SF Considers Ban on Male Circumcision (San Francisco: statistics, estimated, retire)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As there really is no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised penises, it pretty much comes down to which appearance is preferable. Personally, if I were to have a son I would most likely base my decision on what is most common in the area I was living in an effort for my son to fit in with the crowd. I know that we all should embrace our differences, but a lot of times children ridicule these differences. I would not put my son through unnecessary ridicule based on inconclusive evidence, whether that means he gets a circumcision or remains uncircumcised.
I find your conclusion incredible. You admit that according to your research paper there is no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised penises. Yet you think circumcision should be allowed. IMO, since it has no significant benefits, we should prohibit it. It is, after all, the mutilation of a child without his consent. Shouldn't something like that require significant benefits before we allow it?
This is one "nanny state" measure that I actually support the intent of, as circumcision is bad for kids' physical and mental health and most hetero or bi women in the US like them uncut. I'd have to ask my gay friends as to whether being circ'ed makes a difference but hetero women despise circ'ed male organs. However, circumcision is on the decline in the US as a whole and especially in the Western states and it's better that the government not get involved here. It will probably disappear on its own. So, even though the intent here is good, it isn't SF's business to end this practice (amongst non-Jews and non-Muslims) as much as I really do think it should be ended.
I think there are also definite religious freedom concerns involving banning circumcision - while SF's Jewish population, like the CA Jewish population as a whole, is so super-assimilated that they wouldn't care if circumcision was banned, SF's Muslim population would object. CAIR would assuredly sue the city if this actually got passed for violating the 1st Amendment. Similar religious freedom concerns involving Jews and Muslims killed bills in the State Legislature which would have banned circumcision in California.
oh, come on: Do you really think circumcision really damages a child mentally or even physically? next we are going to be told, serial killers can be traed back to circumcision..
I don't care if one does or doesn't have a little baby circumcized, but I don't think anyone has a right to make a judgement on the subject.
oh, come on: Do you really think circumcision really damages a child mentally or even physically? next we are going to be told, serial killers can be traed back to circumcision..
I don't care if one does or doesn't have a little baby circumcized, but I don't think anyone has a right to make a judgement on the subject.
Nita
How do you feel about routine baby hoodectomies? No one has the right to make a judgement about baby hoodectomies as well? Ugh, I know I should let this slide, but I just can't. Of course circ doesn't create serial killers, but how can you assume that the trauma of infant circ is completely benign to the child mentally and physically? You can make all the rationalizations you want and you can look at all the studies, but what it comes down to is cultural bias pure and simple. Our culture sees male circ as nothing more than a harmless medical procedure while it deems hoodectomies as GENITAL MUTILATION!!! That's just what the culture says, and it's hard to argue against it.
I live there (fourth generation, homeowner) and I'm much more concerned about effective and efficient city services than I am happy meal toys and foreskins. Things like police, fire, sanitation and schools are the primary concerns of a municipal entity and the current BoS is doing a horrible job with almost all of them while wasting time and tax dollars on ridiculous measures such as these. What a panel of freaks and losers who couldn't get a decent job in the private sector if their lives depended on it.
I live there (fourth generation, homeowner) and I'm much more concerned about effective and efficient city services than I am happy meal toys and foreskins. Things like police, fire, sanitation and schools are the primary concerns of a municipal entity and the current BoS is doing a horrible job with almost all of them while wasting time and tax dollars on ridiculous measures such as these. What a panel of freaks and losers who couldn't get a decent job in the private sector if their lives depended on it.
Whatever its called they rate a big fat fail on it. My supervisor is Carmen Chu and she's generally pretty level-headed as is Sean Elsbernd and occasionally Michela Alioto-Pier The rest need to be sent packing. Too bad we don't have city-wide elections.
San Diego and LA need to try and get a ballot initiative to cut California in half. ... .
Hey, just a thought, but wouldn't cutting California in half itself be a (rather brutal) circumcision? I'm just saying. (And then, too, which end gets tossed and which stays for the fun? I mean, is north the tip? ... or south?)
Banning circumcisions helps society by improving sexual relations between partners, which in turn, could possibly lead to a slightly more peaceful society.
HAHA, sorry and no offense but this is just BS and sounds like some hippie, bleeding heart stuff to me. I don't buy this at all and there isn't any conclusive evidence to support it. It's not like countries with low circumcision rates are peaceful utopia's either.
Quote:
I hate to be a broken record, but the foreskin improves the sexual pleasure for the women by reducing vaginal dryness by holding in moisture in the inner foreskin, reducing friction while the foreskin moves incrementally, and creating a gliding action whereby the penis moves within the foreskin within the vagina creating multiple sensational contact points.
The foreskin also protects the head of the penis from desensitization. But all this information is likely moot to most of you folks because it's just a part of our culture, and it's just something that we are accustomed to.
It's moot because there isn't strong evidence to support this. You believe it because you want to and it supports your viewpoint.
Quote:
Parents should be afforded certain freedoms to do what they want with their babies, but you have to draw the line somewhere in terms of what types of medical procedures should be allowed. I see routine baby circumcision as child abuse just as I see smoking while pregnant as child abuse or just as I see feeding a baby alcohol as child abuse. We all draw the line somewhere, including uber social libertarians as yourself.
You keep going down this slippery slope then that line will be eventually moved to a place where you might not like it, then I guess there goes the consistency of your argument/position. Maybe one day society will be at a point where people don't want it, but until that point arrives I don't see a problem with it nor any reason to ban it. There isn't some huge movement to ban it, just a small group of bleeding hearts who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Also isn't this violation of religious freedom too? How would you get around that?
The compelling reason is that it's the disfiguring of a child without his consent. Why is that not compelling?
As far as I can tell, the only reason you think we should allow the mutilation of children's penises is that "We already mutilate children's penises, so we should continue to do so."
Well you seem to think that circumcision is disfiguring and mutilating a child. I don't consider myself disfigured or mutilated at all and I don't know anyone else who does. I've never heard someone wish their parents didn't circumcise them. You obviously have some strong opinion about this but it's just that. I don't buy into that BS that it's "mutilating" or "disfiguring".
Quote:
I'm not saying to ban every medical procedure where something can go wrong. It's a balancing act depending on the procedure - benefits of the procedure vs. risks and harms. Given that there are no benefits to circumcision, even one instance of a botched circumcision provides the justification to ban it. Imagine if your child lost the ***** of his penis? Wouldn't it seem foolish to have had him circumcised just so his penis could look like the other boys'?
You can argue there are benefits but either way, circumcision isn't a problem in society that needs to be banned
Quote:
It's not about my likes or dislikes, it's about the child's. It should be his decision, not his parents'. I totally agree with your last word - if people want to decide for THEMSELVES, to chop up their own penises, then let them have at it.
Considering the highly emotional arguments some of you have been putting up, it clearly is about your likes and dislikes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
