"We are pleased to announce that John Arntz, Director of Elections for
the City and County of San Francisco, has certified that we have
exceeded the required number of signatures for our initiative to be
placed on the November 8, 2011 ballot."
@Michael Are you upset about Oregon now taking away the family's right to give or withhold medical treatment for their children? The government has step in to protect children from unnecessary harm. Even to force medical decisions for the child upon unwilling parents. Circumcision is harmful. Is not necessary. Is cosmetic. And violates the UN Rights of the Child.
The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) 2010 Circumcision Statement:
"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.
"Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present."Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity."
@Michael: As one man said, but in more colourful language: "My family doesn't [urinate] with my [penis], my family doesn't [masturbate] with my [penis] and my family doesn't [have sexual intercourse] with my [penis], so what business was it of my family to go cutting part off of my [penis]?
The point is not about "the government" deciding for "the family". It's about the community protecting its weakest members from stronger members - just like many another existing law tht nobody finds any objection to.
Michael - 13 years ago
Families need to make these decisions for themselves, not have the government dictate moral and medical decisions for them. The government needs to stop imposing its morals and beliefs on the family unit. If you have children, you decide what is medically/morally appropriate for them, not the government. If the government decides to "protect" babies in this regard, the next step will be to "protect" them against abortions while in uterus. Let the family decide!!!
If the Equal Rights Amendment had been passed, then the Federal law against female circumcision would HAVE to have been written in gender-neutral language and male circumcision would have already been banned for 26 years. It's about time we protect boys, too.
Hanabi - 13 years ago
Men. It is time to have a say in how our bodies look and feel. It is not up to society. It is not up to doctors. It is not up to religion. It is our choice as men what we pierce, tattoo or cutoff. Think about organ donation and the right we all have to donate or not as we see fit, yet most of the men reading this did not have a choice about your own penis. Take a stand and do something for men's rights, vote yes on this bill. Stand up for ourselves and our sons! Protect our freedom and creation's wisdom with regard to our bodies.
Hanabi
Geraldine - 13 years ago
Religious rights end where another person's body begins. THE END!!
No parent should be allowed to permanently alter a child's body. Ever.
@Daniel: How do the supernatural views of the person who does it change it away from being sexual child abuse? Do babies whose parents are Muslim or Jewish or "Old Testament Christian" have fewer human rights than other babies?
Daniel - 13 years ago
Most advanced civilized nations do not do this to their infant sons; some nations have banned the practice. If it is a religious mandate, a religious person should perform the amputation, not a medical doctor, who swears to do no harm. Otherwise is it simply, sexual child abuse.
The article trivialises circumcisiong by talking about "ardent anti-snipping advocates". Watch a video of a circumcision and see if you can still call it "snipping"!
Long ago I had an ear pierced. I let it close. Now you'd never know. Can anyone say that of circimcision?
Jonathon - 13 years ago
Girls have been legally protected against forced genital cutting nationwide since 1996. Boys deserve the same respect and right to genital integrity. Circumcision is unnecessary, harmful and risky. All people deserve the chance to choose their sexual destiny for themselves instead of having it imposed upon them.
Rae - 13 years ago
What about Metzitzah?
Do you think people should have that right as well, since it is a religious rite, even though the AAP has reported babies getting genital herpes this way?
Alexis - 13 years ago
Traditional religious circumcision is vastly different than the way circumcision is practiced today. And ear piercing (which I wouldn't do to my child either) is different because it doesn't remove an organ from the child's body. The foreskin is an actual organ that is needed for normal function of the penis (including sex). Of course, humans are adaptable and can get by without a foreskin, but circumcision is not comparable to ear piercing in that way.
sadie - 13 years ago
Lots of religions encourage practices we've deemed inappropriate, including female circumcision. Religion is not an excuse for violating human rights. Period.
And for the record, piercing an infant's ears should be as illegal as giving them a tattoo. It's painful body modification and serves no other purpose than to decorate babies and entertain adults and frankly, that's just sick.
Ellipsis - 13 years ago
Religious freedom!? Where does that end and a persons basic human right begin!?
me - 13 years ago
I agree with all of you but some religious encourage circumcision.
If this appalls people then there should be a ban against piercing baby girl's ears. It hurts the baby, and they didnt voice their opinion on it, but usually they grow up fine. (you should get where im going with this)
Caitlin - 13 years ago
My son's body, my son's choice. I am happy to say my son came home WHOLE when he was born in January.
No medical organization recommends getting your son circumcised so therefor there is no reason to get your newborn son snipped. Your newborn needs to be cuddled, nursed, and loved when they are born, not strapped to a table and left defenseless while a doctor cuts a VITAL part of their penis off.
The "it's to dirty" is a lie. My son smells like a baby everyday, not like something is growing in his diaper. And I would much rather change his diapers than his sisters, she has more to clean than he does. And it is proven women have more smegma than men (the bacteria and that down there). So since we're not circumcising our daughters to keep them clean we should respect your little boys to.
To many little boys die every year due to complications from a circumcision. Loss of blood, shock, etc. It isn't safe. Even a little bit of blood loss can kill a newborn since they are so tiny.
Parents, please think twice before getting your son snipped. There is no reason to do it.
Caitlin-Proud mommy to a whole son and a whole daughter, both were born perfect
Rae - 13 years ago
I don't like the way poll is worded, because the ban isn't about banning all circumcision.
Medically necessary circumcisions would still be legal to preform on minors.
Miranda - 13 years ago
I agree Julia. It's absurd to continue to circumcise when we have all this information showing how UN-benificial it really is. The rest of the world knows this... when will America wake up???
Keith - 13 years ago
The altering of the body should be the sole decision of that person, not his or her parents.
JuliaE - 13 years ago
We find female genital mutilation appalling-- why has our society found male genital mutilation acceptable?
From the SF MGM Bill Website:
"We are pleased to announce that John Arntz, Director of Elections for
the City and County of San Francisco, has certified that we have
exceeded the required number of signatures for our initiative to be
placed on the November 8, 2011 ballot."
This is history in the making!
@Michael Are you upset about Oregon now taking away the family's right to give or withhold medical treatment for their children? The government has step in to protect children from unnecessary harm. Even to force medical decisions for the child upon unwilling parents. Circumcision is harmful. Is not necessary. Is cosmetic. And violates the UN Rights of the Child.
The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) 2010 Circumcision Statement:
"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.
"Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present."Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity."
@Michael: As one man said, but in more colourful language: "My family doesn't [urinate] with my [penis], my family doesn't [masturbate] with my [penis] and my family doesn't [have sexual intercourse] with my [penis], so what business was it of my family to go cutting part off of my [penis]?
The point is not about "the government" deciding for "the family". It's about the community protecting its weakest members from stronger members - just like many another existing law tht nobody finds any objection to.
Families need to make these decisions for themselves, not have the government dictate moral and medical decisions for them. The government needs to stop imposing its morals and beliefs on the family unit. If you have children, you decide what is medically/morally appropriate for them, not the government. If the government decides to "protect" babies in this regard, the next step will be to "protect" them against abortions while in uterus. Let the family decide!!!
If the Equal Rights Amendment had been passed, then the Federal law against female circumcision would HAVE to have been written in gender-neutral language and male circumcision would have already been banned for 26 years. It's about time we protect boys, too.
Men. It is time to have a say in how our bodies look and feel. It is not up to society. It is not up to doctors. It is not up to religion. It is our choice as men what we pierce, tattoo or cutoff. Think about organ donation and the right we all have to donate or not as we see fit, yet most of the men reading this did not have a choice about your own penis. Take a stand and do something for men's rights, vote yes on this bill. Stand up for ourselves and our sons! Protect our freedom and creation's wisdom with regard to our bodies.
Hanabi
Religious rights end where another person's body begins. THE END!!
No parent should be allowed to permanently alter a child's body. Ever.
@Daniel: How do the supernatural views of the person who does it change it away from being sexual child abuse? Do babies whose parents are Muslim or Jewish or "Old Testament Christian" have fewer human rights than other babies?
Most advanced civilized nations do not do this to their infant sons; some nations have banned the practice. If it is a religious mandate, a religious person should perform the amputation, not a medical doctor, who swears to do no harm. Otherwise is it simply, sexual child abuse.
The article trivialises circumcisiong by talking about "ardent anti-snipping advocates". Watch a video of a circumcision and see if you can still call it "snipping"!
Long ago I had an ear pierced. I let it close. Now you'd never know. Can anyone say that of circimcision?
Girls have been legally protected against forced genital cutting nationwide since 1996. Boys deserve the same respect and right to genital integrity. Circumcision is unnecessary, harmful and risky. All people deserve the chance to choose their sexual destiny for themselves instead of having it imposed upon them.
What about Metzitzah?
Do you think people should have that right as well, since it is a religious rite, even though the AAP has reported babies getting genital herpes this way?
Traditional religious circumcision is vastly different than the way circumcision is practiced today. And ear piercing (which I wouldn't do to my child either) is different because it doesn't remove an organ from the child's body. The foreskin is an actual organ that is needed for normal function of the penis (including sex). Of course, humans are adaptable and can get by without a foreskin, but circumcision is not comparable to ear piercing in that way.
Lots of religions encourage practices we've deemed inappropriate, including female circumcision. Religion is not an excuse for violating human rights. Period.
And for the record, piercing an infant's ears should be as illegal as giving them a tattoo. It's painful body modification and serves no other purpose than to decorate babies and entertain adults and frankly, that's just sick.
Religious freedom!? Where does that end and a persons basic human right begin!?
I agree with all of you but some religious encourage circumcision.
If this appalls people then there should be a ban against piercing baby girl's ears. It hurts the baby, and they didnt voice their opinion on it, but usually they grow up fine. (you should get where im going with this)
My son's body, my son's choice. I am happy to say my son came home WHOLE when he was born in January.
No medical organization recommends getting your son circumcised so therefor there is no reason to get your newborn son snipped. Your newborn needs to be cuddled, nursed, and loved when they are born, not strapped to a table and left defenseless while a doctor cuts a VITAL part of their penis off.
The "it's to dirty" is a lie. My son smells like a baby everyday, not like something is growing in his diaper. And I would much rather change his diapers than his sisters, she has more to clean than he does. And it is proven women have more smegma than men (the bacteria and that down there). So since we're not circumcising our daughters to keep them clean we should respect your little boys to.
To many little boys die every year due to complications from a circumcision. Loss of blood, shock, etc. It isn't safe. Even a little bit of blood loss can kill a newborn since they are so tiny.
Parents, please think twice before getting your son snipped. There is no reason to do it.
Caitlin-Proud mommy to a whole son and a whole daughter, both were born perfect
I don't like the way poll is worded, because the ban isn't about banning all circumcision.
Medically necessary circumcisions would still be legal to preform on minors.
I agree Julia. It's absurd to continue to circumcise when we have all this information showing how UN-benificial it really is. The rest of the world knows this... when will America wake up???
The altering of the body should be the sole decision of that person, not his or her parents.
We find female genital mutilation appalling-- why has our society found male genital mutilation acceptable?