San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[Harbinger_]

At that age unless you have some sort of super-memory to remember literally everything that has ever happened to you then you aren't going to remember it.

So just because they cant remember it its alright? Is it also alright to molest them, or hit them? They cant remember it.../facepalm.

Its a little bit different thank you and thats taking it out of context. If hitting my child spared them the chance of getting a disease later in life then thats one thing but molesting or hitting a child is far different than a medical procedure administered by a qualified physician.

Of course it is different, but there is NO reason (apart from religious ones) to circumcise anyone. You are not immune to STDs if you are circumcised. And as such I imagine parents tell their circumcised children to use condoms as well, making it a pretty moot point.

The fact of the matter is that children are being cut, and even if they dont remember the details they clearly do not enjoy it, and it inflicts pain on them. That is abuse in my book.

Goes to show how much you know on the topic if you think circumcision is to prevent STDs.

._.

When have I EVER said circumcision is to prevent STDs? I was actually arguing AGAINST that reason for circumcision. In fact, the post you quoted specifically stated that circumcising does NOT make you immune to STDs. I honestly dont know what you are talking about.

You said it doesn't prevent STDs and I agree it doesn't say for significantly reducing your chances of getting HIV from penis/vagina intercourse although of course I would still recommend safe sex.

http://www.interaksyon.net/article/2488/commentary-farewell-foreskin-or-9-things-about-pubescent-circumcision

Lowers the risk of urinary tract infection which can be more common in uncircumcised males in their early years of life.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/79454-pros-cons-circumcision/

It also argues there is less chance of contracting STDs but they still recommend condoms which is of course understandable.

http://www.essortment.com/benefits-circumcision-55672.html


If you want I can and will argue this until the proverbial cows come home because to be perfectly honest I have nothing better to do.

 

[Treblaine]

One of the risks involves the foreskin growing abnormally and if it does can cause alot of health risks.

If you're going to have a child circumcised over concerns like this, you may as well get that appendix out while you're at it.

Removing appendix = very complex and costly operation that carries significant risk of complications or death. While the actual risk of appendicitis is very very low, the problems with a perforated abdomen in childhood are great.

Circumcision = the most basic medical procedure with minuscule risk.

Seriously, the people who comment on medical issues should at least get a basic understanding of medicine.

Foreskin complications are common enough to warrant cutting it off at birth as a precaution?

Relative to the risks of circumcision... yes.

Realise that I myself have suffered from foreskin problems now getting it dealt with is much more risky.

 

[Coraxian]

"Foreskin complications are common enough to warrant cutting it off at birth as a precaution?

your appendix isn't being yanked out for the same reason is it? nor are tonsils or your nails etc. all of which are known to cause complications for some people at some point.
If it is giving problem then it can be taken off, until then stay off it.

Pretty much my opinion on the matter. Unnecessary surgical procedure.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

No man would choose circumcision if given the choice at age 18.

Why you Americans do it to your kids is beyond me.

 

[Dogstile]

snip

I think I love you for that post.

Look people, i'm currently uncircumcised, so obviously i'm slightly biased, but lets look at this from another perspective.

You, yes you, sitting in your chair. At birth, your fingernails and toenails were removed. This was because fingernails get dirt caught under them and can potentially go ingrown. Lets say that some people think it looks better too.

See that? That's a fictional procedure that has roughly all the same "benefits" as getting snipped. Would you want that decision to be made for you at birth, really?

(Also, I "snipped" her post, giggle giggle)

 

[l3o2828]

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

WRONG.
The lack of a foreskin actually makes the penis less sensitive.

 

[frago roc]

I would never get my sons circumsized, it takes just one small mistake to turn a son into a daughter - no thanks.

 

[Treblaine]

It also argues there is less chance of contracting STDs but they still recommend condoms which is of course understandable.

Look condoms are the SINGLE best line of defence (apart from abstinence) but they are not the magic perfect solution:

-condoms split or slip
-people are fallible and forget
-some infections can get past condoms

When there is cases of contamination then things like circumcision really help. Well, circumcision really only helps males, but vasectomy too also protects the "receiver" to a certain extent.

Really to protect yourself from STDs you really need layers of active defences.
-keep track of your partners and all consult for regular testing
-in face of contamination follow up with aggressive preventative treatment
-get all available vaccines when available (Hepatitis A & B, HPV, etc)
EDIT: -circumcision and vasectomy help reduce contagion and transmission rates respectively

Protecting you body from disease is a constant battle.

 

[Harbinger_]

It also argues there is less chance of contracting STDs but they still recommend condoms which is of course understandable.

Look condoms are the SINGLE best line of defence (apart from abstinence) but they are not the magic perfect solution:

-condoms split or slip
-people are fallible and forget
-some infections can get past condoms

When there is cases of contamination then things like circumcision really help. Well, circumcision really only helps males, but vasectomy too also protects the "receiver" to a certain extent.

Really to protect yourself from STDs you really need layers of active defences.
-keep track of your partners and all consult for regular testing
-in face of contamination follow up with aggressive preventative treatment
-get all available vaccines when available (Hepatitis A & B, HPV, etc)

Protecting you body from disease is a constant battle.

No no I understand that completely but circumcision does help.

 

[tzimize]

At that age unless you have some sort of super-memory to remember literally everything that has ever happened to you then you aren't going to remember it.

So just because they cant remember it its alright? Is it also alright to molest them, or hit them? They cant remember it.../facepalm.

Its a little bit different thank you and thats taking it out of context. If hitting my child spared them the chance of getting a disease later in life then thats one thing but molesting or hitting a child is far different than a medical procedure administered by a qualified physician.

Of course it is different, but there is NO reason (apart from religious ones) to circumcise anyone. You are not immune to STDs if you are circumcised. And as such I imagine parents tell their circumcised children to use condoms as well, making it a pretty moot point.

The fact of the matter is that children are being cut, and even if they dont remember the details they clearly do not enjoy it, and it inflicts pain on them. That is abuse in my book.

Goes to show how much you know on the topic if you think circumcision is to prevent STDs.

._.

When have I EVER said circumcision is to prevent STDs? I was actually arguing AGAINST that reason for circumcision. In fact, the post you quoted specifically stated that circumcising does NOT make you immune to STDs. I honestly dont know what you are talking about.

You said it doesn't prevent STDs and I agree it doesn't say for significantly reducing your chances of getting HIV from penis/vagina intercourse although of course I would still recommend safe sex.

http://www.interaksyon.net/article/2488/commentary-farewell-foreskin-or-9-things-about-pubescent-circumcision

Lowers the risk of urinary tract infection which can be more common in uncircumcised males in their early years of life.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/79454-pros-cons-circumcision/

It also argues there is less chance of contracting STDs but they still recommend condoms which is of course understandable.

http://www.essortment.com/benefits-circumcision-55672.html


If you want I can and will argue this until the proverbial cows come home because to be perfectly honest I have nothing better to do.

The penn and teller episode told me all I'll ever need to know on circumcision tbh. Awful.

 

[Treblaine]

It also argues there is less chance of contracting STDs but they still recommend condoms which is of course understandable.

Look condoms are the SINGLE best line of defence (apart from abstinence) but they are not the magic perfect solution:

-condoms split or slip
-people are fallible and forget
-some infections can get past condoms

When there is cases of contamination then things like circumcision really help. Well, circumcision really only helps males, but vasectomy too also protects the "receiver" to a certain extent.

Really to protect yourself from STDs you really need layers of active defences.
-keep track of your partners and all consult for regular testing
-in face of contamination follow up with aggressive preventative treatment
-get all available vaccines when available (Hepatitis A & B, HPV, etc)

Protecting you body from disease is a constant battle.

No no I understand that completely but circumcision does help.

Oh fug I meant to add that.

yes, circumcision can play a huge part in helping protect from STDs, for the occasion where the condom splits or you forget then circumcision can be a huge defence for the good.

I'd also argue equally in favour of vasectomies for males before becoming sexually active.

It eliminates the dangers of unintended pregnancies of the guy getting a girl pregnant and also greatly reduces the transmission rate of blood-born STDs. Evidence indicates that the ejaculate of HIV positive men had no detectable HIV cells after a vasectomy relative to pre-vasectomy where HIV was found in large concentration in their ejaculate.

There is certainly the argument that all males diagnosed with HIV should have a vasectomy but vasectomies are controversial after the fiasco in India in the 70's where the govt tried to control the birth rate with a widespread vasectomy program. The problem was too many men were effectively tricked into consenting to a vasectomy and didn't know they would be made sterile, there were huge riots and many were killed that forced the entire program to be dropped.

The main problem is reconnecting the tubes later in life when conception is actually sought, vasectomies are almost trivial procedures but much harder to undo with good rate and quality of success.

 

[Harbinger_]

At that age unless you have some sort of super-memory to remember literally everything that has ever happened to you then you aren't going to remember it.

So just because they cant remember it its alright? Is it also alright to molest them, or hit them? They cant remember it.../facepalm.

Its a little bit different thank you and thats taking it out of context. If hitting my child spared them the chance of getting a disease later in life then thats one thing but molesting or hitting a child is far different than a medical procedure administered by a qualified physician.

Of course it is different, but there is NO reason (apart from religious ones) to circumcise anyone. You are not immune to STDs if you are circumcised. And as such I imagine parents tell their circumcised children to use condoms as well, making it a pretty moot point.

The fact of the matter is that children are being cut, and even if they dont remember the details they clearly do not enjoy it, and it inflicts pain on them. That is abuse in my book.

Goes to show how much you know on the topic if you think circumcision is to prevent STDs.

._.

When have I EVER said circumcision is to prevent STDs? I was actually arguing AGAINST that reason for circumcision. In fact, the post you quoted specifically stated that circumcising does NOT make you immune to STDs. I honestly dont know what you are talking about.

You said it doesn't prevent STDs and I agree it doesn't say for significantly reducing your chances of getting HIV from penis/vagina intercourse although of course I would still recommend safe sex.

http://www.interaksyon.net/article/2488/commentary-farewell-foreskin-or-9-things-about-pubescent-circumcision

Lowers the risk of urinary tract infection which can be more common in uncircumcised males in their early years of life.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/79454-pros-cons-circumcision/

It also argues there is less chance of contracting STDs but they still recommend condoms which is of course understandable.

http://www.essortment.com/benefits-circumcision-55672.html


If you want I can and will argue this until the proverbial cows come home because to be perfectly honest I have nothing better to do.

The penn and teller episode told me all I'll ever need to know on circumcision tbh. Awful.

And you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Harbinger_]

It also argues there is less chance of contracting STDs but they still recommend condoms which is of course understandable.

Look condoms are the SINGLE best line of defence (apart from abstinence) but they are not the magic perfect solution:

-condoms split or slip
-people are fallible and forget
-some infections can get past condoms

When there is cases of contamination then things like circumcision really help. Well, circumcision really only helps males, but vasectomy too also protects the "receiver" to a certain extent.

Really to protect yourself from STDs you really need layers of active defences.
-keep track of your partners and all consult for regular testing
-in face of contamination follow up with aggressive preventative treatment
-get all available vaccines when available (Hepatitis A & B, HPV, etc)

Protecting you body from disease is a constant battle.

No no I understand that completely but circumcision does help.

Oh fug I meant to add that.

yes, circumcision can play a huge part in helping protect from STDs, for the occasion where the condom splits or you forget then circumcision can be a huge defence for the good.

I'd also argue equally in favour of vasectomies for males before becoming sexually active.

It eliminates the dangers of unintended pregnancies of the guy getting a girl pregnant and also greatly reduces the transmission rate of blood-born STDs. Evidence indicates that the ejaculate of HIV positive men had no detectable HIV cells after a vasectomy relative to pre-vasectomy where HIV was found in large concentration in their ejaculate.

There is certainly the argument that all males diagnosed with HIV should have a vasectomy but vasectomies are controversial after the fiasco in India in the 70's where the govt tried to control the birth rate with a widespread vasectomy program. The problem was too many men were effectively tricked into consenting to a vasectomy and didn't know they would be made sterile, there were huge riots and many were killed that forced the entire program to be dropped.

The main problem is reconnecting the tubes later in life when conception is actually sought, vasectomies are almost trivial procedures but much harder to undo with good rate and quality of success.

The question I would have is that if there are no detectable HIV cells is it not possible they are still there and just difficult to see with our current medical technology. I feel that something as difficult to undo as a vasectomy should be a choice of an adult. (To be honest I had no knowledge it could be undone.) I've heard of tube-tying before but there is apparently a moderate chance that it can become undone or cause permanent harm to the person.

That does sound very controversial but it seems that most of the birth rate control techniques used seem to be pretty brutal. I also think there is a huge difference personally between circumcision and a vasectomy.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I was circumcised as a baby, as was my brother. I never asked my mom why she did it, partly because it would be awkward as hell, but also because I know she had my best interests at heart and I, as a baby, didn't really know anything about anything at all. I don't remember the procedure or any pain or regret my lack of foreskin at all, but I do see why some believe it's not something that should be up to the parents; it's an old procedure from a time when we didn't know what we were really doing and it apparently could have some undesirable effects.

That said, thousands of idiotic parents choose to forgo immunizing their children, putting them at risk despite most every doctor alive recommending immunization. I would say that if circumcision is outlawed, immunization should be mandatory. Both things are decisions forced on a child by the parents that could potentially cause harm to them, only one is fairly superficial and the other is just frickin' dangerous.

 

[Treblaine]

The question I would have is that if there are no detectable HIV cells is it not possible they are still there and just difficult to see with our current medical technology. I feel that something as difficult to undo as a vasectomy should be a choice of an adult. (To be honest I had no knowledge it could be undone.) I've heard of tube-tying before but there is apparently a moderate chance that it can become undone or cause permanent harm to the person.

That does sound very controversial but it seems that most of the birth rate control techniques used seem to be pretty brutal. I also think there is a huge difference personally between circumcision and a vasectomy.

THAT is the issue, is it just in too low a concentration to be detected? That's why it's an argument and not standard practice. Also more than that, will this persist. Will a few months or years later will their ejaculate begin containing HIV cells, in which case they thought it was OK to continue having unprotected sex and then the spread is just delayed.

HIV protection is a major issue in southern Africa and India where it is highly contentious, there always has to be political and cultural considerations. The biggest issue is how it is so bad it has gotten to the point where the health authorities are just looking for anything to stem the tide of this epidemic rather than protect each individual. Slower transmission rates are a key part of that.

Birth control is something you have to approach very delicately. If a man has grown up his whole life defining his manliness by his fertility, sterilising them can be interpreted as severely emasculating, even if they already have had children. Especially if they are tricked into it and they can feel tricked if others convince them they were led to believe something otherwise.

 

[Harbinger_]

The question I would have is that if there are no detectable HIV cells is it not possible they are still there and just difficult to see with our current medical technology. I feel that something as difficult to undo as a vasectomy should be a choice of an adult. (To be honest I had no knowledge it could be undone.) I've heard of tube-tying before but there is apparently a moderate chance that it can become undone or cause permanent harm to the person.

That does sound very controversial but it seems that most of the birth rate control techniques used seem to be pretty brutal. I also think there is a huge difference personally between circumcision and a vasectomy.

THAT is the issue, is it just in too low a concentration to be detected? That's why it's an argument and not standard practice. Also more than that, will this persist. Will a few months or years later will their ejaculate begin containing HIV cells, in which case they thought it was OK to continue having unprotected sex and then the spread is just delayed.

HIV protection is a major issue in southern Africa and India where it is highly contentious, there always has to be political and cultural considerations. The biggest issue is how it is so bad it has gotten to the point where the health authorities are just looking for anything to stem the tide of this epidemic rather than protect each individual. Slower transmission rates are a key part of that.

Birth control is something you have to approach very delicately. If a man has grown up his whole life defining his manliness by his fertility, sterilising them can be interpreted as severely emasculating, even if they already have had children. Especially if they are tricked into it and they can feel tricked if others convince them they were led to believe something otherwise.

Thankfully they haven't gone to the extremes of things like genocide or some sort of genetically engineered sterilization bug. It would be interesting with additional tests being done to see if circumcision does help. With the amount of people and the state of living over there it's horrible that more can't be done.

 

[Treblaine]

You have a higher chance of being hit by a bus, or mauled by a mountain lion than to have complications from the foreskin.

Really, what is the rate and severity of foreskin complications?

Also a simple medical procedure that protects me from road traffic accidents sounds bloody marvellous.

Also hit by bus and mauled by mountain lion are HUGELY different probabilities.

You sir, are talking out of your arse.

 

[Treblaine]

You have a higher chance of being hit by a bus, or mauled by a mountain lion than to have complications from the foreskin.

Really, what is the rate and severity of foreskin complications?

Also a simple medical procedure that protects me from road traffic accidents sounds bloody marvellous.

Also hit by bus and mauled by mountain lion are HUGELY different probabilities.

You sir, are talking out of your arse.

Total (all of them combined) complications of foreskin make up only 5%.


Think this video puts the entire debate best (from another, similar thread).

So you WERE just making up the whole mountain lion probability thing, huh?

Anyway, 5% may seem trivial to you, but I AM IN THAT 5%!

So don't tell ME foreskin problems are "not a big deal".

 

[concrete89]

Circumsision is a aestetic choise. Nothing else.
So why should a parent be allowed to have their childs penis cut just because they want it to be pretty?
It's like a tattoo. Do we allow people to tattoo newborn babies? Would you tatto your baby?

And even if it is a religious choice they should not be allowed. If a parent feels that its child would be happier with religious beliefs, I feel that it is the parents duty to teach them.
But when the child grows up, he can ignore such teachings if he wishes. He can, however, not restore his penis with his mind.
Unless he's some kind of psychic. But in that case he is imaginary, and his opinion worthless.

If he grows up, and feels that he would be closer to god by cutting off parts of his body, he should be allowed, as long as he doesn't do it in a way that could harm others.

 

[funkzillabot]

Great... more ignorant fascists trying to force their own beliefs on everyone else... Oh San Francisco, you make me ashamed to be in the same country as you...

Excuse me. I live in San Francisco, so don't try placing all of us in your small minded world view, okay. One person came up with this idea. One. That person wasn't me. It maybe a good idea, it may not be. But one city doesn't have the right to ban this practice. That is up to the child's parents to decide. Not the City of San Francisco.