San Fran may vote on circumcision ban
Circumcision, a tradition rooted in religious tradition, may soon be a thing of the past in San Francisco, where “civil rights advocates” are trying to ban it.
The thrust of the proposal is that circumcision poses medical risks and has little medical benefit, according to an NBC article that also alleges there’s a national push to end the procedure.
San Fran resident Lloyd Schofield is spearheading the effort to get the 7,000 signatures required to get the measure on the November ballot. Then comes the difficult part, convincing voters that snipping body parts is a bad idea.
Schofield has said he is working with a group to “end male genital mutilation in the U.S.”
“I always knew this was something wrong to do to a child,” Schofield told The San Francisco Examiner.
“Although some studies indicate that circumcision reduces the risk of STD transmission, others have indicated that the procedure is not worth the associated risks and diminished sexual function,” the NBC article says.
If the measure becomes law, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. Only people over the age of 18 would be allowed to have their foreskins removed, according to the NBC article.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
22 comments Add your comment
Mike
February 25th, 2011
9:14 pm
Why is it that so many anti-circumcision advocates are gay?
Real man, not a baby boy
February 25th, 2011
9:57 pm
“the procedure is not worth the associated risks and diminished sexual function”
HAHAHAHA! What a tool! I’m circumcised and there IS NO diminished sexual function! Who does this jerk think he is? Every female partner I’ve ever had has told me their repulsion at uncut members. To each girl her own, but I plan on having any male child cut, and God help the jackass that tries to pass legislation to tkae away that RIGHT!
Real man, not a baby boy
February 25th, 2011
10:00 pm
Hooded Peen: “I have a very large uncircumcised penis.”
Anyone who is dick enough to write bs like this has a very small penis. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Tool!
Phil Cooper
February 26th, 2011
4:17 pm
All it means is that people who want a circumcision procedure will go to Marin County, San Mateo County or Contra Costa County to have it performed. With San Francisco circling the drain financially, you’d think they’d have bigger issues to worry about.
Phil Cooper
February 26th, 2011
4:21 pm
@Mike, Dr. Dean Edell frequently spoke out against circumcision on his show on KGO AM 810. Dr. Edell is not gay, and comes from a Jewish background, yet he’s probably done more to raise the issue in people’s minds than anyone else in the last 50 years.
Phil Cooper
February 26th, 2011
4:29 pm
Lloyd Schofield was interviewed last week by nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin. It was a very short interview when Schofield refused to answer any questions about himself and his motivation to promote this ballot issue. It left the audience with the distinct impression that he’s a weasel and that he’s pushing a barrow.
Mike
February 26th, 2011
10:37 pm
I’m not circumsized, but have come up with a little trick to make it look like I am. I can send pictures and directions to anyone that is interested. You just need some super glue and some surgical tape. The tape usually comes off during sex, but I usually just act like I have no idea what it is and blame the chick.
ClearTheAir
February 27th, 2011
12:50 am
Circumcision is, most of the time, cosmetic surgery. It is disgusting to perform such surgery on an infant, who can’t give consent, simply so the parent can be happy with the appearance of the child’s penis. Or, to put it another way, customizing the genitalia of a child in order to please an adult is sick.
Perhaps even worse, it’s often done without anaesthesia, causing the child immense pain.
I invite those who think circumcision is a fine idea to go have the same or a similar operation performed on themselves, without anaesthetic – just like an infant would endure. Let a doctor strap you down to a board and cut/rip off your foreskin or the hood of your clitoris without anaesthetic while you scream. If you aren’t willing to go through that yourself, you shouldn’t put your child through it.
Bottom line: it isn’t your body! If there’s no legitimate medical reason to fiddle with it, leave your son’s penis alone. If a male is unhappy with having a foreskin, he can have it removed when he’s older and, can give informed consent, AND can get anaesthetic.
Steve
February 28th, 2011
11:03 am
Any comparison of male circumcision with female genital mutilation is absurd. Go to Africa, meet the women (and girls) who suffer for the rest of their lives from genital mutilation, and you will never make the comparison again.
Really, you do great harm to efforts to stop the cruelty in Africa by your language.
armywife
February 28th, 2011
4:41 pm
It really does no harm to circumsize or not. If it is a religious thing then even the law cannot change their practice. Remeber “freedom of religion.” And I am somewhat sure that the small missing piece of skin from your penis is not why you have always felt like something was missing in your life. If you really are wearing a fake one, I would advise you to seek professional help.