near the amount of poeple that die from smoking.

Next time, before you pull numbers out of your ass, cite your sources.
.5 & .05% sounds small enough to be true, but when you're talking a world population of 7 billion, it turns out to be huge.
Umm, you can't count everybody. Only men who have circumcisions.

[Commander Thor]

Umm, you can't count everybody. Only men who have circumcisions.

Sorry, had a blonde moment, move along.
:whistle:
My point totally still stands about citing sources, .5/.05% still seems rather high

[iangillan]

Don`t get me wrong,I talking about .5 and .05 % of all circumcised people,not whole population on earth.
It was WHO information old about 6-7 months,but,when I find correct link I will putt them here.

Maybe It`˙s true Korashk,but I personaly prefer relevant sources for whole world.Circumcision is not only in USA.

But again we talking about human rights not about numbers.

[Amnesiac]

Again partly agree.
I don`t talking whether the infant circumcision is correct or incorrect.(this is individual).I talking about human and parental rights.In couple years I would be a Father and I want to make decision for my child not my government.
From fertilization till our 18 years,everything is our parents decision,our birth,health care,feeding,school,religion,circumcision....everything.

No, not necessarily. Children are usually empowered to make their own medical decisions in many cases, because they have individual rights. We can't sacrifice the individual rights of children to adhere to some old-fashioned 20th-century idealization of parenting. I don't want the government to make decisions for my child, and I certainly won't force him/her to do anything that could affect them for the rest of their lives.

I don`t want that state and government decide should I baptise or circumcise my children.
I want my children to be my decision.

No, your children should make their own decisions. They're people too. If the child has no say, it shouldn't be allowed. Baptism I couldn't care less about, but surgical procedure should, by law, have the child's consent.

Parents should have more control over their children than the government. But children should have more control over themselves than anyone else.

[aussiebunnie]

I don't think it goes far at all. "Religious freedom" means the ability to practice your religion freely without it being forced on others. Babies don't have a say in circumcision, therefore, the religious practice is being unlawfully forced on them. The individual rights of the child are more important than the so-called religious rights of the parents.

I think your missing the point there. What you are saying is that circumcision dictates your religion, it does not. Whether someone is circumcised or not does not mean they cannot practice a certain religion. There is no religion that says because you are circumcised you are no allowed to be part of the religion. Therefore it does not impede with any individual rights of a child.

[Amnesiac]

I think your missing the point there. What you are saying is that circumcision dictates your religion, it does not. Whether someone is circumcised or not does not mean they cannot practice a certain religion. There is no religion that says because you are circumcised you are no allowed to be part of the religion. Therefore it does not impede with any individual rights of a child.

Except, you know, the right for them not to undergo a surgical procedure that is completely unnecessary and irreversible.

[CaptainObvious]

Except, you know, the right for them not to undergo a surgical procedure that is completely unnecessary and irreversible.

I don't believe children have that right unless there is clearly identifiable harm that is irreversible. The fact that a parental decision is irreversible is more clear in this case, but no more important to a child's eventual life outcomes than many other parental decisions like schooling choices, religious indoctrination, etc. etc. etc.

I absolutely oppose regulating an action that is less central - while simultaneously being significantly more fraught with cultural and religious meaning - even than those decisions, which are already ceded to parents as it is.

[Sith Lord 13]

but surgical procedure should, by law, have the child's consent.

Sometimes. A child shouldn't be able to refuse chemo because it makes them feel icky.

[Amnesiac]

I don't believe children have that right unless there is clearly identifiable harm that is irreversible.

I've done some quick searching and can't find exactly what rights children have regarding consent to medical practices. I'd imagine it ranges by region anyway. I'd assume there's no established law that gives that right away to either parents or children.

The fact that a parental decision is irreversible is more clear in this case, but no more important to a child's eventual life outcomes than many other parental decisions like schooling choices, religious indoctrination, etc. etc. etc.

It may not be that consequential, but it's also not necessary at all. The level of risk involved is higher than the other things you named. Besides, education is necessary and required by law. As for religious indoctrination, I'm neutral on that.

I absolutely oppose regulating an action that is less central - while simultaneously being significantly more fraught with cultural and religious meaning - even than those decisions, which are already ceded to parents as it is.

However, those said decisions are reversable. Circumcision isn't.

[aussiebunnie]

Sometimes. A child shouldn't be able to refuse chemo because it makes them feel icky.

Yes you make a good point. Taking this further, If a mother who sees his kid who is sick and does nothing now can have a defense that the law permits child (even babies) to choose their own health care under the umbrella of "individual rights". Therefore any mother seeking to treat his or her child now cannot make a decision for the child. If a child cracks his head open the mother cannot choose to have the child undergo surgery because the scars might be "irreversible". Even if you argue that this surgery might be necessary, the mother will be under a statutory duty to seek alternatives before choosing the surgery. The child's individual rights will always prevail. No more Vaccinations.

You know if you enforce this law, the principles could be extended to 10 year old's getting tattoos or piercing. Because a child's individual right is more important than the LAW or what parents think. Any law that prohibits children getting tattoos/piercings will become nugatory to the basic right for child/infants to exercise his or her individual right.

[CaptainObvious]

It may not be that consequential, but it's also not necessary at all. The level of risk involved is higher than the other things you named. Besides, education is necessary and required by law. As for religious indoctrination, I'm neutral on that.

I dunno. I'd take being circumcised over growing up indoctrinated in some religion. My point regarding education is that a lack of parental action or allowing certain decisions to be made is certainly more detrimental to long-term success for children than circumcision, as well; yet to a great extent that is still part of parents' responsibility.

However, those said decisions are reversable. Circumcision isn't.

Both sides of that statement are very, very arguable.

[Amnesiac]

I dunno. I'd take being circumcised over growing up indoctrinated in some religion. My point regarding education is that a lack of parental action or allowing certain decisions to be made is certainly more detrimental to long-term success for children than circumcision, as well; yet to a great extent that is still part of parents' responsibility.

I know you're comparing the consequences of these decisions, however, they're different things. Education and religion affect the mentality of the child. Circumcision affect physical aspects of the child. Ultimately, what a child is taught in his/her youth can be overcome in adulthood. Meanwhile, circumcision, a physical modification, is generally extremely hard if not impossible to reverse.

[iangillan]

Appendectomy is also irreversible.By our law,children have no that kind of rights till 18.Only parents have rights for their children.Children can not choose should they be aborted or born,Should he be Christian or Muslim.
I`m not so deep in religion but i respect all religions and their rituals,including circumcision and baptism,etc.
I will never accept that government make our decisions. Each of us, here on VT, will be a parent sometimes and I`m sure that all of us want to make decisions for our childrens.
We need to decide should we circumcise our children or will leave it to the child to choose,without any interference of government.

[FrancisG]

I heard this that talks about male circumcision, and aside from that they also mentioned that there's a campaign that male circumcision will be ban. When we talk about male circumcision, this is done to prevent future disease. In the news they mentioned that Lloyd Schofield, a San Francisco citizen, has effectively compiled 7,700 correct signatures in his plan to legally ban male circumcision. It was confirmed by election officials that his proposal will be on the city's Nov ballot. But U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) has countered with his own bill. The Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 seek to stop San Francisco and other towns from prohibiting the practice. Here is the proof: San Francisco to vote on circumcision issue, newstype.com (http://www.newsytype.com/7742-circumcision-issue/)

[iangillan]

I hoppe FrancisG,that this law will not pass. With this law,USA will be first and only one country in the modern world that is in same line with nazi-Germany and with fascist Serbia (10 years ago).

[Amnesiac]

I hoppe FrancisG,that this law will not pass. With this law,USA will be first and only one country in the modern world that is in same line with nazi-Germany and with fascist Serbia (10 years ago).

What?

[iangillan]

What?

What,What. Deprivation of rights for parental decisions and first of all freedom of religion is very similar with situation in Germany 1932-1942.

[Korashk]

What,What. Deprivation of rights for parental decisions and first of all freedom of religion is very similar with situation in Germany 1932-1942.
Your parents shouldn't have the right to force cosmetic surgery on you, and this isn't a violation of religious freedom as babies are irreligious.

[iangillan]

Your parents shouldn't have the right to force cosmetic surgery on you, and this isn't a violation of religious freedom as babies are irreligious.

For Jews and Muslims,this is not cosmetic surgery.
But again I don`t wanna talk about circumcision as surgery and religious.I don't wanna to judge Jews and Muslims ,why they circumcise their sons,to be honest I don`t care.I`m Talking about state and government interference in something what is very family and religious thing.

[Korashk]

For Jews and Muslims,this is not cosmetic surgery.
Babies can't be Jews or Muslims, what part of this don't people get?

I`m Talking about state and government interference in something what is very family and religious thing.
As the saying goes, "Your rights end where my body begins." It isn't a violation of any sort of freedom to say that you can't perform unnecessary surgery on me without my consent.

[iangillan]

Again And Again,Korashk.I don`t wanna talk about religious reasons and rituals.
If you want to talk,why Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons,for what reason,go on without me.
If (for example) I want to circumcise my son,it is my problem ,not Your or Governments.
BTW. by USA law system,all responsibilities on children body have parents till 18 birthday.I don`t know for your country,but in USA is this way.

I want to be this way,No government interference.

It is very clear, my family, my religion,my children are my problem,not Governments.

[Korashk]

Again And Again,Korashk.I don`t wanna talk about religious reasons and rituals.
If you want to talk,why Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons,for what reason,go on without me.
Huh? I'm not and never was talking about why Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons.

If (for example) I want to circumcise my son,it is my problem ,not Your or Governments.
I'm actually fairly sure it's his problem. Being that its his body and all.

BTW. by USA law system,all responsibilities on children body have parents till 18 birthday.I don`t know for your country,but in USA is this way.
Yeah responsibilities are up to the parent, but try and get your infant a boob job and come back to me.

I want to be this way,No government interference.

It is very clear, my family, my religion,my children are my problem,not Governments.
What gives you the right to force religious practices on your children? This proposed ban is no different than other bans religious practices that would affect non-consenting parties.

[iangillan]

hahahaha,Korashk
Who talking here about religious practices on children,can you see,we talking about government,and governments rights over religious.

BTW,where in the world you can find that government have any interference about circumcision.We have many younger and older countries in the world,but nowhere you can find this.
From your posts i see that you are atheist (or Agnostic).but that don`t give you rights
to judge religious rituals.

[Korashk]

hahahaha,Korashk
Who talking here about religious practices on children,can you see,we talking about government,and governments rights over religious.
Only in the vaguest sense. Circumcision may be a religious practice to some religions, but so are polygamy and human sacrifice (as was mentioned earlier). You can't do those either, is that a violation of religious freedom? Obviously not.

BTW,where in the world you can find that government have any interference about circumcision.We have many younger and older countries in the world,but nowhere you can find this.
Your point?

From your posts i see that you are atheist (or Agnostic).but that don`t give you rights to judge religious rituals.
I'm pretty sure I have the right to judge whatever I want. And I judge that forcing a person to undergo unnecessary surgery is a violation of their negative rights.

[Sogeking]

I hoppe FrancisG,that this law will not pass. With this law,USA will be first and only one country in the modern world that is in same line with nazi-Germany and with fascist Serbia (10 years ago).

I guess Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) comes into effect here.

[Neverender]

Parents are mutilating the genitals of a child effectively for life based on their own personal convictions.

dn3cBilg06g

Both sides of that statement are very, very arguable.

Circumcison can not be effectively reversed. A new foreskin won't be able to make up losses for the desensitizing of the glans over a lifetime of circumcision.

[embers]

Parents are mutilating the genitals of a child effectively for life based on their own personal convictions.

Mutilate isn't the correct word, unless you're talking about tribal circumcisions done completely outside of a safe environment.

[Neverender]

Mutilate isn't the correct word, unless you're talking about tribal circumcisions done completely outside of a safe environment.

While Mutilate is a very loaded word, in some circumstances, it is appropriate. Circumcision is not always done without appropriate anesthesia. And even though we might not remember it, it still would hurt like hell because the flesh is saudered to keep from bleeding. And what if the doctor makes a mistake? Like taking off too much skin? Or cutting circulation to the glans, effectively making the child sexually crippled? Or causing death from blood loss? There's too much at stake in my opinion for a non-medically necissary surgical procedure.

[embers]

While Mutilate is a very loaded word, in some circumstances, it is appropriate. Circumcision is not always done without appropriate anesthesia. And even though we might not remember it, it still would hurt like hell because the flesh is saudered to keep from bleeding. And what if the doctor makes a mistake? Like taking off too much skin? Or cutting circulation to the glans, effectively making the child sexually crippled? Or causing death from blood loss? There's too much at stake in my opinion for a non-medically necissary surgical procedure.

I always thought mutilate meant to injure badly - circumcision only has that slight chance of injuring badly (ie mutilating). Aren't the chances of any of those mistakes very low?

[Neverender]

As I'm sure you can see, I am vehemently against circumcising children.

I always thought mutilate meant to injure badly - circumcision only has that slight chance of injuring badly (ie mutilating). Aren't the chances of any of those mistakes very low?

According to the American Academy of Family Physicians; 16 children per year out of about 90,000 died following circumcision in the UK. In 2010, Bollinger estimated a death rate of 9.01 per 100,000, or 117 per year in the United States.

That is only death rates, therefore injury rates would be logically higher.

[embers]

According to the American Academy of Family Physicians; 16 children per year out of about 90,000 died following circumcision in the UK. In 2010, Bollinger estimated a death rate of 9.01 per 100,000, or 117 per year in the United States.

The same study by the American Academy of Family Physicians puts the estimated death rate at 1 in 500,000. Of 650,000 circumcised boys in Texas, none were reported to have died. Another study said that there were no deaths among 500,000 circumcisions, and another said none among 300,000 US Army circumcisions were fatal. (Yes, I read the same Wikipedia article.)

So really, I believe that it's fine only if in absolutely safe conditions.

[iangillan]

And,wher is the point,after 41 posts.
As title says,what with the people who are deep in faith,in Islam and Judaism.I`m pretty sure that they don`t wanna change their religion for some `one-county` law system.
Maybe make some concentration camps for them or disloge them from USA.

[Korashk]

As title says,what with the people who are deep in faith,in Islam and Judaism.I`m pretty sure that they don`t wanna change their religion for some `one-county` law system.
Nobody's forcing them to change. One more time, in a few different ways:

BABIES ARE NOT RELIGIOUS!
BABIES ARE IRRELIGIOUS!
OUTLAWING PERFORMING COSMETIC SURGERY ON AN UNWILLING PARTICIPANT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

[iangillan]

Nobody's forcing them to change. One more time, in a few different ways:

BABIES ARE NOT RELIGIOUS!
BABIES ARE IRRELIGIOUS!
OUTLAWING PERFORMING COSMETIC SURGERY ON AN UNWILLING PARTICIPANT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

First and last,easy with your font size.
I`m grew up in multireligious society and you can be sure that no one person in faith will not agree with you.
But again and again,easy with your upper cases and font size.
If you do not want normally discuss,then is better to stop it.

[Korashk]

First and last,easy with your font size.
I added emphasis to hammer home the point I'm trying to express that you seem to keep ignoring.

I`m grew up in multireligious society and you can be sure that no one person in faith will not agree with you.
Rephrase this please. It doesn't make sense.

[Neverender]

The same study by the American Academy of Family Physicians puts the estimated death rate at 1 in 500,000. Of 650,000 circumcised boys in Texas, none were reported to have died. Another study said that there were no deaths among 500,000 circumcisions, and another said none among 300,000 US Army circumcisions were fatal. (Yes, I read the same Wikipedia article.)

So really, I believe that it's fine only if in absolutely safe conditions.

Still, theres an unnecessary chance of death? To hell with it.

My opinions are the same for any cultural issue like this. In Toronto I believe, Sikh kids were lobbying to carry their 6 inch ceremonial knives with them to school. Any other person wouldn't be aloud to carry a god damn knife to a public institution. But they have to? Who is to say that any of these children won't go on a killing spree in the school?

Same treatment of cultural needs should apply here. Only here, the children have no control over what happens to their foreskin.

[iangillan]

I added emphasis to hammer home the point I'm trying to express that you seem to keep ignoring.


Rephrase this please. It doesn't make sense.

One example...
Suppose this..This legislation pass.I`m Jew,deep in faith, and want to circumcise my son,as mandated by my faith,such my ancestors did couple thousand years ago. What now. Government don`t allow,what should I do.

[Korashk]

One example...
Suppose this..This legislation pass.I`m Jew,deep in faith, and want to circumcise my son,as mandated by my faith,such my ancestors did couple thousand years ago. What now. Government don`t allow,what should I do.
Not perform unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting party, maybe? Wait until the kid is old enough to make an informed decision on his own, maybe? You see, in general, religious freedom does not mean the freedom to impose your religion on others without their consent.

[iangillan]

Partly agree with you.But what with people who are deep in faith an want to perform religious rituals.
As I said before,I`m grew up in multireligious society and I know how people can be deep,very deep in faith.They believe they must to do this,do you expect that this kind of people,change their faith.

Why `maybe`,there is no maybe in this law.

[Amnesiac]

Partly agree with you.But what with people who are deep in faith an want to perform religious rituals.
As I said before,I`m grew up in multireligious society and I know how people can be deep,very deep in faith.They believe they must to do this,do you expect that this kind of people,change their faith.

Too bad.

[iangillan]

Too bad.

Here I agree with you,but problem is how to change this.Religion is the opium for the people.

[Perseus]

Here I agree with you,but problem is how to change this.Religion is the opium for the people.

It's not like they can't go and circumcise their child somewhere else.

[iangillan]

If this law pass,they will go somewhere else,it is for sure.But San Francisco is most opened city and this kind of `discrimination` is really unnecessary.

[Perseus]

If this law pass,they will go somewhere else,it is for sure.But San Francisco is most opened city and this kind of `discrimination` is really unnecessary.

This is not discrimination at all.

[CaptainObvious]

You see, in general, religious freedom does not mean the freedom to impose your religion on others without their consent.

In general it does not mean that. Specific to a person's children it most certainly does mean precisely that, and pretty much always has.

[iangillan]

This is not discrimination at all.

Do not allow people the religious practices,in one democratic country is not discrimination, I just can say hahaha.

[Amnesiac]

Do not allow people the religious practices,in one democratic country is not discrimination, I just can say hahaha.

We don't let people perform sacrifices or female genital mutilation, and those play roles in some religions or "beliefs".

[iangillan]

Female circumcision is not customary in any religion or country.Just in couple tribes.No connection with any demos or religion.
Btw.Female circumcision is not allowed in any modern country,but male circumcision is allowed for religious and tradition reasons.

[Korashk]

In general it does not mean that. Specific to a person's children it most certainly does mean precisely that, and pretty much always had.
How exactly, besides circumcision and making kids go to church?

[Perseus]

Do not allow people the religious practices,in one democratic country is not discrimination, I just can say hahaha.

You need to study up on English syntax because I have no idea what you just said.

[iangillan]

You need to study up on English syntax because I have no idea what you just said.

Sorry,I know.
But I`m sure that you can find the point. If we,in USA (aka.democratic country) do not allow religious practices,then we call it religious `discrimination`.

[Sith Lord 13]

Sorry,I know.
But I`m sure that you can find the point. If we,in USA (aka.democratic country) do not allow religious practices,then we call it religious `discrimination`.

BUT WE'RE NOT DISALLOWING RELIGIOUS PRACTICES. We're disallowing cosmetic surgery on persons who can't consent.

[iangillan]

BUT WE'RE NOT DISALLOWING RELIGIOUS PRACTICES. We're disallowing cosmetic surgery on persons who can't consent.

You`re right if we talking about cosmetic surgery,but this thread is about religious rights.People who are deep in faith,take circumcision as religious ritual,especially Jews and Muslims.They don`t know for cosmetic surgery.

[Korashk]

You`re right if we talking about cosmetic surgery,but this thread is about religious rights.People who are deep in faith,take circumcision as religious ritual,especially Jews and Muslims.They don`t know for cosmetic surgery.
Circumcision, for all intents and purposes, IS cosmetic surgery. It serves no purpose in the first-world other than making you penis look different. It doesn't matter if it's also considered a religious ritual. As has been mentioned before, many things some religions consider rituals are illegal due to their interfering with the rights of others.

[iangillan]

As has been mentioned before, many things some religions consider rituals are illegal due to their interfering with the rights of others.

Yes,I know,but,as I said before Religion Is Opium For People.
And where is a Point,do you really think that some people would change their religion,because San Francisco do not allow religious rituals.
And again,I do not care for circumcision,is it Ok or Not Ok,who cares.
I talking about religious rights in one democratic country.Because I`m pretty sure that no one Jew Or Muslim would`nt change their religious rituals for `one city` law.
And as I Said,I met a lot of Christians,Jews,Muslims,Buddhists who are very deep in their religion,and who cares for their religion.

[CaptainObvious]

It doesn't matter if it's also considered a religious ritual.

According to the Constitution, it does. Propose amending that if you'd like (unlikely to work but you're welcome to try), but otherwise you can't really make statements like this.

[User Deleted]

The individual rights of the child are more important than the so-called religious rights of the parents.

I couldn't have said it better myself

[Korashk]

According to the Constitution, it does. Propose amending that if you'd like (unlikely to work but you're welcome to try), but otherwise you can't really make statements like this.
Can you get married to more than one person or sacrifice a human?

[CaptainObvious]

Can you get married to more than one person or sacrifice a human?

Clever insinuation, but what does that have anything to do with the statement "it doesn't matter if it's also considered a religious ritual" exactly? Our society gives great deference to religious beliefs in allowing people to perform practices to which they attach great importance. So it obviously matters; it just doesn't matter without limit. The limit is harm. Absent significant demonstrated harm (which none of you appear willing to argue takes place), allowing parents to circumcise their boys is completely valid even if it weren't a religious thing.

This is why I absolutely support the right to circumcise but not, for example, the right for Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse necessary medical treatment for their young children. You demonstrate that circumcision has significant net harm associated with it, we can talk. Otherwise, your arguments here are morally valid but in no way rise to the level of something we ought to legislate against.

[Korashk]

Absent significant demonstrated harm (which none of you appear willing to argue takes place),
What about all the infants that DIE because of the procedure? Is that harm enough for you?

[embers]

Circumcision, for all intents and purposes, IS cosmetic surgery. It serves no purpose in the first-world other than making you penis look different.

Actually, there are debates about whether it serves a medical purpose, too. There have been many studies that gave evidence that circumcision may substantially reduce the risk of HIV:

Source 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21590467)
Source 2 (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html)
and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV)

[Korashk]

Actually, there are debates about whether it serves a medical purpose, too. There have been many studies that gave evidence that circumcision may substantially reduce the risk of HIV:

Source 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21590467)
Source 2 (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html)
and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV)
Yeah, flawed studies.

Green, L. et al., "Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity," American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39 (2010): 479-82.
"An article endorsed by thirty-two professionals questions the results of three highly publicized African circumcision studies. The studies claim that circumcision reduces HIV transmission, and they are being used to promote circumcisions. Substantial evidence in this article refutes the claim of the studies.

Examples in the article include the following:

1. Circumcision (in the study) is associated with increased transmission of HIV to women.

2. Conditions for the studies were unlike conditions found in real-world settings.

3. Other studies show that male circumcision is not associated with reduced HIV transmission.

4. The U.S. has a high rate of HIV infection and a high rate of circumcision. Other countries have low rates of circumcision and low rates of HIV infection.

5. Condoms are 95 times more cost effective in preventing HIV transmission"

Plus this (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/).

[CaptainObvious]

What about all the infants that DIE because of the procedure? Is that harm enough for you?

No. What would be enough for me would be aggregate studies that show that circumcision, on the whole, significantly harms its patients. Those small number of children who are adversely affected by circumcision are balanced out by some whom circumcision will help, so saying some will die from it is most certainly not enough for me.

(And on the point of aggregate studies, the most recent one used against me in this debate shows an aggregate loss of 0.0153 well-years per patient from circumcision. I don't consider that a particularly significant number.)

[Korashk]

Those small number of children who are adversely affected by circumcision are balanced out by some whom circumcision will help
How does circumcision help anyone, save the minority where it is medically necessary?

[Black Eight]

I see it as Korashk does. This isn't preventing people from practicing Judaism or Islam, it's protecting children's basic human rights. If they grow up and realize that they are a Jew or Muslim, they can have the procedure done at their own will.

[iangillan]

I see it as Korashk does. This isn't preventing people from practicing Judaism or Islam, it's protecting children's basic human rights. If they grow up and realize that they are a Jew or Muslim, they can have the procedure done at their own will.

It is OK,but here we talking about religious rights.This law is about preventing from practicing Judaism and Islam,because circumcision is one part of their beliefs.

[thebgsamuel]

well just let the population do what they think is right the parents chose for you because of what they think and when you are a baby you don't think much about it a taking the decision as a teenager is quiet hard. and anyway you cant stop religion by law it would be worst than anything, religion has been doing it for centuries its not gonna change easily!

[iangillan]

and anyway you cant stop religion by law it would be worst than anything, religion has been doing it for centuries its not gonna change easily!

I absolutely agree,but this law try to change this.
We all know what population will decide,because in San Francisco,Atheists and Christians are in majority,others will be overruled.

[Amnesiac]

It is OK,but here we talking about religious rights.This law is about preventing from practicing Judaism and Islam,because circumcision is one part of their beliefs.

What we've been trying to explain to you this entire time is that the religious rights of people NEVER trump an individual's rights. I don't give a fuck if it's part of their religion or not. The newborn baby shouldn't be subject to any unnecessary cosmetic surgery that they legally can't consent to.

[iangillan]

What we've been trying to explain to you this entire time is that the religious rights of people NEVER trump an individual's rights. I don't give a fuck if it's part of their religion or not. The newborn baby shouldn't be subject to any unnecessary cosmetic surgery that they legally can't consent to.

This is your opinion,I accept it,but deep religious people don`t.

Big Fonts keep for yourself.

[Black Eight]

It is OK,but here we talking about religious rights.This law is about preventing from practicing Judaism and Islam,because circumcision is one part of their beliefs.

This law is not about preventing people from practicing Judaism and Islam. It's about protecting people's bodily rights. You say that this would prevent people from practicing Judaism and Islam, but where does it say that you can't practice these religions with a foreskin. I know that the only requirement to be a Jew is that you must have a Jewish mother.

[iangillan]

This law is not about preventing people from practicing Judaism and Islam. It's about protecting people's bodily rights. You say that this would prevent people from practicing Judaism and Islam, but where does it say that you can't practice these religions with a foreskin. I know that the only requirement to be a Jew is that you must have a Jewish mother.

Partly,you`re right,but Jew believer consider circumcision as an obligation.Believe me,i have many Jewish friends,they consider circumcision as very,very important part of their religion.

[Amnesiac]

Partly,you`re right,but Jew believer consider circumcision as an obligation.Believe me,i have many Jewish friends,they consider circumcision as very,very important part of their religion.

Let's assume the Aztecs still existed today, and had assimilated into modern society. Human sacrifice is a main component of Aztec belief. Yet still, we wouldn't let them practice it, because it violates the individual rights of the person.

We also don't let idiots like Christian Scientists deny their children medical assistance when they're injured or fall ill, because that would violate their individual rights as well.

Religion never trumps individual rights. Ever. It never should. People can keep their goddamn religions to themselves; it's simply disgusting to force it onto other people, regardless of their age.

[iangillan]

Please buddy, Don`t Go around and around. Just answer one question,What believers in San Francisco,will do, if they don`t wanna change their religious practices.
Again only in San Francisco,not anywhere else in the world.

[Perseus]

Please buddy, Don`t Go around and around. Just answer one question,What believers in San Francisco,will do, if they don`t wanna change their religious practices.
Again only in San Francisco,not anywhere else in the world.

Wow, do you even read what Lithium writes? You make no sense, and you keep saying the same thing and everyone refutes it, but you persist on your little syntactical error sentences that make no sense.

[iangillan]

Despite my mistakes, I'm sure everyone can find a point.
I know what Lithium writes,it makes no sense,this thread is about rights to exercise religion in SF,whatever it is.

[embers]

Despite my mistakes, I'm sure everyone can find a point.
I know what Lithium writes,it makes no sense,this thread is about rights to exercise religion in SF,whatever it is.

They're saying you do have a right to exercise your religion. However, you shouldn't have a right to force it on people who have not chosen that religion, especially in cases where it goes against their individual rights (ie circumcision).

[iangillan]

They're saying you do have a right to exercise your religion. However, you shouldn't have a right to force it on people who have not chosen that religion, especially in cases where it goes against their individual rights (ie circumcision).
I Personally absolutely agree with that.
Yesterday I visited some friends,Jews.We were talking about this.They absolutely do not agree with that.For them,banning circumcision is the same as the banning religion.
I say for them,I`m not a Jew,don`t judging Me.

[Sith Lord 13]

I Personally absolutely agree with that.
Yesterday I visited some friends,Jews.We were talking about this.They absolutely do not agree with that.For them,banning circumcision is the same as the banning religion.
I say for them,I`m not a Jew,don`t judging Me.

No one's judging you, don't imply they are. The fact of the matter is that your Jewish friends are wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional about preventing someone from forcing another person to submit to cosmetic surgery without their consent.

[CaptainObvious]

No one's judging you, don't imply they are. The fact of the matter is that your Jewish friends are wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional about preventing someone from forcing another person to submit to cosmetic surgery without their consent.

Nobody with more than a cursory knowledge of constitutional law would make this argument. You can disagree with circumcision all you like, but the significantly religious content of the ceremony means that this law as written is guaranteed to be unconstitutional.

[iangillan]

There is nothing unconstitutional about preventing someone from forcing another person to submit to cosmetic surgery without their consent.

I think,this is `double-edged sword`.
For believers suppression of religious practices is unconstitutional.
I talking about government rights against religious rights.

http://israeljewishnews.blogspot.com/2011/06/brit-milah-vs-ballot-box-in-san.html