SF Considers Ban on Male Circumcision (San Francisco, Ontario: sale, renting, versus)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

All the blather, pseudo-science and opinion aside, the issue is a government entity wanting to codify and control a matter of personal choice and parental prerogative. What's next, legislating how long you'll be allowed to live once you've passed the peak of your productivity?

"Soylent Green is people!"

If it did pass, it would almost assuredly be struck down.

Circumcision is a very bad thing but there is such a thing as the First Amendment. CAIR would go after SF just like they've gone after Oklahoma along with the ACLU and Jewish groups which normally wouldn't side with CAIR on most issues.

Although on the positive side, it would help bring Jews and Muslims together

[jzt83]

Originally Posted by sav858

Well there is much stronger evidence that female circumcision is more harmful than male, how many times does that need to be repeated for you? And since you want to go down that slippery of "well then you must also support this..", since you seem to be against any procedure that is not necessary then I can assume that you are also against any abortions where the mother lives' is not in danger? Is that correct? Are you against most abortions as well?
.

Show me the evidence that hoodectomies are more harmful than male circumcisions. For abortions, I am undecided as I have not investigated the issue far enough to come to conclusion. I do tentatively lean towards being for it to keep the population from increasing from a faster rate and to reduce the number of children born into broken homes.

[jzt83]

According to a study performed by the British Journal of Urology International:

"The ***** of the circumcised penis is less
sensitive to fine touch than the ***** of the
uncircumcised penis. The transitional region
from the external to the internal prepuce
is the most sensitive region of the
uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than
the most sensitive region of the circumcised
penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive
parts of the penis"

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

[hoffdano]

For many this is an aesthetic issue. Why is this materially different than body piercings, many done in very delicate areas? These carry risk of infection, and there is NOT ONE medical reason for do them. It is considered I suppose an issue of personal expression. Why allow this completely unnecessary procedure?

I see no reason for the city to ban the procedure.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by user376

I see you didn't attempt to justify what was shown in the video. I assume you can't.

I guess only "emotional" people object to the pointless infliction of pain on children.

So are you against the fast food toy ban as well? You should be with this line of thinking.

Because you see making kids fat is inflicting pain and emotional turmoil on children as well.

We have all seen the mean kids make fun of the fat kids. You think that is less emotional being emotionally tortured by your peers than having your weiner cleaned up at birth??

You don't think that the fat people of the world, looking back, would want their parents to tell them NO so that they wouldn't be fat teens and turn into fat adults?

It is your job as a parent to do what you THINK it right?

This isn't the kind of thing that can wait til the kid decides. Who the heck is willing to get a circumcision at 17 yrs old? Even if it helped them with disease prevention.

[jzt83]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

So are you against the fast food toy ban as well? You should be with this line of thinking.

Because you see making kids fat is inflicting pain and emotional turmoil on children as well.

We have all seen the mean kids make fun of the fat kids. You think that is less emotional being emotionally tortured by your peers than having your weiner cleaned up at birth??

You don't think that the fat people of the world, looking back, would want their parents to tell them NO so that they wouldn't be fat teens and turn into fat adults?

It is your job as a parent to do what you THINK it right?

This isn't the kind of thing that can wait til the kid decides. Who the heck is willing to get a circumcision at 17 yrs old? Even if it helped them with disease prevention.

Circumcision has zero to very little benefits but has a high level of negative consequences. It is flat out child abuse and child abuse is illegal. It is flat out genital mutilation on baby boy and gential mutilation on baby girls is illegal as well (do a search of "hoodectomy", which is akin to male circ and has a low rate of complications). So your line of thinking should allow parents to beat up their children? Your line of thinking is that it's okay to physically abuse babies needlessly just because everyone gets picked on in life? So you think parents should have the right to do whatever they please to their baby because it's your god given right? You think it's your right to give babies ecstacy and alcohol because you own the child? One could make the arguement for the bennefits for giving a baby ecstacy and alcohol, but it's illegal because the cons outweigh the pros by a large margin, just as the cons of circ outweigh the pros by a large margin.

Actually certain types of bullying is illegal when it's consider harrasment. You can get restraining orders for that. In extreme forms of bullying, the perpetrator can be incarerated. Circumcisions on babies too should be banned and be considered a felony except for rare medical conditions. So you think it's okay to abuse physically and mentally because everyone gets picked on at some point? IF that is the case, assault and other violent crimes should be legal since that is exactly what is done to babies legally.

BTW, most men of the world are intact and wouldn't have it any other way. Most women of the world prefer intact males and wouldn't have it any other way. It's mostly Americans and crazy reliougous people who think circumcision is okay because they life in a world of dellusion and ignore reality. Most nations either ban medical circumcision on babies or highly discourage it because it's deemed a non-medical procedure. Only in America and a handulf of nations condone circumcisions on babies in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it. This indicates how dellusional Americans are and how many Americans are flat out ignorant. When it comes to circumcisions, Americans are either ignorant or in denial of reality. Most men are too proud to admit to being mutilated. Most women are in denial about the impacts of circ because they are not circumcised themselves. It is the culture that is holding us back to this barbaric ritual and someday, hopefully soon, many Americans will wake up to the reality and do something about it. It just hasn't hit crital mass yet.

[jzt83]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

For many this is an aesthetic issue. Why is this materially different than body piercings, many done in very delicate areas? These carry risk of infection, and there is NOT ONE medical reason for do them. It is considered I suppose an issue of personal expression. Why allow this completely unnecessary procedure?

I see no reason for the city to ban the procedure.

I agree, but it should not be performed on BABIES!!! THis is why it's illegal to pierce a newborn babies ears or give babies tattoos. If this measure bans all circ even on adults, I would have to consider whether or not to be for it. I think adults should be able to do it if they want.

[The Land]

Some of you are ridiculous, I don't remember being circumsized as don't most people that had this done as a baby. Do you remember being born? NO, that is also a traumatic experience for a baby more so than circumcision. Should we ban birth too? Also you won't find many American women that prefer a uncircumsized penis. LOL if you think otherwise.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by jzt83

I agree, but it should not be performed on BABIES!!! THis is why it's illegal to pierce a newborn babies ears or give babies tattoos. If this measure bans all circ even on adults, I would have to consider whether or not to be for it. I think adults should be able to do it if they want.

It is illegal to pierce a baby's ears? At what age is it illegal and where is it illegal?

Nita

[sav858]

Originally Posted by jzt83

Show me the evidence that hoodectomies are more harmful than male circumcisions. For abortions, I am undecided as I have not investigated the issue far enough to come to conclusion. I do tentatively lean towards being for it to keep the population from increasing from a faster rate and to reduce the number of children born into broken homes.

Female genital cutting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So basically the foreskin of a baby is worth saving more so than an actual baby itself, wow I still don't get some of this bizarre line of thinking by some of you bleeding hearts.

And I'll just repost calbear11's post since this what I'd pretty much say:

Originally Posted by calbear11

Sorry I had to edit this post because I thought you were again mentioning female genital cutting. The removal or trimming of the clitoral hood is a very rare practice, so I do not know if enough reliable studies have been done to determine the cost/benefit of the practice. If the cost/benefit of the practice is the same as male circumcision I would definitely support the parent's decision for such an operation. However, the aesthetics are not as obvious as with male circumcision. Like I mentioned earlier, I would base my decision whether to have my child circumcised or not on what is most common in the area I was living. Since this practice is not very common at all, I would likely opt for my daughter not to get the operation unless evidence surfaced of significant benefits.