San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[DarkRyter]

I don't know how I feel about this.

I believe in people having the right to choose, but having sharp objects anywhere near a dick just happens to be one of those things that just seems bad.

Perhaps letting only adults above 18 (younger with parental consent) decide for themselves whether they want dick slice or not.

 

[aashell13]

I think in this case the burden is on the city to demonstrate that there is something fundamentally dangerous or damaging about circumcision that would justify taking this out of the realm of parental authority.

 

[Optimystic]

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

3) is blatant propaganda. Being "cut" actually lowers your sensitivity, because your johnson ends up with a lifetime of exposure to dull external sensation. I don't need to tell you the wonderful side effects that dull sensitivity can have in the bedroom, particularly when you mitigate sensation even more via a latex sheathe.

I'm uncut (due to thankfully having been born outside this country) and the ritual mutilation of your young fascinates me to this day.

 

[marfoir(IRL)]

It's completely different, because a girl who is circumcised IS damaged for life, whereas (again, as a circumcised man) men are not affected seriously.

Here's a study [http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/] that says 100 baby boys die every year in the United States from botched circumcisions. This is the crux of the issue: Circumcision does endanger baby boys, we understand that danger, and parents shouldn't be allowed to endanger their children like that. Banning circumcision would save more lives than legally requiring carseats for children.

If someone really wants whatever benefits circumcision gives, let that man choose for himself at age 18.

Wow wasnt aware of that. I already feel it should be a consent thing anyway so it hadnt changed my mind though.
And I dont mean to sound callous here, but 100 seems like a very inconsequential number when put in perspective of the US's population and also since the US is where circumcision is most prevalent.
Out of curiousity I wonder how many babies die each year in total, and how many for really easily preventable reasons.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

People,its just a distraction just like whenever the don't ask "issue" is brought up that no one can agree on and ends up doing its job perfectly.

 

[aashell13]

[
Here's a study [http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/] that says 100 baby boys die every year in the United States from botched circumcisions. This is the crux of the issue: Circumcision does endanger baby boys, we understand that danger, and parents shouldn't be allowed to endanger their children like that. Banning circumcision would save more lives than legally requiring carseats for children.

If someone really wants whatever benefits circumcision gives, let that man choose for himself at age 18.

I expect you could find similar examples for many other ostensibly routine medical procedures; which causes me to think that such a study is more a comment on the necessity of ensuring that such procedures are performed safely by qualified personnel, rather than simply banning the procedure outright.

 

[Avatar Roku]

It's completely different, because a girl who is circumcised IS damaged for life, whereas (again, as a circumcised man) men are not affected seriously.

Here's a study [http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/] that says 100 baby boys die every year in the United States from botched circumcisions. This is the crux of the issue: Circumcision does endanger baby boys, we understand that danger, and parents shouldn't be allowed to endanger their children like that. Banning circumcision would save more lives than legally requiring carseats for children.

If someone really wants whatever benefits circumcision gives, let that man choose for himself at age 18.

I want to say upfront that I am not trying to minimize those deaths. That is absolutely horrific. But at the same time, I notice that article only talked about those deaths in the context of overall infant deaths, which I would hope to be low to begin with in an industrialized nation like this. Again, not trying to minimize this, but 100 is a very low number compared to the number of births. Also, I want to point out that the article does not mention deaths from OTHER botched medical procedures.

 

[DoubleTime]

What the hell happened to our rights? Sure our parents may have chosen for me, but hell I don't care(it is normal for Americans, and we arent even religious)

Actually no, circumcised is becoming a curio in America. Hispanic immigration means that less people are circumcised. To the Hispanic community, circumcision is bullshit. Unless the Vatican mandates it, they wont follow traditional American culture and its pseudo science if you can call it that. Hell, American culture pushes mysticism while demonizing science. It's culture, and even then over 90% of the men in the world are not circumcised. America is one of the few nations that still practice this, but Europe abolished the practice long ago when they realized it was a barbaric practice.

"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

 

[LadyRhian]

Here's my opinion on this as a woman. I think it should ever only be up to the person getting circumcised. That means the guy whose dick is going under the knife. Not the parents, not the religious authorities... the person who is going to have the procedure done to them.

To those who say that having a foreskin is a health risk- there is a slightly higher chance of certain diseases, most, if not all of which can be changed by simply cleaning well under the foreskin. I've heard women saying men with a foreskin have a certain "odor" that uncircumcised men do not. Again, wash under the damn thing and it goes away. Really.

To those complaining about its looks- you're complaining because it isn't what you are used to. If there were more uncut men around, you probably wouldn't notice or care. If it means that much to you, don't take an uncircumcised man as a lover. See how easy it is? However, you then cannot complain about men wanting only big-boobed women with blonde hair. You are choosing on something equally as superficial.

 

[Justin Gooch]

If they are going to ban something like this, then why not ban the ear piercing of young children as well whom can not make said decision for themselves? It may not be a great deal of harm on a child, but it is still a painful experience.

 

[Chefodeath]

I'm going to say no just because its a dirty law that will be awkward in enforcement and creates a precedent that gives power to the state that it frankly doesn't deserve.

I am not defending circumcision, I am defending what is a private and meaningful ritual from state interference. Personally though, I find it a barbaric practice and its frankly shameful that its still so widely practiced.

 

[Cakes]

I don't think circumcision should be allowed for aesthetic reasons, but there's no way anyone's going to get Orthodox Jews to stop snipping their children.

(Or most Jews, for that matter).

 

[Jumplion]

Here's my opinion on this as a woman. I think it should ever only be up to the person getting circumcised. That means the guy whose dick is going under the knife. Not the parents, not the religious authorities... the person who is going to have the procedure done to them.

To those who say that having a foreskin is a health risk- there is a slightly higher chance of certain diseases, most, if not all of which can be changed by simply cleaning well under the foreskin. I've heard women saying men with a foreskin have a certain "odor" that uncircumcised men do not. Again, wash under the damn thing and it goes away. Really.

To those complaining about its looks- you're complaining because it isn't what you are used to. If there were more uncut men around, you probably wouldn't notice or care. If it means that much to you, don't take an uncircumcised man as a lover. See how easy it is? However, you then cannot complain about men wanting only big-boobed women with blonde hair. You are choosing on something equally as superficial.

I would like to know a proper opinion on this next statement as nobody has yet to really answer it. So, here goes;

Isn't it the parent's job to decide what is good for their child? Playing devil's advocate here, if you will, I've already stated my opinion, but I have yet to see anyone who is pro- or anti-circumcision deal with that aspect of it.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I'm going to say no just because its a dirty law that will be awkward in enforcement and creates a precedent that gives power to the state that it frankly doesn't deserve.

I am not defending circumcision, I am defending what is a private and meaningful ritual from state interference. Personally though, I find it a barbaric practice and its frankly shameful that its still so widely practiced.

Ok, I usually don't do this, but that genuinely pissed me off. Granted, this won't be the same for every Jewish man, but for me, that is genuinely an important part of my identity as a Jew, and I would appreciate it if you would not call it barbaric.

 

[marfoir(IRL)]

Here's my opinion on this as a woman. I think it should ever only be up to the person getting circumcised. That means the guy whose dick is going under the knife. Not the parents, not the religious authorities... the person who is going to have the procedure done to them.

To those who say that having a foreskin is a health risk- there is a slightly higher chance of certain diseases, most, if not all of which can be changed by simply cleaning well under the foreskin. I've heard women saying men with a foreskin have a certain "odor" that uncircumcised men do not. Again, wash under the damn thing and it goes away. Really.

To those complaining about its looks- you're complaining because it isn't what you are used to. If there were more uncut men around, you probably wouldn't notice or care. If it means that much to you, don't take an uncircumcised man as a lover. See how easy it is? However, you then cannot complain about men wanting only big-boobed women with blonde hair. You are choosing on something equally as superficial.

I would like to know a proper opinion on this next statement as nobody has yet to really answer it. So, here goes;

Isn't it the parent's job to decide what is good for their child? Playing devil's advocate here, if you will, I've already stated my opinion, but I have yet to see anyone who is pro- or anti-circumcision deal with that aspect of it.

To a certain degree yes.

 

[Caligulust]

My penis is outlawed in San Francisco.

Good day.

 

[BlueMage]

Can we please refer to circumcision correctly? Its proper term is "Male Genital Mutilation."

 

[gbemery]

Any thread on matters such as this are completely pointless. All it turns into is

person #1 "I believe it's wrong"
person #2 "Well I believe its fine"
person #1 "Well your opinion is just stupid"
person #2 "No your opinion is stupid"
person #1 "no, your opinion is stupid and this is why my opinion is the right one [insert completely opinionated rant with sketchy research]"
person #2 "No, your opinion is completely wrong and I'll tell you why [insert another completely opinionated rant with sketchy facts taken as "fact"]"
person #3 "Hey guys/girls why can't we state our opinions as just that "opinions" and learn to respect other people's views?"
person #1 and #2 "SHUT UP, YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH "FACTS""