San Francisco considering banning circumcision
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Thank you for referring to a part of my anatomy as mutilated.BlueMage said:
No really, Thanks, I do appreciate it.
Key difference: Circumcision is optional. If we ban circumcision, 100 babies who would have been killed accidentally instead survive.Avatar Roku said:
Parents' rights absolutely do not extend to endangering their child. Circumcision against a baby's consent creates a measurable risk - 100 accidental deaths a year. 1 in 10,000 circumcisions result in death. If a parent let a baby sit in a car without a carseat or seatbelt, the parent would be condemned for irresponsibility. Circumcisions, like car trips, are risky. Parents don't have the right to unnecessarily endanger the lives of their own kids.Jumplion said:
Don't go there then. That would be aCaligulust said:
*Puts on sunglasses*
Dick move!
OT: Even though I am rather apathatic about this issue, I can see the logic behind both sides. Besides, we all know the rule behind debate on the internet.
Because it is an important part of my religion, and has been for thousands of years.SpaceSpork said:
(Also, my Captcha asked me to type the symbol for Mu. What the fuck?)
Going exactly by that definition it is mutilation, as you're removing part of the persons body. Using that word obviously is meant to get peoples attention, but its still way better than the extremely ignorant sounding people complaining that the way a penis actually looks naturally is weird and gross.gphjr14 said:
Also people saying you're taking away people's choice need to learn to read English. This is GIVING you a choice. You aren't banned from ever being circumscribed, just from having one performed on you before you can make the choice yourself.
The procedure is purely cosmetic, it provides no medical benefit. It was originally for people living in the desert for a real purpose, adopted into religious practice, and then readopted by puritans in America to try to stop boys from masturbating.
Wow, how badly wrong is that?ShakyFt Slasher said:
1) Religion is no reason to cut up parts of someone's body, especially a child who is far too young to be able to consent.
2) This is not any kind of problem in the modern world, with our regular bathing and all. All that's needed is to wash properly when you have a shower.
3) Really? My understanding is it makes sex less pleasurable. A lot of very sensitive nerve endings are in that bit of skin, more than anywhere else in the penis in fact. If you don't have a foreskin you are missing out.
Well done, San Francisco. Cutting up children's genitalia is a barbaric practice that shows the innate barbarism of any religion that calls for it.
Well okay when it comes to something like this everyone is going to have their own opinion on what parents can dictate and im not likely to change their minds.Jumplion said:
However for the sake of discussion I shall try to make some sort of coherent point.
Yes it is the parents job to decide what is good for their child. Unless of course the parents think something is good when its not. Honestly it really does have to come down to each individual case. To spank or not spank? Tough love or coddle? Which is better for the child?(please dont answer im just trying to make a point
). Cut or uncut? Honestly it just seems to be preference. Or now and then there are medical reasons. I myself got it done for a legit medical reason.
This.Necromancer Jim said:
Unfortunately in the US, "Liberal" means something totally different than in the rest of the world. Liberals and Conservatives here are both pretty much the same thing in different packaging. Both like to force their personal philosophies on everyone, both then deny having done so, and both then accuse the other party of doing it.Shock and Awe said:
But that's America for you - "you've got the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't contradict my personal beliefs."
Really? What about all the parents who choose to not give their kids vaccines, just as an example? There are all sorts of circumstances like that, where parents endanger their children, and nobody cares. Also, again, not to minimize those deaths, but 1 in 10,000 is incredibly low, almost statistically negligible.Chamale said:
Or because there was a medical reason for me getting it done?BlueMage said:
Keep your sympathies I dont want them.
I don't think that really holds up as everything can be considered an endangerment to a child's life. And as some people have mentioned earlier regarding an article on said 100 deaths, in comparison to other infant death rates in other circumstances it is about the same which is expected of a developed nation like the US. And as harsh as it sounds, it is only 100 deaths out of the millions born every year. It's more a testament to how the practice can and should be made safer through proper training and equipment, just like any other situation where infants are tragically killed (like your seatbelt example, that shows how education on properly strapping in a child in a seat could be better given).Chamale said:
Well, I'm circumcised and I'm a Christian and...
I think it should be banned until the child is 18 and is a consenting adult. It's a barbaric practice and it shames me to see fellow Christians supporting this so maniacally. It is mutilation. It is dangerous. It has killed baby boys and will continue to do so. It has absolutely no benefits beside being easier to clean and even then peh, that's not much.
But, then again, I'm not your average sort of religion goer because I'm... *gasp* a liberal!
I think it should be banned until the child is 18 and is a consenting adult. It's a barbaric practice and it shames me to see fellow Christians supporting this so maniacally. It is mutilation. It is dangerous. It has killed baby boys and will continue to do so. It has absolutely no benefits beside being easier to clean and even then peh, that's not much.
But, then again, I'm not your average sort of religion goer because I'm... *gasp* a liberal!
Other teams just bring in better players to improve, but I suppose that's not flash enough for the 49ers =P.
Here's the thing from my perspective. If you are an uncircumcised man or a woman saying that it is morally wrong to perform circumcisions you might want to check your credentials right now.
Of all the circumcised men how many complain about it? Not too many in my experience. And don't even try to bring up "female circumcision" it is not remotely comparable. That is an example of men perpetrating a form of social repression on women. Circumcision is usually done because the parents genuinely believe it's in their child's best interest or for honest religious convictions that you have no right to deny.
Less pleasurable? Apparently women find sex more pleasurable than men... do you feel awful and wish you were born as a girl just because of that? No probably not. If it is less pleasurable it's not noticeable or worth mentioning.
And finally saying that you should only be able to choose to have it done at 18 is absurd. If it is going to be done it should be done when they are a baby and will have no memory of it. If it hurt I don't care, I sure as hell can't remember it.
Of all the circumcised men how many complain about it? Not too many in my experience. And don't even try to bring up "female circumcision" it is not remotely comparable. That is an example of men perpetrating a form of social repression on women. Circumcision is usually done because the parents genuinely believe it's in their child's best interest or for honest religious convictions that you have no right to deny.
Less pleasurable? Apparently women find sex more pleasurable than men... do you feel awful and wish you were born as a girl just because of that? No probably not. If it is less pleasurable it's not noticeable or worth mentioning.
And finally saying that you should only be able to choose to have it done at 18 is absurd. If it is going to be done it should be done when they are a baby and will have no memory of it. If it hurt I don't care, I sure as hell can't remember it.
It's not just Jewish people who circumcision, as it says in the article, Muslims also believe in it.
I'm not circumcisied, my brother is, he seems as well adjusted as I am. Do any of you circumcisied people remember it? Do you remember pain? Or are you just adding the pain after the fact to justify your point? Yes if you're eighteen and you get circumcisied it will hurt, but as a baby there is less sensetiviy down there (and they're not as attached to it yet).
Yes, if it's for purely aesthetic reasons then its a stupid idea (I think mine looks fine). But many boys get circumcisied to easy in cleaning and yes it can protect against some infections. I say until kids are eighteen, they are the respnsibility of thier parents. Leave the choice to them
I'm not circumcisied, my brother is, he seems as well adjusted as I am. Do any of you circumcisied people remember it? Do you remember pain? Or are you just adding the pain after the fact to justify your point? Yes if you're eighteen and you get circumcisied it will hurt, but as a baby there is less sensetiviy down there (and they're not as attached to it yet
).Yes, if it's for purely aesthetic reasons then its a stupid idea (I think mine looks fine). But many boys get circumcisied to easy in cleaning and yes it can protect against some infections. I say until kids are eighteen, they are the respnsibility of thier parents. Leave the choice to them
Well, I also think that not vaccinating children is horrifyingly irresponsible.Avatar Roku said:
100 preventable deaths are absolutely worth preventing, if possible. You call 1/10,000 incredibly low, but it's higher than the murder rate in the United States. Whether it's murder or death by botched circumcisions, every preventable death is worth preventing. I'm not saying circumcision should be as bad as murder, but it should be outlawed for the sake of those 100 lives per year.
