Judge orders circumcision ban off SF ballot

Judge orders circumcision ban off SF ballot (AP)
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 on whether to outlaw the of minors.

Michael Kinane, an attorney for the proponents, told Giorgi that circumcision was not usually performed as a . 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 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."


Explore further

States stop circumcisions funds amid budget crisis

©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Citation: Judge orders circumcision ban off SF ballot (2011, July 29) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-07-circumcision-sf-ballot.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 29, 2011
I wonder how many of these people support the active of abortion? I mean, shouldn't the unborn child have a say in the ending or continuation of their own life?

Jul 29, 2011
I wonder how many of these people support the active of abortion? I mean, shouldn't the unborn child have a say in the ending or continuation of their own life?


The answer to this question will always be opinion.

Jul 30, 2011
I wonder how many of these people support the active of abortion? I mean, shouldn't the unborn child have a say in the ending or continuation of their own life?


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
The unborn baby IS a victim of abortion.

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
arbeit macht frei-thinking,

There is no such thing as an "unborn baby". This is an oxymoron.

Aug 01, 2011
Fetus is human, its not dog or something esle. But it does not have functioning brain, there is no sentience. Its like a plant, jsut human tissue, with potential to become person in the future at best. No mind, no person, no victim, no crime. Presence of mind (brain waves) is what makes us a person, not DNA.

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
How about this to please abortionists who are against circumcision, if you want to circumcise your baby do it before birth.


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
Argumentum ad hitlerum, slippery slope logical fallacy.

Godwin lest ye be Godwined.

Aug 01, 2011
A unborn baby does not have a functioning brain. Sorry I had to pick myself up from laughing. ShotmanMaslo, unborn babies have functioning brains and they react to their surroundings.
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
freethinking:
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
Uhm Frank, I think "unborn fetus" would be the oxymoron.
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
An unborn baby is a fetus if this isn't obvious enough.

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
while it is clear that circumcision is nowadays an unjustified act of cruelty against a defenseless child, it should be said that circumcised males perform much better in their later sexual life: since their penis is less sensible, they are less prone to premature ejaculation...

as about the 'parallel' with abortions, that's utter nonsense.

Aug 02, 2011
since their penis is less sensible, they are less prone to premature ejaculation...


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
FH, baby, very young child. Defintion of child: A young human being below the age of full physical development.

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
Defintion of child: A young human being below the age of full physical development.


Definition of a being:
In its objective usage as in "a being," or "[a] human being" it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").


Embryos and early-term fetuses do not fullfil this definition.

Aug 02, 2011
Freethinking, I'm not an abortionist. I don't perform abortions.

Aug 02, 2011
FH, why don't you and other abortionists have the guts to speak the truth and use common accurate words.


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
FH, majority of americans are pro-life http://www.msnbc....ll-says/
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
The opinion of public on abortion strongly depends on the trimester of pregnancy. Its because people generaly recognize that a bunch of cells has no rights, only persons (beings) do.

http://en.wikiped...regnancy

Aug 03, 2011
Also FH, since you love government control so much, why don't you move to North Korea?


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
FH first answer me this, why do progressives resort to torture for people who disagree with them?

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
Definition of fetus: an unborn human being.
Definition of person: a human being.
Definition of human being: Homo sapiens.


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

Dig deeper and you find out that the bunch of cells has a beating heart and nerves that function.


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
And the human body is not fully developed till age 19 and the human brain does not develop fully till around the age of 22.

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
And the human body is not fully developed till age 19 and the human brain does not develop fully till around the age of 22.


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.

Aborting said individual is killing a unique and fully functioning human. Again basic science.


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
So ShotmanMaslo believes is is ok to kill a human baby, but not an ape.

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
So ShotmanMaslo believes is is ok to kill a human baby, but not an ape.


Substitute foetus for baby, and the answer is yes, in an ideal world.

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.


Science cannot tell you what should or should not be 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?


Yes, I am. But so are you, there is no objective reason why conception should be where the line has to be drawn.

So at 5 months 1 day the baby is a being, at 5 months - 1day the baby isn't?


http://en.wikiped..._fallacy


Aug 05, 2011
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?


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
ShotmanMaslo: we are now almost at the point where you are speaking the truth. Thank you.

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
"your definition of beings is a subjective opinion that can change."

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
We are getting close.

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
Don't debate the Troll, just report his senseless posts that have noting to do with the circumcision, and the powers behind the magic curtain will make him irrelevant.
I find it works better than prayer or arguing with a brick wall.

Aug 06, 2011
Our ability to determine it exactly has nothing to do with it being subjective/objective. That the earth is a sphere was an objective fact all the time, regardless of ancient people who thought it was flat, or were unable to determine it.

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
This a really interesting question that always degenerates into name calling.

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
An egg, left to its normal course will die, so will sperm. So they act the same as any cell in the body. Put the sperm and egg together, you don't have potential life, you have actual life. Leave it to its normal course, 22 years later you have a fully formed human.

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
Surf, interesting question. I have no problem killing a bug, dog, cat, plant, fish, etc., if there is a reason for it. However I have major issues with killing any human, and the issue becomes more major depending on how inocent or defenseless that human is. Convince me that the unborn baby isn't a human then I would have no problems with abortion.

Aug 08, 2011
In response to a few of your points:

-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
Convince me that the unborn baby isn't a human then I would have no problems with abortion.


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.

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.


Quoted for truth. Our values are deeply racist (specieist).


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more