San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[Saviordd1]

I like being circumsized, and id rather not have to make that choice when im older (Lets be honest, do you really want to think about it like "I want a knife near my dick taking skin off)

No, it should remain up to the parents, parents have to make choices for their children, and this is one of them

So San Fransisco, SHUT UP

Yeha parents should be able to chose to hack off part of their kids genitals because

a. Tradition
B. They're too lazy to clean the genitals
c. quesitonable medical reasons.
d. aesthetics

Who cares about the side effects eh?

Side effects, what side effects, circumcision is healthier and most girls prefer it (and a lot of guys to) So, yeah, not seeing the sarcastic quip really legit

Reduced sexual pleasure for one thing (a side effect that lasts for the rest of their life).

I've never not had fun during sex, so yeah....The small loss is worth the priiize

 

[Dexiro]

Religion shouldn't be used as an excuse to forcefully mutilate children.

Personally I prefer circumcised penis's so I'm not against it entirely, I think it should be a choice made by the individual at a suitable age.

 

[Treblaine]

I never really get the hygiene thing with circumcision. If I follow the same logic I'd have all the nails of my children removed as well.

They can get dirty.
They can cause wounds.
They can slow down the healing process of wounds even infecting existing wounds with germs trapped under them, causing who knows what kinds of disseases.

No that's a reason to keep your nails trimmed SHORT. All those above problems solved.

And that's why you clean your gear at least at a daily basis, all the hygiene problems in favor of circumcision solved. Yes, it's THAT easy.

Its surprisingly hard to keep you foreskin clean, even daily.

Its so damn easy to keep your nails short you only need to clip them what, once per fortnight.

And of course the thin area under fingernail where dirt can collect is no where near as vulnerable to infection as the foreskin due to:
-higher moisture
-less exposure to air
-exposure to urine
-porous mucosa layer
-proximity to anus
-less frequent washing (do you wash your wang every time you use the toilet?)

Ugh. Here go again with the STD BS.

Circumcision does not protect against STDs.

Then we are in agreement, because I never said it would "protect" against STDs just reduce the contagion rate. Which is important as you can't expect to only ever have unprotected sex in a monogamous relationship. If that were true then why do so many women take birth control pills?

Sorry, I meant by "nerve growth" infants have have much more "plastic" nerve structure, they don't really grow but having a foreskin over your willy for 18+ years it's a lot harder to say goodbye to it getting a circumcision in adulthood.

As to pain, well this is not a ban on circumcision without analgesia, this is a BLANKET BAN! I definitely think there is a case for mandating some proportional pain relief in all circumcision (even religious ritual) but that is not the issue here.

 

[Gaiseric]

....
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."

Yes you did.

Let just let you in on something you seem to be unaware of. You can be against the practice of something and against the law that would make it illegal.

You seem pretty up in arms about this so why don't you go and write the city council and anyone else who it may help(regardless if you live there or not).

Don't try reading into things that aren't there, you don't know why I get disappointed in my state from time to time and based on your reaction, you wouldn't get it. You aren't going to convince me that my original statement was wrong the same way nothing I say would would change your mind on this issue.

 

[Worgen]

its only really religious for jews

Jews have rights, too.

Honestly, if they ban this, there should be a ban on Docking and cropping animals. There is literally no justification for this (besides, "it looks pretty") except in very few breeds that have developed genetic disorders. Most breeds that get this done don't need it.

as I understand it that for the most part is banned, but people do it anyway

 

[Treblaine]

I like being circumsized, and id rather not have to make that choice when im older (Lets be honest, do you really want to think about it like "I want a knife near my dick taking skin off)

No, it should remain up to the parents, parents have to make choices for their children, and this is one of them

So San Fransisco, SHUT UP

Yeha parents should be able to chose to hack off part of their kids genitals because

a. Tradition
B. They're too lazy to clean the genitals
c. quesitonable medical reasons.
d. aesthetics

Who cares about the side effects eh?

Side effects, what side effects, circumcision is healthier and most girls prefer it (and a lot of guys to) So, yeah, not seeing the sarcastic quip really legit

Reduced sexual pleasure for one thing (a side effect that lasts for the rest of their life).

I don't know about you but I find uncircumcised sex is like trying to swim while wearing a cape.

Without getting to explicit the stimulation I actually LIKE from sex is on my glans and shaft, not my foreskin.

 

[Worgen]

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.

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 reduce the risk for infections, especially urinary tract infections, STD's, HIV and certain types of diseases which can lead to cancer.

what people forget is that getting cut is still unnecessary surgery and has the same odds of getting infected as anything else and really once you learn to wash yourself any chance of infection goes down to the same amount between cut and uncut, LEARN TO WASH YOUR DICK, hell chances are if your a guy you do it already or are you too lazy to touch yourself in the shower


the only way I can see hiv being reduced in cut vs uncut is that by letting the foreskin slide back up after sex without washing or anything it just gives more chances of the virus being in a protected enough environment that it can survive and has additional chances to spread but still the difference is low enough so it doesnt really matter

oh, and if you think an uncut dick is really more likely to have bacterial infection then you might want to stay away from a vagina since that is almost all internal and needs much more cleaning then even a cut penis, oh and smegma? yeah vaginas get that also

I might have been off about it being intended to make sex less pleasurable but it was certainly an attempt to prevent masturbation

 

[jsnfloyd]

In case no one has brought this up...

Prothrombin is a protein produced by the body to help with coagulation. It also just happens that on the eighth day of a male infants life, prothrombin level rise above 100 percent normal.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prothrombin
http://www.trosch.org/the/circumcision-cancer.pdf
(I realize that the latter is a Bible Thumpin' article, but bear through the rhetoric and it does have some accurate findings)

The article also brings up penile cancer and it states based on medical findings that circumcision is a cancer prevention technique.

I'm not for any religious practice that would needlessly harm anyone, but there is actually medical relevance for getting a circumcision and it's best to do it on the 8th day.

 

[Krantos]

its only really religious for jews

Jews have rights, too.

Honestly, if they ban this, there should be a ban on Docking and cropping animals. There is literally no justification for this (besides, "it looks pretty") except in very few breeds that have developed genetic disorders. Most breeds that get this done don't need it.

as I understand it that for the most part is banned, but people do it anyway

Double checked that with my wife (a 3rd year Vet student). It's banned in Europe and a couple of states. Most of the US, however, still allow it. Also, the AKC (American Kennel Club) requires certain breeds to be docked and cropped in order to compete in dog shows. I know there are a number of groups campaigning against it (unfortunately including PETA), but so far there has been limited success.

 

[Harbinger_]

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?

It's a religious practice and it helps to prevent keep that part of the body clean from potential problems. San Francisco can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. Also if I have a son I intend on having him circumcised. Got a problem with it? It's my damn kid and I won't have him getting a disease I could have prevented him from having. If he has problems with it he can talk to me about it when he grows up.

 

[Innegativeion]

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.

...No you can't. How do you know it isn't more pleasurable if you're uncircumcised?

Honestly I don't think it would make much difference.

 

[Harbinger_]

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?

It's a religious practice and it helps to prevent keep that part of the body clean from potential problems. San Francisco can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. Also if I have a son I intend on having him circumcised. Got a problem with it? It's my damn kid and I won't have him getting a disease I could have prevented him from having. If he has problems with it he can talk to me about it when he grows up.

What is he going to talk about when it's irreversible? You're violating a child's rights. This isn't something like cutting their hair when they don't want it. If you don't want your child to contract an STD, then teach them about safe sex, not cutting off a piece of their genitals. Plus, circumcision doesn't prevent anything, it just lowers the chances of them catching it by a small amount.

It prevents alot of things actually. Like I said my kid and my decision.

 

[Lizmichi]

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.

Yea it is false. It's the other way around and the diseases are treated with less invasive treatments then circumcision.

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

I agree with this 100%. Yes it's the parents child but your cutting off a part of your child when they have no say what so ever. Let the child deiced when they're old enough.

 

[Lizmichi]

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?

It's a religious practice and it helps to prevent keep that part of the body clean from potential problems. San Francisco can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. Also if I have a son I intend on having him circumcised. Got a problem with it? It's my damn kid and I won't have him getting a disease I could have prevented him from having. If he has problems with it he can talk to me about it when he grows up.

What is he going to talk about when it's irreversible? You're violating a child's rights. This isn't something like cutting their hair when they don't want it. If you don't want your child to contract an STD, then teach them about safe sex, not cutting off a piece of their genitals. Plus, circumcision doesn't prevent anything, it just lowers the chances of them catching it by a small amount.

It prevents alot of things actually. Like I said my kid and my decision.

Wouldn't it be much more ethical to let the child decide for himself when he has the sufficient metal capacity, rather than force something on him that he may hate for the rest of his life?

Also, as far as I know, circumcision has no immediate medical benefits, so could you educate me on this, maybe PM me some links?

Now a days it's medical benefits are minimal at best, it's more religious any more then anything. The treatments for the illnesses are less evasive then circumcision.

 

[Dirzzit]

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.

Oh it's false, trust me

I think it's the persons decision.