Should San Francisco Ban Circumcision?

It's well thought out and I like the way you think.

Technically, though, the routine circumcision of minors is already illegal - it isn't necessary, and the right of the individual to be free from torture and harm has always been put ahead of religious freedoms.

Boys that were born after FGC was banned will have the right to sue once they turn 18, as it's unconstitutional to have a law that protects one gender and not the other.

The only point of difference I have is your assertion that FGC is different. That may be true of the circumcised women you've dealt with, but generally speaking the procedures are comparable. The vast majority of female circumcisions are practiced in Muslim countries and are type I, involving the removal of part or all of the clitoral hood, which is directly analogous to the foreskin. These are some typical discussions on the common form of female circumcision or 'sunnat':

http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-y...
http://mamababahworld.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/651
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.ht...

Of course, women who've been infibulated or who have lost the tip of their clitoris will have a lot of scarring and loss of sensation, in addition to difficulty during childbirth. But then, the boys who suffer from meatal stenosis will endure a lot of pain too, as will those who've lost a glans and those who experience tight and painful erections - and lest it be forgotten, some will die.

I don't think it's helpful, when talking about damaging and nonconsensual practices, to give one a pass because the degree of harm is judged as less. It's a little like saying "My rape was worse because I was beaten as well" or "Mine was worse because it was my father who did it" or "My rape caused me the most harm because I became pregnant". No one asks to be raped, and no infant asks to be circumcised.

As someone from a country that has given up circumcision, I found it particularly horrifying that in the case of the wrongful circumcision of Mario Viera (aren't all infant circumcisions wrongful?) South Miami hospital defended itself by saying "the baby had no complications". Except living the rest of his life with a scarred, altered penis that neither he nor his parents wanted, without the important functions the foreskin provides. Elsewhere in the world, being without the foreskin is a sexual disability - but sadly, many in the USA seems to regard circumcision as a normalising surgery.

This issue should not be argued in isolation of religion. It IS a religious-based practice that, for good reason, has become secularized. There's at least as much pro argument as there is against. I have been to a bris (the Jewish ceremony during which the baby is circumcised). Calling it an amputation is a bit dramatic. The baby's penis was not removed. He cried for a second. That was it.
The heated emotions around this issue -when the world has much greater problems to address- lend themselves to my (Jewish) community's feeling that anti-Semitism may be underlying the movement to stop it.

actually you can amputate a part on your body- http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=96857

I'm just glad that my days of bearing children are over (knock on wood). I have two sons who were both circumcised and I would have been LIVID if some politician had a say in our family decision.

I'll just say that I did the research on the pros and cons regarding whether or not to have the procedure. We decided to have it and don't regret it. (Having said that, we did what we wanted to do. There is very little - if any - research that is thoroughly objective. I learned that in a "Research and Methodology" class back in college. Basically, you can get the same data to support your argument based on what you include and leave out - so I take "research" with a grain of salt based on the inherent bias of who is presenting it.)

All of that to say - I think that you should vote based on your conscience. Which is a greater travesty in your mind - baby boys being circumcised or the government being allowed to dictate such personal parenting decisions?

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other. But looking at the list of reasons not to circumcise, the only one that holds up to scrutiny is that there are medical risks associated with the procedure.

Reason #1: This is actually just a "wash" statement. It doesn't say that circumcision is the inferior health option, so it's not a reason not to circumcise. It is evidence against someone who claims that circumcision is a superior health option, but THAT group isn't the only pro-circumcision group, and I doubt that it's even the biggest one.

Reason #2: Yes, absolutely yes.

Reason #3: Unless this is verified by something other than someone's guess, it is no more an argument against circumcision than a claim that being uncircumcised makes you taller.

Reason #4: This is a strange one. It's either an appeal to religious convictions (don't mess with God's creation) or evolutionary reasoning (everything we have in us has evolved with us to help us survive). If it's the first, it definitely runs straight up against OTHER religious convictions, for instance that the sacrifice of the foreskin represents a covenant with God. If it's the second, it's based on a mistaken view about what evolution has really done for us: Our bodies are not really perfectly adapted for survival in our niche: they contain plenty of extraneous elements and lack some pretty useful ones. Further, this argument commits the "is-ought" fallacy. You may not derive moral facts from empirical ones.

Reason #5: Reasoning from the majority is a terrible idea. It only works on the assumption that the opinions held by the majority are always better vetted than those of the minority, or that at least in this case, despite all the other times the opinions of the majority are not better vetted, there is something different about the way the opinion was formed here.

Reason #6: At first I agreed that this looked like a good reason, or at least one to weigh in the discussion. But re-reading it I realize that it's actually begging the question against one of the largest pro-circumcision groups: those who do it for religious purposes. Because to characterize it as a "purely cosmetic" surgery already concludes that the religious reasons to perform the surgery are inadequate, and that they would need some other reason. But the argument on the table is whether a religious conviction is outweighed by any of the other reasons presented, so to say from the start that it IS, and to then use that as an argument against the religious position, is question-begging. It's pure fallacy. Rephrasing that argument to express simply the "right to their own body" point would make it stronger. Then the real opposition of opinion can be seen and judged.

Reason #7: This is another fallacy, the argument from ignorance: 'We can't know babies aren't scarred forever by the pain they feel, so we shouldn't do it.' Accepting the first part as true (that they feel pain during the procedure) is no reason to accept the second part (that their first memories will be painful, or that they will suffer psychic scarring). A more legitimate statement of the worry you present here is given by the adult male intactivists, who have to deal with bad feelings about the procedure, not from some deep injury to their infant psyche, but from the injury they feel every time they look down there. It's the adult psychological pain that is worth considering beyond the immediate pain of the actual procedure, not some long-term, buried effects we can't measure and can't be sure is even there.

There ARE reasons to oppose circumcision. You have one good one here (risks of surgery) and two that might be worth looking at if re-characterized (some kind of natural right to a body; adult psychological stress). These are the reasons to weigh against the religious, cultural, and medical arguments (whatever they are). The rest, though, should be abandoned. They don't help the case.

With the legitimate arguments against circumcision lined up, do they weigh strongly enough against the other side to convince you to make the practice illegal?

http://www.backpackingdad.com

"This country's peculiar obsession with routinely amputating boys' foreskins over the past 80 years has ruined the sex lives of four generations of American men *and women*."

I think blaming routine circumcision for this assumption you make is reaching. Far reaching. To assume that all American men and women have terrible sex lives is short-sighted at best. To blame bad sex lives on circumcision alone completely takes the OVERsexualization of the American public via media out of the equation, and I'd say that the inundation of "sex sells" has led more to the lack of fulfillment with sex that *some* may have than circumcision has.

Wife, mom, teacher, friend, and PPD/A survivor, Miranda writes the blog Not Super...Just Mom ( http://notsuperjustmom.blogspot.com ).

People who believe in the Bible don't do the things in the Bible because it says so...it's more deep than that...it's about a sacred covenant with God. Covenant is a deep spiritual relationship and promise that has more to do with some items in the Bible than others...while some things can be let go (like animal sacrifice) others are tied more deeply to this covenant, which to people like me, are a HUGE deal.

It baffles me that those opposed to it say they do not want Govt interference in their lives. Too late for that! You may not cut a girl or tattoo a baby of either gender. You may not amputate any other body part just because you want to. Try that with an arm, leg, finger, toe, earlobe, nipple, thumbnail or septum and it would NOT be tolerated. It is outside the realm of "parental choice".

A whole body is a basic human right. So basic and obvious it should not even need saying. A human right is unconditional. It is not granted based on ethnic background, gender or social status. Genital cutting is a violation of this basic right.

An exposed glans on a baby boy is as weird/perverse/inappropriate as a pair of adult breasts on a baby girl. It is a sign of physical maturity, or approaching physical maturity. In fact, if I had my duaghter's genitals cut to resemble mine, there would be outcry, wouldn't there? Wouldn't it be assumed I had some deep seated self image/ego issues to deal with?

In babyhood, the penis is an internal organ. In adulthood, the glans is still only exposed on a part-time, as needed basis. There are good reasons for this! Sexual intercourse (the penis in vagina sort) is an act between two internal organs. UNLESS the man is cut. Then it is something different. Sure, it might still be good. But it is still different. So, when you're making taht decision for your son, what you are actually doing, is standing there beside the bed in 30 years or so, while he is making love to his wife. Standing there at his shoulder and changing how he does it. What right have you to do that?! It is none of your business! You will not be masturbating with, peeing with or having sex with that penis. His body, his choice. If it takes a law to enforce that, so be it! Would that I could wake up tomorrow and such a law would be in place in every country!

I don't feel one way or the other about whether circumcision is right or wrong. I do, however, believe that because many people have their male babies circumcised at birth for religious reasons, any state that bans the practice opens itself automatically to a federal law suit.
Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Dr. Rankin, your decision to stop performing "routine" circumcisions on infant boys is very commendable. I salute you. If all of your colleagues would figure this one out for themselves, we would not need to go to the trouble of putting the issue on the ballot!
With respect to male circumcision and STD/HIV, The Journal of Public Health in Africa published an article in early 2011 entitled "How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections" which handily refutes all of the alleged "protections" of male circumcision.
There's another reason to leave male genitals alone that you did not mention. It seems to be one that your specialty in particular should be aware of but is not: the *negative* effect of male circumcision on female sexual pleasure and satisfaction! One of your colleagues, Dr. Christiane Northrup, has written two excellent essays on this subject. Another great information source is "Sex as Nature Intended It," a book and web site by K. O'Hara.
This country's peculiar obsession with routinely amputating boys' foreskins over the past 80 years has ruined the sex lives of four generations of American men *and women*.
It is so time for this bizarre, senseless genital mutilation custom to go the way of other cultural customs like slavery, segregation, and subjugation of women. And like all of these now-defunct cultural customs, it will take legislation to put the kabash on it. What the San Francisco intactivists are doing is like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus. As Jewish anthropologist and author Leonard Glick said, "genital cutting on children is evil."
His body, his choice. Her body, her choice. Only the adult owner of the genitals in question has the right to decide to have them modified.

But, it's tricky. Doctors like you and men on your post argue against it. But my own father (who was circ'd at 12) and our doctor encouraged us to do it. So it can be hard to decide who to listen to. You go with the people you know and trust and that's what we did.

I do believe that the attitude will change over time. I mean 20 years ago this wasn't even a conversation. But I would certainly hope it remains a choice instead of being legislated.

Cutting an umbilical cord does not hurt because it has no nerves. Cutting the foreskin on a male of any age really does hurt because it is loaded with several types of nerves! And while shots may hurt, they do not permanently remove part of a man's penis and they do not, unless something goes terribly wrong, reduce sexual sensation and create abnormal sexual function like amputating a foreskin does.
There is good evidence that babies and children do remember painful and terrifying events like being strapped to a board and having a piece of their genitals chopped off. The memory may not be conscious, but it is there and it changes the way boys perceive and feel pain. There is also reason to believe it changes the structure of the amygdala in the brain.
The guys who had a circumcision done as adults should be glad that they had the choice and not wanting to take that choice from the boys who follow behind them.
"Circumcised is cleaner" is an old myth from WWI and the circumcising religions. A circumcised penis is not cleaner, it is just missing its mucous membranes and 30% of its total volume. The scar, skin folds and skin tags and bridges present their own cleaning problems. If a man can brush his teeth, he can clean his foreskin! Retract, rinse, replace... it's just not that difficult.
The only person who has any business or right to decide on genital modification is the adult owner of the genitals. His body, his choice.; her body, her choice -- a choice to be made as adults.

The San Francisco ban on circumcision minors PROVIDES freedom of choice to boys and the men they become: the freedom to reach adulthood with intact, normal, healthy genitals and to make their own decision, as adults, about the configuration of their penis and the quality and nature of their sex life. Indeed it is a decision best left to an ADULT patient and his doctor.
The "right" of parents to give "proxy consent" for a doctor to amputate a healthy, normal part of their son's genitals is a strange and legally shaky one. It is also a violation of medical ethics. No other part of a child's body is subject to such on-demand amputation. It is high time to close this bizarre loophole and provide equal protection to both boys and girls and to all parts of our children's bodies.

You can't have one freedom of choice and deny another. This is a decision best left to a doctor and the patient. And we should all be careful about voting away choices - you never know when those in power will vote against your choice.

Christy

__________________________

Read more at Where I Am ( http://www.oneduffy.blogspot.com )

I think circumcision is fine, as long as a doctor does it. Cutting the umbilical cord hurts too and so do shots and a lot of men I know are happy it is done because they consider it to be cleaner. Others that had it done at 18 wish that their mothers decided to do it when they were babies and could not remember it. So I think it should be up to parents and doctors. If the doctor thinks it is unhealthy and will effect the child's life then the parent should listen and not do it.