San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[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.

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?

Would you honestly believe me if I did? Also it is highly painful if its done at an older age. I had it done to me when I was really young so I wasn't able to remember and I don't feel that I was abused or anything like that. Also it's not STDs that it prevents although I wish it did.

 

[Gladiateher]

I don't like it lol. I'm extremely satisfied with having been circumcised and I can tell you now as an adult that I try to avoid surgery on my man parts.

 

[Sandernista]

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.

There's about a 30 ( 20? ) % reduction in sensitivity, so, yeah, it's less pleasurable, although no one will never know exactly by how much.

Does it affect my orgasm? I don't think so.

 

[Sandernista]

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.

There's about a 30 ( 20? ) % reduction in sensitivity, so, yeah, it's less pleasurable, although no one will never know exactly by how much.

Does it affect my orgasm? I don't think so.

It's still less pleasurable. There's no denying that. I think people make the assumption that people are implying that it isn't pleasurable for circumcised males when they aren't. At all. It's just less pleasurable.

Pleasurable≠Sensitive

 

[Sandernista]

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.

There's about a 30 ( 20? ) % reduction in sensitivity, so, yeah, it's less pleasurable, although no one will never know exactly by how much.

Does it affect my orgasm? I don't think so.

It's still less pleasurable. There's no denying that. I think people make the assumption that people are implying that it isn't pleasurable for circumcised males when they aren't. At all. It's just less pleasurable.

Pleasurable≠Sensitive

In this case, sensitivity and pleasure are directly related.

I disagree. If I was more sensitive I think sex would be painful.

 

[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.

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?

Would you honestly believe me if I did? Also it is highly painful if its done at an older age. I had it done to me when I was really young so I wasn't able to remember and I don't feel that I was abused or anything like that. Also it's not STDs that it prevents although I wish it did.

If its painful why force it on a child? At least in adulthood pain killers can be used. The baby can't take painkillers, and is hyper sensitive.

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.

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

As an adult your foreskin isn't going to grow so if you leave it as an adult some harm can already have been done but if you take care of it at a very early age then there is no harm.

 

[devotedsniper]

I agree the kid should have the choice to or not, but i don't think they've quite thought it through, circumcision isn't always to do with religion i was circumcised for medical purposes (3 years of being in extreme pain as a 12 year old isn't nice i tell you that, circumcision solved it).

 

[Lord Beautiful]

Oh boy, this topic again.

Yeah. It seems there's a lot of penis passion on this site.

 

[Cakes]

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.

 

[LetalisK]

It's been pointed out before in this thread that the foreskin has a function and it's not useless. So no it's not just a cosmetic thing.

Just because it has a function doesn't mean it's necessary or useful. That function is unnecessary and it's arguable if it's useful, if at all. Hence why it's cosmetic.

It is disfigured. Seriously look at the differences between the two.

Subjective standard, as the term "disfigured" relates to aesthetic appeal. What you consider "disfigured" is completely normal, even preferable, to a great many people.

It fits the definition of mutilation. And it's not a cosmetic change. And yeah I'm going to argue that painfully cutting off a part of someone's body that doesn't grow back is mutilation.

And what about ear piercings? It fits your definition of mutilation as well, so shall we call that mutilation?

 

[WolfThomas]

You know what confuses the fuck out of me? Whenever anyone says aesthetics. An erect un-circumcised penis should look almost the shame same (freudian slip) to an erect circumcised penis. The foreskin retracts and exposes the head, it's pretty nifty that way. And if it doesn't you actually may have a congenital abnormality that pre-disposes you to an acute para-thimosis.

As for flaccid? Luckily we wear clothes in a regular daily life.

And what about ear piercings? It fits your definition of mutilation as well, so shall we call that mutilation?

Ear piercings are another thing that should only be done when the person is old enough to give valid consent, nothing pisses me off more than seeing little two year old boys and girls with their ears pierced.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

Uhm,... it's not really that big of a deal. I was circumcised as a baby, and it never really even bothered me at all, let alone enough to think litigation was necessary.

/shrugs

EDIT: Also, I'm glad it was done when I was a baby. Mostly because I can't remember that shit now, and if anyone opted for it as an adult, well, I can safely assume that would scar me far more than doing it during a time in my life (baby-hood) that I, and everyone else, eventually forgets.