Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

If I remember correctly Denmark also wanted to ban boy circumcision some time ago. Not sure how that developed. Now, there is a chance that circumcision will be banned in San Francisco.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/13/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-ballot-_n_783191.html

San Francisco residents may vote on a ballot measure next year that would outlaw circumcision.

The initiative, which requires 7,000 signatures before it can be added to next November's ballot, would make it a misdemeanor to "circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the...genitals" of all minors, and would not make exceptions for religious reasons.

The decision to permanently remove a boy's foreskin should not be made by parents, says Lloyd Shofield, the proposal's author.

"People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else's body," Schofield told CBS affiliate KCBS. "It's a man's body and...his body doesn't belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It's his decision."

I wonder how people who circumcise because of religious reasons will deal with this. If it will be only banned in SF, I guess it is easy to drive the the next city where it is allowed. But what if that would not be possible? Would they break the law?

Interesting development - thanks FD.

I agree, I also wonder how those who circumcise on religious grounds will react if the ballot does result eventually in a law.

However, I will be very surprised if this ever does become law and whether Jews and Muslim parents will ever be prosecuted.. but let's see. It is a religious obligation for male Jews and Muslims to be circumcised - there's no real way round it, after all - so I expect the law as proposed will never be implemented.

Cheers,
Shafique

Involuntary circumcision is becoming less accepted in all Western countries. If a man elects to have the procedure done to himself, then of course that's fine, but the current thinking is that the parents do not own their children's bodies and shouldn't interfer with them.

People with religious beliefs need to practice their religion within the bounds of what is accepted in the society they live in. What's the virtue in having some procedure done involuntarily anyway?

Richard Dawkins argues that bringing up any child in any religion is a form of child abuse - they should make up their minds when they grow up.

Follow that logic, and you could argue that giving a child any moral values of the parents is a constraint on their freedom of thought - they should be allowed to decide for themselves whether it is ok to bully others or to laugh at people who look different, or who are less well off etc.

As for circumcission - this move in SF will indeed test the limits of parental, religious and societal controls. I don't think it has a chance of becoming law, no matter how many people may think it is a good idea.

In some 'Western' countries circumcission is mostly done for health reasons, not religious.

I see it as a thin edge of a wedge - the thicker end has the state dictating who has children, what they should think etc. But that's just me.

Cheers,
Shafique

blueshift wrote:Involuntary circumcision is becoming less accepted in all Western countries?

True, I also noticed this. Female circumcision is done alone to take away sexual pleasure for the woman. I am not sure sure how that is with male circumcision. Its hard to compare, as circumcision is usually done before a sexual active age. I can imagine though that since it is out all the time, it becomes less sensitive and thus takes away pleasure.
For hygiene, I believe that if you are not circumcized and take care of the hygiene very frequent, there is not much difference.
I would still place male circumcision under religous freedom.

True, I also noticed this. Female circumcision is done alone to take away sexual pleasure for the woman.

Female circumcision is done for religious reasons. That's why a ceremonial pin feather (that wouldn't take away sexual pleasure) was proposed in the US to be performed on female infants from Somalia.

To them, it is a religious ceremony.

but let's see. It is a religious obligation for male Jews and Muslims to be circumcised - there's no real way round it, after all

That's absurd. It's not required in either Islam or Judaism.

Sounds like a fantastic law to me.

event horizon wrote:

True, I also noticed this. Female circumcision is done alone to take away sexual pleasure for the woman.

Female circumcision is done for religious reasons. That's why a ceremonial pin feather (that wouldn't take away sexual pleasure) was proposed in the US to be performed on female infants from Somalia.

To them, it is a religious ceremony.

but let's see. It is a religious obligation for male Jews and Muslims to be circumcised - there's no real way round it, after all

That's absurd. It's not required in either Islam or Judaism.

Male circumcision is very much part of Judaism for religious reasons, where as female circumcision is social, and traditional, but mostly based on tradition, using religion as justification for it, to control social behavior of young women. The Middle East has pulled away from this procedure, while it is widely practiced in Africa. For the most part, the world condemns it. It is referred to as FGM - female genitalia mutilation. The absence of pleasure is a result of the mutilation but it does not take away the desire. Quite a few women from Africa have received aslyum in the US because of this practice.

Bora Bora wrote:[Male circumcision is very much part of Judaism for religious reasons, where as female circumcision is social, and traditional, but mostly based on tradition, using religion as justification for it, to control social behavior of young women. The Middle East has pulled away from this procedure, while it is widely practiced in Africa. For the most part, the world condemns it. It is referred to as FGM - female genitalia mutilation. The absence of pleasure is a result of the mutilation but it does not take away the desire. Quite a few women from Africa have received aslyum in the US because of this practice.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that Bora Bora, there may be a scriptural basis in Judaism for circumcision, just as there is for polygamy, slavery and stoning disobedient children. Modern Jews seem to regard it as a duty to turn away from 3000 year old practices that aren't appropriate in modern society. There are also hadith used to support female circumcision in Islam.

Male circumcision is very much part of Judaism for religious reasons

I guess you know more than Rabbi Shmuley then.

I'll stick to his views on Judaism, however.

where as female circumcision is social, and traditional, but mostly based on tradition, using religion as justification for it

Female circumcision is just as much a part of Islam as male circumcision is.

Neither are requirements but both are highly recommended.

I agree with Muslims who say that, logically speaking, if male circumcision is allowed and accepted in society, then so should female.

The Middle East has pulled away from this procedure, while it is widely practiced in Africa.

Supposedly. Yet I know that the procedure is still carried out in the UAE.

It doesn't conflict with religion to allow the procedure to be done when the teen or adult consents. Circumcising infants and young children who cannot give consent is unethical. I'm happy to see equal treatment in the law for boys and girls - no cutting of genitals at all, no matter the gender, without consent.

kanelli wrote:It doesn't conflict with religion to allow the procedure to be done when the teen or adult consents. Circumcising infants and young children who cannot give consent is unethical. I'm happy to see equal treatment in the law for boys and girls - no cutting of genitals at all, no matter the gender, without consent.

Totally agree. There is a reason why God made us the way we are. There is a purpose for everything from the head down to the toes and everything inbetween. When you are at an age to understand what is involved in whatever modification of your body is your choice. My uncle was not circumsized and when he was in his 30s he chose to be circumsized. Today, there is a procedure where men can have circumcision reversed, and many are chosing to do so. There is no reversing FGM as the damage is permanent. Male circumcision involves the removal of skin, which is not the case for a female.

Bora Bora wrote:

kanelli wrote:It doesn't conflict with religion to allow the procedure to be done when the teen or adult consents. Circumcising infants and young children who cannot give consent is unethical. I'm happy to see equal treatment in the law for boys and girls - no cutting of genitals at all, no matter the gender, without consent.

Totally agree. There is a reason why God made us the way we are. There is a purpose for everything from the head down to the toes and everything inbetween. When you are at an age to understand what is involved in whatever modification of your body is your choice. My uncle was not circumsized and when he was in his 30s he chose to be circumsized. Today, there is a procedure where men can have circumcision reversed, and many are chosing to do so. There is no reversing FGM as the damage is permanent. Male circumcision involves the removal of skin, which is not the case for a female.

You would be wrong, since there is no one type of circumcision procedure for women.