San Francisco considering banning circumcision
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Okay, a lot of opinions on this, so lets get down to brass tacks:
First off, circumcision was originally practiced both as a religious observance and as a way to prevent disease. (For those who doubt this, look into health concerns for animals and people who have large flaps of skin that aren't washed regularly.) With the rise in hygiene awareness, this is less of a concern but still a possible concern.
Second, while the operation is painful, it does neither damages nor destroys the organs purposes and functions unless the operation is flawed. Circumcision is a step down from appendectomy, as that procedure is invasive, and actually removes an entire organ as opposed to the loose skin. It's more akin to a biopsy than surgery, and San Fransisco hasn't opposed removing appendices.
Now, some have argued that letting a child grow up until he is considered of age and making that choice is fairer. And it is, since he can put in his opinion. But I know a man who is terrified of letting his son get circumcised because his parents waited until he was old enough, and then had him circumcised. And. It. Hurt. He is a father of a little girl, and his wife fears his own experience skewed his decision. (She is for it.)
My opinion is that this Mr. Reuter is either much like my friend I mentioned, and lashing out in fear and pain he long since should have gotten over, or he is targeting a religious practice in the hopes of undermining that religion. In either case, I think he fails to see the importance of what this procedure means to a significant demographic, and those who stand with him are all the less rich for having closed their minds to what it might teach them.
First off, circumcision was originally practiced both as a religious observance and as a way to prevent disease. (For those who doubt this, look into health concerns for animals and people who have large flaps of skin that aren't washed regularly.) With the rise in hygiene awareness, this is less of a concern but still a possible concern.
Second, while the operation is painful, it does neither damages nor destroys the organs purposes and functions unless the operation is flawed. Circumcision is a step down from appendectomy, as that procedure is invasive, and actually removes an entire organ as opposed to the loose skin. It's more akin to a biopsy than surgery, and San Fransisco hasn't opposed removing appendices.
Now, some have argued that letting a child grow up until he is considered of age and making that choice is fairer. And it is, since he can put in his opinion. But I know a man who is terrified of letting his son get circumcised because his parents waited until he was old enough, and then had him circumcised. And. It. Hurt. He is a father of a little girl, and his wife fears his own experience skewed his decision. (She is for it.)
My opinion is that this Mr. Reuter is either much like my friend I mentioned, and lashing out in fear and pain he long since should have gotten over, or he is targeting a religious practice in the hopes of undermining that religion. In either case, I think he fails to see the importance of what this procedure means to a significant demographic, and those who stand with him are all the less rich for having closed their minds to what it might teach them.
If you read a post I made a while back you would've seen the part where I state that parents have no idea what the fuck circumcision is. Here let me copy and paste my post because I don't like repeating myself. Also I wasn't circumcised as it was illegal to circumcise me what with my birth defect and what not.HyenaThePirate said:
Good! I'm glad to see it go. All Circumcision was at the start was a way to stop little boys from masturbating as it decreases sexual pleasure and that is the truth. Hell no body does it for religion any more! No body does it for religion in the slightest. Women don't even know when they're deciding whether to circumcise the boy what they're doing. It's even worse here in Alaska as insurance pays for it here so everybody does it. The women naturally go, "Well his father was circumcised so I might as well do it to him." The father probably wasn't even circumcised but she has no idea what kind of physical trauma she unleashes on her child. It's traumatizing to an infant and fucking hurts.
As for it causing diseases all I ever see is people saying that it "reduces the risk of contracting HIV" Or "Chlamydia" or "Genital Warts" Or what not. You know the other, better way to not contracting HIV? NOT SLEEPING WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS HIV. Get you and your partner tested and if you still want to do it wear a goddamn condom. Circumcision is something that should never be done ever. My mother is a nurse and when patients ask exactly what the hell circumcision is she tells them and it causes them to back off once they learn the truth.
-NEVER CIRCUMCISE YOUR CHILD.
As for it causing diseases all I ever see is people saying that it "reduces the risk of contracting HIV" Or "Chlamydia" or "Genital Warts" Or what not. You know the other, better way to not contracting HIV? NOT SLEEPING WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS HIV. Get you and your partner tested and if you still want to do it wear a goddamn condom. Circumcision is something that should never be done ever. My mother is a nurse and when patients ask exactly what the hell circumcision is she tells them and it causes them to back off once they learn the truth.
-NEVER CIRCUMCISE YOUR CHILD.
Here's the thing, some parents don't know what's best for their child at all. People complain about incompetent parents quite constantly and the mothers who usually decide the circumcision when the child is born are tricked into giving consent. Doctors want to make money and some don't give a shit about circumcision as long as they make money. Also some kids are quite unhappy when they find out that their penises were mutilated. Here's an interesting story.
There was once a boy who was circumcised. During the operation, the doctors fucked up and accidentally cut the entire penis off. To try and fix it they gave him a sex change operation so he wouldn't know. Well years later he found out and hanged himself. Think he was happy huh?
Try watching those things. When my mother herself got tricked into giving consent for circumcision she saw my older brother's penis and she cried. Do you honestly think some parents willingly do this for their child? I don't think so.
There is a limit to that. Parents can't smack, beat, or whatever their child, despite feeling that it is in the child's best interests. Parents can get their children microchipped or tattooed, which I feel goes beyond the pale. Parents can also decide not to get their children vaccinated, which we know leads to death for many, many children. At what point does the parent "knowing what is best for the child" get in the way of the child's autonomyand/or safety? You might also apply that to when a child is born intersexed and the parents or doctor choose which sex they feel the child should be (or is closest to) and have surgery that changes the child to one sex, and then when the child grows up, he or she suddenly feels that they are the wrong sex (or finally vocalizes this choice). It's been known to happen.Jumplion said:
And when you realize that the primary reason for a child to be circumcised is that, essentially, the parents just want their boy to look like all the other boys and not be teased about what his penis looks like, I begin to wonder what they mean when they are claiming to do it for "What's good for their child".
I don't recall ever saying I knew humanity better or I was holier than thou or what not. A lot of parents are tricked into circumcision. Also one of the main reasons that an un-circumcised penis might look weird is because we're used to circumcised penises so much that a normal one looks strange when it shouldn't.blakfayt said:
Seriously, that low? I see more people dying yearly by any other operation. Should we ban those as well? When the operation is botched, it doesn't mean the practice is wrong. It means the OPERATION was preformed wrong.Chamale said:
All I see in this thread, as with EVERY OTHER CIRCUMCISION THREAD EVERY WEEK, is "my penis looks amazing the way it is, I can't believe others have / don't have it cut! They're immoral and/or crazy because my penis is obviously superior!" or the lately Escapist attitude of "Stick it to the man! Let us do whatever we want! Rape, murder, steal, who cares. Our lives, our choices!"
Oh Escapist. When only a few years ago you were literally named the "Last Bastion of Humanity on the Internet." (Or intelligence, it was so long ago) Now it's just "Weee!"
Flameshields prepared, and a captain who has been at the helm so long that he just doesn't care anymore.
This shall be amusing.
If it's done to you and you're fine with it, no problemQtoy said:
If it's not done to you and you're fine with it, no problem
If it's not done to you and you're not fine with it, no problem, you have the option of getting it done.
However... if it's done to you and you're NOT fine with it? Well too bad.
So no, parents should not decide for kids. There are people out there who had the choice made for them and don't like it - but too bad for them. And of course the rare but occasional mishap where they are castrated or otherwise damaged by mistake...
So a few horror stories and a couple of personal "tragic" anecdotes and we're supposed to just simply wipe the slate clean? Sorry for your life experiences buddy, but that's not nearly enough for me to simply say "That's right, strip parents of yet another right to decide for their children what they want, unless it involves killing them before they leave the womb."blakfayt said:
You see, while your story of circumcision is sad and depressing, mine has been a happy one. I'm pleased with the way my purple headed yogurt slinger turned out. I don't mind not having to take that extra moment to scrub under the 'hood.' I enjoy the streamlined appeal... but none of that matters. I trust and love my parents. They love and care for me. And until I was old enough to decide for myself, my parents, and most others, decided what was best FOR me. Not the Government.
GOvernment has no BUSINESS in the small, daily goings on of its people. I want LESS government involvement in my life, not constantly expanding more and more things that they "deem" necessary. I see no problem in parents having a CHOICE. ALL CHOICE. It's their kid. Their flesh and blood, they made it, their genetic material. They get to decide, barring monsterous evils. Gouging out your kids eyes on a whim? Okay that's bad, lets ban that. Spanking a child as a form of discipline? Carry on, teach em anyway you think is best. You prefer for them to be circumcised because you believe (and some doctors believe, the debate is no where near absolute on whether it is hygenically advantageous or not, and I don't know why some people on this thread are carrying on as if it was decided long ago that being uncircumcized was decided to be less hygenic.. because it has NOT been decided. One study says yes, an equal number of studies says no. There is a debate left to be had.) then the PARENT gets to decide. The kid can learn to live with it, sorry, we don't always get to choose everything in life. Given the option i'd have preferred to have never cut my hair a day in my life and have long luxurious hair that swept down my body like a fur coat... but my parents weren't going to give into that nonsense. What shall we decide next? That all children will be fed a vegetarian diet because science thinks it's the healthiest?
Freedom is either freedom or it's not. No city, let alone state should be telling people what they can and cannot do in regards to their children provided it isn't some sort of extreme scenario like child rape and amputating body parts, things that CAN psychologically affect the MAJORITY of children that it would affect. Children living 'scarred' lives from circumcision is such a small minority it hardly registers. I don't think I've ever come across someone that couldn't function or was doomed to an unhappy existance because his parents nipped off that little bit when he was a wee tot.
Sorry, just not buying it. You've your opinion, I've mine and I doubt we'll ever agree.
I know its probably a popular angle to blame people on these, but its totally the gay community on this one.
More sensitivity = Less ~active~ time needed on the male behalf in bed = Less happy women = Straight man has a bitchier wife. Hell, i'd bet a months pay it was started by an unsatisfied convent of "Virgin Mary" nuns.
More sensitivity = Less ~active~ time needed on the male behalf in bed = Less happy women = Straight man has a bitchier wife. Hell, i'd bet a months pay it was started by an unsatisfied convent of "Virgin Mary" nuns.
There is a community in Winsconsin that is completely convinced that praying to god is enough to heal any disease. They thought it was in the child's best interest to not see a real doctor, that is was a "test of faith".Dimitriov said:
Their 11 year old daughter died of diabetes while her parents were standing around praying.
But according to your post, that I quoted, that girls death is alright because the parents had "honest religious convictions" which noone is allowed to deny them.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html
Now to the second sentence: Everything when done to someone very young is not remembered. Would that make the rape of an infant less horrible a crime?
Too extreme?
What about beating the shit out of someone lying in a coma? If the coma is long enough there will be no marks left and it will not be remembered by the victim. But does that somehow make the assault less criminal or even more criminal because you attacked a defenseless person?
Basically you are saying: Children are not human beings and therefore have no rights, but they are the property of the parents.gphjr14 said:
What if they refuse to drive their children to hospital when they are sick? Would that be ok too because it is "their kid, they're responsibility, their money"?
Also see the link above.
Do you really feel embarrassed because CA strengthened the right of the child to have an unharmed body? Oh, I forgot. Children are not human beings, but the property of the parents and they should be allowed to do what ever they want to with their property.Gaiseric said:
Basically every single one who argues it should be the right of the parents treats children as property of the parents, not as human beings with a right to have an unharmed body.
... if they don't remember it then all is well? So if I take your sister out, slip a drug into her drink and next thing she knows she wakes up safe and alone in her bed at home with no memory of anything bad happening, anything I did to her the night before would be completely OK? Right?HyenaThePirate said:
Or maybe it's just OK to do anything to a baby cause 'they wont remember it'?
If it had never been practiced before and was a brand new idea, what do you think most peoples reaction would be when asked if they wanted it done? There are no real benefits to it (the one I hear the most is cleaning.. which is only true in the same way a toilet is easier to clean if the lid is already up instead of down).
I don't care if an adult wants to make the choice themselves, that's fine. But no, it shouldn't be done on newborns.
It amuses me to no end when people make a big deal about this, even going so far as to compare it to/call it genital mutilation. Melodramatic much? At worst, it's a simple cosmetic procedure that doesn't deserve even a fraction of the righteous indignation some people seem to give it. The difference between having a foreskin or not is negligible. Hence why I also don't give a shit if they ban it. It's a non-issue.
Everything you said was wrong.ShakyFt Slasher said:
Removing the foreskin removes 40% of the penis' ability to feel. The foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis and it helps keep the glans sensitive and able to feel as much pleasure as possible.
Its a religious practice because it was used to discourage masturbation which is considered a sin by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
It does help prevent urinary tract infections, but its nothing that properly cleaning your penis can't do. As for STDs like AIDS, statistics show that circumcised people are more likely to become infected than non-circumcised. The evidence is just a google search away, which I won't do for you because I'm going to bed. But if you care about reality, you'll do some research.
At the very least, give your kid the freedom to choose once hes an adult. You have nothing to lose by letting them choose. I only wish my parents would have let me choose..
2. Is right if you live in a desert.ShakyFt Slasher said:
3.Is wrong, since the foreskin acts as a "ribbed condom" (not protecting you, duh).
Imagine this, it would be like having a hand working it while you're having sex.
And notice the riffs in it? Yeh, it's a pleasuregiver thank you very much.
But it should be a thing that folk should get to choose.
Because you're not exactly mature enough when you're young to have a saying in "Hey mummy, I want to cut a piece of my penis off".
There is actually a way to get it back, I'm not joking, talk to your local doctor.Yoshemo said:
I like how you skipped over several important elements in my argument to make this completely ridiculous strawman argument...Sparcrypt said:
first and foremost of which is "BARRING EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES"
The second of which is "THE PARENTS.. THEIR CHILD.. THEIR DECISION."
My "sister" as far as I know, is not related to you, is not under your jurisdiction or authority, and is not beholden to you for any reason. What you are advocating in that situation is the wanton force of yourself onto another adult, or perhaps underage individual. In a fashion that WILL be noticed, unless you have a very small penis, suck at using it, and remembered to wear protection.
Again, the jury is still out on whether it is to be done or not, and news flash, not every parent getting circumcissions done are RELIGIOUS. There are just as many people out there who have had it done to their child who could give a flying fig about the religion behind it. Maybe some time ago there was a religious element to it, but that's hardly the case anymore I don't think. I don't think I've actually EVER met anyone outside of the Jewish community who have said "I had my son's willy nipped cause God, whom I don't really worship, demanded that I do a long time ago and I'm just going along with it cause everyone else is."
Just like all this business about it being no different hygenically is UNTRUE. There have been studies that say that it is not a major factor in avoiding disease. And there are studies that say that it is! ONe main factor is that sure, having good hygiene will clear up the potential infection possibilities that might afflict an uncircumcised william johnson, but the thing is, KIDS arent' exactly masters of hygiene are they? When I was a kid, I knew dozens and dozens of boys that had infections occassionally and such down "there" because kids, especially young boys, are pretty much filthy little heathens who aren't going to consider cleaning under their willy-hood anymore than they'll remember to clean behind their ears with any consistency.
At any rate, it still boils down to this... my CHILD, MY RULES. I'll make the medical decisions for my child. If my kid falls and breaks his arm and the doctors say there is a massive risk of infection and the damage is near permanent, if they recommend amputating the arm, I'm not going to say "well, he might not like that when he's older. Let's go ahead and take a chance that the mangled arm won't gangrene his entire body on the off chance it'll heal enough for him to survive until he's 18, then he can decide what to do with the painful mess."
NO, I'm going to make that call, and he'll have to live with it. If later on he starts looking at penises and decides "hey I wish mine wasn't circumcised" he can go and get cosmetic surgery or something to set it to rights. If he wants to be pissed at me, let him, but I'm pretty confident the day will never rise when My son will angrily burst into the room demanding satisfaction and justice for what I "did to him!" by deciding he'd get his little knob tailored for a sleeker look. I AM circumcised.. and I hold no grievance against my parents, no regret, no sadness at having it done. I don't feel violated. So I think as one of the "wrongly snipped" my opinion holds just as much merit and weight as I'm one of the ones that are supposed to be in an uproar. Yet I am not. And neither are many others. So where is the issue?
Parents decide for their kids. Not YOU. Not the Government. Otherwise why stop there? Why not just take all children at birth and immediately put them in Government "raising facilities" and let the Government make all the decisions based on societal needs from cradle to grave? Why not just remove the parent from the equation altogether, as I'm sure we can think of a tons of other things that "parents shouldn't do by law." so ship them off to whereever to be raised as proper and good little citizens.
No thanks, you can keep your dystopian, fascist dream society. I prefer freedom.
1: Religion should not be a valid reason to continue practices which is either inhumane or pure meaningless.ShakyFt Slasher said:
2: It doesn't keep you from getting anything, but it can in some cases lower the chance of getting them. So can regularly cleaning yourself and using a condom during sex, so it is not the ONLY solution to a problem.
3: Thats weird, because most people I have heard of having a circumcision while being an adult say they lost sensitivity down there. Which I can only view as "less pleasurable"
So yeah, your arguments are either just half truths or plain wrong...
I am a very true believer in not molesting young children's genitalia for no reason. A lot of places in the world don't have a culture for Circumcision, and there isn't really an epidemic of STDs and other genital diseases... wait Chlamydia is an issue, but then again that is because people don't fucking wear protection.
Also the foreskin is there for a reason, so why is it a good idea to lob it off?
And then there is the whole vanity thing a lot of people have about a cut VS uncut penis. And well then it should still not be something you do to an infant, but instead it should be a choice as an adult, like any other plastic surgery.
So to sum up:
No, to child circumcision
Yes, so choosing to lob off your foreskin for vanity reasons as an adult.
Interestingly, I've never met a circumcised guy who had any issue with his equipment. Jewish, not Jewish, removed at birth, removed later in childhood for medical reasons...none of them seemed to mind.
Also, to be frank...insofar as a penis is ever 'attractive', the circumcised ones are better looking.
But that's a woman's perspective. I'm also not Jewish, it's not common here in NZ, and I probably wouldn't have my child circumcised unless there was a medical necessity. But I don't see it (from an external point of view) as a mutilation.
Also, to be frank...insofar as a penis is ever 'attractive', the circumcised ones are better looking.
But that's a woman's perspective. I'm also not Jewish, it's not common here in NZ, and I probably wouldn't have my child circumcised unless there was a medical necessity. But I don't see it (from an external point of view) as a mutilation.