San Francisco considering banning circumcision

[QuadFish]

Uh... you ever seen what it looks like uncut? Yeah, cut it please.

See, in those rare moments some smart internet guy tricks me into reading a cut vs. uncut argument thread (with pictures) I can't help but think "AH GOD WHAT DID YOU DO!? WHERE DID YOU PUT THE SKIN?".

So... each to his own is I guess what I'm saying.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

]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.

Exactly. How do you think I would feel today, an uncircumcised atheist, if my parents had circumcised me at birth for religious reasons? Circumcision can always be performed - that is, if you're a Jew, I see no reason stopping you from going through this procedure when you're ready. But it's a one way street - you can't ever get that back, so if you grow up to not want a circumcision, or to even be against it as a practice, well, too bad, you have to live with a decision someone else made for you.

 

[DanielDeFig]

It should be something consenting adults choose to do, not something to be forced upon children.

Any arguments based upon "religious tradition" is invalid, because such things are irrelevant.

 

[Sethran]

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

its only really religious for jews, it doesnt keep you from getting any diseases, it was started to make sex less pleasurable (at least thats why christians did it)

Actually, it does help medically. Not having the skin covering the head of the penis makes it easier to clean - un-circumcised penises build up 'smegma' which can lead to bacterial infections if not cleaned out, a problem circumcised people don't have.

And, additionally, that is why it's a common-place practice for newborns to be circumcised. For health, not to make sex less pleasurable, though I have to say nobody can say for sure if it does unless they specifically don't get circumcised until after they've had sex, and then have it again, which is a stupid 'test'.

Also, it's done to children because it's much easier to get it off quickly and without pain at that young an age. Doing so to an adult would be far more expensive due to the cost of additional sedatives because of both sensitivity and overall size - that being several times larger than a newborn's.

 

[theklng]

i fucking love the argument "oh yeah it's freedom of religion that requires a boy to be circumsized". wait, so what if a religion requires a man to kill another man? should we alleviate murders just because "oh it's a religious practice, we can't interfere"?

i'm gonna have to call bullshit on this; it needs to get passed right away. while religious freedom should exist, no religion should have the power to molest or kill just for the sake of religion.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Since it's not a dangerous procedure and is basicly a cosmetic surgery required by a certain religion I say leave the jews a free pass on that one, it's not like a child feels anything.

Also if it was banned all around untill the age of 18 that would be quite drastic. Imagine that every jewish boy of age 18 needs to go to surgeon so he can have his penis put under surgery so he can be viewed as a member of his own religion... Eggh the stress and pain afterwards...

But while having any opinions against or for the circumcision, I'd say that for the parents who do it from vanity should be stopped. If there is no other reason than "Well it looks nicer" let the kid make his own decission on that one.

Also to people saying that this is as bad as people murdering for religion and selling people into slavery for religion...

Seriously? Look at your argument and than read it a couple of times... See how it sounds in your head and than please delete it. It's like I would say that stealing a car is equal to triple homocide. I do not say either act is justified. But come on...

 

[Bantarific]

How is this argument still going!???? EVERYONE READ THE LINK AND END THE MADNESS!! It has all the answers you need!!
http://www.homiegfunk.com/RIC2.htm

 

[Woodsey]

For a so-called "land of the free", America doesn't like giving people choices.

I get the impression that its only when its for infants who have no say in the matter and only when its not done for medical reasons.

Which, of course, is right. Religion shouldn't give you the right to infringe on another human beings right - and the right to not be mutilated without your consent is a biggie.

 

[StrangerQ]

Im just going to drop this here.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584

 

[Kashrlyyk]

....
Clearly you're for the law, that's fine. If it's as harmful and meaningless as you say than doctors should have no trouble convincing the parents that it is a waste of time(religion aside). And don't put words in my mouth.

I don't put words in your mouth.
EVERY HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT FOR AN UNHARMED BODY, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN SEX PARTNERS.

I can assume that you agree that no one, including the parents, has the right to force you to have sex with a certain person, for example by force marrying you to that person or by sex slavery.

It is only a little bit more complicated with the unharmed body, because there are reasons to harm the body, like vaccination and live saving operations. But religion or aesthetics or whatever bullshit reasons parents will deliver are not among them.
If there isn't an immediate medical reason to perform an operation you are not allowed to violate the human right of the baby to have an unharmed body.

ANYONE WHO SAYS VIOLATING THAT HUMAN RIGHT OF THE BABY IS UP TO THE PARENTS TREATS THE BABY AS AN ITEM NOT AS A HUMAN BEING!

Saying you feel ashamed for living in CA because they want to enforce that human right of the baby by taking away that decision from parents is identical to directly saying: It should be the decision of the parents.

The doctors can't convince parents that vaccination is a good thing, because parents are often enough too stupid. The result of that stupidity was that in CA after 45 years of noone dying because of whopping cough in the first 9 months of 2010 ten babies died because of it.
If doctors can not convince parents about vaccination, they will not be able to convince them of the stupidity of mutilating a babies penis. But then again as some people on this thread would say: "Ah, just ten babies. Not enough to take action."

 

[Sunrider]

It has been said over and over in this thread. "Let the kid decide for himself, when he is old enough".

That said, I have to quote the best thing said in this thread so far.

My thoughts on this matter, and other such cases where religions get a free pass: Fuck special protections for religion.

Performing irreversible cosmetic surgery on a newborn should be illegal, no matter what your religion is. We don't let Aztecs slaughter virgins and we don't let Old Testament Christians sell their daughters into slavery. We shouldn't allow any religious believers to get away with things that should be criminal acts.

Remember when religious advocates managed to restrict the marriage rights of consenting adults in California? Now, the people who want special protection for religion are arguing that people should continue to have the right to irreversibly cut off part of a baby's penis.

My thoughts exactly. I'm not sure how I would have said it, but that's exactly what I would have said, had you not beaten me to it.

 

[holy_secret]

Yes. I've never gotten it why Americans systematically choose to mutilate themselves. It's so damn ridiculous I can't find words for it. Why is it okay to cut off the foreskin, but not a person's arm, if they feel it's not a part of them?

This is a big step towards...hmm. What's the opposite of stupidity in a retarded way?

 

[blizard0am0i]

I think that arguing the semantics of words like "mutilation" and trying to apply it to this issue lead right into arguing about abortion, and perhaps I'm just biased but I feel that most people arguing AGAINST the circumcision of infants would argue IN FAVOR of abortion.

And that just seems silly yo me.

My opinion to state it: it hardly matters, should remain parents choice because it doesn't hurt the kid. Parents get to make medical decisions for their kids, deal with it.

 

[Mister Benoit]

Watch Penn and Teller's episode on it, that sums it up for me.

Pretty much this, the entire concept of it boggles my mind.

I was scared watching that episode for many reasons, but the biggest one was the couple debating if they should have it done to their child. The womans reason to have it done was because "If he doesn't get it done he'll be made fun of at school." Who the hell runs around at school with their junk hanging out for everyone to see.

I remember being scared around the age of 12 because I was watching some American tv show (I'm Canadian) and one of the characters was being made fun of because everyone found out he wasn't circumcised (He was European), then the women were repulsed by him.

Anyways, I've never encountered any problems, my junk is always clean and sex is awesome. GF loves it as much as I do.

 

[Skizle]

You can come up with a better straw man than that since its children not adult women.

Uh... you ever seen what it looks like uncut? Yeah, cut it please.

Alright. In some parts of the world, such as Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia, most men prefer the appearance of "circumcised" female genitalia. Does this give the parents of young girls the right to perform female genital mutilation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision]? If you think cutting a young girl's vagina for cosmetic reasons is acceptable, congratulations, you're not a hypocrite.

Female genital mutilation is more extreme than male circumcision, but it's in the same ballpark. A newborn cannot legally give consent to have his penis deforeskinned, and a newborn girl cannot consent to have her vagina delabiated. In neither case should parents have the right to make this decision.

If you really think that circumcision has benefits, let men and women choose the option for themselves when they reach the age of majority. Don't make it legal for parents to impose it upon their children.

You do realize that female circumcision is a Arabic practice right? and that its done in a completely different time period right? Female circumcision is done from anywhere from when she is a girl to when she is a teenager. the practice also recommends that the vagina be sown shut until she is married. This is only done so that the woman feels nothing in sex while the male can feel whatever he wants, in short its a domination thing that is constant in homeland Arabic culture / religion. Also the whole less sensitivity thing is a wash. It only means that if you dont feel as much you just go longer in bed, which is a win for anyone.

 

[Zenode]

The medical advantages are negligible unless you don't decide to keep a nice clean penis and wash it.

Personally, I believe it SHOULD be banned until that person is 18 so they can decide for themselves later. Its like your parents are forcibly mutilating a sensitive part of your body.

If anything this is giving MORE freedom...

 

[awesomeClaw]

Doing it on infants is NOT COOL and should totally be banned.

But if someone is an adult and wants it, then sure. Just because i can´t understand why someone would do it does not give me the right to ban it.

 

[SextusMaximus]

3: It makes sex more pleasurable

Phallacy.

More like PHALLUSY - amirite?

(someone shoot me for this joke?)

 

[Jonci]

I would have to say that there needs to be proof that there is any psycological damage from being circumcised as a baby/child. Personally, I was circumcised just by the decision of my parents. When questioned as a teen whether I had been or not, I didn't know the answer because my penis had always just been my penis. When I did learn what an uncircumcised penis looked like, I'm glad mine was circumcised.

Plus, I've heard more opinions from women that they prefer circumcised over not. Frankly, I don't see why it shouldn't be done. We pull wisdom teeth and cut out tonsils, sometimes before they even become an issue. Foreskin is useless, ugly, and poses, at least, a cleaning issue.

 

[Naepa34]

Its a cultural identifier from a bygone age. If an adult wants to be circumcised, then he should be allowed to, but parents forcing it upon their child, without consent, regardless of their intention, is questionable.
Think if this was about parents having their newborn daughter's ears permanently pierced at birth.