If they’re so concerned about hurting children, maybe they should also ban abortions. Just a thought.

We are talking about an unnecessary COSMETIC procedure routinely performed on infants. I doubt anyone would be arguing if they wanted to ban infant nose jobs.

This is absolutely crazy. There have been proven medical reasons in favor of circumcision and the SF Jewish community has to be completely up in arms about this. It isn’t the mutilation that female circumcision is. Also, performing this surgery later in life is a much more difficult and painful procedure.

OH NO. Circ posts bring out the crazies.

I agree with goddess. The proposition system is out of control in California and especially in SF. This is not the kind of thing we should be voting on. (As is the case for most of the propositions. Remember prop 8 where it was voted that same-sex couples could not get married? Why are people voting on these kinds of things.)

It is fairly easy to get enough signatures to get something on the ballet, and then most ads are highly misleading. Minority groups are screwed because the majority can vote that what they are doing should be illegal.

Oh, and I also agree with Mistress_Scorpio.

Wait, you mean babies don’t feel pain?! Whoa! Stop the presses.

If you are pro circ, please go and examine how the various procedures are done.

And, to be very clear: there are no studies that support circumcision for Western males. None. Nada.

Personally, I am not pro-circ. My son is not circumcised. However, I am anti-proposition. If this really is such a horrible procedure, there has got to be a better way to get it removed from common practice.

In Africa we are sick and tired of USA coming here to promote circumcision of all males. This is health imperialism and racist. No mention is made about the harm that the mutilation can do, l myself had to do a lot of research. My uncle who was mutilated for cultural reasons 19 years ago also strongly encouraged me not to do it as he would not do it if ever he was to be given a second chance. l hope you succeed in banning this barbaric practice in your country. We don’t know of any infections diseases below the age of 18 and non of those have been talked about as reasons for mutilating in Africa, l guess the promoters know very well that no one will buy any of the reasons. What they are talking about is AIDS, but in Zimbabwe for an instance HIV has been on the decline due to behaviour change and not circumcision. It fell from 30% to around 13% in a decade and there is no doudbt that the trend could have continnued until we had a single digit. Why is USA has high HIV rate compared to Europe if this stupid surgery works? Why is it that USA is the only country that talks about penal infections as reason to mutilate? Are US men so weak in that area that it warranties mutilation of baby boys? This practice shouldn’t be happening in a civilised country like US. LEAVE INFANT BOYS ALONE. IF YOU FEEL LIKE MUTILATING THEN GO HAVE YOUR OWN CLITORIS OR EYELIDS REMOVED.

I’d like to clear up some misconceptions in these earlier comments. Regarding Michelle’s comment that it is not the same mutilation as female circumcision, please research and see that male circumcision removes a healthy useful part of the genitals, just as female circumcision does. In fact, types of female circumcision remove the analogous structure in females. Regarding the supposed health benefits, once you actually start researching, you will be amazed at how they are non-existent, or even go in the opposite direction. And regarding the myth that it is more painful to have it done later in life… well, first of all, if that happens, it is often a result of “forced retraction” or a lack of knowledge of other medical treatments. Plus, it is extremely rare. But most importantly, no, it is not more painful to have it done later in life. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Later in life, anaesthesia can be used, and the man knows what is going on. As an infant, he is tied down, not knowing what is happeining, and is literally skinned alive, with no anaesthesia, or in a few cases, sugar water or topical application which is woefully inadequate. Again, research, and you will learn all these things. There is so much information on the web… a few sites to get you started… http://www.nocirc.org, http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org, etc. Once you start reading scientific articles and personal experience accounts, you will see that these are just myths that we have swallowed without question.

They want scalps for their foreskins.

I actually think a ban would be a good idea. I had my son circumcised, mainly because of following the advice of relatives that are medical professionals (and a horror story about a male relative that had a medically necessary circ in his forties) and an idea that it was “normal.” The more I’ve thought about it and read about it, the more I wish I hadn’t done that to my son. If I were to have another boy, I would not circumcise. As a side note, I also think I am an example of how spreading awareness can really work (but a ban would be better).

Again, I’m going to say it…I am neither for nor against a circ…I just don’t want the government getting this involved in raising my child. This is a religious practice that has been happening for thousands and thousands of years. That is where it started, now maybe it has become more of a cosmetic thing, but it started out and continues to be a religious practice. What right does the government have to step in and tell me how to raise MY child, or even YOUR child? How about we just give birth and then immediately hand our child over to the government. Because they are practically raising your child now. When we have blamed the schools crappy lunches for our child’s obesity and demand better lunches from the government to feed your child, then you do realize that you are relying on the government to give your kid a healthy meal because you as a parent don’t provide that. If you all want the government to dictate how you and everyone around you are to raise their children, then by all means go for it. Because we will rapidly turn into a communist country if this kind of thing keeps up. Anyone ever read 1984? If that is what you all want then fine with me. Just make sure I’m out of this country before you do it.

Chloe, go ahead and ask any uncircumcised man if he feels that having his foreskin separated from his penis, cut and then ripped off would be the same as having his ears pierced.

Hey Shannyn- knew 2 brothers who did it because they hated being uncirced. IT was excruciating to have done as an adult- but both are still- some 15 years later GLAD they had it done. Oh- and both resent their parents for NOT having it done as infants.

With their calculated, deceptive rhetoric, the perpetrators of this atrocity attempt to draw links between an obvious horror and positive abstractions such as “tradition,” “religion,” “science,” “medicine,” and “hygiene.” The documents and essays on sexuallymutilatedchild.org, however, expose this charade and show what the sexual mutilation of children is really about: envy, lust, hatred, male sexual rivalry, sadism, criminal psychopathology, desperation, ruthlessness, power, control, oppression, violence, contempt for humanity, and greed.

Honest discussion about circumcision is long overdue. Tampering with the genitals of children should be banned. Forced circumcision is a surgical rape. Protect children’s rights to genitals integrity! Ban circumcision!

*
The cut that fights HIV
December 03, 2008|Paul Perchal | Paul Perchal is the director of the HIV/STI Program for EngenderHealth, a global reproductive health organization active in more than 25 countries.

My downstairs neighbor, eight months pregnant, recently stopped me in the elevator to share her dilemma about whether to have her baby boy circumcised. For a growing number of American parents today — particularly in urban centers like Los Angeles and New York — the decision to cut or not to cut is not the foregone conclusion it used to be.

Forty years ago, the circumcision rate for newborn boys in the United States was 85%; today, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, it’s about 56%, as more parents rethink whether circumcision is — or ever was–necessary.

In sub-Saharan Africa, attitudes are moving in the other direction. There, circumcision is gaining a hold in communities where historically it has not been practiced, and there is good reason for the shift.

Irrefutable evidence now shows that male circumcision can reduce the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by as much as 64%. The findings were so dramatic that National Institutes of Health clinical trials were stopped early because researchers deemed it unethical to deny the procedure to men in the control groups.

The data also compelled the governments of Botswana, Kenya and Rwanda — countries where HIV is epidemic — to endorse male circumcision in their health policies, a bold move in places with a multitude of ethnic groups unaccustomed to the idea. In Zambia, the government has launched a mass effort to increase access to hospital-based circumcision.

What’s exciting about male circumcision as a way to reduce HIV risk is that it does not involve vaccines or new technologies, which regrettably are years away. Circumcision, which has been around for millenniums, could help fill the gap; however, like any public health initiative, it doesn’t mean there won’t be challenges in implementing it.

This is why, in countries where HIV devastates millions of lives, circumcision policies must be supported with appropriate resources, and government and health leaders must work with practitioners on the ground to make sure that the procedure is wholly beneficial and in no way harmful.

My neighbor, like other U.S. parents, knows that if she opts for the procedure, it will be performed safely, in a clean surgical environment, with anesthesia and antibiotics. This is not the case in places where HIV hits hardest. Support is needed in regions where health systems are weak so that health professionals are properly trained to perform circumcisions and always use sterile instruments.
What’s more, to be truly effective, circumcision must be offered as part of an overall HIV prevention strategy, not as a stand-alone service. Information is essential: Men must understand that circumcision won’t make them immune to HIV or other sexually transmitted infections, and that condom use is still crucial.

Without that kind of information campaign, male circumcision actually could be harmful for women in two key ways. First, men who are circumcised may believe that they do not need to use condoms. Second, money currently spent on HIV prevention efforts that involve and benefit both women and men may be shifted disproportionately to one that serves only men.

The science supporting male circumcision as an effective form of HIV prevention for female-to-male transmission is conclusive in countries with high rates of HIV. But it will take thoughtful planning on the part of policymakers and program managers to increase its availability. They must remember that, as with many public health efforts, what works in one community may not be appropriate in another, even for a practice as commonplace as circumcision.

Take the U.S., for example. When it comes to preventing HIV, the benefits of male circumcision are less clear. Here, HIV prevalence is markedly lower than in countries that are actively promoting the practice. And in the U.S., barely a quarter of HIV cases result from high-risk sex between men and women, which is the predominant mode of transmission in Kenya, Zambia and across Africa.

But for those to whom male circumcision makes sense, whether in a pediatric ward in Long Beach or a family clinic in Lilongwe, Malawi, there must be two constants: high-quality care and informed choice. Governments in particular have a careful line to toe as they promote circumcision — one that remains respectful of existing traditions while ensuring safety for all men and boys who undergo the procedure, whether at the hands of a village elder or in the district hospital across the river.

As for my neighbor, she was grateful to still have one month to mull over her decision. What gave her comfort was knowing that her choice would be based on having full information and that her son would receive high-quality care. These are two factors that should never be compromised for anyone, anywhere.