San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[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.

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.

And I genuinely don't care that it pissed you off, and I genuinely hold that its a barbaric practice despite its significance to you.

This is a practice where a part of a man's penis is lopped off, typically when he is too young to consent. For what reason? Medical benefit? No, not really. Because its socially considered more aesthetic? Doesn't seem to quite justify it. Because the God of an ancient desert people demands it as part of an a blood covenant? Oh...

Look, its like I said, circumcision occupies a place in America that is private, significant, and relatively harmless. For this reason it should just be left alone. That doesn't mean I have to endorse it though, or pretend that it isn't on some level stupid and harmful when really it is.

Its a barbaric practice and the world will be a better place when humanity has the sense to abandon it altogether.

 

[Nieroshai]

With all the things San Francisco allows, they want to ban a middle-eastern procedure performed to prevent infections? Because male circumcision causes no lasting harm and only temporary discomfort. Female "circumcision" on the other hand is mutilation verging on a female version of castration. There's a distinct difference between removing a boy's foreskin to prevent infection and cutting off a woman's clitoris to make sex hurt.

 

[Dimitriov]

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.

1.Why would people who only know what its like to be circumcised complain, they don't know what they are missing. And some do anyway because they've done some research. Parents being ignorant and thinking its helpful somehow doesn't magically make it a good thing to do.

Comparing the loss of sensation to the difference of pleasure the other gender feels is a worse comparison than the female circumcision one. You're born the gender you are, and even sex changes don't make you actually built as you would if you were born a girl. The latter still involves cutting babies genitals for no reason other than people thought it was a good idea a long time ago.

If it isn't worth doing despite the pain it isn't worth doing at all. Its a cosmetic procedure, that's the price you pay for making aesthetic changes to your body. Whether its a piercing, tattoo, breast implants or circumcision, if you really want it done you'll get it done. But those who grow up and wish they hadn't been circumcised, or at least given a choice, have had their rights taken away.

The point is you are defending people who mostly wish you would just piss off. Stop getting involved in the fights of other people who don't want you there.

My point on the loss of pleasure thing is you aren't missing something if you never had it.

And what about my right to be circumcised when it is safest and easiest to do so?

 

[gring]

And I genuinely don't care that it pissed you off, and I genuinely hold that its a barbaric practice despite its significance to you.

This is a practice where a part of a man's penis is lopped off, typically when he is too young to consent. For what reason? Medical benefit? No, not really. Because its socially considered more aesthetic? Doesn't seem to quite justify it. Because the God of an ancient desert people demands it as part of an a blood covenant? Oh...

Look, its like I said, circumcision occupies a place in America that is private, significant, and relatively harmless. For this reason it should just be left alone. That doesn't mean I have to endorse it though, or pretend that it isn't on some level stupid and harmful when really it is.

Its a barbaric practice and the world will be a better place when humanity has the sense to abandon it altogether.

yup, ^this

/applaud

 

[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.

And I genuinely don't care that it pissed you off, and I genuinely hold that its a barbaric practice despite its significance to you.

This is a practice where a part of a man's penis is lopped off, typically when he is too young to consent. For what reason? Medical benefit? No, not really. Because its socially considered more aesthetic? Doesn't seem to quite justify it. Because the God of an ancient desert people demands it as part of an a blood covenant? Oh...

Look, its like I said, circumcision occupies a place in America that is private, significant, and relatively harmless. For this reason it should just be left alone. That doesn't mean I have to endorse it though, or pretend that it isn't on some level stupid and harmful when really it is.

Its a barbaric practice and the world will be a better place when humanity has the sense to abandon it altogether.

And I'm not touching that, or we'll be here all night. Agree to disagree, etc?

 

[Bantarific]

When

The

Real

Information

Is

Posted

Right

Here

Do

Not

Post

The

Wrong

Information, such as to prevent infection.
http://www.homiegfunk.com/RIC2.htm

 

[mjc0961]

3: It makes sex more pleasurable

No it doesn't.

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

And this is exactly the way I think it should be. Or of course, if for some reason a younger person wants it, they can get it done with consent from both himself and his parents or whatever.

 

[Nieroshai]

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.

And I genuinely don't care that it pissed you off, and I genuinely hold that its a barbaric practice despite its significance to you.

This is a practice where a part of a man's penis is lopped off, typically when he is too young to consent. For what reason? Medical benefit? No, not really. Because its socially considered more aesthetic? Doesn't seem to quite justify it. Because the God of an ancient desert people demands it as part of an a blood covenant? Oh...

Look, its like I said, circumcision occupies a place in America that is private, significant, and relatively harmless. For this reason it should just be left alone. That doesn't mean I have to endorse it though, or pretend that it isn't on some level stupid and harmful when really it is.

Its a barbaric practice and the world will be a better place when humanity has the sense to abandon it altogether.

There are so many practices out there that ARE barbaric that deserve your attention, that your sentiments are misplaced. The only people who practice it at all are those to whom it is a cultural norm and formerly a necessity of desert life, and those who get infections that call for surgical removal. Also, for a barbaric practice, it sure doesn't hurt, well, ANYONE.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Witty response:

They're going to ban parents from mutilating the genitals of their children without their consent because their religion tells them that sex is evil and the world is a better place when people don't enjoy it as much.

Criminal.

Longer response:

This is essentially the only case where forced, unnecessary surgery on minors is allowed for religious purposes (ear piercings might count, but are essentially a cosmetic modification, are mostly reversible, and constitute relatively minor surgery). You could not possibly get away with saying that your religion demands that a child's finger be severed.

Some facts because they seem to be lacking:
(1) circumcision is not cosmetic surgery
(2) the foreskin has a mechanical function
(3) there are numerous nerves in the foreskin and especially in the connective tissue that circumcision typically cuts through
(4) freedom of religion does not give you a free pass (this is why you can't stone your wife to death even when the Bible tells you that you have to)
(5) there is essentially no cleanliness issue with regard to having a foreskin (re the argument that circumcision is useful in case a boy refuses to clean himself: are you going to have his ears removed because he doesn't wash behind them?)
(6) circumcision leading to prevention of disease is a very, very contentious topic and the primary disease it claims to prevent against, HIV, is already easily preventable (protip: try teaching your kid how to keep himself safe rather than cutting off part of his penis)

The reasons this hasn't been stopped already:
(a) there is a sense among detractors that things are already going that way, so why bother fighting over it
(b) it's weird sex stuff and that's just not something legislators want to talk about
(c) the relevant religious lobbies are pushy, stubborn, loud, and wealthy
(d) people raised in universally circumcised groups think uncircumcised penises are "gross" (e) most people seem to think it's a purely cosmetic surgery (though how you can justify forced cosmetic surgery on an infant still baffles me)

And the big one:
(f) most people don't think it's that big a deal because sex is shameful and so what if they won't enjoy it as much because it's bad to enjoy it anyway (this is true of a huge fraction of the population, far more than just the religious)

 

[MaxwellEdison]

But that's the point. It ISN'T that dangerous when done 8 days after birth, the customary time. It's only that dangerous if done later.

Is there a reason, besides not being dangerous, that it should be performed?

 

[Bantarific]

Yes and I guess I could remove your eyes as a child without consent to prevent you from seeing dirty things on the internet or getting eye cancer, because we both know you won't miss sight if you never even had it!

 

[Chefodeath]

And I'm not touching that, or we'll be here all night. Agree to disagree, etc?

Agreed. Honestly, I'm sick of all these circumcision threads. Its really not that big of a deal either way.

 

[Bantarific]

Yes you aren't touching that because what are you going to say, "uhhhh, well I think it might reduce infection chance, oh wait it doesn't do that or anything else positive, so I guess I'm right because I Haz god."?

 

[Callate]

There's some evidence that circumcision reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission, actually.

Quite frankly, I don't think it's anyone's business. If you wanted to mandate anesthesia when the process is done, that's one thing...

 

[marfoir(IRL)]

Or because there was a medical reason for me getting it done?

You weren't by chance giving birth through your penis at the time, were you? Maybe there was a complication and you needed to have an emergency circumcision.

Other than that, I can't think of any medical reason that justifies it.

also... lol @ your c-cision

I dont know the details since I never asked. All I know is there was some sort of complication and it was done.
I wasnt given the choice but this is a situation where it is justified.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Witty response:

They're going to ban parents from mutilating the genitals of their children without their consent because their religion tells them that sex is evil and the world is a better place when people don't enjoy it as much.

Actually, Judaism does NOT say sex is evil. Quite the opposite, it says it is our duty. One of the first commandments (not one of the 10) is "Be fruitful and multiply", sex is not only allowed on the sabbath (one of the only things that is), but is actively ENCOURAGED, etc.

As for the rest of your post, mostly opinion and stuff I've addressed, so I'll just let it go unless you want otherwise.

But that's the point. It ISN'T that dangerous when done 8 days after birth, the customary time. It's only that dangerous if done later.

Is there a reason, besides not being dangerous, that it should be performed?

Not a concrete one, no. However, I can tell you how it has affected me, personally. As I've said earlier, it is a large part of my identity as a Jew, despite the fact that I'm not very religious (the above bible quoting was just from unwilling years of hebrew school). I can understand if that is not enough for you, but it is certainly has enough meaning for me.

 

[Bantarific]

The evidence that says it reduces HIV transmission has been directly contradicted by, drumroll please, the American Cancer Association!

 

[Bon_Clay]

The point is you are defending people who mostly wish you would just piss off. Stop getting involved in the fights of other people who don't want you there.

My point on the loss of pleasure thing is you aren't missing something if you never had it.

And what about my right to be circumcised when it is safest and easiest to do so?

You can't have the right to chose to be circumcised as a baby because you aren't mentally or verbally capable of asking or consenting to be circumcised. So outside of having a time machine that's a right you can't have just because it isn't logically possible.

And even if you don't know what you're missing doesn't mean you didn't have the right to keep it from birth. You can't chop off a baby's finger just because they won't remember it happening or what it was like to have all 10 fingers. It shouldn't be up to parents to decide what their child can live without with regard to parts of their body that isn't doing them any harm.

 

[Timeslament]

When

The

Real

Information

Is

Posted

Right

Here

Do

Not

Post

The

Wrong

Information, such as to prevent infection.
http://www.homiegfunk.com/RIC2.htm

This and again this.

 

[Jumplion]

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.

You sound callous because you're looking at the question the wrong way. You should be asking, "Ok, how many people die from NOT being circumcised." If the answer is zero then you should reconsider circumcision's merits.

And to everyone saying people should wait until 18... wtf? What do you think the answer is going to be? "Hello sir, would you like the skin on your penis removed?" ..... "Um, no...."

99.999999999% of people will say no unless they've got some horrible flesh eating disease on their foreskin.

People do get infections from uncircumcised penises, which in some rare cases can be fatal. While I don't have a specific number, I would estimate that it would be around 100 as well (take it with a grain of salt as it would be useful if I had data on that). Some people also get circumcisions for medical reasons other than "horrible flesh eating disease", like the foreskin being too tight or, again, infection.

It's a delicate balance of when to do it and why.