San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[General_Potatoes]

I was fine with it. People say babies are traumatised by it but I wasn't. Some people are just idiots now and days.

 

[SinisterGehe]

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

Can you show papers for number 2 and 3?
Because where I live, circumcision is not the norm aprox under 6% of males in Finland are circumcised. Yet we have less STD's and according to health surveys (Done every 2 years, that counts everyone from ages 14-65. During doctor visit or school/work/army health check) people do not have issues enjoying sexual intercourse (Expect people who are depressed. Yet far as I know the fear of not pleasuring sex is quite industry behind the pond, there is pills/treatments/lectures/what'not sold to people who are afraid that they do not enjoy sex.

And there has been medical papers that prove and disprove the statement of it being healthier. There is no indication of there being more STDs in countries that do not circumcise as a norm (In some cases there been less).

There is lots of nerve endings in the foreskin of the penis that are connected to the ejaculatory trigger. SO how can it be more pleasurable if there is less nerves receiving the signal of pleasure (And how do you study that to begin with?)

And if it would been a risk for the health of the penis, I am quite sure evolution would have removed that piece of skin. Since penis apparently is important thing for the survival of the specie. This argument can be thrown to the gutter since majority of America believe on creationism )

In my opinion: It should ben illegal until the child 18 or 16 depending what the age of "adulthood" is in the local law. I do not see that there is any right for parents to do a purely cosmetic surgery on a infant who might not even respect the decision later.

 

[Rottweiler]

My wife pointed out something as well: many parents do not know how to properly clean an uncircumcised baby. You could say this is of course their responsibility, but then- aren't we setting what is and what isn't their decision already? Will that education be made available free of charge?

And what else shall we decide cannot be done? Is the decision for a belly-button to be an 'innie' or an 'outie' to be decided 18 years after birth?

Perhaps the removal of extra toes, or other mutations should be left to disfigure children until at age 18 they can (after dealing with it for 18 years) maybe have the money to get it removed?

Me, I honestly don't see what this particular issue could possibly benefit children, other than yet another "take decisions from the Parents" lawsuit. It would be nice if the people who remove parental control take up the slack, but you know what? They don't. They sit back and have smug grins at having had power over the decisions of others, but hey- any consequences of that change isn't *their* fault, no no.

 

[Gigano]

Operations for which there is no medical basis - only a risk of malpractice or complications, and a permanent and irreversible cosmetic effect - should not be forced upon children.

Parents don't have the right to cut off the smallest toe of their children, however biologically unnecessary it is, so why are they allowed to cut off a part their genitals?

Just as religion gives no right to beat up your child, nor should it give a right to take a knife to it. If your sick "tradition" involves taking knives to babies, then it will have to go; if not by people being civilized enough to make that choice out of respect for not inflicting suffering, potential damage, and irreversible physical change upon someone who can't consent nor even protest, then by law.

 

[ashcrofl]

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

I sort of agree with this, but the problem is that as you get older, circumcision becomes horrifically painful.

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

Your right with all of those..except with number 3. As something who is un-circumcised, I can say that's false.

Surely someone who has had sex before and after circumcision would be better placed to judge this?

I live in the UK, where being circumcised isn't common. I do, however, have two friends that were circumcised for medical reasons, so that can't be that unusual. If being circumcised wasn't so normalized culturally, I think they'd be more self-conscious about it.

 

[Interscene]

Circumcision is very definately, in my view, a cosmetic surgery.

Its only religious for Jews and some muslims (who picked it up off of the Jewish citizens). North America is the *last* developed country still to practise this.

If its a religious thing for Catholics, why-oh-why do countries like mexico, spain, greece and italy have such tiny percentages for circumcision?

Speaking as a brit, its not illegal over here in the UK to have it performed, but its definately a service you have to search around for if you want it done on the national health service by a medical professional.
From what I understand, doctors view the request from parents both with distate and distrust - and a lot of forms have to be filled in, ticking the boxes marked "Yes, I fully understand the proceedure has negligable benefits. No, I don't want grief counciling" etc.

Which is kind of the telling factor, for those for whom its a religious practise, there's a religious ceremony and a religious person there to do it.
For those who are doing it for cultural reasons (My dad had it done, and his dad had it done and it was done to me and it was done to my brother so I'm going to do it to my son...) there's the cold, distrusting buearocracy.

 

[ashcrofl]

Operations for which there is no medical basis - only a risk of malpractice or complications, and a permanent and irreversible cosmetic effect - should not be forced upon children.

Parents don't have the right to cut off the smallest toe of their children, however biologically unnecessary it is, so why are they allowed to cut off a part their genitals?

Doctors, on the other hand, routinely cut off the toes of six-toed babies at birth.

 

[Maphysto]

If you think parents have the "right" to have parts of their children's bodies cut off then you are a horrible person.

I'd love to see this same debate applied to female circumcision. Everybody opposed to this ban would do a u-turn so fast it would break the sound barrier.

 

[Gigano]

...
Doctors, on the other hand, routinely cut off the toes of six-toed babies at birth.

Which is a perfectly normal and medically justified thing to do with a physical abnormality.

Taking a knife to a child that have no physical defects - to satisfy its parents - isn't though.

 

[Antwerp Caveman]

Hitch said it better than most of us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck0qL7wUDok

Herpes... HERPES!

 

[Sparcrypt]

I like how you skipped over several important elements in my argument to make this completely ridiculous strawman argument...

first and foremost of which is "BARRING EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES"

The second of which is "THE PARENTS.. THEIR CHILD.. THEIR DECISION."

Uh.. no. Parents who abuse their kids or don't look after them properly have them taken away. Recently a man was convicted for tatooing his 5 year old boy with his initials - you want to tell people thats OK?

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.

You don't think the kids going to notice he got circumcised? My point was she won't remember, and that's whats important right? Also don't tell me I'm advocating anything when it was clearly an example to make a point - the entire point there was that not remembering an act of abuse does not make it OK.

Oh and if the same situation occurred only it was her father instead of me, would that be OK? Cause she's under his jurisdiction and all.. no of course it wouldn't.

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."

Never mentioned religion.

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.

Or, do what my parents did and teach them to be hygienic? Gee that was hard! If you can't be arsed to take on that responsibility then don't have kids.

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 a situation were to arise where a doctor recommended circumcision for the benefit of the child of course it would be OK - just like it's legal to do pretty much ANYTHING to ANYONE to save their lives.. it's illegal to ask your doctor to cut your kids arm off unless they think it's needed as well, in case you were unsure.

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?

Because it's much easier and cheaper to have it removed at a later age instead of put back. You can't ask the kid if in 18 years they are going to be OK with it. There ARE people out there who had it done and wish that it hadn't - saying you happen to be OK with it is no argument.

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.

Again, what you are saying here just makes no sense. The government ALREADY has plenty of laws dictating the level of care and safety that parents must provide their children. Not adhering to these laws results in the kids being taken away and the parents charged.

Don't believe me? Ask your doctor to remove your newborns ears! After all, the little bastards probably won't clean behind there anyway, might as well get rid of them so it's not an issue. The answer will be no, followed by a visit from social services.

Stop with this 'I can do what I want with my kids' attitude, it's completely untrue.

 

[Agayek]

Performing irreversible cosmetic surgery on a newborn should be illegal, no matter what your religion is. We don't let Aztecs slaughter virgins and we don't let Old Testament Christians sell their daughters into slavery. We shouldn't allow any religious believers to get away with things that should be criminal acts.

I 100% agree with you, but I do feel the need to point out that "Old Testament Christians" is another name for "Jews".

Just saying.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I would like to know a proper opinion on this next statement as nobody has yet to really answer it. So, here goes;

Isn't it the parent's job to decide what is good for their child? Playing devil's advocate here, if you will, I've already stated my opinion, but I have yet to see anyone who is pro- or anti-circumcision deal with that aspect of it.

To a certain degree yes.

.....aaannnnd? C'mon man, don't leave me hangin' here, elaborate! Start a discussion, good for the soul, dude.

I think I want to join in there on this one, because you are bringing up a point well worth discussing.

My opinion is that you can not always leave the choice up to the parents, because parents don't always make the correct decisions. This is why there are a lot of laws in most civilized countries prohibiting certain things be done to or by children, even if the parents want their child to do it.

You can't decide as a parent to marry away your 8 year old daughter, nor can you force said daughter into having sex with anyone.
You can also not feed your child rat poison, even though you believe its important for your child to eat rat poison.
If you do any of these things you will as a parent be arrested, because there a laws protecting the child.

To be honest, not all parents are as smart as most people here at the escapist, and a lot of parents make bad choices for their children.
It is the governments job to protect its citizens, this also means protecting children from their parents. (Why do you think most civilized countries have a from of Child Protective Services?)

 

[Trippin tacos]

Why so many people arguing FOR it? I was under the impression society didn't like cutting things off babies

 

[rebus_forever]

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

child abuse is wrong, even if god told you to do it. no real evidence that a moderately hygienic person is gonna be any better off without a foreskin, we have medicines and such these days, and factually provably with science and everything the foreskin is proven to help distribute fluid better than no hod and the unique shapes are allegedly a more interesting surface than a straight "cut" penis, i assume someone already corrected you but i thought id have a pop as well.


edit. for point 3 im making the point that a foreskin is supposed to be better for the female, i donno about males, though im hooded as any self respecting goths penis ought to be, damn i think i might start referring to my foreskin as my penis's cowl, thats even gothic'er

 

[rebus_forever]

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

and this

 

[Gaiseric]

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.

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.

Clearly you're for the law, that's fine. If it's as harmful and meaningless as you say than doctors should have no trouble convincing the parents that it is a waste of time(religion aside). And don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Wintermoot]

and how are they going to prevent people from:
A: doing it themselves
B: going to a different state to get it done?

 

[Ferrious]

Phallacy.

Good job sir, I tip my hat to you.

Personally, I was circumcised as an adult for medical reasons. I don't think it's right to force permanent decisions on children more than we have to. Hell, I don't even agree with baptising children before they can show they understand the commitment it means.

That said, outlawed? That might be going a bit far, but if people are doing it just because its always been done with no thought behind it, then outlawing it might be the only way to curtail the practise.

 

[ashcrofl]

...
Doctors, on the other hand, routinely cut off the toes of six-toed babies at birth.

Which is a perfectly normal and medically justified thing to do with a physical abnormality.

Taking a knife to a child that have no physical defects - to satisfy its parents - isn't though.

I do in fact agree with your sentiment that circumcision is (generally) unnecessary surgery, but I think the removal of toes is a bad analogy. People are born with extra toes often enough that I wonder what right doctors have to decide what the "correct" number of toes actually is. I mean, have a little respect for natural diversity, you know? I suppose it makes it easier to buy shoes...