San Francisco mulls circumcision ban: Is procedure mutilation - or good medicine?

cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20058601-10391704.html

I don’t think such a ban would be constitutional unless it included an exception for religious reasons.

I agree. It won’t be constitutional. There’s no way in God’s name it could hold up in court.

Gee, the “leading proponent” of the ban is a homosexual…I’m shocked.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=77266

M

I love the Pro and Con section…Pros - Reduces Bladder Infections and Transmisson of STD’s. Cons - May cause lose of sensation (but that’s all ancedotal) and if not cared for properly afterward can get infected…And the conclusion was “Let parents decide what is best for their Children”

However for the Lefty wackos in San Fransisco…you can’t actually let parent choose…nope gotta have a law so the State can choose, because they obviously know best.

Ugh…Glad I don’t live there. My son will be circumcised when he is born…and when he’s older I will also buy him the occasional Happy Meal with…GASP:eek::eek: a Toy in it. Oh the horror of it all.:shrug:

This doesn’t surprise me.

Although I have not lived in San Francisco, I’ve seen off–and–on protests against circumcision in my university town over the years. The sole rationale being, “Nothing should be allowed to interfere with sexual pleasure.”

Given enough time, a proposal such as this was inevitable.

Once again, the true priorities (idols???) of the general society come to light.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

I’d like someone to tell me what is the real reason behind this law to ban circumcision.It’s not pain and its nnot health.

I’m against male genital mutilation. No male in my family has ever been mutilated (“circumcised”), but I don’t think the practice ought to be a subject of legislation.

For the record, I’m also opposed to female genital mutilation.

It does not seem like a valid reason to dispense with our constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Outside of that, if the medical disadvantages outweigh the medical benefits, then fine. That is not justification for interfering with the right of religious communities to continue to practice circumcision for religious reasons. That this ban does not appear to respect that right is disturbing. It seems like some folks, particularly leftists, are willing to place religious freedom at the bottom list of human rights.

I believe the real reason is sexual perversion. There is an…uhm…interest among the homosexual sub-culture to worship the penis especially an uncircumcised one.

Once you start calling it “genital mutilation,” you make it difficult to argue against introducing legislation against it.

Why did God choose “genital mutilation” as the sign of the Old Covenant?

I can’t speak to the motivation of the proponents but my primary concern is the impact this has on religious freedom. The proponents argue that since there is no (in their opinion) medical (e.g. rational) reasons for circumcision, then it can not be practiced for even religious reasons. If this is allowed to stand, will we have to provide rational, scientific reasoning for other religious practices? Already you have militant atheists like Richard Dawkins arguing that raising your child as a Catholic or a Jew or any religious adherent is “child abuse.” If we can’t provide a rational justification for doing so, and read that as a secular, scientific one, will we have a leg to stand on? I’m afraid this ban is a slippery slope. That might sound very alarmist but I’d rather not take that chance.

As you said, as a sign of the Old Covenant - for Jews. Christians are not bound by those rituals. Call it what you will, it is still mutilation of a child’s genitals.

No, and they are already preparing to kick your ankles out from under you.

If the faith needs to be defended “secularly”, be prepared for active persecution again.

ICXC NIKA

The Jewish people do not consider themselves to be the Old Covenant and believe that they are still bound by divine law to perform circumcision as the sign of the covenant. The proponents of this ban are seeking to infringe upon the rights of practicing Jews to circumcise their children.

You call this “mutilation.” Yet, I do not believe that God would require an act of mutilation as the sign of any covenant. Simply calling it mutilation does not establish it as such. I believe it is better understood as body modification or alteration performed for religious reasons. There might even be some medical benefits, though the results of studies seem to be mixed.

They should be allowed to perform that ritual if it is part of their faith.

You call this “mutilation.” Yet, I do not believe that God would require an act of mutilation as the sign of any covenant. Simply calling it mutilation does not establish it as such. I believe it is better understood as body modification or alteration performed for religious reasons. There might even be some medical benefits, though the results of studies seem to be mixed.

You may freely call it whatever you want, Some call it MGC, Male genital cutting, which is parallel to the practice of FGC, Female genital cutting. Either one is mutilation in my book. :shrug:

I think you have to look at motivations here to even compare these two. Circumcision of males was required in Jewish culture because of cleanliness, which is why many doctors still recommend it today. It’s effect, especially if done in infancy, on sensation is still up for debate. Female circumcision is meant to subjigate women, and it removes the actual clitoris and often the labia, which basically guarantees a complete lose of sensation. It is rarely done in a medical situation and often has major medical side effects due to using dirty instruments.

These are not the same thing and to compare them is absurd.

The problem with this ban is, as far as I know, that it does not permit an exception for religious reasons. And I think that is the real issue, though whether or not the ritual constitutes “mutilation” is an important question in whether or not the free exercise clause protects the religious right to circumcise children. Religious freedom is not an absolute, as no freedom is. If this really is the mutilation of a child’s genitals, why then does the free exercise clause protect it? It doesn’t protect other forms of child abuse.

What is your definition of mutilation?

To make imperfect by excising or altering a body part.

What is “imperfect?” How does circumcision result in this imperfection?

It’s no doubt mutilation. One of the few laws I could agree with San Fran about.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.