Circumcision for guys: I don't care. Actually helps to prevent some health risks apparently, and doesn't really matter.
Girls: Should definitely be illegal.
Girls: Should definitely be illegal.
San Francisco considering banning circumcision
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Okay - circumcision isn't exactly the worst thing you can do to a child, but still, you should let the the individual make that choice. I'm aware that it probably doesn't do anything particularly bad to the child, but they can't make that choice.
My stance on this is clear - unless it's a life-saving medical procedure, wait until the child is old enough to make their own decision.
My stance on this is clear - unless it's a life-saving medical procedure, wait until the child is old enough to make their own decision.
The government should not be able to forcibly remove existing rights from parents.Saucycardog said:
Unless this practice can be shown to be grievously harmful in nearly 100% of cases, which it is not, the government has no right touching it. Our government should have a firm "When in doubt, hands off" policy when it comes to abridging any rights. It is a currently existing right for parents to decide this for their children. It's one thing to prevent something from becoming a right, but once it's there? It will (and should) take a miracle to remove it from the people.
That said: Quit trying to ban things. Educate against it. Provide doctors with stacks of free, brief pamphlets that advise against it. Advise doctors to stop performing it. Let both doctors and parents come to the decision themselves, and it'll stick much better.
Agreed, educate to change ideals, don't just force them through law. That will just encourage stauncher resistance. IMO it's an unnecessary practice, though coming from Ireland, where it is not practiced, I can scarcely imagine WHY it has continued to be used outside of the Jewish community.Dastardly said:
People working out of habit, mostly. For others, it's based on old information from the medical community. But mostly just habit.Cyberbob87 said:
I'm circumsized (at the risk of OverShare), and it hasn't affected my quality of life in the least. I wasn't traumatized in any way, and have no recollection of the event. It's not that I "want" or "don't want" to be, because I don't really care either way. I'm not bitter at not having made the decision, any more than I hate that I didn't get to decide my name or height.
This is a case of people getting outraged on behalf of someone else. That's what leads us to the Nanny State. It should take the physical relocation of Mt. Everest to remove a right from the people, no matter how "ridiculous" we think it is.
People can make the argument that religion is "harmful," and that it is "forcibly imposed" on children. Will they outlaw all religion, then? No matter how ridiculous some of us may feel it can be, it's not my place to push for it to be outlawed.
Two can do this tango.RevRaptor said:
I heard a friend say once that uncircumcised men have dicks that look like dog's penis.
The argument goes like this:
You get smegma from your Foreskin(anyone who has one can attest to that) and add in the fact that before circumcision, the unexposed head of a penis looks like a nasty worm.
I'm inclined to believe him, my girlfriend use to hate looking at my smelly disgusting looking unclean dick. I feel really sorry for dudes who didn't have their cut and will never know how good it feels to not see a girl hold her nose for a blowjob.
OT: 1. Nobody will ever be able to tell the difference of pleasure from a circumcised man and an uncircumcised man, unless they have the procedure done themselves.
2.Different country's ladies have different tastes, "beauty(If we call dicks that now)" are in the beholder.
Stop being prejudice psuedo-fact spewing posters.
I was circumsised when I was around eight or so for medical reasons. This type of situation would still be allowed, right?
To be honest, I can see both sides of the arguments. However, I'm not so sure if it infringes on people's freedom of choices, because at the moment circumsision is a choice forced onto another person. There isn't really any choice to be infringed upon.
However, I'm not really sure what the big deal is. From what I remember, circumsision isn't painful at all with modern anesthetics (or can these not be used on infants? Even so, it's not as if they'd remember it). The "mutilation" point is somewhat more concerning, but seeing as how circumsised genitalia is definitely socially acceptable, perhaps even more so than the alternative in some cases. There isn't really any consequences from it.
Although, could anyone link to definitive proof that circumsision leads to less feeling during sex? Some claims in this thread have me rather worried... xD
To be honest, I can see both sides of the arguments. However, I'm not so sure if it infringes on people's freedom of choices, because at the moment circumsision is a choice forced onto another person. There isn't really any choice to be infringed upon.
However, I'm not really sure what the big deal is. From what I remember, circumsision isn't painful at all with modern anesthetics (or can these not be used on infants? Even so, it's not as if they'd remember it). The "mutilation" point is somewhat more concerning, but seeing as how circumsised genitalia is definitely socially acceptable, perhaps even more so than the alternative in some cases. There isn't really any consequences from it.
Although, could anyone link to definitive proof that circumsision leads to less feeling during sex? Some claims in this thread have me rather worried... xD
At least he doesn't man-handle their genitals... or so I hope.RabbidKuriboh said:
I think part of what really gets me about circumcision is the circumstraints.
Circumstraint, newborn immobilizer, they call it. Jeez. Way to give it a creepy sounding name and throw in a pun there.
If I started a religion that said that an important part of my religion is that all babies should have half of their left ear cut off at birth, should that be legal? Then why is it that cutting off baby penis skin is legal? Sure, your religion has been around longer and has more members, but does that make everything about the religion completely right and inarguable, any more than my stupid made-up religion?Avatar Roku said:
Are you sure? What if someone reads this and actually change their mid after reading?HyenaThePirate said:
Anyways you have a very weird view on the whole it is okay to circumcise children debate, which I see a lot of others have too.
"Why shouldn't we do it? I had it done to me, and I don't care"
This argument is so damaging in any culture, the "It doesn't matter so we'll keep doing it" mentality.
Why should money be wasted on things that do not matter and provide a risk (granted a small one) of complications during the procedure?
Medical procedures should still be allowed, because then there is an actual reason to do it.FateOrFatality said:
It is Mutilation because it is an non-medical procedure which in many cases is done for cosmetic reasons. To be honest it can be compared to cutting the tail of a dog (Which is / has been common practice for a lot of dog breeds for ages) And in a lot of countries cutting hte tail is illegal, so why should cutting a penis be?
As far as I know they do not use anesthetics on infants. I believe this is due to anesthetics being a quite risky thing to put a kid under.
I sadly have no link which states that it looses sensitivity, but I have heard some adults saying it. But I would also guess it changes from person to person. But logically thinking you have made an internal organ external so its not to weird if it is true.
Thats exactly what the law says it will do. Illegal to do it before 18 years of age:Radoh said:
"The measure, which would only apply in San Francisco, would make it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years of age, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs. The maximum penalty would be a year in jail and a $1,000 fine."
I see nothing wrong with this tbh
Circumcision should be perfectly legal, as long as the person in question is an adult. Theologically this presents no barrier to any faith which currently practices circumcision.
However removing the foreskin of a minor should be considered a criminal offence and should carry a jail term as severe or greater than that of violent child abuse as that is what it is.
However removing the foreskin of a minor should be considered a criminal offence and should carry a jail term as severe or greater than that of violent child abuse as that is what it is.
You could argue that this ban would not pass because it is religiously discriminating, but at the same time California's loose interpretation of the 14th Amendment makes me doubt their devotion to the American constitution.
I can sort of get where the proponents are coming from, it is painful, but at the same time i can't help but feel that cut away the rhetoric, they honestly don't know why they support a ban.
I can sort of get where the proponents are coming from, it is painful, but at the same time i can't help but feel that cut away the rhetoric, they honestly don't know why they support a ban.
They're probably right but tbh I had it for medical reasons (which they say they'd make an exception for) but I'd want my kid to get it done as a baby and not a teenager because having part of you penis removed really exacerbates the awkwardness of those years. That said my kid might not ever need it but I wouldn't want there to be even a tiny chance.
I do so very much love these threads. It's awesome being reminded by a sizable amount of people that my parents who have been very loving, stern, and supportive throughout my life are actually acid-drooling demon goats who villainously abused me by having a small piece of penis skin that is essentially vestigial and pretty damn gross-looking to boot cut from my cock.
Thanks, guys!
Thanks, guys!