Judge orders circumcision ban off SF ballot
July 29, 2011 LISA LEFF , Associated Press in HIV & AIDS
Edward Quigley dresses his daughter Phoebe Quigley, 17 months, in an anti-circumcision shirt while rallying outside a San Francisco courthouse on Thursday, July 28, 2011. A judge today struck a measure from the city's November ballot calling for a ban on male circumcision, saying the proposed law violates a law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)
(AP) -- A judge on Thursday struck a measure from the city's November ballot that called for a ban on most circumcisions of male children, saying the proposed law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom and a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities.
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi confirmed a tentative decision she issued a day earlier and came after she heard arguments from proponents of the ban, which would have made San Francisco the first U.S. city to hold a public vote on whether to outlaw the circumcision of minors.
Michael Kinane, an attorney for the proponents, told Giorgi that circumcision was not usually performed as a medical procedure. He also said the ballot measure included an exception in cases where circumcision was needed for health reasons.
"If you bring in your son and say my custom, my religion requires circumcision of this little boy, the state hasn't said anything on the issue, so there is not a matter of pre-emption," Kinane argued.
Giorgi, while acknowledging that "there is legitimate debate on the benefits and harms of circumcision," was not swayed and ordered San Francisco's elections director to remove the measure from the ballot.
"I don't think there is any debate ... that this mater relates to issues of statewide concern," the judge said.
The ban's sponsor, anti-circumcision activist Lloyd Schofield, said afterward that he was considering an appeal.
"We will not stop until all men are protected from this damaging and harmful surgery," Schofield said.
The citizens' initiative, which qualified for the ballot in May, would have made the practice a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. The measure did not offer exemptions for religious rituals such as the Jewish bris or Muslim khitan.
The city attorney's office had joined several Jewish organizations and Muslim parents in challenging the ban in court.
"It is up to parents to make the choice whether or not to have their baby boys circumcised," said Abby Michelson Porth, associate director of the Jewish Community Relations Council. "We did not want to have Mr. Schofield legislating our religious traditions."
Backers had argued the ban was necessary to prevent circumcisions from being forced on children. Kinane pointed out Thursday that the federal government bans female circumcision.
"The U.S. government has said when you are looking at little girls we don't care if it's a matter of custom or ritual, you can't circumcise them unless there's a matter of medical necessity," he said.
Critics contended the initiative posed a threat to families' privacy and to constitutionally protected religious freedoms. They cited comic books and trading cards distributed by the measure's proponents that carried images of a blonde, blue-eyed superhero and four evil Jewish characters.
Outside the courthouse, anti-circumcision activists carried signs with slogans like "I did not consent to male genital mutilation" and a leaflet claiming that circumcision diminishes men's sexual pleasure.
San Francisco parent Jenny Benjamin, a plaintiff in the lawsuit to overturn the ban, said seeing people compare circumcision to child abuse made "my stomach churn."
"I don't know about you, but some of the decisions my parents made for me I wasn't thrilled about, but I didn't take it to voters," Benjamin said. "It seems a little extreme. It seems a lot extreme."
©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
States stop circumcisions funds amid budget crisis
Jun 24, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child?
Dec 07, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Neonatal and infant circumcision: Safe in the right hands
Feb 15, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Circumcision to fight AIDS is debated
Aug 16, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Circumcision may not reduce AIDS risk
Feb 04, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Limits to growth: Scientists identify key metastasis-enabling enzyme
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
0
-
Seeing is as seeing does: Spatially-structured retinal input in early development of cortical maps
Apr 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (4) |
1
-
Dreamless nights: Brain activity during nonrapid eye movement sleep
Apr 09, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (12) |
0
-
Take your time: Neurobiology sheds light on the superiority of spaced vs. massed learning
Mar 28, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (21) |
3
-
Your brain on 'shrooms: fMRI elucidates neural correlates of psilocybin psychedelic state
Feb 29, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (42) |
45
-
Classical and Quantum Mechanics via Lie algebras
Apr 15, 2011
- More from Physics Forums - Independent Research
More news stories
Mortality rates decrease, chronic disease rates increase among HIV+ ICU patients
The expanded use of antiretrovirals, potent drugs used to treat retroviral infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), has been linked to significant decreases in hospital mortality rates among severely ill HIV-positive(HIV+) ...
HIV & AIDS
May 23, 2012 |
not rated yet |
0
Newly discovered breast milk antibodies help neutralize HIV
Antibodies that help to stop the HIV virus have been found in breast milk. Researchers at Duke University Medical Center isolated the antibodies from immune cells called B cells in the breast milk of infected mothers in Malawi, ...
HIV & AIDS
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
|
Reactions to HIV drug have autoimmune cause, reports AIDS journal
Potentially severe hypersensitivity reactions to the anti-HIV drug abacavir occur through an autoimmune mechanism, resulting from the creation of drug-induced immunogens that are attacked by the body's immune system, according ...
HIV & AIDS
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
Is the U.S. ready for home HIV tests?
At the pharmacy, you can buy anything from tea kettles to Tylenol. But what if you could buy a rapid HIV test over the counter and test yourself in the privacy of your own home?
HIV & AIDS
May 21, 2012 |
not rated yet |
0
|
Reduced glycerin formulation of tenofovir vaginal gel safe for rectal use
A change in the formulation of tenofovir gel, an anti-HIV gel developed for vaginal use, may make it safer to use in the rectum, suggests a study published online this week in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. In lab ...
HIV & AIDS
May 17, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
Progestin treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome may reduce pregnancy chances
(Medical Xpress) -- The hormone progestin, often given as a first step in infertility treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), appears to decrease the odds of conception and of giving birth, according to a study by ...
World 'no tobacco day' puts spotlight on dangers of smoking
Its not just smokers who are at-risk when it comes to tobacco smoke exposureand the health concerns of smoking cigarettes are not limited to the most known consequence: lung cancer.
Like curry? New biological role identified for compound used in ancient medicine
Scientists have just identified a new reason why some curry dishes, made with spices humans have used for thousands of years, might be good for you.
Nonsmoking lung cancer survivor encourages others to consider risk
Carol Seibert had an upper respiratory infection she just couldnt seem to shake. The timing of her illness was awful, as she had just returned from a trip to Florida for her youngest sons surgery and was preparing ...
Amino acid consumption associated with how fast cancer cells divide
For almost a century, researchers have known that cancer cells have peculiar appetites, devouring glucose in ways that normal cells do not. But glucose uptake may tell only part of cancer's metabolic story. Researchers from ...
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments
A team of scientists at McMaster University has discovered a drug, thioridazine, successfully kills cancer stem cells in the human while avoiding the toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments.
Jul 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Jul 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
The answer to this question will always be opinion.
Jul 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I believe the important difference is that with abortion, there is no victim (unless you consider foetus a victim, which many do not). But with circumcision, the person will have to live with it their whole life, and there are men that disagree with their parents decision when they grow up. That said, I do not support outright ban, but it is important to discuss what parents can and cannot do with their children, because many parents seem to believe they own their children and can do whatever they want to them if they call it a part of their religion.
Jul 31, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
How about this to please abortionists who are against circumcision, if you want to circumcise your baby do it before birth. According to Abortionists, and everyone else without logic, the baby isn't human before birth and so cant be a victim of circumcision.
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (12)
There is no such thing as an "unborn baby". This is an oxymoron.
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Why should we protect human body with no mind, or functioning brain? We dont do it after birth (dissapearance of brain waves is a criterion of death - end of a person). Especially at the expense of beings which already have a mind and are capable of suffering?
"arbeit macht frei-thinking"
Argumentum ad hitlerum, slippery slope logical fallacy.
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
The victim is the FUTURE human being in the case of such prenatal circumcision, not the foetus itself. It is the same logic as behind chemical endangerement laws, where abortion is legal, but taking drugs that could harm the foetus is not. With abortion, there is no future human being, thus no victim and no crime.
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Godwin lest ye be Godwined.
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
You prove the point that progressives have no real science or history understanding.
Abortionists logic is as sound as racists logic saying a race is not fully human.
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Its physiologically impossible for the fetus to have a functioning brain before 5th month of fetal development. After that yes, the babies should be protected, since there probably is sentience or mind inside. But I dont see any reason why we should protect the fetus in the first trimester, or imidiately after conception. We are 100% sure first trimester embryos cannot have a mind inside anymore than plants can.
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
But there are "unborn babies" just like there are "newborn babies", "stillborn babies", "pissed-off-about-being-born babies" (and here I'm thinking specifically of my youngest daughter about a year and a half ago...), etc.
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (13)
ba·by
noun/bb/
babies, plural
A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born
- his wife's just had a baby
- a baby girl
A young or newly born animal
fe·tus
noun/fts/
fetuses, plural;foetuses, plural
An unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
Personally, I'm ok with considering third trimester fetuses as babies, because they could survive outside the womb. What I have a problem with is people considering embryos and obviously presentient fetuses as babies. This leads to fanaticism and eventually terrorism.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
as about the 'parallel' with abortions, that's utter nonsense.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Maybe if you drop a bit of acid on the glans, they would be even less sensible and perform even better..
I consider less sensitivity to be a negative.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
By definition a unborn baby is below the age of full physical development.
Like I said and you just proved it, pro-abortionists have to jump through massive logic holes to justify the killing of, but not the circumsion of, helpless unborn children.
FH, why don't you and other abortionists have the guts to speak the truth and use common accurate words. If you think there is nothing wrong with killing of unborn children then why do you need to use word tricks? A fetus is a baby is a child. Why do pro-abortionists use the nazi trick of dehumanizing their victim? Is it so that the general population and their conscience can stomach killing an unborn child?
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Definition of a being:
Embryos and early-term fetuses do not fullfil this definition.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (11)
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (11)
Since when are "fetus" and "baby" uncommon words? Calling a fetus an "unborn baby" makes as much sense as calling a baby a "born fetus".
Why do "pro-lifers" resort to terrorism? Is it because they know their position isn't supported by anything approaching a majority?
Move to the middle east if you love theocracy so much.
Aug 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
The reason more people are becoming pro life is because science is showing that unborn babies are fully human.
My question to FH is why do pro-abortionist groups like almost every progressive group, need government money to survive? Could it be that so few people support them that they need to extort other peoples money to survive?
Also FH, since you love government control so much, why don't you move to North Korea? They have free health care, abortion on demand, government run schools, everyone according to their needs, and you can love the dear leader as much as you want.
BTW I have no problem calling a baby a born fetus, problem is if you call a baby a born fetus then more doctors will do abortions on post born babies.
http://abclocal.g...=7906881
Aug 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
http://en.wikiped...regnancy
Aug 03, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (10)
You're the one trying to control what women can do with their own bodies. You don't see the hypocrisy here? Nah, figured you wouldn't.
You never answered my question. Why do "pro-lifers" resort to terrorism?
Aug 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Definition of fetus: an unborn human being.
Definition of person: a human being.
Definition of human being: Homo sapiens.
ShotmanMaslo, the more people know about how a baby develops in the womb, the more people become pro-life. That is a fact that pro-abortionist know. That is why they say a fetus is a bunch of cells. Dig deeper and you find out that the bunch of cells has a beating heart and nerves that function.
Why cant abortionists say, we believe in the killing unborn babies, or babies that haven't grown past the X weeks?
FH, where have I ever said a woman has to get pregnant? What gives anyone the right to kill an innocent baby? They hypocrisy is with you and pro-abortionist. You say its OK to kill an unborn baby boy, but its not OK to circumcise him in the mothers womb. Why are you controlling what the woman does with her body?
Aug 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
You pulled these definitions out of nowhere. The real definitions exclude embryos and early fetuses, which are not beings, as I have written above, with source.
http://en.wikiped...ki/Being
Neural networks in cortex are among the last systems to develop in a foetus, beginning around 5th month. Overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first trimester.
Aug 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
At conception a unique fully functioning, though not fully developed, human being is created. ThaBasic science.
Aborting said individual is killing a unique and fully functioning human. Again basic science.
Why cant abortionists admit the truth? They are killing a unique and fully functioning human. Is the truth is so hard to stomach? A baby IS a human that is not fully matured.
Why do abortionists keep bringing out the lie that a fetus is just a bunch of cells? At 6 weeks from conception this bunch of cells as you call it has a brain, fingers, elbows, knee, etc and is as alive as you are. Again basic science.
Aug 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I believe any rights stem from our minds encoded in connections of neurons in the cortex. When this stage of development occur is important for me as a prerequisite for right to life, too. And according to current science, it happens sometimes around 5th month after conception at the earliest.
Human life does not deserve protection. Only human (and I think non-human too, while we are at it) BEINGS (that means, with properties of mind) do deserve protection. Brain dead patients, embryos, and early foetuses do not qualify.
Yes. And it is not murder (unless it is late-term), because murder is unlawful killing of a human BEING:
http://en.wikiped...i/Murder
Aug 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
If you noticed I never said murder. It will be murder once the law catches up to science and killing unborn babies become a crime.
BTW what makes your defintion of Being any more right or scientific that that of the abortionists who perform late term abortions? Or the abortionists who say it is ok to kill born babies? Or the nazi who says the jew is not a being? Are you not using subjective values? So at 5 months 1 day the baby is a being, at 5 months - 1day the baby isn't?
Isn't it also correct if you or I go into a nursing home and kill a person who is breathing and with a heart beat, but who has been declared brain dead, we would still be charged with murder?
Aug 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Substitute foetus for baby, and the answer is yes, in an ideal world.
Science cannot tell you what should or should not be a crime.
Yes, I am. But so are you, there is no objective reason why conception should be where the line has to be drawn.
http://en.wikiped..._fallacy
Aug 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
No, it is not correct, because brain dead human is already legaly dead, brain death is medical and legal criterion for death of a person. And if this is not the case, then it should be. Killing brain dead patients should not be a crime, they are already gone.
Aug 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
To sum up your position:
You believe it is ok to kill humans you don't think are beings, and your definition of beings is a subjective opinion that can change.
Aug 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Nope.
Definition of a being, or presence/absence of mind, is an objective fact, just like the moment of conception, external viability etc.
I said mine or your opinion about what qualities should a life protected by our laws posess is subjective.
Dont confuse "is" (facts) with "ought" (values).
http://en.wikiped..._problem
Aug 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Presence or absence of mind is not an objective fact, it is still subjective. Even those in the medical field have questions regarding brain death, the following shows brain death discussions (I'm not taking any sides just showing there are well thought out debates)
http://allnurses....338.html
http://www.guardi...ellbeing
http://www.msnbc....ccident/
http://www-hsc.us...ath.html
Moment of conception is objective. External viability is subjective (only way to test it, is to do it. Also technology changes this point as well)
Aug 05, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I find it works better than prayer or arguing with a brick wall.
Aug 06, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Whether something has or has not a mind inside in a given moment is an objective fact, which we can now determine with sufficient accuracy for our purpose.
Moment of conception is also objective, but so is for example gender or race or blood type. Does it mean we should base our protection of life on gender or race or blood type? Moment of conception is simply not relevant to the question of protection in any way in my opinion, like the gender or race is not relevant.
Why should we protect human (or nonhuman) life which has no mind inside, and we are 100% sure of it? That is the question you always evade, or answer with slippery slope logical fallacy at best.
Aug 06, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
What makes it wrong to kill a life form? I wouldn't have a problem killing a mosquito, but the family dog?
I think the issue here is the POTENTIAL for future life. Why don't women save their eggs during every menstruation cycle? Each one of those has POTENTIAL to be a human being. At the moment of conception, the product of egg and sperm as HIGHER potential, but there is very little difference in an absolute physical sense between the egg by itself and the egg and sperm together.
Certainly stopping the grown of that one celled organism wouldn't cause it pain any more (and arguably less) than a single cell bacteria. So how about 2 cells? 4? 8? 1000? 10000?
I'd argue it doesn't cause much pain for the organism in question with a small number of cells, but it means a world for the POTENTIAL future being.
It depends on which viewpoint you take whether this is acceptable or forbidden.
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Remember there are abortionists who advocate the active killing of post born babies. There are abortionists who kill half born babies.
At the moment of conception, science - not religion - says a new life (not potential life) if formed.
The question is, is it right to kill an undeveloped human being? Also why is it in many parents books, at conception they refer to the baby as your baby, UNLESS they are talking about reasons to kill the baby, in which case the baby magically becomes a fetus?
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Aug 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
-A human left to its normal course will die as well.
-Regarding the abortionist extremists: you can always find an example of any radical ideologue. Its always possible to find an example to fit an argument it doesn't mean it's what the majority thinks or what happens often.
-Referring to a block of lead as a 'block of gold' doesn't make it so.
Again, its all about perspective. I don't feel a human is radically different from any other animal metaphysically. We value humans more than animals for evolutionary reasons: we want our species to succeed.
Is it morally wrong to kill something that feels no pain in its death? Is it morally wrong to kill something due to its potential for a long life as a human? As a dog? As an mosquito? I'm really not sure. Again its interesting to discuss, I'm not trying to take sides but point out main issues involved and the fallacies in the arguments we make to get at the truth of the issue.
Aug 08, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
We value different things, then. Unborn baby is a human, it is a human life, in a biological sense. But I dont consider human life by itself to be worthy of protection. Only human beings, with properties of mind, deserve some rights, among them right to life.
Quoted for truth. Our values are deeply racist (specieist).
Aug 08, 2011
Rank: not rated yet