or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Anyone Seen This Yet? SF Proposes Circ Ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone Seen This Yet? SF Proposes Circ Ban

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/12/health/main7048210.shtml

 

Even if it doesn't pass, this is a sign of progression that this would even be discussed! The woman defending it comes off as pretty uninformed but the guy proposing the ban points out a few of the double standards. In the news piece, you can see how far brainwashing it as normal has gone because some people feel it goes too far. I'm not a proponent of government banning things and telling people what to do cause i'm a bit libertarian. But this isn't that. It's not the personal choice of the child who gets cut. The sad part i doctors forcing the issue have made many parents believe it is the right thing. Those on the fence do it because a doc convinces them and they are just pawns in the whole situation. Any bill banning circ is not an attack on parents, it's an attack on outdated medical beliefs as I see it.

 

And while one can deem it a slippery slope between this and legislating parenting, there are already measures that prevent tattooing, spanking, teaching hateful doctrine, etc. Some of this has people thinking it's nanny state stuff but I believe we as a society are better off. The only thing that gets to hide behind it is religion but in non-religious cases, I don't see circumcision being a fair personal choice because babies and young children are not making the final say. Why is this any different? It's forcing beliefs on the child and while all of us grow up believing a lot of what our parents teach us, it is ok unless it does not preach harm to an individual. This is an interesting battle of individual rights (specifically those who can't speak up for themselves) vs. the power of culture mentality.

post #2 of 33

I think it's an awesome start.

post #3 of 33

In America, there is NOT legislation preventing spanking, tattooing, or teaching hateful doctrine. The child needs a parent's permission to be tatooed, but I know MANY children under the age of 18 who have tattoos..

 

I think this is a slippery slope towards parenting being legislated. What's next, telling parents what they must feed their children? How they must sleep? What if they used "studies" to determine that co-sleeping was dangerous? They are out there, even if we don't agree with them. What if they do away with homeschooling? There are always going to be two sides to an issue. The best approach is to change the culture, not the law. By forcing this type of thing on people, you simply harden their resolve towards ever changing. I find it ironic that so many on this board fight tooth and nail against vaccinations being mandatory, yet would be okay with the government legislating other forms of parenting.

post #4 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

In America, there is NOT legislation preventing spanking, tattooing, or teaching hateful doctrine. The child needs a parent's permission to be tatooed, but I know MANY children under the age of 18 who have tattoos..

 

I think this is a slippery slope towards parenting being legislated. What's next, telling parents what they must feed their children? How they must sleep? What if they used "studies" to determine that co-sleeping was dangerous? They are out there, even if we don't agree with them. What if they do away with homeschooling? There are always going to be two sides to an issue. The best approach is to change the culture, not the law. By forcing this type of thing on people, you simply harden their resolve towards ever changing. I find it ironic that so many on this board fight tooth and nail against vaccinations being mandatory, yet would be okay with the government legislating other forms of parenting.


Maybe that's because you are looking at these issues from a different perspective? I think people should have the right to choose what they do to their own bodies. That means that the gov't can't force me to take a vaccine, doesn't allow me to permanently remove a healthy part of my son's body, and many other things that you didn't bring up.

 

Do you also feel that female genital cutting should be legal?

 

Also, many states ban tattooing a minor, regardless of parental consent.

post #5 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

In America, there is NOT legislation preventing spanking, tattooing, or teaching hateful doctrine. The child needs a parent's permission to be tatooed, but I know MANY children under the age of 18 who have tattoos..

 

I think this is a slippery slope towards parenting being legislated. What's next, telling parents what they must feed their children? How they must sleep? What if they used "studies" to determine that co-sleeping was dangerous? They are out there, even if we don't agree with them. What if they do away with homeschooling? There are always going to be two sides to an issue. The best approach is to change the culture, not the law. By forcing this type of thing on people, you simply harden their resolve towards ever changing. I find it ironic that so many on this board fight tooth and nail against vaccinations being mandatory, yet would be okay with the government legislating other forms of parenting.


Well, do you think that FGM should be legalized (given that you think that parents should have choices in those areas)?

 

ETA: ammiga beat me to this question.

post #6 of 33

A darn good start!

 

Do the signatures need to come from San Fransico residents?

post #7 of 33

The government doesn't force you to circumsize, so I really don't understand your argument. And no, I do not think that FGM should be legal, but IMO that and male circumcision is entirely different. I know many of circumsized males who have no ill effects from the procedure, but that is really beside the point.

 

What I am trying to get across is that if you truly want to make circumcision extinct, you have to do it through culture and awareness, not through beating people over the head with it. I have the same issue with abortion. I don't think making illegal will ever be the answer, even though I personally don't agree with it. By using information and awareness, people will change; people have started to change.

post #8 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

 I know many of circumsized males who have no ill effects from the procedure, but that is really beside the point.

 

 

No ill effects that they are aware of - yet.  This is because they have no clue as to what a foreskin is, how it works or what they are missing. It is the same as someone who can only see in shades of grey. They have no idea what colour is!!  The fact is that they are missing out on a whole spectrum of experience that they can never know, in addition to the fact that their sex life will end about a decade before it should.

post #9 of 33

Quote:

Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

The government doesn't force you to circumsize, so I really don't understand your argument. And no, I do not think that FGM should be legal, but IMO that and male circumcision is entirely different. I know many of circumsized males who have no ill effects from the procedure, but that is really beside the point.

 

What I am trying to get across is that if you truly want to make circumcision extinct, you have to do it through culture and awareness, not through beating people over the head with it. I have the same issue with abortion. I don't think making illegal will ever be the answer, even though I personally don't agree with it. By using information and awareness, people will change; people have started to change.


But this IS raising awareness.  I don't think having one pretty progressive city in the entire country ban circ equals beating people over the head with it.  Even if this does pass, which would be highly unlikely, people can just go to a neighboring town to have their boys cut.  No one will stop them.  Hopefully a ban would give some people pause first and might make them actually look up what they're putting their sons through.  That's great that people have started to change, but how does that help all the boys born into circing families now?

 

Many of us on this board would disagree with you that male circ is entirely different than some forms of FGM (prepuce, aka clitoral hood, removal), and I guarantee you there are many circed women on this planet who would claim they've had no ill effects from their own surgeries, even those victims of the more extreme forms.  After all, it's usually the women who insist on it for their daughters.

post #10 of 33

I really don't understand why OBs - and sure, why not start with those in SF? - simply start refusing to perform routine infant circs.  Bingo, problem solved.  As much as I hate circumcision (and I soooo hate it), I REALLY hate trying to legislate things like this.

post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

In America, there is NOT legislation preventing spanking, tattooing, or teaching hateful doctrine. The child needs a parent's permission to be tatooed, but I know MANY children under the age of 18 who have tattoos..

 

I think this is a slippery slope towards parenting being legislated. What's next, telling parents what they must feed their children? How they must sleep? What if they used "studies" to determine that co-sleeping was dangerous? They are out there, even if we don't agree with them. What if they do away with homeschooling? There are always going to be two sides to an issue. The best approach is to change the culture, not the law. By forcing this type of thing on people, you simply harden their resolve towards ever changing. I find it ironic that so many on this board fight tooth and nail against vaccinations being mandatory, yet would be okay with the government legislating other forms of parenting.


Actually, there is legislation against tattoos on minors. With or without parental permission, you can't tattoo anyone under the age of 18 in Alaska, California, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and for all purposes, Georgia (must have a licensed osteopath do it). In fact, in Illinois and South Carolina, you can't get one until 21 years old. 

 

And, tattooing is a reasonable comparison to male circumcision: unnecessary, painful, cosmetic, and could be argued (though I don't agree that this is true with circumcision) no long term effects on the person's body other than appearance. There was no slippery slope that disallowed even ear piercing in minors, so I doubt that suddenly there would be legislation against co-sleeping.

post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

The government doesn't force you to circumsize, so I really don't understand your argument. And no, I do not think that FGM should be legal, but IMO that and male circumcision is entirely different. I know many of circumsized males who have no ill effects from the procedure, but that is really beside the point.

 

What I am trying to get across is that if you truly want to make circumcision extinct, you have to do it through culture and awareness, not through beating people over the head with it. I have the same issue with abortion. I don't think making illegal will ever be the answer, even though I personally don't agree with it. By using information and awareness, people will change; people have started to change.

My argument is that people should have choices with their bodies. Whether it is the government forcing vaxes or parents forcing circumcision, neither one should be allowed.

 

Do you think that all "circumsized" women feel they have ill effects from the procedure? If they truly feel it is so awful, why do they do it to their daughters?

 

Cultural awareness is great. But when it comes to ending an abusive process, sometimes you've just got to stop it and then work on explaining why.


 

post #13 of 33

I commented. There's a lot of educating to do out there.

post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post
I find it ironic that so many on this board fight tooth and nail against vaccinations being mandatory, yet would be okay with the government legislating other forms of parenting.


Comparing a parent being required to give vax to a parent being banned from circ'ing is a very poor comparison.  I think it is more comparable to the government preventing me from injecting my healthy child with human growth hormone to make him/her extra tall, or my injecting my child with morphine to make him/her quiet.  Obviously, human growth hormone and morphine are sometime prescribed for children with genuine health problems.  I can't just decide to give my health child any old medical treatment that happens to strike my fancy though.

post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

First of all, a women who has been circumsized CANNOT enjoy sex


That's not actually true. Many women who have been circumcised have stated that they enjoy sex - check Fuambai Ahmadu's writing on her own circumcision as a young adult, for example, or Carla Obermeyer's comprehensive review of the literature.

post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

First of all, a women who has been circumsized CANNOT enjoy sex


That's not actually true. Many women who have been circumcised have stated that they enjoy sex - check Fuambai Ahmadu's writing on her own circumcision as a young adult, for example, or Carla Obermeyer's comprehensive review of the literature.


There are also many forms of cutting that are less severe then what people typically think of, such removing some labia or clitoral hood.  All forms are banned.  What do you think bothers people most about it?  The right to choose?  Lack of medical reasons?  Or that it is part of the natural female body, something they are comfortable with?  Why was a law the acceptable route for this issue?

 

I do not think the abortion comparison is fair, there are a lot more unknowns, strong issues for either side, and a lot higher stakes.   Leaving your child intact lets them decide what they want and there are not really any valid reasons to take this right away.

post #17 of 33

It's also illegal to tattoo a minor in Rhode Island. People always forget about us, but over a million people live here. :)

 

As for legislating parenting....I don't see newborn circumcision as a parenting decision. It shouldn't be, as far as I'm concerned. The owner of the penis should be the one to decide whether to cosmetically alter it through invasive surgery.

post #18 of 33

Even if the ban were to pass, right now, it is only in one city.  If a parent wanted it done, all they'd have to do is go a town or two over and find a pediatrician there.  However, with having to make the arrangements and get around to it, some would just not get it done out of laziness.  Also, docs and such would have to be well-informed about care of intact penises--or we'll get a spate of 3-5 year old boys "needing" circumcision later.

post #19 of 33

CNN.com has an article about this right on their front page today.  It's actually pretty good.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/19/male.circumcision.sf/index.html?hpt=C1

post #20 of 33

Hm ... I couldn't see any comments.

 

As for the article, I thought it was trying to be "fair" and "balanced," although the tone was a bit condescending regarding those opposing circumcision.  Unfortunately, there is nothing fair or balanced about RIC, so stories like this are inherently flawed.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Anyone Seen This Yet? SF Proposes Circ Ban