San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[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...

 

[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.