SF to vote on male circumcision in November
May 18th, 2011
05:33 PM ET

SF to vote on male circumcision in November

San Francisco voters will  decide whether to ban male circumcision in the November 8 municipal election.

Activists gathered enough signatures to put a proposal on the ballot, the city's election board confirmed Wednesday.

The measure  aims to prohibit all male circumcisions in San Francisco. Led by Lloyd Schofield who is part of a Bay Area “intactivist” group, the advocates want to eliminate the  surgery and liken it to  "male genital mutilation."

Schofield and the "intactivists" seek to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco.  Under the proposal, a person who violates the proposed ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000). Exemptions for religious reasons would not be allowed.

Column: Circumcising our son– how do we decide?

The measure faces huge hurdles: Legal, religious opposition and varying public opinion.  It has brought up some interesting discussions about why we circumcise and whether there are any sound medical benefits.

Empowered Patient: Should teens make their own circumcision decision?

“We hope to get a greater outreach to the people in the city,” Schofield said Wednesday during a celebratory lunch.  He said the activists would step up efforts to talk about the issue with residents.  “We are willing and happy to talk to people who want a respectful conversation. We’re excited to do it.”

soundoff (761 Responses)
  1. InheritTheWind

    Fanatacism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • kalo

      The correct response to this article should be "Heh that will never pass, now then can we get to the real issues like the economy, immigration, and I don't know the wars which claim more human lives and 'bits of skin' than the snipping of babies?"

      May 18, 2011 at 20:55 | Report abuse |
  2. nofoldems

    Why not ban ear piercing too?

    May 18, 2011 at 20:10 | Report abuse | Reply
    • mark

      not even close to the same thing. u fail

      May 18, 2011 at 20:18 | Report abuse |
    • woo

      False analogy.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:21 | Report abuse |
    • Phil

      you are cutting/damaging skin either way. There is no difference.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:14 | Report abuse |
  3. Praise Allah

    I completly agree with everyone who thinks this should not be banned. Be lucky you had sons! I had to goto out of country to perform my families religous practices for my daughters. I thought ALL people were allowed to practice their religons without oppression or persecution in america?

    May 18, 2011 at 20:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • mh2011

      women are treated lik 3rd class citzens were u from no wonder the males are way they take awy womens in bed pleasure

      May 18, 2011 at 20:21 | Report abuse |
    • Dapper Dan Man

      lol u trollin

      May 18, 2011 at 20:51 | Report abuse |
    • Jenna

      Truly sick. Seriously, did you really think that America gives people the right to torture their children in the name of religion? Anyone who performs FGM on a child should be viewed with the same contempt as a Nazi butcher. They are that evil.
      FGM also shows the weakness in the argument of appearance: "Cut (genitals of choice) look better than natural ones." A society has something wrong with it when it requires helpless children to endure painful, unnecessary surgeries because the look of mutilation is seen as superior.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:07 | Report abuse |
    • Jennifer

      Very nice, but wasted troll... Its over most peoples heads sadly....

      May 18, 2011 at 21:19 | Report abuse |
  4. Scott

    To the people saying that this is mutilation or barbaric because they are cutting a piece of skin off of a baby think of it this way. If your baby was born with a tumor or some anatomical abnormality would you not have surgery done to fix it (cutting off tissue). This is the same thing, as there are definite health benefits to having the foreskin removed such as reduction in AIDS and decreased infection later in life.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • woo

      False analogy

      May 18, 2011 at 20:15 | Report abuse |
    • Kelly

      A tumor is life threatening. There is no scientific evidence that proves circing an innocent baby will prevent aids. How about a condom?

      May 18, 2011 at 20:20 | Report abuse |
    • Shane

      It does almost eliminate the chance of penile cancer, and it greatly reduces the chances of a mail UTI.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:28 | Report abuse |
    • HarvardLaw92

      So let the man decide for himself whether or not to take advantage of those benefits as an adult. Don't make irreversible mutilations without his consent when he's a child.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:32 | Report abuse |
    • Dover

      Stupid. A tumor is not a natural part of the body. Men can live healthy lives with foreskins.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:51 | Report abuse |
    • JohnnyJett & the Dirty Socks

      I think only men should be able to vote and there should be an exemption for Jewish parents.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:09 | Report abuse |
  5. Marv

    San Fran has derailed.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:14 | Report abuse | Reply
    • WhoKnewIt

      .....Long ago.....

      May 18, 2011 at 20:26 | Report abuse |
    • Brad

      and wrecked.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:46 | Report abuse |
    • Dapper Dan Man

      Its a silly prop and will most likely be voted down.

      That being said, I live here and would still rather live here than 99.5% of anywhere else in the country.

      "San Francisco: Not pretentious, just better"

      May 18, 2011 at 20:54 | Report abuse |
  6. FatherRemus

    In other news today the City of SF is experience shortage of lube and will be levying a tax on common sense until there is enough lube in the bank for next years parade.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:15 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Dapper Dan Man


      SF isn't even the gayest city in America. Didn't even make the top 10 list this year.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:55 | Report abuse |
  7. dude

    then no tatoos or pierced ears or anything else until 18 yrs.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:16 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jenna

      Most states will not allow for the tattooing or piercing of a region besides the ear for anyone under the age of 18 without parental consent, so your point is moot. As for people who pierce the ears of very young children, my aunt is an emergency room nurse and has seen many babies who had pulled the ear rings out of their ears and swallowed them, so piercing at a young age is not a good idea either.
      Parents, give your children the right to decide, upon adulthood, what they want to do to their bodies. At the very least, it will prevent them from blaming you if they disagreed with your decision. Oh, and the rate of penile cancer is EXTREMELY low. A much better pre-emptive surgery would be to remove the appendix at birth, but we don't risk the life of the healthy child to remove an organ that could late cause death, do we?

      May 18, 2011 at 21:15 | Report abuse |
    • Seola

      Name 5 states with that law. Or is this another one of those "internet facts".

      May 18, 2011 at 23:26 | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      41 states have such a law. It would be easier to list the nine that don't. The nine without such a law are New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nevada, Massachusetts, Maryland, Kansas, and Oregon.

      May 19, 2011 at 00:03 | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      Before you write it off as internet facts, which seems to be the go to club in your bag, that comes from the National Conference of State Legislatures (2009). But then again, my Master's in Public Health and Juris Doctorate may have led me astray on this one.

      May 19, 2011 at 00:06 | Report abuse |
  8. manny

    So then if a baby's born with an extra limb should parents not be allowed to give an ok for surgery? It would still be elective or just wait let the baby decide when he's older?

    May 18, 2011 at 20:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  9. Kelly

    Glad to see this is going for a vote. In my opinion it comes down to performing a cosmetic surgery on a human being that cannot consent. Female babies and male babies should be treated equally.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:18 | Report abuse | Reply
    • DJ

      But it's okay to kill an unborn baby?

      May 18, 2011 at 20:34 | Report abuse |
    • Realtime

      So you're saying that an adult should not make the decision for the child? I bet you're also a supporter of abortion, but lack the ability to see the hypocrisy of your contradictory positions.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:35 | Report abuse |
    • Kelly

      Think again. I'm not a supporter of abortion. However, I would like to point out that the two issues are completely different. One can argue that life begins at birth.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:41 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      One could argue that, yes. But one must also prove harm in order to prevent people from carrying out a safe, established religious practice.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:45 | Report abuse |
    • Marv

      The process actually reduces risk of infection in the member. It's not just cosmetic. If fact, it's not even really about that at all. – Dr. Marv

      May 18, 2011 at 20:45 | Report abuse |
    • Realtime

      "One can argue that life begins at birth."

      Only the deranged.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:48 | Report abuse |
    • Marv

      Kelly, one cannot in real terms argue that life begins at birth. That's such a rediculous statement. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. When the two mix, they are both alive. Now, I'm not taking a side in this, but that's rediculous. Sometimes you just have to think about what you're saying.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:51 | Report abuse |
    • Kelly

      Marv, I really don't care what you think about abortion. It doesn't even matter what I think about abortion. This is not an issue about abortion. As you may have read, I don't believe in abortion. So there goes your automatic assumption that I'm a "liberal"

      May 18, 2011 at 20:55 | Report abuse |
    • Marv

      Ah, Kelly... I didn't assume you were a liberal. I'm a liberal. I'm also a doctor. I understand that life does not start at birth. That's just a fact.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:00 | Report abuse |
    • Kelly

      oh good, Marv is a dr. Now tell us how much money is made off each procedure?

      May 18, 2011 at 21:02 | Report abuse |
    • kalo

      Here's a question for you all....why do you care about a single flab of skin rather than focusing this bit of energy to learning something of value...like the presidential race; and before the "Oh well you are in this article posting" it is because I skipped down to the bottom because I was well aware of the religious" heartland" vs. liberal "regular people" I think they call themselves now, cluster you know what which has happened. Basicly here to point and laugh at the people who think CNN posts are anything more to the ACTUAL normal folks than cheap laughs at stupid people. Congrats everyone who thinks this article is important I just hope you all don't vote.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:04 | Report abuse |
    • JohnnyJett & the Dirty Socks

      Kelly you are on a planet of your own in you mind. Please don't sound off unless you have a penis. Toll

      May 18, 2011 at 21:13 | Report abuse |
    • JohnnyJett & the Dirty Socks

      We can totally see who was on the comittee to gather signature, stop lobbying Kelly and let the people decide. We have all heard your opinion, now put a sock in it.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:15 | Report abuse |
    • JohnnyJett & the Dirty Socks

      Kelly go braid your armpit hair, eat a granola bar, hug a tree and shut up, please.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:17 | Report abuse |
    • Seola

      Don't worry about Kelly – she's an "internet fact expert" who's pledged to watch her son put his condom on before doing the dirty instead of using sound medical advice. She's simply a hypocrite, coming to terms with being... for all intents and purposes, completely pwned. She doesn't like her own facts used against her. It's all good to jam scissors in the back of a baby's head because, well the baby isn't a baby, but how dare you do ANYTHING that wouldn't hurt him and could help him? Well, this again is someone who wants to watch her son do the deed to ensure his safety in condoms, sooo....

      May 18, 2011 at 23:49 | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      Speaking of "cosmetic surgery" on a child that cannot consent, let me give you a hypothetical. You love camping and happen to the parent of an infant that you would like to expose to nature at a young age. You're camping and you build yourself a campfire. Somehow that infant crawls, walks, rolls, or is dropped into the fire and is severly burned. The infant is not old enough to consent for themself. As the parent would you request or consent to a surgeon performing cosmetic surgery on your child? Or would you prefer to wait for the layers of scar tissue to form while the child ages towards adulthood and let your child make up their decision then, when the surgery will be more painful and be subject to more complications?

      May 19, 2011 at 00:11 | Report abuse |
  10. Greg

    Even if this passed (which it won't) you would have to show significant harm to the child (which you can't) to have it upheld all the way through appeals.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:18 | Report abuse | Reply
    • patti

      Summed up in a nut shell – thanks for being the only here to see clearly.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:50 | Report abuse |
  11. Monique

    Gee, what happened to medical decisions between patient/physicians being private? That the reason why abortions are legal. And no religious exemptions? They're are anti-semitic as well as hypocrites. I have four sons and am thankful I don't live in SF. These people are nuts. So to speak.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:20 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kelly

      Wow, I'm really glad I'm not one of your sons. Poor things.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:21 | Report abuse |
    • Shane

      Glad to see a mother with sense.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:32 | Report abuse |

    A city like San Franpsycho might want to look at the connection between HIV and cirmcucision. Ask South Africa about it.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:20 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kelly

      how about a condom?

      May 18, 2011 at 20:22 | Report abuse |
    • Seola

      Kelly, this is around the 5th or 6th response I've read from you – I hope you aren't a parent of any boys... how about a condom? So are you going to hold a son's hand through the "deed" to make sure he uses one? Gonna put it on for him too? What about if he isn't able to perform because of the higher risk of cancer? I mean seriously, you are very dense. I
      love my 4 sons, but I will give them ANY percentage to avoid ANY medical ills because I love them. Even if it's .1%, it could be that little bit that saves their lives. I'm also not near stupid enough to believe he'll be "untouched" until his wedding night and so will his bride. I can hope for it, but I'm realistic.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:39 | Report abuse |
    • SteveL

      Seola, maybe you can have your children's teeth removed too. Gum disease can cause death. Of course, they will not be able to enjoy food like those whose teeth are intact. But still, that will take care of the sliver of a chance that they will die of gum disease.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:46 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      SteveL, let me quote a different post by someone you may know: "not even close to the same thing. u fail"

      May 18, 2011 at 20:50 | Report abuse |
    • Seola

      LOL Greg. You know Steve, that has happened to. In instances where impacted teeth have shown to have problems and/or decay, they've removed kids teeth. So ha. But gum disease isn't directly related to a tooth itself and is a separate problem (hence the word GUM) AND I don't know about you but if I had to make the choice, they can get dentures (or I would obviously). Though presenting the interesting falsie idea is interesting.

      By the way, there hasn't been a recorded death from gum disease (stand alone without extenuating factors) in 1st world countries for several decades. (It should also be noted that a solo person alone controls whether they get gum disease by hygiene – should you wait for your kid to decide to brush their teeth? A child has no voice to decide whether or not to catch an illness without warning, and an adult may not even know they HAVE HIV/AIDS.) However, my mother made the choice to have my first tooth lost to be a pulled one because it was not coming out properly and was infected. Sure, she could have waited to "let me decide" whether to decide of I wanted the rotting tooth in my mouth for a while and risk brain infection but she was a PARENT making a CHOICE to decrease risk versus increasing reward. Besides, some infections are deadly among infants (who can't speak for themselves) but I'm sure if you ask the disfigured adult male if he had a choice between the disfiguration and dysfunction of the illness or a snipping... what would have been his choice?

      So, have we effectively painted the horse blue or are we still giving him oranges?

      But you know, since you are deciding what I do with my kids I birthed, I think with your sons, I'm going to dye their hair pink, make them wear see through mesh tops, and decree by law that only females can speak to them. You know because pink is a more flattering color to their skin tone, mesh tops allow for extra oxygenation and proper ventilation and females have more soothing voices and statistically when major influencers raise more proper and polite men....

      May 18, 2011 at 23:42 | Report abuse |
  13. Dave

    These Activists should all be sent to Turkey for being totally ignorant to the rights of the family.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. mh2011

    no wonder cal /sanfran is captial of libs and know for high pop of the other kind

    May 18, 2011 at 20:22 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. Bobo

    I hardly think this is an issue for the city of San Francisco to be weighing in on.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  16. Greg

    We should sue San Franscisco for establishing a city religion. By expressly forbidding religious exceptions to this law, that's exactly what they are doing.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. Levi the JEWISH MAN

    Prevents me from practicing my religion, DUDE.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:26 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Greg

      That is exactly their point. What's next – outlawing taking your children to church until they are 18?

      May 18, 2011 at 20:29 | Report abuse |
    • Realtime

      "outlawing taking your children to church until they are 18"

      You can be certain that they would LOVE to do that too.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:32 | Report abuse |
    • Donny

      No, because taking your children to church doesn't involve the removal of a vital ORGAN.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:35 | Report abuse |
    • Seola

      Actually Don... that's exactly what at least one visit to the church is for!

      May 18, 2011 at 23:44 | Report abuse |
  18. Blogger1

    The city of SF needs an enema

    May 18, 2011 at 20:30 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. Realtime

    San Francisco is filled with the dumbest morons on earth. 10.4% unemployment in California, and these morons running that putrid city think that focusing on genitalia should be their highest priority. Voters deserve to be unemployed, when they elect such clowns.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:31 | Report abuse | Reply
  20. yah

    Why is this the government's business?

    May 18, 2011 at 20:31 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. Dara

    I would like to point out the fact that more babies die from circucision complications than SIDS. Is it really worth it?

    May 18, 2011 at 20:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Greg

      I would love for you to post a link to those statistics rather than just proclaim them.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:37 | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      Dara, you are so full of BS. I just fell off my chair laughing at your statement. That has to be one of the most idiotic comments I have ever read. You cannot possibly be serious. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!! Clearly, you have zero medical or pediatric knowledge/training.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:56 | Report abuse |
    • Reallly!!!!

      So the flying spaghetti said.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:59 | Report abuse |
    • Seola

      If you are going to be like a couple other posters here and make up "internet facts" – at least make them close to believable!

      May 18, 2011 at 23:45 | Report abuse |
  22. cutmypenis

    This is ridiculous. No, it's stupid. To ban this procedure? Gimme a break. The Big One can happen any time, and the average IQ of the United States would jump about 20 points.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:31 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. Avenger

    I propose a similar ban on the removal of tonsils

    May 18, 2011 at 20:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • egm11

      what should be banned is all the frontal lobe surgery that has obviously taken place in california. what a bunch of brain dead twits.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:38 | Report abuse |
  24. jjb123

    so let me get this straight... it will be illegal to gut off a pice of skin because it is harmful or at least produces no benefit (so they say) BUT IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO MURDER THE SAME INNOCENT CHILD WITH AN ABORTION... nice.. when is California falling off the face of the earth again? not soon enough.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Realtime

      Why YES! You are absolutely correct. The clowns in that putrid cesspool of urban decay are unable to recognize their hypocrisy.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:37 | Report abuse |
    • Phil

      your not "murdering" anything if it cant live on its own outside of the body

      May 18, 2011 at 20:59 | Report abuse |
    • Dapper Dan Man

      Dude, whats your deal? Abortions are awesome.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:05 | Report abuse |
  25. Donny

    The circ rate in SF is only 10%. It could very well pass.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. Seola

    See, it's much more "cool" and do the "in" thing by rallying for children's inability to speak for themselves in this case, but totally "cool" to let you murder them (by the way, just pointing hypocrisy). How dare you help the health of your son when you could have had scissors jammed in the back of his head and stomped out this pesky debate to begin with, right?

    May 18, 2011 at 20:35 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Loggie

      Any libs care to answer Seola on this one? Checkmate.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:43 | Report abuse |
    • Dover

      If it made any sense we would.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:53 | Report abuse |
    • Will

      Yes genius, abortion is not murder. A little ball of cells is not a human being no matter how badly you want it to be one. So get over yourself and your pompous "checkmate" garbage...

      May 18, 2011 at 21:07 | Report abuse |
    • Sambo

      Will, It's too bad that your ignorance on the subject outshines your painfully low IQ. Abortion does NOT occur when it's a little ball of cells. It takes place when there is a known pregnancy and the procedure is the destruction of human life whether you like it or not. The intended destruction of a human life is murder; plain and simple. Since you are so simple, this concept should not be difficult for you to grasp. By your skewed logic, are you not a little ball of cells yourself? Go take some more drugs, Bozo!

      May 18, 2011 at 21:47 | Report abuse |
    • Ryan

      Actually, that's exactly what a human being IS smart guy: a ball of cells with unique genetic material. I would know: I have a degree in biology.

      If human life can be measured in degrees according to the number of cells in a collection of cells containing unique human DNA, then by that logic a 5 year-old has less of a right to life then I do. Consistency: it's not over-rated.

      Human life is human life. If it is wrong to destroy innocent human life, then abortion is wrong. It is that plain. It is that simple.

      May 18, 2011 at 23:42 | Report abuse |
    • Dean

      You were a ball of cells before, just letting you know.

      May 19, 2011 at 10:16 | Report abuse |
    • James

      You're right! Now I'm a conservative and we're always right about EVERYTHING!

      May 18, 2011 at 22:21 | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      As a pro-life liberal I find his argument spurious. The two issues are seperate. The issue at hand here is whether it is acceptable to mutilate a person who has already been born. Seola and you seem to find it perfectly acceptable. No doubt you fail to see your own hypocrisy while you attempt to point it out in others. Checkmate? Not even check.

      May 18, 2011 at 23:46 | Report abuse |
    • Workaholic

      I just need to correct everybody... it's chessmate, not checkmate.

      May 19, 2011 at 00:31 | Report abuse |
    • guest

      You clearly know nothing about the game of chess....

      May 19, 2011 at 03:37 | Report abuse |
    • Q

      Sure thing. For the record, I find this proposed ban to be just plain stupid. To your point however, I don't give a flip about when or how you may chose to confer personhood on a developing human. No "person" is ent-itled to the body of another person to support his or her life. No government is ent-itled to dictate how one's own body should or should not be used to support another person's life. You'd better go back to the board and try again. Perhaps this time, you can start by advocating governments should be able to legally require individuals donate their organs...

      May 19, 2011 at 03:45 | Report abuse |
    • Kelly

      The two issues are not the same. That's an argument about when life begins. At birth or at conception? This is an argument about a living breathing child and his rights.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:50 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      Actually, this is about the rights of parents and what they feel is best for their child. You can sling around sensationalist terms like "genital mutilation" but unless you can prove this is harmful and abusive to the child, you can't prevent parents from carrying out a common, established religious practice.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:53 | Report abuse |
    • Kelly

      How about the fact that babies die from this religious practice. Is that good enough?

      May 18, 2011 at 20:59 | Report abuse |
    • JohnnyJett & the Dirty Socks

      Go picket a Starbucks you lemming

      May 18, 2011 at 21:20 | Report abuse |
    • OldSarge57

      It's only a religious practice for one religion. The vast majority in the U.S. and other DEVELOPED contries do it for health and cleanliness reasons.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:22 | Report abuse |
    • Au Natural

      Health and Cleanliness?? That myth has been busted by more than one study. This is a case of Monkeys and Ladders. They do it because it was done to them. That is all. Israel and the USA are the only ones still doing this barbaric and senseless practice

      May 18, 2011 at 23:27 | Report abuse |
    • Jon

      Freedom of religion. End of discussion.
      Religious exemption should be allowed. Jews have the right to do this practice in American society. This law is illegal.

      May 18, 2011 at 23:33 | Report abuse |
    • Face

      My religion says gays can marry. End of discussion.

      May 19, 2011 at 10:02 | Report abuse |
    • LR

      Were you born THAT stupid, or did you evolve that way? Statistically, you are incorrect, and yet you speak with the authority that only ignorance bestows.

      May 19, 2011 at 00:12 | Report abuse |
    • Some Reason and FACTS

      THANK YOU!

      May 19, 2011 at 00:16 | Report abuse |
    • Logical

      Could not agree with you more. It's barbaric. Why not cut girls' labia minora off as well?

      May 19, 2011 at 00:30 | Report abuse |
    • Leon

      Um, two religions actually.

      May 19, 2011 at 09:47 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Which countries? Canada doesn't. Nobody in Europe does. Now, it's practiced a lot in places like Saudi Arabia and Somalia. We must be so proud.

      May 19, 2011 at 18:21 | Report abuse |
    • Really??

      How about these "inactivists" focus their energy towards the people who really suffer from genital mutilation? A baby having their foreskin removed after birth is far from the "genital mutilation" that women and men face in foreign countries. What a waste of money on the part of SF, this shouldn't even have a place on the ballot. Let's help starving children in the city of SF before we worry about their foreskins...

      May 18, 2011 at 21:22 | Report abuse |
    • Ahem...


      May 18, 2011 at 22:39 | Report abuse |
    • Capercorn

      And when has this happened in the United States most recently? That would be like me saying that piercings can give you AIDS. They can! But I don't see people getting up in arms about minors getting piercings. So, uh... Harmless cultural practices that we approve of can be legal, but the harmless cultural practices of groups that we don't like should be illegal. This is antisemitism. Plain and simple.

      May 18, 2011 at 23:33 | Report abuse |
    • Jon

      Thank you! Glad someone noticed among the crazies! Hopefully, you're a voter in the SF area. This is a sacred tradition (Brit Milah) that no one has the right to interfere with. By stating explicitly that religious exemptions will not be made, they are targeting religions that do (Jews and perhaps others).

      May 18, 2011 at 23:37 | Report abuse |
    • Frenchie USA

      Can you give us a list (with names) of babies who die of it?
      What about a list of incompetent surgeons who operate on people who don' t need it, just for the money?
      How many law suits?
      But. please, give me that list of babies who die for being circonsized?
      How often do you hear it?
      What about people who piecr their baby's ears?
      Not to mention some who tattoo them (the last fashion!)
      Is that OK for you? What about all these shots mandatory for young infants and children and in my point, rather dangerous for the organism?
      But the law is the law; Why should paents could not decide for their offsprings, to a certain level, of course.
      Please, let be serious, you don' t want to circonsized your boys YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE.

      May 19, 2011 at 03:19 | Report abuse |
    • Bubba Schmo

      where in the hell did you pull that one from????

      May 19, 2011 at 11:20 | Report abuse |
    • jn3792

      No these are not different issues. You are talking about opinions about when life begins. These are all opinions. What if my opinion is that life officially begins one month after birth? Yes, that is ridiculous, but it is an opinon. Just like it is the opinion of others that a baby's life doesn't begin until it exits the mothers body.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:11 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh7

      Life began once, a billion years ago, and is a process transmitted from generation to generation. Virtually nobody opposes abortion at conception (IUDs), virtually everyone does at birth. The issue is where you draw the line. But if you think the abortion debate has any relevance here, you must think human rights END at birth.

      May 19, 2011 at 23:46 | Report abuse |
    • Mick

      No. You are dumb. Please keep your opinions to yourself.

      May 18, 2011 at 22:18 | Report abuse |
    • Aaron

      There's no room to debate about when human "life" begins. Living cells of the parents make a living cell of the offspring. The offspring was never not alive, just different in a very critical way. The debate is about when it's acceptable to end a human life.

      May 18, 2011 at 23:28 | Report abuse |
    • Chad

      One post you mention who babies die from this practice and another one talks about how abortion is a separate argument (and want to sweep it under the rug) shhhhh. Do you really know what you believe?

      May 19, 2011 at 08:54 | Report abuse |
    • Haime52

      Life is NOT the issue with abortion, personhood is. An ameoba is alive, so is a fetus. The question at issue in abortion is when does the fetus get accorded personhood by law.

      May 21, 2011 at 18:31 | Report abuse |
    • Karnman88

      Seeing how 95% of all abortions are done before anything remotely resembling a human is developed, that makes no sense. What was the point of that? To spread ignorance and use emotions to manipulate a debate?

      May 18, 2011 at 20:58 | Report abuse |
    • FatherRemus

      Actually you are quite wrong. The baby is fully developed at about 10 weeks, just needs to grow. Most abortions (or interrupted pregnancies as the PCs call them) happen between 12 and 18 weeks.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:11 | Report abuse |
    • The Dude

      It's a parasite until it can live outside the womb on its own.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:15 | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      A child is not able to "live on its own" for many years after birth. Are you pro-infanticide?

      May 18, 2011 at 21:54 | Report abuse |
    • Derrick

      I don't know what abortions have to do with entire topic. but I would like to add that I do not know a single baby who survived on its own after it was born. Just sayin, a fetus is a group of cells, humans are a group of cells. a fetus can not live on its own an neither can a baby. Now back to the topic at hand. I don't understand why someone would call this genetal mutilation. Is breast enhancment genital mutilation? is getting your tonsils removed some form of mutilation? how about a kidney, a spleen, an appendix or adenoids? I see no reason to prevent something that is proven to be hygienically better for us. And the fact that there will be no exceptions for religion seems a bit anti-semitic.

      May 19, 2011 at 03:41 | Report abuse |
    • Susan Connecticut

      Breasts are not genitals.

      May 19, 2011 at 07:50 | Report abuse |
    • smarter human

      "The baby is fully developed at about 10 weeks, just needs to grow." It's not fully developed if it still needs to grow. That's like saying a pear blossom is a pear.

      May 19, 2011 at 00:04 | Report abuse |
    • smarter human

      "The baby is fully developed at about 10 weeks, just needs to grow." It's not fully developed if it still needs to grow. That's like saying a pear blossom is a pear.

      May 19, 2011 at 00:14 | Report abuse |
    • KLee

      Babies cannot survive outside of the womb until 24 weeks. Why? Because their lungs cannot function before then. They don't produce surfactant until around this time, which is needed to inflate the lung tissues once they hit air. Last I checked, I still needed my lungs in order to live. Not sure about you.

      Seriously, do some research and stop polluting the comment thread with your ignorance.

      May 20, 2011 at 13:54 | Report abuse |
    • Phil

      Its nothing but religious nutjobs that think your killing a person if its the size of your pinky toenail and you get rid of it.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:16 | Report abuse |
    • mom

      What if someone's brain is only the size of a pinky toenail...and since when did size determine value...

      May 19, 2011 at 00:16 | Report abuse |
    • Alexis'Mom

      Have you ever seen an 8 week sonogram? Seen the heart beat? Seen the arms? Don't tell me that abortions happen before anything resembling a child has developed.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:34 | Report abuse |
    • Phil

      And that thing would need to be in the wound another 30 weeks before it could even live outside of a womans body without help from a machine.

      May 18, 2011 at 22:18 | Report abuse |
    • Kim

      Why is a fetus not considered a person when someone has an abortion....but when a murderer kills a pregnant woman, he/she gets charged with murdering TWO people. We can't have it both ways. Whether we WANT the child determines whether or not it is a person? Does not compute....

      May 19, 2011 at 09:44 | Report abuse |
    • Sarah

      Someone is only charged with the murder of TWO people when the fetus is past the point of viability or 24 weeks. Know your facts before you start spouting rediculousness.

      May 19, 2011 at 15:50 | Report abuse |
    • Renee

      AMEN!!! Liberals are such hypocrits. Their stupidity is just laughable. Kill babies? OK, Kill trees, NOT OK, Cut a piece of skin, NOT OK, Judge everyone who is not like you, OK!! Going to hell, definetly!!

      May 18, 2011 at 21:15 | Report abuse |
    • a5422

      i think there may be a bible shoved into one of your orifices. you should probably get that looked at.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:25 | Report abuse |
    • Robin

      Just the way you're judging, right?

      May 19, 2011 at 00:09 | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      Fetuses aren't people. There is absolutely ZERO biblical text that would indicate that they are, and plenty of religious texts contemporaneous to Jesus that specifically say that they aren't.

      May 19, 2011 at 00:38 | Report abuse |
    • Max

      Forget the Bible, logic dictates that a fetus is a living proto-human organism the second cells start to divide. I personally don't think it's the government's place to allow or ban abortion, by the way, I'm just saying that scientifically, it is a life.

      May 19, 2011 at 01:26 | Report abuse |
    • PHil

      Lauren, what religiuos text are you referring to? You claim that theres ZERO biblical text that indicates that fetuses are people. Please tell me when you believe a fetus "becomes" a person.

      May 19, 2011 at 09:00 | Report abuse |
    • Lee

      OK so let's cut your skin and see how you feel about it.

      May 19, 2011 at 01:06 | Report abuse |
    • LEB

      Womens' right to control their own bodies, OK. Effective birth control preventing any need for abortion, OK. Mutilating little baby boys for no sensible or medical reason, NOT OK.

      May 19, 2011 at 06:10 | Report abuse |
    • Ginny-Beth

      Well said.

      May 18, 2011 at 22:37 | Report abuse |
    • rafael

      I don't believe anyone is promoting infanticide. You're a little confused.

      May 18, 2011 at 23:50 | Report abuse |
    • Mason Myatt

      Nowhere in this article or in any of the data posted is there any semblance of a correlation between this issue and abortion. Those in opposition to the proposal are attacking supporters by linking them to the abortion debate. Mighty presumptious. EVEN if there were a connection, one issue deals with an adult woman's right to control her body and the other deals with medical procedures being done on infants with no possibility of consent. One issue deals with a baby free of its mother and living independently of her, the other issue deals with a fetus which is not viable outisde the womb. Certainly there are issues to debate with the question of abortion but the analogy is a false one and in this thread, it is irrelevant except to those whose practice it is to make ad hominem attacks against those with whom they disagree but haven't the wherwithal to make a rational argument. It is a vote to determine the desires of the electorate for god's sake–it is not some fiat issued by a satanic dictator. Are you who are so distressed about this really that opposed to the democratic process of voting??

      May 19, 2011 at 00:45 | Report abuse |
    • greg

      Finally, someone who speaks sensibly on this forum. Liberal fools have yet to answer, I note.

      May 19, 2011 at 00:53 | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      Greg, and to the others who chose the same language, you can have a valid point but when you stoop to childish language like "liberal fools", you lose all validity and sound, well, like a child. Use your big boy words. BTW, Im not even a liberal, but I just hate behavior like this.

      May 19, 2011 at 08:51 | Report abuse |
    • HotAirAce


      The greater hypocrisy is that 70% of abortions in the USA are for believers. If believers really wanted to do something about abortion all they have to do is follow their own tribal rules, but no they must blame "liberals" rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.

      May 19, 2011 at 01:05 | Report abuse |
    • Mason Myatt


      May 19, 2011 at 01:08 | Report abuse |
    • Mason Myatt

      Hot Air:


      Yours may be the most astute comment in the thread.

      May 19, 2011 at 01:49 | Report abuse |
    • brickyardjimmy

      What are you talking about lady? What do I care if people wanna snip off a piece of their kid's wiener or not? I aint gonna rally for kids so they can keep their banana penis intact. So no hiphopcracy here. I say yes to laserbeams that cut off foreskin and yes to abortions for those that want one. You gonna tell people not to wear condoms now? How about 'baitin? You gonna tell people not to 'bait? Why? Nothin' wrong with a little baitin.

      May 19, 2011 at 03:03 | Report abuse |
    • haremettle

      An inconvenient truth!

      May 19, 2011 at 03:10 | Report abuse |
    • Timmy

      Hypocracy runs both ways...

      May 20, 2011 at 15:18 | Report abuse |
  27. egm11

    nothing like san fran. if nancy pelosi isnt trying to game the system on health care.....she is probably distibuting literature on how to mess with men and their private parts. what damn business is it of anyones about this except the parents. government dabbling again where they do not belong.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:36 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. Loggie

    I'm part of the helmet club, not the anteaters, and chicks dig helmets.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:36 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Realtime

      It is San Francisco, where all the chicks aren't into guys. And the only opinion that matters to the guys are those of other guys.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:38 | Report abuse |
    • Reallly!!!!

      Here is one who doesn't. Put that nasty, ugly thing back into your pants.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:49 | Report abuse |

    So keeping the covenant with God, by cutting the required amount foreskin, is not ok,
    but killing the entire baby through abortion is?

    You fokking hypocrites makes me want to burn down entire continents.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:36 | Report abuse | Reply
    • SteveL

      not even close to the same thing. u fail

      May 18, 2011 at 20:48 | Report abuse |
    • Dapper Dan Man

      lol you believe in god

      May 18, 2011 at 21:06 | Report abuse |
    • Jenna

      Actually read the Bible sometime, Gab. There are only a few verses which could remotely be spun in regards to abortion, and none of them consider abortion to be on the same level as murder. If you believe the Bible, God commanded his warriors to slice open the bellies of pregnant women and to bash their fetuses' brains out on the rocks. Also, I believe that the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry (to abort) was a minor monetary amount rather than the death of the one who caused the miscarriage as it would had been had the writers of the Bible viewed the death of the fetus as being a murder.
      And besides, did the NT override the Torah? Be against abortion if you wish, but be consistent. The RCC is antiabortion, but it's also against war, the death penalty, etc. Somehow I doubt that the antichoicers follow this philosophy.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:34 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      Consistent....like.....'your Bible is a stupid book of fake stories" and then "if you knew you own Bible as well as I did, then this is what you would think." You anti-lifers are funny.

      May 18, 2011 at 23:10 | Report abuse |

      @ Jenna: There is actually one verse that quite clearly forbids you from killing your both your own kids as well as others.

      Exodus 20:13 Actually reads “Thou Shalt Not MURDER”.

      It goes without saying that if a kid does not make it out of the mother alive, and it was not stillborn or died of natural reasons, it is because it has been MURDERED.

      Furthermore the commandment not to commit murder aplies everywhere.
      In the kitchen, in the garden, at school and ofcourse:

      in the mothers womb.

      May 19, 2011 at 08:09 | Report abuse |
  30. crazy

    So when a two or three year old girl begins crying at a store before her ear lobes are stabbed by a pin, the parent should go to jail according to this logic. Also, when the doctor cuts the umbilical cord, does the mom go to jail or the dad? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING SAN FRAN!!!!! CRAZY!!!!!

    May 18, 2011 at 20:37 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. SteveL

    Maybe you people that feel like this is infringing on your religion should look at this as an opportunity to grow. If you are one of the religions that like to mutilate your male child without their permission, it would be an opportunity to allow him to make that decision as an adult. Kind of like a confirmation.

    Anyway, if you are in one of these religions, just drive across the bay and have it done. It's not like you would even have it done in the hospital, right?

    May 18, 2011 at 20:39 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Realtime

      Hypocrite. Next you'll be whining about how parents should be allowed to kill their child through abortion.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:41 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      I think you should try and be more condescending and closed-minded in your next response. This one fell short.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:42 | Report abuse |
  32. jesseca5

    Not to worry. Just another weird plan submitted by the nut cases that occupy San Francisco. It was not called Baghdad By The Bay for nothing.

    Jesse in Texas

    May 18, 2011 at 20:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. Seth

    This ballot measure (which will never pass) is in direct conflict to the first amendment. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. But don't blame the city of San Francisco. They don't have anything to do with it. It's just a small group of activists who wanted to make the papers.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:40 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Realtime

      10.4% unemployment in California. And THIS is what they consider a top priority. California voters DESERVE to be unemployed until they learn to stop voting for idiots.

      May 18, 2011 at 20:44 | Report abuse |
    • Dapper Dan Man

      @Realtime – you do realize that city officials did not bring up the measure and that's fairly easy to get an initiative on a ballot and that this will most likely fail yes? you do realize this yeah? realtime? hello?

      May 18, 2011 at 21:11 | Report abuse |
  34. heyjms

    Interesting, What about abortion? They should put a measure on the ballot that says, no abortion to be done, until the baby is 18 and can decide for themselves.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Realtime


      May 18, 2011 at 20:46 | Report abuse |
    • Dapper Dan Man

      Get real. Everyone knows abortions are awesome. That would never pass.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:01 | Report abuse |
  35. Reallly!!!!

    Yeah, lets not immunize them or send them to school until they are 18. What are the advantages of having a foreskin anyway since I've never heard of anyone miss anything coz they didn't have a foreskin.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:42 | Report abuse | Reply
  36. Realtime

    Liberal logic..... removing skin using anethesia should be outlawed. Killing a child through abortion should be supported.

    But then liberals are always confused.... that's why they defend guilty murderers from the death penalty, but support killing innocent children through abortion.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  37. John

    More proof (1) that society should leave personal decisions to the person, (2) to indicate ignorance of health issues, (3) of the failure of the California proposition system.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  38. Steve_1042

    The more LIBERAL the society, the more INTOLERANT to the beliefs of others.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. Steve_1042

    You can KILL 'EM before they get out.... but once they're out, then you can't TOUCH THEM.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  40. Youguys

    Thank you San Fran, always good for a joke.
    The rest of America is laughing at you.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. offended

    Talk about not separating church and state, its just plain old antisemitism.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:49 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Lyle

      Yeah, this is all about the pieces of defecation in S.F. hating the Judeo/Christian culture that established this nation.

      May 18, 2011 at 21:03 | Report abuse |
  42. Greg Gilbert

    Ok guys.... lets only makes laws that are fun! Only laws about Peni$ today! I can only imagine how those SF city council meetings go.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:50 | Report abuse | Reply
  43. Glenn Thomas Sr.

    The only reason that makes sense is that the male gay population of SF wants as much of a man as they can possibly get. The government of SF is sick and full of crap.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:50 | Report abuse | Reply
  44. Mike dallas texas

    oh my , SF city hall has nothing better to do than worry about mens penis , come on city hall , fix some pot holes or mow an overgrown lot , pick up some trash

    May 18, 2011 at 20:52 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. this is so dumb

    this is the dummest idea.....leave it to the parents and stay out of their lives

    were talking about baby junk? dang....

    there goes the MOYEL business

    bad idea

    May 18, 2011 at 20:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  46. PR

    Lets ban ear piercing and tattoos while we're at it. Leave your hans off my penis. That's a personal decision, just like abortions. Are you going to tell jewish people they can't do it....its a religious requirement. Hope the courts shove this one up your butt...along with the penises you love.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:57 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. Marv

    Dan, San Fran is so polluted with smug that you guys can no longer smell your own stank. The town has taken a handful of good ideas and turned into how liberals see radical republicans. You have gone so far the wrong way that you are almost republicans, now. That's how far San Fran has spun. Think of the freedom of choice being stripped in San Fran everyday by people who think they know best.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:57 | Report abuse | Reply
    • John

      1.) Every state in this country is broke and in debt, California is not the only one.
      3.) We have the highest standard of living then any other state
      4.) We have the highest average salary
      5.) California is #1 GDP producers in this country at $2 Trillion.
      6.) We ranked top 5 states with the lowest GDP/DEBT ratio, meaning we actually have a pretty low debt and MEDIA is just making it look like we are in chaos.

      May 18, 2011 at 23:06 | Report abuse |
  48. Furious Styles

    The whole state of California is almost broke and they have time for this???

    May 18, 2011 at 20:59 | Report abuse | Reply
  49. Dapper Dan Man

    If I had a dollar for every foreskin.... Oh man.

    May 18, 2011 at 20:59 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. Kenny s.

    Keep your nose out of my family business!

    May 18, 2011 at 20:59 | Report abuse | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply to Holden


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.