Will San Francisco Ban Circumcision?

[Parzival]

San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision | Reuters

How do you think this will impact religious communities in San Francisco? The article says, "The measure, which would only apply in San Francisco, would make it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years of age, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs. The maximum penalty would be a year in jail and a $1,000 fine."

Would Jews, Muslims, and others who choose circumcisions just cross the bridge out of San Francisco to have the procedure done?

 

[beenie]

I am totally against banning anything. So much for personal choice.

Instead of having the circumcision done in a sterile facility (assuming hospitals are now performing circumcisions but WON'T in the future), parents who feel strongly about circumcision will just have private ceremonies in their synagogue/church/mosque/home and will circumcise anyway. I'm sure this already happens, and what are the police going to do? Stand guard at the homes of all these kids until they're 18? Sounds too Big Brotherish to me.

 

[Panda]

I am totally against banning anything. So much for personal choice.

But it isn't personal choice, it is someone making a choice for you.

 

[Oneatatime]

Female genital mutiliation is bannsed in the UK but its still done in behind closed down or abroad. Banning it won't stop people mutilating their childrens genitalia if this is a cultural or religious practice they feel that they have to observe. We still allow them to mutilate boys but its fair to say that the effects are relatively minor in comparison to the effect in a girl.

That said I don't think that male circumcision is something that should be done without the consent of the individual and legally that means at 18.

 

[Sunstone]

I say, "Circumcise everyone and let the gods sort them out!" Although, I have no clue as to why I tend to say that.

 

[TheKnight]

But it isn't personal choice, it is someone making a choice for you.

So? Not many things are personal choice when you're a baby and your parents do things for you. I guess we should ban clothing our children, after all, they may not like the clothes we put them in and legally they won't be able to make that decision for themselves until they are 18.

And forget about sending them to school. That's something they should decide about themselves when they're 18.

Oh and food? You can't just feed your child whatever you want. No, instead we'll give you a government approved diet until your child can decide for itself what it wants to eat.

Moral principles? Can't teach your child those. We'll make sure we handle that until the child is old enough to develop its own moral principles.

In fact, why don't you just give your child to the government. Why? Because we don't like what you plan to do with your child and we think it should be up to the child when it's an adult. Not you.

Since its not an adult and since we don't trust you, we're going to go ahead and take your child from you.

[/sarcasm]

I mean seriously? Does that make any sense at all? Any of that?

 

[Sunstone]

But it isn't personal choice, it is someone making a choice for you.

Parents make all sorts of necessary decisions for their children. But circumcision does not seem to meet the test of a necessary decision that must be made for the child before the child comes of age. Therefore, I agree with you that it should be left up to the child for when the child comes of age.

 

[Oneatatime]

So? Not many things are personal choice when you're a baby and your parents do things for you. I guess we should ban clothing our children, after all, they may not like the clothes we put them in and legally they won't be able to make that decision for themselves until they are 18.

And forget about sending them to school. That's something they should decide about themselves when they're 18.

Oh and food? You can't just feed your child whatever you want. No, instead we'll give you a government approved diet until your child can decide for itself what it wants to eat.

Moral principles? Can't teach your child those. We'll make sure we handle that until the child is old enough to develop its own moral principles.

In fact, why don't you just give your child to the government. Why? Because we don't like what you plan to do with your child and we think it should be up to the child when it's an adult. Not you.

Since its not an adult and since we don't trust you, we're going to go ahead and take your child from you.

[/sarcasm]

I mean seriously? Does that make any sense at all? Any of that?

What detrimental consequences will an individual suffer if the parents leave it up to them to decide whether or not they want to be circumcised once they have reached the age where they can legally decide for themselves? Apart from a medical need which would require parental permission before the circumcision could be carried out I see no reason why a parent should take it upon themselves to decide for their child whether or not they'll grow up with a forskin.

 

[Panda]

So? Not many things are personal choice when you're a baby and your parents do things for you. I guess we should ban clothing our children, after all, they may not like the clothes we put them in and legally they won't be able to make that decision for themselves until they are 18.

And forget about sending them to school. That's something they should decide about themselves when they're 18.

Oh and food? You can't just feed your child whatever you want. No, instead we'll give you a government approved diet until your child can decide for itself what it wants to eat.

Moral principles? Can't teach your child those. We'll make sure we handle that until the child is old enough to develop its own moral principles.

In fact, why don't you just give your child to the government. Why? Because we don't like what you plan to do with your child and we think it should be up to the child when it's an adult. Not you.

Since its not an adult and since we don't trust you, we're going to go ahead and take your child from you.

[/sarcasm]

I mean seriously? Does that make any sense at all? Any of that?

Does disfiguring your child because of your culture make any sense? The same way the government can override your decisions for the child to protect their health they should be able to override you wanting to disfigure them.

 

[Poisonshady313]

What detrimental consequences will an individual suffer if the parents leave it up to them to decide whether or not they want to be circumcised once they have reached the age where they can legally decide for themselves? Apart from a medical need which would require parental permission before the circumcision could be carried out I see no reason why a parent should take it upon themselves to decide for their child whether or not they'll grow up with a forskin.

The point is, parents make decisions for their children all the time. This is one more of them.

If my cultural practices are outrageous and reasonless to you, I'll be sure not to invite you to join in them.

 

[TheKnight]

Parents make all sorts of necessary decisions for their children. But circumcision does not seem to meet the test of a necessary decision that must be made for the child before the child comes of age. Therefore, I agree with you that it should be left up to the child for when the child comes of age.

Who determines what necessary is?

What detrimental consequences will an individual suffer if the parents leave it up to them to decide whether or not they want to be circumcised once they have reached the age where they can legally decide for themselves? Apart from a medical need which would require parental permission before the circumcision could be carried out I see no reason why a parent should take it upon themselves to decide for their child whether or not they'll grow up with a forskin.

A religious reason for doing so wouldn't be adequate?

Does disfiguring your child because of your culture make any sense? The same way the government can override your decisions for the child to protect their health they should be able to override you wanting to disfigure them.

Is it unhealthy to circumcise the child?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Does disfiguring your child because of your culture make any sense? The same way the government can override your decisions for the child to protect their health they should be able to override you wanting to disfigure them.

Do you view ear piercing the same way? That can cause illness, infection, and disfigurement, and infants are getting their ears pierced all the time.

Shouldn't that be something an 18 year old should decide for themselves?

 

[Sunstone]

Custom should always win out over reason. That, after all, was the dominant principle of the European Enlightenment.

 

[TheKnight]

Custom should always win out over reason. That, after all, was the dominant principle of the European Enlightenment.

No one is arguing that custom should win out over reason. Rather we are simply challenging the reasoning used to reach certain conclusions.

 

[Sunstone]

No one is arguing that custom should win out over reason. Rather we are simply challenging the reasoning used to reach certain conclusions.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

 

[Panda]

Do you view ear piercing the same way? That can cause illness, infection, and disfigurement, and infants are getting their ears pierced all the time.

Shouldn't that be something an 18 year old should decide for themselves?

I would disagree with a parent doing that to a child. But ear piercing is not permanent.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I would disagree with a parent doing that to a child. But ear piercing is not permanent.

If it results in a disfigurement, it could be.

 

[Panda]

If it results in a disfigurement, it could be.

True and like I said I don't think a parent should pierce their children's ear.

 

[beenie]

But it isn't personal choice, it is someone making a choice for you.

Good point, and that is why I truly am conflicted on circumcision...maybe that's why I have all daughters...God knew I wouldn't be able to decide.

Yes, parents make decisions for their children all the time, but the necessity of circumcision is in question, IMO.

 

[Oneatatime]

The point is, parents make decisions for their children all the time. This is one more of them.

If my cultural practices are outrageous and reasonless to you, I'll be sure not to invite you to join in them.

You've not answered the question of what negative consequences there will be if we leave the decision to have such things as non-medically required circumcision to the child to decide one they are legally allowed to. Unless you can give a good reason to justify why its neccessary to circumsise boys then it should be left to the child to make that decision when its legally able too.

Your position is clearly flawed if it makes no distinction between those things which have to be decided on the childs behalf and those which don't.

Labelling something as a cultural practice or tradition does not mean that those critical of these practices or traditions should tip-toe away out and leave the target of these practices and traditions to the mercy of those around them. That is to abandon the moral responsibility we have towards those who are unable to protect themselves.