Circumcision ban will go to vote in San Francisco

reply to post by Maslo


Yes you are correct. But women can get breast implants which as we know can cause breast cancers, pretty much eliminate breast feeding a child... oh and also mutilates the genitals!

breast implants should be outlawed, they create a negative self image... a weird obsession, and also fuel our societies obsession with sexuality. Which I guess isn't bad, but what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I still think San Fran is taking the wrong approach, it's a snip snip situation. Babies do not feel it, it did not traumatize me.... i do not obsess about foreskin or no foreskin. it's silly to even have that on a ballot in my honest opinion this is a matter within the family, not for gov to decide what to ban and how. Besides if it's banned, wouldn't we be religiously discriminating against the religions that require it. And that is not what America was ever about.

America is about freedom, founded by religious extremists... The only reason this is even an issue is because some very liberal people think they can just make decisions for others who they see as dumb, or brainwashed. Which might or might not be the case, but everyone has a right to decide what is good for them and their kids. It does not kill, it does not harm, plus if done later in life it hurts ALOT.

And if you wouldnt, you would die. So it is still a huge benefit. My point stands.

And my point still stands. A huge risk was taken regarding me that was without my consent. Whether I would die without it or not is rather irrelevant. The chance that I would be alive in a horribly complicated existence was far higher than my chance to be what I am, presently.

This society values the existence of life over the quality of it. I'd never be in favor of birthing a child with down's syndrome, a child that will be born with severe brain damage, etc. Those are all decisions that will be made about a child before that child can think for itself, let alone make decisions.

The probability of getting these diseases is already low, and circumcision lowers it by some small percentage. Not worth it, as most pediatric institutions state. Also, STDs are mostly irrelevant, because these are a risk during puberty and on, when the boy can already give consent to circumcision informed enough, IMHO.

Most pediatric institutions have been supporting circumcision.

As I said - no significant permanent mark. Antibodies in system dont count, that changes nothing for you, except immunity for smallpox. Analogy fail.

The hell it isn't a permanent mark. There is, forever, a specific set of proteins in my body that I didn't give consent to being there. That is far more than a cosmetic 'mark' - that's a functional and practicality mark. The fact that it is currently held to be beneficial makes no difference that the decision was made for me - and without my consent.

It protects the glans from outside, keeping it lubricated and more sensitive. The risk of pathogens is minimal with good hygiene.

It is vastly insufficient to protect the glans. Most people report increased sensitivity of the glans post-circumcision - and cleanliness did not affect viral transmission rates, as it has to do with the cellular structure of foreskin.

Well, some people believe that there needs to be compelling medical reasons when deciding in favor of such significant and permanent body modifications for children. I personally am not in favor of a ban, but I understand both sides of this argument, and both have merit.

Circumcision, or a lack thereof, is a choice to be made by each family. The medical data supports circumcision as being beneficial, with no real downsides. Conversely - it's not as though having a foreskin is going to doom you, either. The idea, however, that it is anything other than a family's decision is simply nonsense. Decisions regarding the well-being of children are made all the time. From decisions of whether to breast or bottle-feed, to decisions about what kind of language children will be exposed to.

I think, with that - we can come to the agreement that it's not the business of government (at any level) to decide whether or not a child should be circumcised.

reply to post by Chesster


So you don't see any difference between an adult woman deciding she wants breast implants, or an adult deciding his/her child should be circumsized?

reply to post by steve_montana


Yes I do... one is painless the childs experience, beneficial to a degree, and probably part of a custom... and the other one is painful, really has to do more with psychological issues probably developed at a young age about sexuality. Has to do with selling yourself which is immoral, and just for sexual deviance. Which is cool, cause whatever you do in your bedroom is your business.

Besides it's a non issue... it's not like any man really cares or misses the foreskin. Heck, I never even had a conversation about it ever. It's a non issue on the most obvious of levels. It's just a simple divisive tool to further alienate the people from the people and create a stupid divide when we have real issue we should be uniting on not finding petty ones that divide us further.


With all do respect I respect your opinion and appreciate you sharing with me so I can further evaluate mine and come up with the most simplest of statements.

i try hard not to listen to what's left, i could imagine how powerful it would be with armor.

reply to post by Chesster

Yes I do... one is painless the childs experience, beneficial to a degree, and probably part of a custom... and the other one is painful, really has to do more with psychological issues probably developed at a young age about sexuality.

The most important difference is that one is choosing for someone else without consent, and the other is just for the woman herself.

Babies do not feel it

Without anesthetic, they surely do.

reply to post by Aim64C

Most pediatric institutions have been supporting circumcision.

Any source? Most pediatric instiutions do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision:

en.wikipedia.org...

That is far more than a cosmetic 'mark' - that's a functional and practicality mark.

No, there is absolutely no functional or practical consequences, except immunity for smallpox.

I think, with that - we can come to the agreement that it's not the business of government (at any level) to decide whether or not a child should be circumcised.

I may agree with that, as long as it is done with an anesthetic and not payed for by public money. But it is not black and white issue for me, both sides have good arguments.

reply to post by jrod


I'm so glad I don't live in the states, not just San Francisco

This seems beyond ridiculous to me. Heard about this issue from my dad, who was NOT, and his take was that this made hygiene much more difficult. He stated that he thought all boys should be, for that reason. Think this came up in a discussion on kids or something. I also know that women who are partnered with uncircumcised men have higher rates of cervical cancer, because the bacteria that causes it is more common in those men. Plus, many do this for religious reasons, and it's a fact that this doesn't seem to take from the pleasure that "clipped" men get. However, not being a guy, I can't speak from a personal standpoint. I can say that, regarding the pleasure the woman gets, clipped is better.

The fact that people actually debate this subject is insane. Circumcision is unnatural and just deplorable; I mean, think about it: CUTTING OFF PART OF A KID'S WANG, AT BIRTH, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT (AND WITHOUT ANESTHESIA, CORRECT?).

Come on, people. Leave this crap to the Jews.

Originally posted by AngryOne
The fact that people actually debate this subject is insane. Circumcision is unnatural and just deplorable; I mean, think about it: CUTTING OFF PART OF A KID'S WANG, AT BIRTH, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT (AND WITHOUT ANESTHESIA, CORRECT?).

I think its really hard for people to discuss this subject with any coherence. I don't know if it is tied into the traditions behind it, or the whole area of "If I say circumcision is wrong, and I'm circumcised, does that mean I'm not as much of a man" thing, but really, the comparisons people are trying to use to show that circumcision is reasonable would almost be laughable if they weren't so sad.

This obsession with arguing for arguments sake, or this need to believe that circumcision is okay, make trying to discuss the topic a waste of time. If we were really interested in the facts, we'd look at the facts, then form an opinion, as opposed to first forming an opinion and then trying to find facts to back it up. We are all guilty of this at some point or another. We say, "My opinion is this, now I will selectively find data that 'proves' my opinion is correct". But really, it would be logical to read data first (from both perspectives, and with an open mind).

If I had a son at this moment, I would run through these thoughts: "A) There is no need for this procedure B) Its not my body, and thus my opinion on the subject is not important. C) If the child wants to do this, then he can make that decision when he is older.

This chain of reasoning, along with some of the studies that suggest that the pain of circumcision alters infant brain function permanently, make me think that not only is there no reason for the procedure, but that I'd be harming my son. And there you have it. There's no need for me to get crazy over the subject, since its a totally unnecessary procedure (unless you are religious), and my son can decide for himself one day. But, perhaps if I were defensive about the subject, religious, or believed that I had a right to alter my son's body in such a way, then I'd think differently.