Circumcision Ban to Appear on San Francisco Ballot

[Baltim]

It's protected under freedom of religion. It is central to the Jewish and Muslim faiths. Male circumcision is not harmful nor is it "genital mutilation." Under the same grounds San Francisco should ban transexual surgeries as they literally are genital mutilation and irreversible. What if a religion finds piercing to be something important? I've seen babies with pierced ears, why aren't they going after that?

Do you really not see the difference between an elective surgery undertaken by an adult who had undergone years of therapy before hand and an unnecessary surgery performed on an infant who is too young to understand what is happening, let alone give consent?

Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

On the ear piercing issue: personally I hate seeing babaies with pierced ears but at least if the earrings are removed then the holes heal up. A foreskin doesn't grow back so your comparison is pointless and brings nothing to the debate.

 

[shintao]

I'm with you there. I don't like bans of private behaviour any more than I like people inflicting cosmetic/religious injury on a new-born baby. Life's full of conflicting ideas and ethics, ain't it?

Yes it is, in this world where no harm does not necessarily mean no foul.

Clitoridectomy: A Nineteenth Century Answer to Masturbation

 

[Bluespade]

You must have problems comprehending the parent-child relationship. Children are wards of their parents until adulthood, so arguing that a circumcision is wrong, because a baby doesn't give consent is absurd beyond belief.

Do you really not see the difference between an elective surgery undertaken by an adult who had undergone years of therapy before hand and an unnecessary surgery performed on an infant who is too young to understand what is happening, let alone give consent?

Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

On the ear piercing issue: personally I hate seeing babaies with pierced ears but at least if the earrings are removed then the holes heal up. A foreskin doesn't grow back so your comparison is pointless and brings nothing to the debate.

 

[shintao]

It's protected under freedom of religion. It is central to the Jewish and Muslim faiths. Male circumcision is not harmful nor is it "genital mutilation." Under the same grounds San Francisco should ban transexual surgeries as they literally are genital mutilation and irreversible. What if a religion finds piercing to be something important? I've seen babies with pierced ears, why aren't they going after that?

There is no protection for freedom of religious rituals, just for freedom of religious belief.

 

[shintao]

You must have problems comprehending the parent-child relationship. Children are wards of their parents until adulthood, so arguing that a circumcision is wrong, because a baby doesn't give consent is absurd beyond belief.

Libertarians would argue against your law backed ideals, by saying children should possess the same equal rights, as adults. I don't agree with the libertarian view however, just noting it's existence.

 

[The Mark]

Hmmm....

I find myself thinking that, were I the dictator of America, I would ban all circumcision unless it is with the consent of the person who it is performed upon - even for religious reasons.

They can have it done later, when or if they decide to join a faith that requires it. Or if they think it a good hygienic choice. Or whatever.
But I tend towards thinking that allowing it to be performed on children without their consent is a bit…wrong.

Perhaps I'm missing something....

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

You must have problems comprehending the parent-child relationship. Children are wards of their parents until adulthood, so arguing that a circumcision is wrong, because a baby doesn't give consent is absurd beyond belief.

No, it isn't. It's illegal to beat your children. It's also illegal to chop off their ears (even though it doesn't necessarily impair their hearing).

Having custody of a child doesn't mean you can do whatever you like. There are still laws in place to protect children from things that are actually very similar to circumcision. In fact, cutting off any body part of your child for non-medical reasons would land you in jail, except the foreskin.

Why is the foreskin different?

 

[Removable Mind]

No, it isn't. It's illegal to beat your children. It's also illegal to chop off their ears (even though it doesn't necessarily impair their hearing).

Having custody of a child doesn't mean you can do whatever you like. There are still laws in place to protect children from things that are actually very similar to circumcision. In fact, cutting off any body part of your child for non-medical reasons would land you in jail, except the foreskin.

Why is the foreskin different?

I would kind of like to think that the proof is in the pudding.

All you guys who can recall feeling the pain from your circumcision, and really believe that the impact of that experience caused future suffering, whether it be any one of the following ways (1) physically, (2) mentally, or (3)spiritually..."RAISE YOUR HANDS"! :2wave:

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I would kind of like to think that the proof is in the pudding.

All you guys who can recall feeling the pain from your circumcision, and really believe that the impact of that experience caused future suffering, whether it be any one of the following ways (1) physically, (2) mentally, or (3)spiritually..."RAISE YOUR HANDS"! :2wave:

If the customary mutilation were to cut off the top half of the ears, I wonder if people would feel any differently.

 

[X Factor]

So the Constitution doesn't apply? You know, First Amendment and such...

If the law is passed, I'm sure it'll be challenged on precisely that.

 

[Bluespade]

Libertarians would argue against your law backed ideals, by saying children should possess the same equal rights, as adults. I don't agree with the libertarian view however, just noting it's existence.

This has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy. This has to do with the law of the land.

 

[X Factor]

I am amazed at the hypocrisy going on here.

Most of us probably come from places that decry the horrors of female genital mutilation, and yet we're irritated that San Fran banned circumcision? Before you tell me they don't compare, yes, sometimes they do. The practice of FGM is widely variable. Sometimes it involves total removal of the external genitalia, and sometimes it removes relatively little. But all of it is FGM.

I knew somebody would do this, compare the two. Details actually matter. Removing the clitoris is tantamount to removing the penis. Saying the two are comparable only cheapens the true brutality of FGM.

It also removes the majority of the nerve endings in the penis. An intact male penis has about 2400 nerve endings. A circumcised penis has about 4000. That's an 80% reduction in sensitivity, and that's why people started doing it in Christian societies.

In what world is 2400 more than 4000

 

[Bluespade]

wtf are you talking about? This has nothing to do with child abuse, or chopping ears off. You're being outright dishonest, trying blur the issues. Circumcision is a medical procedure with religious origins, and practical applications, however hard you try, you can't distort that fact. If you don't agree with circumcisions, don't have them done to your children. It's none of your business if other parents choose to give their kids circumcisions.

No, it isn't. It's illegal to beat your children. It's also illegal to chop off their ears (even though it doesn't necessarily impair their hearing).

Having custody of a child doesn't mean you can do whatever you like. There are still laws in place to protect children from things that are actually very similar to circumcision. In fact, cutting off any body part of your child for non-medical reasons would land you in jail, except the foreskin.

Why is the foreskin different?

 

[Crosscheck]

I guess it all comes down to different strokes, different folks.
Whatever sails your boat.

http://www.africanconservancy.org/member/bodyart/surmadisk.html

 

[Removable Mind]

I would kind of like to think that the proof is in the pudding.

All you guys who can recall feeling the pain from your circumcision, and really believe that the impact of that experience caused future suffering, whether it be any one of the following ways (1) physically, (2) mentally, or (3)spiritually..."RAISE YOUR HANDS"! :2wave:

If the customary mutilation were to cut off the top half of the ears, I wonder if people would feel any differently.

You know...I'm been thinking about your comment. And I would say that if I had my penis exposed all of the time...and it was like winter time, then I might want to have foreskin. Other than that...I'm really glad that I had the procedure.

I really do see it as a man's health thing. There is a host of infections that men might be exposed to. And actually there are health benefits for women who have sex with men who are circumcised.

Foreskin is a great hiding place for STD's.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I knew somebody would do this, compare the two. Details actually matter. Removing the clitoris is tantamount to removing the penis. Saying the two are comparable only cheapens the true brutality of FGM.

In what world is 2400 more than 4000

Typo. 24000.

Like I said, the practice of FGM varies widely place to place. Sometimes they remove the entire vulva, sometimes just the clitoris, sometimes just the inner lips. It really depends where you are, and what tribe you're talking about. Certain types of FGM are therefore comparible to circumcision.

In terms of nerve reduction, removing the clitoris is actually not that far off from removing the foreskin. The foreskin and the tissue under it, most of which is also removed in circumcision, contains most of the nerve endings in the penis.

 

[Temporal]

I did not get my son circumcised. It's an unnecessary cosmetic and traditional procedure that causes needless suffering in an infant. I did research before coming to my decision and I feel that the medical benefits are overstated and reflect a practice of trying to secularize and normalize a custom that is primarily cultural or religious in origins.

If people want to do it for religious reasons then all the power to them. I feel that the scientific justifications are not very strong.

The California law won't stick because it's a violation of freedom of religion and I disagree with it on those grounds, however no child of mine will have his foreskin removed unless he is suffering a serious medical complication that warrants it.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

You know...I'm been thinking about your comment. And I would say that if I had my penis exposed all of the time...and it was like winter time, then I might want to have foreskin. Other than that...I'm really glad that I had the procedure.

I really do see it as a man's health thing. There is a host of infections that men might be exposed to. And actually there are health benefits for women who have sex with men who are circumcised.

Foreskin is a great hiding place for STD's.

I already covered this. In many cases the protection is negligable, and it creates a false notion that condoms are less necessary. They aren't.

Men who are taught how to simply pull back the foreskin while bathing don't run any higher risk of infection. Some women need to do a similar type of things, if they have very pronounced or tight clitoral hoods. Shall we remove them too?

 

[Removable Mind]

Typo. 24000.

Like I said, the practice of FGM varies widely place to place. Sometimes they remove the entire vulva, sometimes just the clitoris, sometimes just the inner lips. It really depends where you are, and what tribe you're talking about. Certain types of FGM are therefore comparible to circumcision.

In terms of nerve reduction, removing the clitoris is actually not that far off from removing the foreskin. The foreskin and the tissue under it, most of which is also removed in circumcision, contains most of the nerve endings in the penis.

Whoooooaaasss, Mistress! Do you have a penis? I'd like to see valid information stating that most of the nerve endings in the foreskin of a penis. My nerves work great.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

wtf are you talking about? This has nothing to do with child abuse, or chopping ears off. You're being outright dishonest, trying blur the issues. Circumcision is a medical procedure with religious origins, and practical applications, however hard you try, you can't distort that fact. If you don't agree with circumcisions, don't have them done to your children. It's none of your business if other parents choose to give their kids circumcisions.

I'm not being dishonest. Removing the foreskin produces a noticable impairment in function of the penis in all cases. Even the perfect outcomes. The practical applications are mostly bogus, as discussed earlier. And the religious origins are not a good enough reason to remove the body parts of non-consenting individuals.

Let's pretend I was a man living in the 1800's. Would it not be my business if I advocated making beating wives illegal?

Consent is the big issue here.

 

[Removable Mind]

I'm not being dishonest. Removing the foreskin produces a noticable impairment in function of the penis in all cases. Even the perfect outcomes. The practical applications are mostly bogus, as discussed earlier. And the religious origins are not a good enough reason to remove the body parts of non-consenting individuals.

Let's pretend I was a man living in the 1800's. Would it not be my business if I advocated making beating wives illegal?

Consent is the big issue here.

Again, do you have a penis. If my nerves worked any better, I don't think that I can handle it. Please provide scientific studies that state your claims.

 

[X Factor]

I did not get my son circumcised. It's an unnecessary cosmetic and traditional procedure that causes needless suffering in an infant. I did research before coming to my decision and I feel that the medical benefits are overstated and reflect a practice of trying to secularize and normalize a custom that is primarily cultural or religious in origins.

If people want to do it for religious reasons then all the power to them. I feel that the scientific justifications are not very strong.

The California law won't stick because it's a violation of freedom of religion and I disagree with it on those grounds, however no child of mine will have his foreskin removed unless he is suffering a serious medical complication that warrants it.

Wow, deciding to do what you believed to be best for your son and supporting other parents' rights to do the same. What a radical position.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Whoooooaaasss, Mistress! Do you have a penis? I'd like to see valid information stating that most of the nerve endings in the foreskin of a penis. My nerves work great.

Here's one from a site you may want to look through.
What is lost after circumcision?

If you'd rather go pro/con, debatepedia's first point on "con" is exactly that it is far more nerve-rich than any other part of the penis.
Argument: Foreskin is important to sexual intercourse and pleasure - Debatepedia

That's great. The body can adjust to a lot. But how do you really now the before and after?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Again, do you have a penis. If my nerves worked any better, I don't think that I can handle it. Please provide scientific studies that state your claims.

Are you against FGM? Do you have a vulva?

Please. I'm not gay either, and I can support gay rights.

See above.

 

[Removable Mind]

Here's one from a site you may want to look through.
What is lost after circumcision?

If you'd rather go pro/con, debatepedia's first point on "con" is exactly that it is far more nerve-rich than any other part of the penis.
Argument: Foreskin is important to sexual intercourse and pleasure - Debatepedia

That's great. The body can adjust to a lot. But how do you really now the before and after?

Thanks...I really appreciate your links. The problem with them for me...in normal medical/scientific studies, you'll see quite a few citations related to the information, which is usually some form of corroborating studies. Meaning that the study data was successfully verified, repeated, etc.

I haven't read studies about female circumcision. So, I can't really voice an opinion.

I've known men who, as adults, who, for health reasons, have had to be circumcised, and stated that they didn't see a statistical difference in sensation. One thing that they all said that I could really appreciate is that while they having the procedure, they didn't actually feel the procedure . However, it was the healing process that was excruciating because having an erection would create substantial pain. And once that they healed...all was good.

Now, that would probably be a much more convincing type of study. - putting together data from a reasonable population of men who, as adults when through the procedure...rather than an anatomy perspective.

After all, that's the only kind of before and after study that would possible reveal sensations that were more pleasurable.

And since you're a woman...why is this topic of such importance to you?