San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[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.

 

[dannipulsa]

IMO, circumcision is needed if there is a medical reason behind doing it, so banning it wouldn´t do much good.
But circumcision for no reason, should be the kids/mans choice and the parents should'nt be able to do it to their kid.
(circumcision CAN fail, leaving the kid with a "broken" dick for the rest of his life)
Dont ask me for a source, heard it from my dad (who is a doctor).


(ps. I might have some typos/bad grammar)

 

[Admiral Stukov]

It's not practiced in my country, but I find the practice distasteful to say the least.
For whatever reason it is the removal of a part of the body, a part that contains a lot of nerve endings no least. Unless the one getting the procedure makes an informed decision to get it, it should not be done.

 

[Aurgelmir]

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.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584

Can't load the video and its been proven they're not the most reliable of sources. I'm sorry I'd rather trust numerous doctors and pediatricians.

Penn And Teller actually does a lot of research, but sure a satirical program can't be taken 100% serious.

To bad you can't load the video because the beginning of it speaks for itself in how horrible the practice of circumcision really is.

Besides not all doctors and pediatricians believe circumcision is needed, or medically proven to be beneficial. I would say most doctors and pediatricians probably do not think it has any value at all. If it was proven to have major health benefits more countries would do it, and a larger amount of the worlds population would have been circumcises. (Today about 02% of the worlds male population are cut)

While there isn't major health benefits there are minor health benefits. I'm thankful you agree that it is a satiricial show as some take it word for word letter for letter like cracked.com

Of course you can't take it 100% serious, because they go out of their way to find "THIS ASSHOLE". But a lot of their topics are spot on the money most of the time, they just show the very worst part of it.

I mean they even did an episode called Penn and Teller is bullshit Where they ragged on their own double standards.

 

[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

You can't conclude it's insignificant based on a sample size of 1 (I've heard varying numbers but none of them were insignificant).

Your calling out my lack of facts but your not supporting your own.

Fail argument is fail