San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[jedizero]

The second one is obsolete, and the first one seems like a biased site.
Seems to me you just freaked out about the info. When I learned I was not naturally like that, I was relieved as to the alternative. You obviously differ but are taking it to an extreme.

I'm glad to hear you were so relieved.

I'm not taking it to an extreme, I'm just trying to say that just because you're happy with it, why should everyone be circumcised at birth?

Why not let it become the choice of someone who's old enough to actually make said choice?

Instead of just being done to a baby, fresh out of the womb, who doesn't even understand whats being done to him?

 

[trigz04]

It should be a right because: 1: It is a religious practice, 2: It can keep it from getting certain diseases, and 3: It makes sex more pleasurable

Only #1 was correct, the other two have no basis in fact.

 

[sleeperhit79]

It should be a decision made by adults if they want it for themselves.

making it a decision for adults would pretty much be banning it.The one adult I know who had it done for religious reasons described it as the most horrible experience. It crippled him for a week in bed and to boot he divorced anyways...lol. Considering the benefits are arguable at best and the actual deformity that could occur I wouldn't put my child through it and do find it kinda cruel that anyone would, especially for religious reasons.

 

[jedizero]

It should be a decision made by adults if they want it for themselves.

making it a decision for adults would pretty much be banning it.The one adult I know who had it done for religious reasons described it as the most horrible experience. It crippled him for a week in bed and to boot he divorced anyways...lol. Considering the benefits are arguable at best and the actual deformity that could occur I wouldn't put my child through it and do find it kinda cruel that anyone would, especially for religious reasons.

There would be people who chose to do it, for their religious purposes/wishes.

If there are people who choose to blow themselves up to kill people, I can easily imagine someone chopping off part of their own dick.

 

[Vuljatar]

It should be a right because: 1: It is a religious practice, 2: It can keep it from getting certain diseases, and 3: It makes sex more pleasurable

1: Means nothing.

2: So can the very most basic level of personal hygiene.

3: Total bull shit.

It should of course be legal to be performed on a consenting adult, like all other body modifications, but should absolutely be illegal to be forced on extremely young children.

 

[Worgen]

it was started to make sex less pleasurable (at least thats why christians did it)

Risking TMI, I'm going to speak as a guy who decided to get circumcised when I was 18.

For all the talk about sex being less pleasurable for those circumsized, maybe, scientifically speaking, I've fewer nerve endings, but sex is just as good as I remember it being before I got my johnson trimmed. Same with masturbation. The pleasure it is still just fine and does not feel in decline even after more than a decade of swinging around unsheathed.

Keeping it clean was never a huge chore to begin with, but it's been substantially easier since.

I don't really know that there's any great benefit to it, but it was a step towards helping me change what I wanted to about my body.

---

On the issue at large and in SF, I am typically a strong proponent of individual liberty... in this case, it should be NEITHER the government NOR the parent's decision, but the child when they come of age and, understanding the procedure, desire such a modification.

I never said it always worked but thats why they started it, for women they removed the clit, for men they cut off the foreskin, the ultimate intention was to ensure that sex only happened for procreation, since they are insane

 

[ServebotFrank]

Just do it at infancy, it prevents diseases. I've had relatives who've needed it done in their teens, and they found it to be a painful and humiliating ordeal. As for reduced sexual pleasure, that is not a set in stone fact, it's still disputed.

Do you know how sensitive a baby's nervous system is when it's born? Pretty fucking high. It's really traumatic for a baby and it's BRUTAL OPERATION! Look a video up I couldn't watch it all the way it's that bad.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Do you know how sensitive a baby's nervous system is when it's born? Pretty fucking high. It's really traumatic for a baby and it's BRUTAL OPERATION! Look a video up I couldn't watch it all the way it's that bad.

And yet, few if any of us have any remote recollection whatsoever of it happening... soooo...
Yeah, not so big a deal. That's like saying cutting the umbilical chord is a traumatic event. Nonsense.

At the end of the day however, I fall into the camp that when it comes to children and parents, children have very few "rights." It is up to their parent to decide what they feel is best for the child until it is of the mandatory age to make its own decisions. If you're sitting around assfaced because your parents had you circumcised, you've got bigger issues that aren't being addressed in your psyche.

Besides, I find it amusing how so many people have a problem with parents making a decision about circumcision for THEIR child, and express so much concern about the child's right to decide if it wants to have foreskin or not by having it's decision made without its consent by its parents... but few seem to have any problem with parents removing a child's right to choose life altogether when it comes to abortion. On that subject, all of a sudden, babies don't have any say in the matter interestingly enough.

So essentially, our society says it's okay to kill a baby in a womb if you don't want it, but should you want it, you can't circumcise it against its will.

What an assbackwards world we live in.

 

[Jonluw]

Good for them, banning inconsentual cosmetic surgery on children.

 

[ranyilliams]

If we were born with it, we were born with it for a reason. This should be the choice of the person having their own penis altered permanently.

 

[Saelune]

Just do it at infancy, it prevents diseases. I've had relatives who've needed it done in their teens, and they found it to be a painful and humiliating ordeal. As for reduced sexual pleasure, that is not a set in stone fact, it's still disputed.

It prevents disease like magic underwear. It doesn't. Its an old wives' tale from the 19-20th century.

Well, Im guessing the disease that is prevented is anything that would occur from poor maintenance of the foreskin, since you apparently have to make it a point to clean it.

If your lazy enough to not clean your foreskin, you have bigger health problems to worry about. Ever heard of the plague? Caused by people not bathing or performing hygiene? Was made a number 1 concern for everyone?

The penile cancer scare tactic is more rare than male breast cancer. You have a higher chance of getting mugged or being hit by a bus. Hell, getting mauled by a mountain lion is a higher chance than that.

I never said any of that. I also assumed the diseases would be more inconveniant than life threatening. Like some sort of mild infection.

 

[Jonluw]

It should be a right because: 1: It is a religious practice, 2: It can keep it from getting certain diseases, and 3: It makes sex more pleasurable

1) I guess I should make a religion centered around human sacrifice then.
2) No. There is no indication of it. Any protection is minimal at best.
3) No. It makes the glans less sensitive.

 

[nondescript]

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.