San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[Zeema]

SAVE THE PHALLUS

no but i do think it should be a choice to get Circumcised

 

[Aurgelmir]

They're monsters in the sense that they did something to you when you weren't aware of the consequences..

I'm sure they're nice people and think the world of you.. but it's your.. y'know..

I'm curious.. what consequences? What have I lost that I miss? What did I lose other than the possibility of a choice that I might have made anyway later on? I lost many "choices" when I was a kid. I lose many "choices" today.

Eh, nevermind. Like I told Father Time, it's just too time consuming to engage in this sort of discussion any further. Nobody is going to change their minds or ideology here. Nothing to do but agree to disagree.

Are you sure? What if someone reads this and actually change their mid after reading?

Anyways you have a very weird view on the whole it is okay to circumcise children debate, which I see a lot of others have too.

"Why shouldn't we do it? I had it done to me, and I don't care"

This argument is so damaging in any culture, the "It doesn't matter so we'll keep doing it" mentality.

Why should money be wasted on things that do not matter and provide a risk (granted a small one) of complications during the procedure?

I was circumsised when I was around eight or so for medical reasons. This type of situation would still be allowed, right?

To be honest, I can see both sides of the arguments. However, I'm not so sure if it infringes on people's freedom of choices, because at the moment circumsision is a choice forced onto another person. There isn't really any choice to be infringed upon.

However, I'm not really sure what the big deal is. From what I remember, circumsision isn't painful at all with modern anesthetics (or can these not be used on infants? Even so, it's not as if they'd remember it). The "mutilation" point is somewhat more concerning, but seeing as how circumsised genitalia is definitely socially acceptable, perhaps even more so than the alternative in some cases. There isn't really any consequences from it.

Although, could anyone link to definitive proof that circumsision leads to less feeling during sex? Some claims in this thread have me rather worried... xD

Medical procedures should still be allowed, because then there is an actual reason to do it.

It is Mutilation because it is an non-medical procedure which in many cases is done for cosmetic reasons. To be honest it can be compared to cutting the tail of a dog (Which is / has been common practice for a lot of dog breeds for ages) And in a lot of countries cutting hte tail is illegal, so why should cutting a penis be?

As far as I know they do not use anesthetics on infants. I believe this is due to anesthetics being a quite risky thing to put a kid under.

I sadly have no link which states that it looses sensitivity, but I have heard some adults saying it. But I would also guess it changes from person to person. But logically thinking you have made an internal organ external so its not to weird if it is true.

 

[drosalion]

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

Thats exactly what the law says it will do. Illegal to do it before 18 years of age:

"The measure, which would only apply in San Francisco, would make it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years of age, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs. The maximum penalty would be a year in jail and a $1,000 fine."

I see nothing wrong with this tbh

 

[deathandtaxes]

Circumcision should be perfectly legal, as long as the person in question is an adult. Theologically this presents no barrier to any faith which currently practices circumcision.

However removing the foreskin of a minor should be considered a criminal offence and should carry a jail term as severe or greater than that of violent child abuse as that is what it is.

 

[Jonluw]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42784426/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/?GT1=43001

What do you guys/gals think of this? Should circumcision be outlawed or should it stay because it is a religious practice?

The government should not be able to forcibly remove existing rights from parents.

Unless this practice can be shown to be grievously harmful in nearly 100% of cases, which it is not, the government has no right touching it. Our government should have a firm "When in doubt, hands off" policy when it comes to abridging any rights. It is a currently existing right for parents to decide this for their children. It's one thing to prevent something from becoming a right, but once it's there? It will (and should) take a miracle to remove it from the people.

That said: Quit trying to ban things. Educate against it. Provide doctors with stacks of free, brief pamphlets that advise against it. Advise doctors to stop performing it. Let both doctors and parents come to the decision themselves, and it'll stick much better.

So you're saying we shouldn't have laws against harming other people, but rather just try to discourage it?
Legalize, for example murder, child abuse or violence in general, but do our best to keep people from doing that?

 

[DevilWolf47]

You could argue that this ban would not pass because it is religiously discriminating, but at the same time California's loose interpretation of the 14th Amendment makes me doubt their devotion to the American constitution.

I can sort of get where the proponents are coming from, it is painful, but at the same time i can't help but feel that cut away the rhetoric, they honestly don't know why they support a ban.

 

[Daveman]

They're probably right but tbh I had it for medical reasons (which they say they'd make an exception for) but I'd want my kid to get it done as a baby and not a teenager because having part of you penis removed really exacerbates the awkwardness of those years. That said my kid might not ever need it but I wouldn't want there to be even a tiny chance.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I do so very much love these threads. It's awesome being reminded by a sizable amount of people that my parents who have been very loving, stern, and supportive throughout my life are actually acid-drooling demon goats who villainously abused me by having a small piece of penis skin that is essentially vestigial and pretty damn gross-looking to boot cut from my cock.

Thanks, guys!

 

[QuadFish]

Uh... you ever seen what it looks like uncut? Yeah, cut it please.

See, in those rare moments some smart internet guy tricks me into reading a cut vs. uncut argument thread (with pictures) I can't help but think "AH GOD WHAT DID YOU DO!? WHERE DID YOU PUT THE SKIN?".

So... each to his own is I guess what I'm saying.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

]Not a concrete one, no. However, I can tell you how it has affected me, personally. As I've said earlier, it is a large part of my identity as a Jew, despite the fact that I'm not very religious (the above bible quoting was just from unwilling years of hebrew school). I can understand if that is not enough for you, but it is certainly has enough meaning for me.

Exactly. How do you think I would feel today, an uncircumcised atheist, if my parents had circumcised me at birth for religious reasons? Circumcision can always be performed - that is, if you're a Jew, I see no reason stopping you from going through this procedure when you're ready. But it's a one way street - you can't ever get that back, so if you grow up to not want a circumcision, or to even be against it as a practice, well, too bad, you have to live with a decision someone else made for you.

 

[DanielDeFig]

It should be something consenting adults choose to do, not something to be forced upon children.

Any arguments based upon "religious tradition" is invalid, because such things are irrelevant.

 

[Sethran]

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

its only really religious for jews, it doesnt keep you from getting any diseases, it was started to make sex less pleasurable (at least thats why christians did it)

Actually, it does help medically. Not having the skin covering the head of the penis makes it easier to clean - un-circumcised penises build up 'smegma' which can lead to bacterial infections if not cleaned out, a problem circumcised people don't have.

And, additionally, that is why it's a common-place practice for newborns to be circumcised. For health, not to make sex less pleasurable, though I have to say nobody can say for sure if it does unless they specifically don't get circumcised until after they've had sex, and then have it again, which is a stupid 'test'.

Also, it's done to children because it's much easier to get it off quickly and without pain at that young an age. Doing so to an adult would be far more expensive due to the cost of additional sedatives because of both sensitivity and overall size - that being several times larger than a newborn's.

 

[theklng]

i fucking love the argument "oh yeah it's freedom of religion that requires a boy to be circumsized". wait, so what if a religion requires a man to kill another man? should we alleviate murders just because "oh it's a religious practice, we can't interfere"?

i'm gonna have to call bullshit on this; it needs to get passed right away. while religious freedom should exist, no religion should have the power to molest or kill just for the sake of religion.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Since it's not a dangerous procedure and is basicly a cosmetic surgery required by a certain religion I say leave the jews a free pass on that one, it's not like a child feels anything.

Also if it was banned all around untill the age of 18 that would be quite drastic. Imagine that every jewish boy of age 18 needs to go to surgeon so he can have his penis put under surgery so he can be viewed as a member of his own religion... Eggh the stress and pain afterwards...

But while having any opinions against or for the circumcision, I'd say that for the parents who do it from vanity should be stopped. If there is no other reason than "Well it looks nicer" let the kid make his own decission on that one.

Also to people saying that this is as bad as people murdering for religion and selling people into slavery for religion...

Seriously? Look at your argument and than read it a couple of times... See how it sounds in your head and than please delete it. It's like I would say that stealing a car is equal to triple homocide. I do not say either act is justified. But come on...

 

[Bantarific]

How is this argument still going!???? EVERYONE READ THE LINK AND END THE MADNESS!! It has all the answers you need!!
http://www.homiegfunk.com/RIC2.htm

 

[Woodsey]

For a so-called "land of the free", America doesn't like giving people choices.

I get the impression that its only when its for infants who have no say in the matter and only when its not done for medical reasons.

Which, of course, is right. Religion shouldn't give you the right to infringe on another human beings right - and the right to not be mutilated without your consent is a biggie.

 

[StrangerQ]

Im just going to drop this here.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584

 

[Kashrlyyk]

....
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.

I don't put words in your mouth.
EVERY HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT FOR AN UNHARMED BODY, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN SEX PARTNERS.

I can assume that you agree that no one, including the parents, has the right to force you to have sex with a certain person, for example by force marrying you to that person or by sex slavery.

It is only a little bit more complicated with the unharmed body, because there are reasons to harm the body, like vaccination and live saving operations. But religion or aesthetics or whatever bullshit reasons parents will deliver are not among them.
If there isn't an immediate medical reason to perform an operation you are not allowed to violate the human right of the baby to have an unharmed body.

ANYONE WHO SAYS VIOLATING THAT HUMAN RIGHT OF THE BABY IS UP TO THE PARENTS TREATS THE BABY AS AN ITEM NOT AS A HUMAN BEING!

Saying you feel ashamed for living in CA because they want to enforce that human right of the baby by taking away that decision from parents is identical to directly saying: It should be the decision of the parents.

The doctors can't convince parents that vaccination is a good thing, because parents are often enough too stupid. The result of that stupidity was that in CA after 45 years of noone dying because of whopping cough in the first 9 months of 2010 ten babies died because of it.
If doctors can not convince parents about vaccination, they will not be able to convince them of the stupidity of mutilating a babies penis. But then again as some people on this thread would say: "Ah, just ten babies. Not enough to take action."

 

[Sunrider]

It has been said over and over in this thread. "Let the kid decide for himself, when he is old enough".

That said, I have to quote the best thing said in this thread so far.

My thoughts on this matter, and other such cases where religions get a free pass: Fuck special protections for religion.

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.

Remember when religious advocates managed to restrict the marriage rights of consenting adults in California? Now, the people who want special protection for religion are arguing that people should continue to have the right to irreversibly cut off part of a baby's penis.

My thoughts exactly. I'm not sure how I would have said it, but that's exactly what I would have said, had you not beaten me to it.