San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Ew, uncut shlongs look like a species of worm that would live 2 miles under the surface of the earth.

For fuck sake are we really going to sink to this fucking childish level like in the last thread about this? Seriously plenty of other people think your circumcised dong looks weird ass too. They both look exactly the fucking same erect. There is zero difference.

You weren't by chance giving birth through your penis at the time, were you? Maybe there was a complication and you needed to have an emergency circumcision.

Other than that, I can't think of any medical reason that justifies it.

also... lol @ your c-cision

Well just to chime in on the medical one there are some cases when people can have too much foreskin or it can be too tight. In those cases it is good and medically reasonable to have a circumcision. The only other case is if the child is really lazy and won't clean under his foreskin/keeps getting infected.

OT: I have no problem if it for medical or religious reason(to a lesser degree I still have a slight problem with it). It can be reversed to a degree but it will never be 100% the same. Unless the child has something wrong with him like previously mentioned go nuts other than that he can do it at 18.

I would just like to say the hygiene reason is quite bullshit. Is it really that hard to pull back your foreskin and clean under it? I am really? Is it that it is such a chore you need to chop a bit off it to make your showering easier?

 

[blizard0am0i]

The only people able to make a truly correct assessment are people who have been sexually experienced before and after circumcision. I believe one such fellow posted earlier in the thread saying that in his opinion, circumcision is the way to go, and that he wishes he could have had it done to him as an infant as to not remember the procedure.

If you don't believe him and wish to say he's a liar so be it.

Or perhaps its personal preference and doesn't even really matter all that much.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

And that's just the tip of it!

[sub]Ithankyew[/sub]

 

[EradiusLore]

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

cant make a better point then that

 

[WolfThomas]

But honestly this thread is going to boil down to uncircumcised and circumcised people's own personal prejudice.

Pretty much. The whole thing IS just preference.

Of course us uncuts are right /joking.

 

[lapan]

I personally also think that the decision to be circumcised should be left to the person on whom the surgery gets done.

Both hygienic and aesthetic reasons are for the most part bullshit. Cleaning isn't too hard and you normally don't see the foreskin on a erect penis anyways.

I'm european for the record, over here circumcised males are very rare apart for religious reasons.

 

[Aurgelmir]

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

A: that would get them jailed and their child taken away from them
B: Nothing, but it could lead to people not bothering, since its not an option at the hospital, or this could lead to more cities and states also banning it.

The only people able to make a truly correct assessment are people who have been sexually experienced before and after circumcision. I believe one such fellow posted earlier in the thread saying that in his opinion, circumcision is the way to go, and that he wishes he could have had it done to him as an infant as to not remember the procedure.

If you don't believe him and wish to say he's a liar so be it.

Or perhaps its personal preference and doesn't even really matter all that much.

Well one persons accounts can hardly be used as a generalization. I mean there are others that have sued their parents and had the "correction" done to get theirs back that claim that IT is better.

Besides the argument:
Do it when they are young so they don't have to do it in the future. Is sort of a poor argument for circumcision. Because it is not something you HAVE to do as an adult or a child. Unlike cutting the umbilical cord, which is sort of a clever thing to do early, because having the whole thing hanging on the child is cumbersome, and it is not an organ that is supposed to be part of a grown persons life.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

I agree with the article, make it illegal to do it to anyone under 18, after that it's a personal choice.

 

[Sojoez]

You know who else was circumcised? Hitler!! (no he wasn't, I don't have proof.)
(Is pulling a Godwin a a bannable offense? I hope not)

Is skipped through a lot of the pages but I don't think anyone came with the excuse that a circumcised penis looks bigger?
Wait.. what? I really have heard that argument. -That chopping something off, makes it looks bigger! religious logic at its earliest I suppose.-


Anyway.
I hereby present you the one and only Foreskin man!!

http://www.foreskinman.com/index.htm

 

[HyenaThePirate]

There is no medical organization that recommends routine infant circumcision, it is not medically necessary and the medical benefits are questionable at best. This is not a medical decision.

Wrong. In fact, the WHO even goes so far as to recommend infant circumcision in African nations because studies have shown that circumcised men have 60% less chance of contracting HIV.
Here is one of SEVERAL articles and studies.
Do your own research. Don't repeat what other people tell you.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/09-072975/en/

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Yes not allowing doctors to painfully cut off foreskins will lead to government abductions of kids.

Ask someone in 1936 if the Holocaust was a possibility, and they'd have laughed in your face as a psychotic nut. By 1941 they were systematically murdering Jews with laboratory precision. That's the thing about change, rights, and freedoms... by the time you notice that something is wrong, it's almost usually too late, because the changes are subtle. It starts with "We the government are wiser than you, we the majority are better informed, so we will make decisions for you. We will take away your right or ability to do what you think is best in the interest for yourself and your family and WE will dictate. Don't think it happens? Ask those parents in Illinois where the school district suddenly 'dictated' that parents were no longer allowed to make their kids' lunches and that they would be provided by the school directly, whether the parent approved or not. I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just call things as I see them. Already I've seen things that have changed dramatically from when I was a kid to the way they are today. Things we are no longer allowed to "do" or "have." Oppression starts slowly at times, bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, until one day you wake up and realize that you don't have any rights at all.

You prefer straw men, garbage doomsday scenarios and the ability to mutilate a kids genitals. Freedom is great until it allows you to harm someone without their consent. I prefer people have the right to decide what goes on to their own body instead of letting parents cut them up as infants for a sleeker look.

No, you prefer dramatics, blind assumptions, and arrogant dismissal of opposite points without giving them careful consideration. "Mutilating kids genitals." REALLY?! Talk about your dramatics. Sadly, kids have FEW "consents." Would you say that being able to choose what food you will and won't eat (or should) is a right? Parents can't be left to feed their own kids, because they might not feed them healthy things to keep them trim, putting their lives at risk, then these tubby kids grow into depressed sad fat adults.. they didn't get a choice! The Government should step in and DEMAND that parents feed their children a STRICT diet, government issued, until the kid is old enough to buy its own food. Not much difference in the scenarios. One is "mutilating" their genitals, the other is turning them into obese little kids with problems that have a far more potential to ruin their lives both health-wise and psychologically than a circumcision they won't remember and as MANY, MANY circumcised men here have attested regardless of your deaf ears (or eyes rather) actually have no PROBLEM with their circumcised state and even enjoy happy productive sex lives. So I guess you'd have no problem with a state-sanctioned diet?

I guess I just have the opinion that in a way, children are not "people." They are "people in progress".. they are CHILDREN. And children have very few rights except those their parents grant them in order, and the few necessary ones to protect them from death and life altering harm. And at the end of the day, you wouldn't want me or anyone else telling you how to raise your child. To say anything else would make you a liar and/or a hypocrite.

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.

Well said. That is an excellent point of view.

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

That is an incredibly valid question. So you can't have it done in San Francisco. Guess I'll hop over to Sacramento or Oakland or any other city just over the city limits. Wait, wanna make a state law? Quick trip to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon... whose gonna stop them? Like someone said... it's probably better just to have doctors "educate" parents about the benefits of NOT doing it and letting the parent decide.

I know we all as a modern secular-leaning society have a hard on for railing against all things religion, but we can't forget in our anti-religion zeal that EVERY person has a right to believe in their traditions and beliefs just as we have the right NOT to believe in them. If it's their tradition, their religion and they want to raise their children in it, quite frankly you can fuck right off. Live your own life, stay out of everyone else's. No need to gain smug satisfaction by sitting back lording it over others whose beliefs are barbaric or archaic to you. At least they believe in something other than their own smug psuedo-intellect.

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.

Or it might be a way to pick a fight. We've all seen what "banning" things accomplishes. It just makes people more determined to exercise their "freedom" by skirting around the law somehow.

 

[Radelaide]

Watch Penn and Teller's episode on it, that sums it up for me.

 

[sinterklaas]

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

The first post in this thread says it all. Children are protected by this and religious (or for whatever reason) adults can decide for themselves.

 

[Snotnarok]

San Fran is insane, I know because I've been there twice and my sister lives there.

 

[Jonluw]

First of all, I'm not buying that the removal of a bodypart that evolved specifically to be there is beneficial to us.
[sub]Particularly when I've never seen an argument for circumcision that wasn't made by an American.[/sub]

Not to mention that STDs are less prevalent in Europe, where practically noone tends to cut their children.

And thirdly, "It doesn't hurt the child." "They won't remember it." Really? Really?
I guess I'm free to pull out the toenails of my child when I have one then. Or perhaps cut off their earlobes. What the hell do we need earlobes for anyways?
After all, there's no such thing as child abuse.

"The parent has to make decisions for a child. They aren't doing it without the child's consent because a child can't give consent."
Here's a tip: Lack of ability to give consent implies disconsent, not consent.
It's the same reason that if I fuck children I'll go to jail.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

You cannot repair the damage done by circumcision. None. The damage you done to it is far worse than what is medically possible to recover.

Wrong. You CAN have it repaired. Go do your research.

The idea of it being cleaner in the age of plumbing, showers, and soap are plain retarded. If you actually taught you kid worth a damn you wouldn't need to resort such extreme measures. If you cannot handle the responsibility of teaching or caring for a child, don't have them.

Children are not property.

1. Yes children ARE property. Of their parents. I know that doesn't jive in your cute little world of perfect absolutes, but the bottom line is, that parent MADE that child. If God didn't, and it's all about genetic material, then at an extreme point of view, that child really has no rights at all. I mean, technically we think it's okay to abort them before they even are born, so it's not a great leap to simply disposing of your own genetic material should you decide you no longer want it around. But that sounds terribly clinical doesn't it? It also sounds like what you get at the end of the road you want to go down with your particular brand of ideology.

I mean look at where you were starting to go with it... you stopped yourself right short of saying "if you can't... the government should take them away from you." Be honest, you really wanted to go there didnt you? Yeah, I know you did. Because that's the logical progression from that train of thought.

Bottom line, even if you teach a kid hygiene, that doesn't mean a KID is going to follow it. I heard about hygiene my entire life, from parents, teachers, cartoons, commercials, bullwinkle and rocky, I got it from all sides. That doesn't mean I enjoyed baths or didnt try to skip out on em. That didnt mean I wasn't a nasty little bugger at times and didn't wash my hands after taking a trip to the urinal. That's just being a KID. Or at least it used to be. I don't know WHAT kids are like today.. they seem so pensive and restricted and assailed from all sides by "interest groups" looking out for their "Safety" I'm surprised they even do anything at all. Some places have limited or cancelled recess altogether. Honestly, aside from video games, life must suck for a kid these days. They don't even have decent toys, because GI Joes are too violent.. or too American.. SO I guess a modern lad won't have much trouble staying spic'n'span, but when I was a kid, we were grimey, dirty little mongrels. I could sit in a bathtub and make it into TEA thats how brown it got. And I loved it, cause I played hard, and I lived life and it was a grand childhood me and my circumcised tom tillery.

I actually lost where I was going with this..

Oh yeah.. So circumcision isn't an extreme measure. Again.. I'm circumcised, and I have no problem with it. Are you insinuating my parents were some sort of monsters or butchers? Are you going to sit there and cast dispersions upon MY mother and father for making that decision to chop of my wee bits? Because thats what it comes down to. You must apparently think that my parents who did right by me my whole life and raised me to being the man that I am today were some sort of sick maniacs who mutilated me and brainwashed me with their "God is real" crap and ultimately I'm something to be pitied because I was a product of an improper upbringing, and oh, don't get me started on the spanking stuff, that must have seriously F'd me up huh?

Well? Which is it? Circumcision isn't a heinous act or my parents are awful monsters who should be severely punished for abusing me. Which one you want to stand by?

 

[Jonluw]

Well? Which is it? Circumcision isn't a heinous act or my parents are awful monsters who should be severely punished for abusing me. Which one you want to stand by?

I don't know if you're trying to be sarcastic, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[HyenaThePirate]

There is no medical organization that recommends routine infant circumcision, it is not medically necessary and the medical benefits are questionable at best. This is not a medical decision.

Wrong. In fact, the WHO even goes so far as to recommend infant circumcision in African nations because studies have shown that circumcised men have 60% less chance of contracting HIV.

Well I can't find them recommending it in the link you gave me.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Yes not allowing doctors to painfully cut off foreskins will lead to government abductions of kids.

Ask someone in 1936 if the Holocaust was a possibility, and they'd have laughed in your face as a psychotic nut. By 1941 they were systematically murdering Jews with laboratory precision. That's the thing about change, rights, and freedoms... by the time you notice that something is wrong, it's almost usually too late, because the changes are subtle.

I'm not playing this stupid game with you. You either argue why circumcision specifically should be allowed or you shouldn't bother being in here. I'm not going to argue the possibility of a slippery slope doomsday scenario because it's very VERY easy to ban circumcision without slipping into that. Now stay on topic.

You prefer straw men, garbage doomsday scenarios and the ability to mutilate a kids genitals. Freedom is great until it allows you to harm someone without their consent. I prefer people have the right to decide what goes on to their own body instead of letting parents cut them up as infants for a sleeker look.

No, you prefer dramatics, blind assumptions, and arrogant dismissal of opposite points without giving them careful consideration. "Mutilating kids genitals." REALLY?! Talk about your dramatics.

No it's accurate.

mu·ti·late
   /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Show Spelled[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
?verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

You're disfiguring the penis by chopping off part of it. Mutilation. And don't think I haven't given this consideration.

Sadly, kids have FEW "consents." Would you say that being able to choose what food you will and won't eat (or should) is a right? Parents can't be left to feed their own kids, because they might not feed them healthy things to keep them trim, putting their lives at risk, then these tubby kids grow into depressed sad fat adults.. they didn't get a choice! The Government should step in and DEMAND that parents feed their children a STRICT diet, government issued, until the kid is old enough to buy its own food. Not much difference in the scenarios.

That's a horrible analogy. You really going to compare "don't cut off parts of your boy's penis" with micromanaging their diet? No one is suggesting the government micromanage the kid's lives. We are talking about not cutting off a piece of a kids genitals, that's it. Now stop with the stupid slippery slopes and again stay on subject.

One is "mutilating" their genitals, the other is turning them into obese little kids with problems that have a far more potential to ruin their lives both health-wise and psychologically than a circumcision they won't remember and as MANY, MANY circumcised men here have attested regardless of your deaf ears (or eyes rather) actually have no PROBLEM with their circumcised state and even enjoy happy productive sex lives. So I guess you'd have no problem with a state-sanctioned diet?

Do you have a problem with female circumcision?

I guess I just have the opinion that in a way, children are not "people." They are "people in progress".. they are CHILDREN.

By any definition of the word person, you are wrong.

And children have very few rights except those their parents grant them in order, and the few necessary ones to protect them from death and life altering harm. And at the end of the day, you wouldn't want me or anyone else telling you how to raise your child. To say anything else would make you a liar and/or a hypocrite.

I do not think parents should have absolutely free reign on how to raise their kids. Some parents think that beating, not spanking but actually beating their kids is an appropriate way to raise them. You think the government shouldn't intervene on that?

I know we all as a modern secular-leaning society have a hard on for railing against all things religion, but we can't forget in our anti-religion zeal that EVERY person has a right to believe in their traditions and beliefs just as we have the right NOT to believe in them.

Believe whatever you want but freedom of religion doesn't give you a right to do whatever you want.

If it's their tradition, their religion and they want to raise their children in it, quite frankly you can fuck right off.

So you'd be OK with human sacrifices?

Ah. I see this is going to turn out to be one of those pointless back and forth things where we sit around dancing around each other's points, never actually giving ground or changing our opinions. And while I can honestly say I enjoy having such discourses with you from time to time Father Time, because I respect you as one of the more learned and well argued members of the community, I have neither the desire nor the energy to engage so deeply on what is in my mind such an insignificant issue. I've already invested far more time than I should have here. It's a circumcision, not a castration. I'm circumcised, I've enjoyed it all my life, no messed up kid here, just a simple lad who probably could use an extra inch or two on his willy to make him completely satisfied with the tackle he's got.
So I'm just going to do the right thing, and tip my hat to you. You win. You're right, I'm probably wrong. I don't agree, and probably never will, and should such a law pass, I'll probably do everything in my power to fight it or bend it or break it, but that is a matter of personal circumstance.
As for us, we shall dance another day on another topic. But for this one, you win this round sir.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Well? Which is it? Circumcision isn't a heinous act or my parents are awful monsters who should be severely punished for abusing me. Which one you want to stand by?

I don't know if you're trying to be sarcastic, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

No was being quite serious. There is no false dilemma only a very real situation. Look through the posts. You'll see people basically saying that anyone who does this to their child are barbarians and guilty of mutilating their children in some sort of perverted form of child abuse. So either my parents are child abusing monsters who ruined me or they aren't. You can't argue that "well.. from now ON, they would be." or "I mean some OTHER people's parents."

It's a simple thing. Yes or no. Are my parents monsters or not? Can't have it both ways. You either think every circumcised child's parents are monsters (including any relatives or friends of yours) or you don't. There's no middle ground here to tip toe around, if you are going to take that stance.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There's no reason to have it done other than being Jewish or Muslim. And I'm all for religous freedom, untill it leads to the removal of one's epidermis.

From what I gathered, Jews and Muslims started putting circumcision into practice because they were a desert people, and that sand just gets everywhere. So circumcision made mr. Winky a lot easier and less water-consuming to clean. But there's no need for it at all in modern times when most people have running water...Unless of course you happen to live in Africa or something.

I'm glad I still got my fireman's cap.

 

[Jonluw]

Well? Which is it? Circumcision isn't a heinous act or my parents are awful monsters who should be severely punished for abusing me. Which one you want to stand by?

I don't know if you're trying to be sarcastic, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

No was being quite serious. There is no false dilemma only a very real situation. Look through the posts. You'll see people basically saying that anyone who does this to their child are barbarians and guilty of mutilating their children in some sort of perverted form of child abuse. So either my parents are child abusing monsters who ruined me or they aren't. You can't argue that "well.. from now ON, they would be." or "I mean some OTHER people's parents."

It's a simple thing. Yes or no. Are my parents monsters or not? Can't have it both ways. You either think every circumcised child's parents are monsters (including any relatives or friends of yours) or you don't. There's no middle ground here to tip toe around, if you are going to take that stance.

Your parents were affected by the society they grew up in. You can't fault a person for following social norms no matter how despicable those norms are.

It's the same reason you can't call an old Aztek a monster for partaking in human sacrifice. You may very well disapprove of the practice, but the individuals involved aren't monsters. They act in the best intention.