Circumcision decision: City's proposed ban adds to debate

reply to post by Pyros


Dead on.

There are only two types of people in this world. Those who want to control others, and those who want to be left the hell alone.

I don't get the control types, but then I just want to be left the hell alone, and I think you too feel that way.

I do not agree with circumcision - unless it is medically necessary. I am not "cut" but I don't think those idiots on the City Council have any business dictating (pardon the pun) this matter to parents and doctors.

It's just another invasion into personal privacy, another step towards making us cattle and not citizens.

And we thought liberals actually believed in our individual rights.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


I appreciate people like you. Even though you folks disagree with something, you don't seek to make your opinion or view the way other's should be forced to live. That is why I didn't feel the need to post whether I agree or disagree with circumcision, because my views and opinions should have absolutely no bearing on anyone else's life.

Originally posted by Endure
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

I appreciate people like you. Even though you folks disagree with something, you don't seek to make your opinion or view the way other's should be forced to live. That is why I didn't feel the need to post whether I agree or disagree with circumcision, because my views and opinions should have absolutely no bearing on anyone else's life.

edit on 19-11-2010 by Endure because: speeeeling

edit on 19-11-2010 by Endure because: (no reason given)

I hear you bro or sis - no assumptions here. I just want freedom and I think you do too.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

I do not like the idea of circumcision but I dislike the idea of the state entering the family. Whatever the parents choose is up to them. All of these freedom lovers should get the state out of our homes.

Circumcision is genital mutilation, no matter how you slice it. However, it is ridiculous that the State would attempt to create a ban on the practice. It never ceases to amaze me how elected officials, who should be schooled in American political theory, would attempt to, for one, offend the free-exercise clause with this silly act. I really doubt this statute will fly for several reasons.

I had no idea that cities in the US could pass their own laws. I thought that could only happen at State level.

Surely if parents in San Francisco wanted their child to be circumcised, then they could just go outside the city's boundaries, and have the procedure done outside the city.

How are people reconciling ''I think that circumcision is genital mutilation/child cruelty'' with ''But the State shouldn't be involved in parents' choice'' ?

Surely a matter of mutilation/cruelty is exactly the sort of thing that the State should get involved in.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
How are people reconciling ''I think that circumcision is genital mutilation/child cruelty'' with ''But the State shouldn't be involved in parents' choice'' ?

That's a very good question. The way I reconcile it is that people have freedom to raise their children the way they want, within reason. Circumcision has long been an acceptable practice. There are no real negative repercussions that we know of. Correct me if I'm wrong.

People also teach their children their own values and indoctrinate them with religion, racism, politics and pierce their ears and even get them tattoos.

Circumcision is a cultural thing. Cultures change and I see us as being in the middle of a cultural shift. So, until people are educated enough to stop doing this, they will continue. And I believe it is their right, just like abortion. I don't support it, and I hope one day we will be educated enough not to need it, but for now, this is where we are and we don't need more laws to restrict the parents' decisions about raising their children.

I am always going to come down on the side of individual freedoms.

Originally posted by kissy princess
Circumcision is genital mutilation, no matter how you slice it. However, it is ridiculous that the State would attempt to create a ban on the practice. It never ceases to amaze me how elected officials, who should be schooled in American political theory, would attempt to, for one, offend the free-exercise clause with this silly act. I really doubt this statute will fly for several reasons.

Disagree. At worst, circumcision could be compared to elective cosmetic surgery. No worst than tattoos or earrings, IMO.

Someone should poll 10,000 16 year old boys, and ask them "What are the 5 worst painful injuries you have ever received"? I wonder how many will reply "when the surgeon mutilated my penis!". Not many, I would wager........

in a sick way this attempted law reveals too much about his own psychology. i disagree with his intention and direction; this would increase cancer rates among women and their gay communities: for that alone he should allow people to practice the rite of circumcision.

I could see certain bans being good, such as were SF to ban ionising radioactive waste from their shoreline where the navy dumps it.

Learning of your issues, I am reminded of the hair commercial being popularly touted on the telescreen:

the girls pull on it, play with it..cause it's mine, it's natural...

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel

In the California city that banned Happy Meal toys,outlawed sitting on sidewalks during daylight hours and fined residents for not sorting garbage into recycling, compost and trash, Lloyd Schofield wants to add a new law to the books in San Francisco: A ban on all male circumcisions. Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal. Circumcisions even for religious reasons would not be allowed. At this point, Schofield's proposal is an idea that would have to clear several hurdles to be considered.

News Source

More banning! Who and what supports these crazy ideas? This is just crazy to see people want to ban. I can't believe my eyes!

So let me get this straight...this person is trying to make it illegal for me to do whatever i want to MY body...not his, not yours and not anyone elses...

This is an utter joke!!

So what about those who get tattoos of religious symbols, or those who scar themselves in religious symbols.

Is it any wonder at all why this world is a mess because you have people like HIM in it...

Getting circumcised doesnt affect anyone but the person who has it done...If its a child who is getting it done without their consent then i'll tell you what...

BAN ALL CHRISTENINGS...

This proposed law will die a death that all stupid laws should.

For one it is anti-semitic considering Jews require all males to be cut.

I would think with the high gay population in San Fran they would be more pro circumcision.

Read this article.www.scientificamerican.com...enis-microbiome-hiv-infection

I support it...circumcision is a primitive practice. There is no substantial data that supports why it should still be done. So far all I've heard is people saying is that it more hygienic. Well it you don't shower regularly it wouldn't matter if you were circumcised or not. It doesn't make a bit of difference when it comes to hygiene. Also heard arguments in favor of circumcision that it supposedly prevents the transmission of STDs...Not true. There is no substantial scientific data that supports this claim.

From the article above:

Although this "research evidence is compelling," wrote the WHO panel assigned to the topic, there was little evidence explaining how circumcision might reduce a man's risk of acquiring HIV

and

Randomized Controlled Trial Shows Circumcision Does Not Prevent Male-To-Female HIV Transmission

and

Male Circumcision is Inappropriate for the Prevention of HIV

What we do know is that there have been many accidents and complications linked to circumcision.

Circumcision Surgery Accidents, Complications, and Atrocities
(keep in mind that this procedure is not necessary for their survival, it's not like they're getting kidney transplants)

Look, I'm not entirely against it....So if an adult male wants to circumcise himself, that's fine, but I think that it should be his decision and not the parents. There's a reason why nature gave you foreskin.

I would imagine that this is a matter that could be taken up by the Federal courts, because in banning circumcision aren't they stepping on residents freedom of religion, considering that circumcision is a requirement to some?

Chock it up to more invasive intrusion, because in my opinion the only persons who should have the right to decide whether or not a male child is circumsized should be the children's parents. (Unless of course, said parents are unfit and the child has been immediatly removed from their custody).

ETA: I do not personally agree with circumcision, I basically agree it's a form of mutilation, however, it is not my place to interfere with the religious beliefs of another.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's a very good question. The way I reconcile it is that people have freedom to raise their children the way they want, within reason. Circumcision has long been an acceptable practice. There are no real negative repercussions that we know of. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There can be some negative repercussions, but I'm not sure whether these outweigh any benefits or not.

Either way, there doesn't seem to be much practical benefit to circumcision, and it's bound to be quite sore for the child after the anaesthetic has worn off; also, considering that the child is incapable of consent, then there really doesn't seem to be much justification.

Any unnecessary and preventable operation on a young child should not be allowed, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People also teach their children their own values and indoctrinate them with religion, racism, politics and pierce their ears and even get them tattoos.

There's no way a child should be getting body piercings or tattoos until they are old enough to make the decision themselves. They're a human being, not a fashion accessory for their parents !

A child being brought up' with the views and beliefs of their parents is unavoidable. Whether these views and beliefs cross over in to indoctrination, is rather subjective, and consequently impossible to be defined, as to whether they are tantamount to cruelty.

Circumcision and piercings are clearly unnecessary procedures, that affect a child physically.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Circumcision is a cultural thing. Cultures change and I see us as being in the middle of a cultural shift. So, until people are educated enough to stop doing this, they will continue. And I believe it is their right, just like abortion. I don't support it, and I hope one day we will be educated enough not to need it, but for now, this is where we are and we don't need more laws to restrict the parents' decisions about raising their children.

It is my belief that when we are working out what's best for society, and what laws and rights should apply, that we should detach ourselves from previous cultural beliefs, customs and norms as much as possible, so as we can come to the fairest and most logical decision on any given issue.

In the case of circumcision, if we ignore any previous cultural factors or influence, then there doesn't appear to be much logical ground to allow the procedure to go ahead on a child, when it must cause, at the very least, unnecessary physical discomfort for the infant.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am always going to come down on the side of individual freedoms.

I disagree with you, and here's why:

The individual whose ''freedoms'' you are siding with in this instance, isn't the individual who's having his foreskin lopped off !

I am circumsised but didn't circumsise my new baby boy. I think it's a stupid tradition. I see it as child abuse. Why can you claim freedom of religion to do this to a kid? When a muslim says it's his religion to rape his wife then people get crazy. I think it's a great law that might actually get people to look closer to what they are actually doing to their kid. If the sf city council don't bring this up who will?

reply to post by mayabong


For me, the main problem is this is simply another case of the State coming in and dictating more and more of our private decisions. When does it end? How far will 'nanny states' evolve in the coming years?

As I stated above, I don't agree with the practice, however, what I disagree with more is our goverments coming in and dictating more and more of what we're allowed (or not allowed) to do.

Me thinks the guy must have some mental problem with his manhood. It's a fact women like an uncut man because they last longer. If you don't believe it just ask me.

reply to post by ProvehitoInAltum


I agree I am totally with you mostly. I just wonder wher the line is drawn for child abuse. If my doctor hits my kid he will probably go to jail but if he takes a sharp object and chops off a nice piece of skin that's perfectly fine. I don't see this law passing but I think more importantly it just gets people to look closer at their beliefs. I realize it's tradition and most people think it's what you do without thinking twice. I never saw it but the thing that changed my girls mind were some vids of the practice. Can't really find them now but I will when I get off this darned iPhone.

Peace my friend
mike