“Unconscionable” San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

[antonivs]

I don’t know Matthew Hess, and I would presume you don’t either. I don’t know what his mindset is. He may be anti-semetic, he may not be. I think it’s a tasteless cartoon, that’s about all I have to say about it really, not sure what else you would be looking for.

The man created an anti-Semitic cartoon! That tells us a lot about his mindset.

 

[Dale_M]

The man created an anti-Semitic cartoon! That tells us a lot about his mindset.

Not only created it, but has been unwilling to take it down despite being told by many people that the item is anti-Semitic. And even created a second issue of it.

 

[Blacksword]

Do you have anything to back up that statement, Blacksword? Everything I have found shows a very low incidence of complications.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/58/6/824.abstract

Not hard to find this stuff. And the AAP is, very unfortunately, NOT likely to be the most reliable source of good data on this issue. Their members have major professional and pecuniary interests at stake in the matter.

examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

Notice this is referencing a peer-reviewed journal publication. And the abstracts in the AAP reference are from the early 1970’s. A time in which clitoredectomy still had a billing code with Blue Cross…so forgive me if I look doubtfully on those “studies”.

 

[Blacksword]

Another good source for information:

noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm

Be sure to read the references. They also feature peer-reviewed journal publications in places like the British Journal of Surgery and Pediatrics.

 

[antonivs]

Not hard to find this stuff. And the AAP is, very unfortunately, NOT likely to be the most reliable source of good data on this issue. Their members have major professional and pecuniary interests at stake in the matter.

examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

Notice this is referencing a peer-reviewed journal publication. And the abstracts in the AAP reference are from the early 1970’s. A time in which clitoredectomy still had a billing code with Blue Cross…so forgive me if I look doubtfully on those “studies”.

Thank you, Blacksword.  That study gives us a mortality rate of .009% (9.01/100,000).

source: mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2

The World Health Organization is recommending neonatal and adult circumcision because it reduces the risk of HIV infection by 60%.

One out of every three males in the world has been circumcised, and the procedure is almost always safe, especially when performed on infants and in sterile conditions.

As the surgical procedure - minor for male infants - has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection by 60 percent, the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS have recommended neonatal and adult circumcision.

The British journal also found that complications are even more rare when the circumcision is performed by non-medical experts in the ritual under suitable conditions, due to their usually greater experience than surgeons.

The paper was authored by Dr. Helen Weiss and Natasha Larke of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Dr. Daniel Halperin of the Harvard School of Public Health, and Dr. Inon Schenker of the Jerusalem AIDS Project.

source: jpost.com/HealthAndSci-Tech/Health/Article.aspx?id=168805

Male circumcisions can decrease women's risk of developing the human papillomavirus (HPV), according to a new study published in The Lancet. Women whose sexual partners were circumcised were 28 percent less likely to acquire the virus, the study found.

source: thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61967-8/fulltext

Not to mention reduced incidence of urinary tract infection in infant males and decreased incidence of penile cancer in adult males.

There are benefits and risks and in my opinion it should be up to the parents to make this decision, not the government and not their neighbors.

 

[Blacksword]

Thank you, Blacksword. That study gives us a mortality rate of .009% (9.01/100,000).

source: mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2

The World Health Organization is recommending neonatal and adult circumcision because it reduces the risk of HIV infection by 60%.

source: jpost.com/HealthAndSci-Tech/Health/Article.aspx?id=168805

Male circumcisions can decrease women's risk of developing the human papillomavirus (HPV), according to a new study published in The Lancet. Women whose sexual partners were circumcised were 28 percent less likely to acquire the virus, the study found.

source: thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61967-8/fulltext

Not to mention reduced incidence of urinary tract infection in infant males and decreased incidence of penile cancer in adult males.

There are benefits and risks and in my opinion it should be up to the parents to make this decision, not the government and not their neighbors.

All of those studies on HIV are non-peer-reviewed and have been debunked in peer-reviewed papers. Try looking up the November 2010 issue of the American Journal of Preventitive Medicine, or the May 2011 issue of Future HIV Therapy. They flatly find those Africa AIDS trials to have severe methodological flaws, and CONDOMS prevent HIV and STDs, or being monogamous, not genital cutting. Sorry, try again.

Penile cancer rates are the same in intact men and cut men, the rates in Europe are 1 in 100,000. The rates in the U.S. also are 1in 100,000. And penile cancer is exttemely rare, affects mostly old men, and is FAR more indicated in men with multiple sexual partners, certain strains of high-risk HPV, and who smoke. Sorry, try again.

UTI studies also were flawed. Try reading them. These old studies directed parents of intact sons to forcibly retract their penis’ to clean. Thus, improper care led to iatrogenically induced infection. Uti’s are far more common in girls than in intact or cut boys, why not cut them to? Sorry, try again.

The oldest studies from the 1950’s on cervical cancer in females with intact partners were debunked years ago. I will look into the latest one you mention above, bit suffice to say, modern medicine knows now that cervical cancer is heavily influenced by high-risk HPV strains, NOT a normal penis. HPV causes cancer, not the normal male genitalia. Sorry, try again.

The choice is rightfully that of the owner of the penis, and no one else’s.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Many opponents are Jews themselves, actuallyBaloney-how many is many and are they secular materialists or devout Jews.It IS anti-semitic-saying it isn`t is deceitful and so much horse manure.This is interfering with their Faith.Are you a Jew-you identify as a Catholic-butt out of their Faith.Period.Separation of Church and State is meant to protect the Church not the State.

If an ordinance is passed that women can become priests in San Francisco what would you do then.

 

[Blacksword]

I read the study, it’s from Uganda, and clearly involves people engaging in high-risk sexual behavior. 20 infections in one group v. 26 in the other out of 100. Not convincing, or clear it’s applicable to people in first-world countries, or people not engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners. You don’t GIVE HPV if you don’t hacpve it in the first place. Behavior and condoms if one won’t behave are still MUCH more effective, nearly full-proof in fact. And I have no doubt this recent study will soon be debunked by another study, that’s how this game ALWAYS goes. Sorry, no good.

 

[Blacksword]

Many opponents are Jews themselves, actuallyBaloney-how many is many and are they secular materialists or devout Jews.It IS anti-semitic-saying it isn`t is deceitful and so much horse manure.This is interfering with their Faith.Are you a Jew-you identify as a Catholic-butt out of their Faith.Period.Separation of Church and State is meant to protect the Church not the State.

If an ordinance is passed that women can become priests in San Francisco what would you do then.

Well I named one, Dr. Glick, then there’s a Dr. Goldman who wrote a book too. Your tone is personal, I suggest you calm down. And I havent a clue what you mean about women preists??? Relevance??

 

[SamTheNewfie]

By the way some on the pro-circ side talk, you would think European men are penile time bombs. HIV is already preventable. Penile cancer is unheard of in both the intact and circed men. The rate of UTIs is less 1% for all men. Talk about not choosing the least invasive means. Why don’t we perform mastectomies on all baby girls?

 

[antonivs]

I read the study, it’s from Uganda, and clearly involves people engaging in high-risk sexual behavior. 20 infections in one group v. 26 in the other out of 100. Not convincing, or clear it’s applicable to people in first-world countries, or people not engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners. You don’t GIVE HPV if you don’t hacpve it in the first place. Behavior and condoms if one won’t behave are still MUCH more effective, nearly full-proof in fact. And I have no doubt this recent study will soon be debunked by another study, that’s how this game ALWAYS goes. Sorry, no good.

I suspect that no study would be good enough for you.

But regardless to whether you believe it, per the AMA there are medical benefits to circumcision and the parents do have the right to weigh the benefits and risks and decide what is best for their child, especially considering that neonatal circumcisions have fewer complications than adult circumcisions.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t see how one gets around this. It’s theological and historical fact. Also, I’m no theologian, but as I read Paul, I see him reacting more to Christians claiming that circumcision is necessary for salvation, rather than the act of circumcision itself.

Also, the health merits are debatable. For many years in the US the practice was touted for hygenic reasons (circumcision is in some ways the mark of being born in a hospital - as opposed to on the farm). In modern times less so - but that may simply reflect better overall hygiene in the population reducing the benefits of circumcision. From a health perspective I think parents and pediatricians are best-positioned to make the right choice for the children in their care (as opposed to the city council).

From a religious perspective, the whole thing smacks of anti-semitism to me.

I totally agree with what you’ve said.

With the lunatic ways they do things in California, anyone with enough signatures can get something on a ballot.

Circumcision helps prevent STD’s, including herpes, HPV and HIV, and cancer of the penis.

Interesting points!

If this passes, other things can get banned, too, like holy water fonts–after all they contain bacteria-filled water!

Exactly.

Because those surgeries are VOLUNTARY, they are elective surgeries entered into by the express consent of the patient! No one has the right to amputate normal, healthy, non-renewable body parts from another human being without their consent.

Take it up with God. He instituted circumcision among His Chosen People.

There are NO established medical benefits to foreskin amputation surgery, euphemistically entitled “circumcision” today.

Whom should I believe, you or bigquests, antonivs, etc.? I’m not a medical professional, so it’s your word against those who say circumcision does have health benefits.

The actual ancient Abrahamic covenant was a tiny ceremonial cut and bears about as much resemblance to modern medical circumcision as tearing out one’s fingernail would to clipping the tip of the nail.

So? The form it takes today is nonetheless a religious practice, and it’s harmless.

“Social reasons” are totally hollow and frankly twisted once the medical justifications fall apart.

Like it or not, circumcision in its present state is a religious obligation for Jews. This proposed ban is an unconstitutional, anti-Semitic (as that comic shows) attack on religious liberty.

if social reasons are the only ones we have left for doing it, then you have NO non-arbitrary reason on earth why an African parent shouldn’t be permitted to do at least the equivalent anatomical harm to their daughter, excision of the clitoral hood.

That’s a vile argument of whose distortions you should be ashamed. “Female circumcision” is an abuse in no way on par with male circumcision.

Now I know who to believe.

I’m sorry, but I have to point out on this issue that, it’s a fact of a free society that religious liberty has it’s limits. Number one, if circumcision was only being practiced by Jews in America, and was being done the actual God-ordained, Biblical way, none of us would be having this discussion now.

But since that’s not the case, it is worth remembering that the State has the authority and responsibility to administer and discern between the relative rights of people subject to it’s jurisdiction, and it has the duty to secure the liberties of those people, especially in the protection of the most vulnerable and defenseless among it’s subjects.

If I am a Santeria practitioner, no matter how fervently my religious beliefs require it, I am not permitted to sacrifice a goat in the park. A Druid cannot participate in human sacrifice. While I happen to think education is a better route to pursue on this issue than government bans, I must say that it seems to me a reasonable proposition to state that one person’s religious liberties end where another person’s inherent rights to bodily integrity, dignity, and respect for their physical personhood begins, at least on it’s face.

It is an issue of freedom and liberty all right: and the person whose rights are most at issue is the owner of the penis in question.

Nice try, but circumcision is not amputation except in the most question-begging, ideology-driven sense, and no court will ever agree with this little analysis of yours. This suggested ban is an unconstitutional travesty and will die the swift death it deserves, probably before it ever gets to the courts.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Banning RIC is not a violation of the First Amendment. My right to practice my religion ends where other’s rights begin.

Circumcision is not comparable to … infant baptism.

It is a violation of the First Amendment precisely because circumcision as it is practiced today is comparable to infant baptism: both practices bring infants into their respective religious communities.

As for “others’ rights,” I don’t know to what extent circumcision is medically beneficial - I’m not a doctor or medical researcher. But I do know that as a medically neutral procedure, it in no way could ever constitute a violation of an infant boy’s rights.

That would definitely appear to be exactly what the Church has said is unacceptable and a mortal sin, and St. Paul decried; participating in Jewish law-keeping.

Please show me where St. Paul said this. He condemned the teaching that circumcision is necessary for salvation and said that the Church should never bother Gentiles with observing Jewish legal practices. Those are not the same things as saying that observing some parts of the Jewish law is a mortal sin - an outlandish claim.

Are you seriously drawing an analogy between the ritual of circumcision and the Druid practice of human sacrifice or the Santeria practitioner’s killing of an animal in the public arena?

Yes he did. Speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

Yes, yes it does.

Proof that S.F.’s circumcision ban Is anti-Semitic

Wow, the overt anti-Semitism surprises even me. I’d have thought they’d try to hide it.

Thus parents wishing to do the equivalent cutting on their daughters for religious reasons must be permitted to do so…to do otherwise is patently religious discrimination by our federal government.

Bull. “Female circumcision” is an abuse in no way on par with male circumcision. Comparing the two is fruitless.

Physicians who do so, however, should lose their license and be rightly charged with criminal sexual assault, medical malpractice, and any other appropriate civil and criminal charges.

So now circumcision is “sexual assault”?

Once again… the assertion speaks for itself.

And I have no doubt this recent study will soon be debunked by another study

Okay then.

 

[bigquests]

The data on the protective effect of male circumcision against HIV, HPV and herpes are all recent, published in per-reviewed journals and involve large numbers. There is no doubt about their validity.

Penile cancer is rare in the US because circumcision is common. It is not so rare in China where circumcision is rare. It is virtually unknown among the circumcised.

Circumcision is performed routinely at birth. It sounds as if the 2 year old had it for phimosis, a band forming around the glans, or some other medical reason. The link was for the article in the NY Post, which contained no medical details. I couldn’t find the link to the cartoon.

There is no justification for banning circumcision. If they want to ban something potentially dangerous, why not ban tatoos? Think of how far that would get.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I suspect that no study would be good enough for you.

But regardless to whether you believe it, per the AMA there are medical benefits to circumcision and the parents do have the right to weigh the benefits and risks and decide what is best for their child, especially considering that neonatal circumcisions have fewer complications than adult circumcisions.

Well said.

The data on the protective effect of male circumcision against HIV, HPV and herpes are all recent, published in per-reviewed journals and involve large numbers. There is no doubt about their validity.

Penile cancer is rare in the US because circumcision is common. It is not so rare in China where circumcision is rare. It is virtually unknown among the circumcised.

Circumcision is performed routinely at birth. It sounds as if the 2 year old had it for phimosis, a band forming around the glans, or some other medical reason. The link was for the article in the NY Post, which contained no medical details. I couldn’t find the link to the cartoon.

There is no justification for banning circumcision. If they want to ban something potentially dangerous, why not ban tatoos? Think of how far that would get.

Excellent points, bigquests.

 

[Blacksword]

By the way some on the pro-circ side talk, you would think European men are penile time bombs. HIV is already preventable. Penile cancer is unheard of in both the intact and circed men. The rate of UTIs is less 1% for all men. Talk about not choosing the least invasive means. Why don’t we perform mastectomies on all baby girls?

Yes, very true. The rate of breast cancer in MEN is actually much higher than penile cancer. So is the rate of female vulgar cancer, and pretty much every other form of cancer known to man.

Women who don’t get HPV almost never get cervical cancer, and men who don’t engage in sexual behavior outside of marriage can’t, by definition, give their spouse’s HPV. Yet amputating a body part preemptively is seen as the best solution? Find another example of this in ALL of medicine, please I beg.

 

[Blacksword]

I suspect that no study would be good enough for you.

But regardless to whether you believe it, per the AMA there are medical benefits to circumcision and the parents do have the right to weigh the benefits and risks and decide what is best for their child, especially considering that neonatal circumcisions have fewer complications than adult circumcisions.

Oh dear, I’m afraid you’re having trouble reading there. The AMA has affirmatively called circumcision “non-therapeutic” since 1999, it’s the AAP you might be thinking of, and you’re missing a crucial modifier to their internally inconsistent statement on the topic. They say there are REAL risks, and “potential” benefits. The word “potential” means, in science, basically “X has been proposed but as yet remains unestablished by the evidence”.

Not one medical organization in the world has declared there are actual, known benefits. Go ahead and read their statement again on the AAP’s website. It’s an exercise in ethics hedging to try to give cover to their members, NOT a helpful reference for your cause at all.

 

[Blacksword]

I totally agree with what you’ve said.

Interesting points!

Exactly.

Take it up with God. He instituted circumcision among His Chosen People.

Whom should I believe, you or bigquests, antonivs, etc.? I’m not a medical professional, so it’s your word against those who say circumcision does have health benefits.

So? The form it takes today is nonetheless a religious practice, and it’s harmless.

Like it or not, circumcision in its present state is a religious obligation for Jews. This proposed ban is an unconstitutional, anti-Semitic (as that comic shows) attack on religious liberty.

That’s a vile argument of whose distortions you should be ashamed. “Female circumcision” is an abuse in no way on par with male circumcision.

Now I know who to believe.

Nice try, but circumcision is not amputation except in the most question-begging, ideology-driven sense, and no court will ever agree with this little analysis of yours. This suggested ban is an unconstitutional travesty and will die the swift death it deserves, probably before it ever gets to the courts.

You clearly haven’t read anything on the issue. It’s not harmless, the best medical evidence continually shows these “health” reasons to be greatly exaggerated or outright false, and it IS amputation. Do you know what the word “amputate” means?? Look it up in the dictionary. Surgical excision of the foreskin is, by definition, an amputation of a body part. Don’t argue with me there, argue with the good people at Webster’s Dictionary, LOL!

And please articulate for me the objective, non-arbitrary basis for your contention that male foreskin amputation is wholly different from excision of the female clitoral hood? It’s anatomically the same tissue, it develops in the fetus from the same base, it serves much the same function for the owner of the body part, and in the original justifications for the male cutting in the West are much the same, reduction of sexual pleasure, sexual control, prevention of masturbation, etc. Medical justifications are continually invented for female cutting abroad as well as social ones…they say it’s cleaner, looks better, less likely to get infections, easier to take care of…please explain?

 

[antonivs]

Oh dear, I’m afraid you’re having trouble reading there. The AMA has affirmatively called circumcision “non-therapeutic” since 1999, it’s the AAP you might be thinking of, and you’re missing a crucial modifier to their internally inconsistent statement on the topic. They say there are REAL risks, and “potential” benefits. The word “potential” means, in science, basically “X has been proposed but as yet remains unestablished by the evidence”.

Not one medical organization in the world has declared there are actual, known benefits. Go ahead and read their statement again on the AAP’s website. It’s an exercise in ethics hedging to try to give cover to their members, NOT a helpful reference for your cause at all.

I disagree with you that the word “potential” means unproven. It means that not all people who are circumcised would have had penile cancer, etc. The AMA is clear that there are benefits and risks and that parents should make an informed decision:

The following statements, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA policy at the 1999 AMA Interim Meeting.

1. The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision.

1. The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

1. The AMA urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making their decisions.

 

[meltzerboy]

Well I named one, Dr. Glick, then there’s a Dr. Goldman who wrote a book too. Your tone is personal, I suggest you calm down. And I havent a clue what you mean about women preists??? Relevance??

I think the connection Pax et Bonum means with respect to female priests involves the potential idea by the City Council or individual citizens that excluding women from the priesthood is a form of gender discrimination and should be abolished. Citizens may proceed to collect signatures and submit this proposition: a clear violation of religious liberty. Would you support the proposition as a political means of ending the discriminatory abuse of women? I don’t believe you would.

You stated you are in favor of a religious exemption clause so that Jews and Muslims would be permitted to retain their circumcision ritual, but other groups would be denied and the procedure itself banished in hospital settings. Superficially, that sounds somewhat better (although there might still be Christians and other religious groups who want the procedure for their children despite the controversy surrounding the health benefits); however, it still appears to me like a “slippery slope” situation. If the procedure is claimed to be unnecessary and even harmful (medically and psychologically), then the private practice of it by certain groups–Jews and Muslims–may become in the public mind a form of child abuse. The resulting social pressure may stimulate a push to end circumcision completely. It may sound far-fetched, but such things do happen.