• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

Tyrannosaur

Banned
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
156
Reaction score
32
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Looks like there's a good chance that circumcision will be banned in San Francisco? Could this be the first step towards banning circumcision in the entire United States? Do you think male circumcision should be illegal or not?

SAN FRANCISCO — A group opposed to male circumcision said on Tuesday they have collected more than enough signatures to qualify a proposal to ban the practice in San Francisco as a ballot measure for November elections.

But legal experts said that even if it were approved by a majority of the city's voters, such a measure would almost certainly face a legal challenge as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion.

Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys, and is also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.

The leading proponent of a ban, Lloyd Schofield, 59, acknowledged circumcision is widely socially accepted but he said it should still be outlawed.

Read more: Circumcision ban in San Francisco considered - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com
 
This is stupid
 
It should be the person's choice, when they become an adult (or possibly even a teenager) and they decide they want to mutilate their penis, then they can do so. Parents shouldn't force their infants to have it done to them at birth.
 
Last edited:
Commonly accepted genital mutilation as far as I can tell.
 
It should be the person's choice, when they become an adult (or possibly even a teenager) and they decide they want to mutilate their penis, then they can do so. Parents should force their infants to have it done to them at birth.

Wait, first you say it should be their choice, then you say parents should do it and not give them a choice. Which is it?
 
Is it bad that I didn't know what circumcision was until I was 17?

I believe the World Health Organization determined that circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV that uncircumcised men.

WHO | World Health Organization

An important consideration, particularly for San Francisco.
 
1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.


If that's not improved upon in an augmented fashion, I don't know what is. :)
 
Is it bad that I didn't know what circumcision was until I was 17?

I believe the World Health Organization determined that circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV that uncircumcised men.

WHO | World Health Organization

An important consideration, particularly for San Francisco.

I have seen that argument before, and that is one reason why it makes sense today... The other reasons are religious tradition. It's kind of a weird tradition that seems to have no explanation for it in religious texts.
 
Is it bad that I didn't know what circumcision was until I was 17?

I believe the World Health Organization determined that circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV that uncircumcised men.

WHO | World Health Organization

An important consideration, particularly for San Francisco.

But the link you provided explicitly says that circumcision only reduces the risk of contracting HIV in heterosexual men, if that's what you were alluding to.
 
Describing it as "multilation" is nothing but hyperbolic emotionalism aimed at trying to denigrate any that oppose you.

The removal of the foreskin doesn't deprive the indiviudal of an essential part of the penis. It doesn't significantly irreparably damage the parts (conception is still possible, sex is still pleasurable). Whether or not it "disfigures" it is entirely in the eye of the beholder, as it matters if it "spoils the attractiveness" of the penis. Indeed, with how common the procedure is compared to non-circumcized, you could argue that the attractiveness in our society is more spoiled by non-circumsision.

It is not a good analog to female genital circumsision which does significantly decrease the pleasure that the female experiences through intercourse.

That's not even touching on the difference between circumsision having legitimate arguably benefits to the person where as there's little actual benefits to the female for traditional female genital circumsision that I've ever seen.
 
[stereotypical gay san francisco joke]Obviously the people making the laws in San Fran just have a fetish for uncut guys[/stereotypical gay san francisco joke]
 
Back
Top Bottom