SF Considers Ban on Male Circumcision (San Diego, San Francisco: buy, school, tax)

[jzt83]

We'll just have to agree to disagree Sav858. When I said it should be a case by case basis, I meant certain medical procedures should be banned or allowed on a case by case basis. There are certain procedures that are banned because they are considered harmful to the patient. I personally feel that circumcizing babies harms them sufficiently to impose a ban on it. Just as I think that circumcising baby girls should be banned (which I assume it is, if not it should be). Also, I am not for a total ban on circumcisions, just a ban on routine circumcisions on newborns up to adulthood. Banning circumcisions helps society by improving sexual relations between partners, which in turn, could possibly lead to a slightly more peaceful society. 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. I am the type of person who'd rather err on the side of caution. It's intuitive that the foreskin is designed to perform certain functions, and it seems to perform that function quite well. There are just too many factors that come into play when it comes to the possible negative consequences of circumcision. I'm of the thought that surgery of any kind should only be performed if there is a compelling reason for it and if there are potential serious consequences, it should not be allowed on babies. This is why I am too against plastic surgery on babies. This is also why I am against numerous other procedures performed on babies that are not necessary. 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.

[calbear11]

I am completely fine with your disagreement with me, but a pet peeve of mine is when someone claims something to be irrefutable evidence and fact when it is not. There is no conclusive evidence that there is a decrease in sexual pleasure or that there is an increase in sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision. In fact, the evidence towards this is so contradictory that there still exists a heated debate among scientists on the matter, and hopefully will result in a more accurate study. It is my assumption though that the very fact the evidence is so contradictory is evidence in itself that there is no significant difference between the two, meaning this point of the debate is essentially worthless.

[jzt83]

Originally Posted by sav858

I don't agree, I just don't see it as a problem that warrants a law banning it.
As far as I can tell there is no conclusive evidence for this either way. And since there aren't any proven negative effects with it I don't see the need to ban something the majority of people don't have a problem with and that's not a problem. It just comes done to an ethics things I guess and I don't think it's a bad problem that needs to be banned.
Well I think the parents should decide if that's what you're getting at here.
Yeah we can both go down a slippery slope here; what should be ban next? ear piercings? dying hair? using deodorant? plastic surgery? whatever some group thinks of next?
I'm not really seeing these compelling cons here. And how does this help society's well being?
Again, we both can go down some more ethical slippery slopes, it works both ways. You're not really proving anything here. I don't see circumcisions doing harm.

Originally Posted by calbear11

I did a research paper on this very topic two years ago. There have been studies done to look at mental and physical affects of circumcision of infants. The results of these studies have varied results and show no conclusive evidence of negative or positive affects regarding mental and physical health of the infant as a result of the circumcision.

This is the same with measuring sexual pleasure between circumcised men and uncircumcised men. There have been studies that show slight decreased pleasure with circumcision, but there have also been studies that show circumcision increases sexual pleasure. All studies indicate that the difference is so minimal that it is insignificant.

The only conclusive evidence regarding the difference between the two is that circumcised men are slightly less likely to get HIV and HPV, but of course that does not mean that circumcision is an alternative to safe sex.

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.

Originally Posted by calbear11

Again, there is NO CONCLUSIVE evidence on decreased pleasure with male circumcision. Yes, there are some studies that suggest that there is, but there are an equal number of studies that suggest there exist no difference and still some that suggest circumcision increases pleasure.

There are infections that are more easily obtained without circumcision that mostly cancel out the list you have provided. In addition to that, the slight increased protection from certain STD's also would negate these drawbacks.

I really do not feel like diving any further into this as I have already written a research paper on this very topic. Let us just agree to disagree and move on shall we?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I doubt there will ever be CONCLUSIVE evidence that circumcision descreases pleasure since pleasure is such a subjective thing that is influenced by numerous factors. Anyhow, I just knew I shouldn't have jumped into this thread because I knew it would lead nowhere since male circumcision is just so entrenched in our society. I just had to respond out of visceral frustration. I just think it's incredibly insane that most Americans consider a foreskin a mere piece skin of inconvenience that should be removed. Before allowing such a procedure to be done to a senstive and important part of the human body, overwhelming evidence should suggest that it is more benneficial for the patient. But it seems the reverse has happened. In spite of lack the of compelling evidence of the consequences, circumcision was performed routinely in the US around the late 19th century for all sorts of crazy reasons. It just stuck and became a part of the culture. The medical community now seems to be doing whatever they can to justify the procedure when they should be stepping back and not allowing it all unless there is overwhelming CONCLUSIVE evidence that circumcision provides more benefits than drawbacks. In closing, I will say that one's mutilation is another's masterpiece.

[gentlearts]

This is hilarious. And they wonder why the rest of the country makes fun of California.

[jzt83]

Originally Posted by calbear11

I am completely fine with your disagreement with me, but a pet peeve of mine is when someone claims something to be irrefutable evidence and fact when it is not. There is no conclusive evidence that there is a decrease in sexual pleasure or that there is an increase in sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision. In fact, the evidence towards this is so contradictory that there still exists a heated debate among scientists on the matter, and hopefully will result in a more accurate study. It is my assumption though that the very fact the evidence is so contradictory is evidence in itself that there is no significant difference between the two, meaning this point of the debate is essentially worthless.

The same can be said for clitoral hood removal. So does that mean society should allow parents to choose whether or not their baby daughter has their clitoral hood removed at birth? Furthermore, keep in mind that there are women who do get hoodectomies on their own will and actually enjoy the results. But to have it done at birth without the baby's consent is just overstepping the bounds of ethical behavior the same way infant male circumcision does..

[jzt83]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

This is hilarious. And they wonder why the rest of the country makes fun of California.

And Americans wonder why the world makes fun of them.

[jzt83]

Originally Posted by Footballfreak

Socialism.

San Francisco is so ridiculous. They give California a bad name.

Banning clitoral hood removal on infant girls is socialism too. So is banning child abuse.

People should be free to expose babies to alchol. If the baby gets fetal alcohol syndrome, well that's every mothers' right to cause it. What gives the government the right to protect children and society!

[bluenoter]

I think SF banning circumcision is a fine and impressive idea. Of all the things SF could consider banning, circumcision wouldn't even crooss my mind. Happy Meal banning seems so common and unoriginal.

I would think banning fried foods, pizza, cokes, makeup, baptists, beef jerky, soup, meals on wheels, or poptarts would be an easier target to start this banning campaign. Circumcision prohibition makes for a bold social commentary. SF is going right to the nads.

[user376]

Originally Posted by sav858

But it is already permitted, so the people that want to ban it need to show why it needs to be banned and you have yet to do that. What compelling reason is there to ban it?

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."

If we are going to ban medical procedures where something can go wrong then we'll be banning every medical procedure out there pretty much. The rate of botched circumcisions is not any reason to ban it as it is low.

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'?

It's obvious you simply don't like the idea and that's fine, but how about letting other people decide what they want for their children and for themselves?

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.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Er,

Next on San Francisco's Hit List: Circumcision | NBC Bay Area

Holy Cow, I have heard it all now!!!! I think anyone thinking of moving to San Franciso needs to first check and see what the city requirements are on hair coloring, how much meat one is allowed to eat per week, and if one is required to serve vegetarian dishes when they have company in case someone is a vegetarian?

Nita