|
On November 29 2010 13:26 Jarhead wrote:
I agree with Krigwin. Watch the procedure some time, the baby doesn't look happy.
If you turn 18 and want it done, go for it. I just wish I hadn't had my genitals mutilated as a child.
Babies aren't going to look happy when they get vaccines either. Should we not give them shots? Are you going to wait until kids turn 18 to medicate them or give them shots? Kids don't like getting shots either.
Oh come on now. Genital mutilation is a bit of a graphic exaggeration. It's beneficial for the baby, and it does no harm to the genitals.
|
oh maan, this thread could get roudy...
but I really don't think they should ban circumsion that just seems silly, dont have a good arguement on my stance yet, as I'm too tired. But thats my 1 cent.
|
On November 29 2010 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:02 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 12:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
They want to outlaw a medical procedure that can reduce the possibility of diseases and decrease specific health risks?
Yeahhh... there's NO problem with that... ::facepalm:: Not outlaw it flat out, just in the case of minors, and like I said I imagine there will be medical exceptions and whatnot written into the final law if it even makes it that far. Come on bro, I even bolded that part! I noticed that, but it's the parents' and doctors' responsibility to take care of children. If we have medical evidence that circumcision reduces medical risks (and apparently, going by your article, we do), then we should be protecting our children. It's akin to saying "Well we should wait for kids to hit 17 years old so THEY can decide whether or not they want vaccines!" That's nonsense. We need to protect them as early on as possible. We're the adults; we need to care for them.
We need to protect our children from what? From not being circumcised? Not exactly the same as a hepatitis vaccination.
|
"may propose and under age of 17" are the key works here. Whether it should pass it or not depends entirely on whether circumcision is better than not having it done. If there isn't any proof that it's better then I'd agree because then it becomes the decision of the person who is undergoing the operation.
|
Theres no way they can pass this. It restricts religious freedom to much. I can understand banning some religious practices(human sacrifice is a litte crazy) but circumcision is completely harmless. While its hygiene benefits are arguable, i dont see the point in banning it at all
|
On November 29 2010 13:00 Zealotdriver wrote:I wonder how this would interact with religious freedom laws. Jewish tradition involves circumcision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bris
Well the FLDS Church are not allowed to have teen brides and practice polygamy. Why would other religions be allowed to mutilate the penis of infants?
I can recommend the Penn&Teller Bullshit! episode on this topic.
|
On November 29 2010 13:12 Irrelevant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:09 Beneather wrote:
What's the point of banning it. Even though it's not necessary shouldn't the parents allowed to choose to have their son circumcised. Plus it's a tradition and the parents mostly choose the best for their child if they really love their child. The issue with that argument is parents are naturally stupid, and in their attempts to do what is best for their child they often believe shit they wouldn't normally fall for, such as the whole diseases and other medical crap which is just flat out not true.
Governments can be just as stupid as the stupidest of parents, why do you think governmental intervention is the right choice?
Banning circumcision would be like banning piercings, if you disregard the religious implications of the former, they are both purely aesthetic procedures, with limited, if any benefit in today's society apart from 'fitting in.'
+ Show Spoiler +Clarification: I'm comparing childhood circumcision to childhood piercings, the analogy doesn't quite hold up when applied to adult situations, since that's not what's being debated anyway
Edit: But, this is SanFrancisco and they are free to do whatever they please+ Show Spoiler +, like banning people from sitting/laying down on sidewalks from the hours of 7 am and 11 pm, happy meal toys, and many more...
Edit2: By "purely aesthetic" I define the procedures as ultimately (aside from infection and extreme cases) irrelevant to the overall health of the person, they are just so that the modified part of the body can look different. [Further research on the medical effects of circumcision are not too conclusive, some suggesting that there is relatively little change in "penile stimulation," while some suggest both of the alternatives.]
|
...And your child may one day decide he is not in your religion, but unfortunately he has a permanently modified penis.
|
Woo, my thread was linked in the OP.
And circumcision should be a choice made by the people themselves. A young boy shouldn't have to be circumcised just because he parents wanted him to for whatever reason. The boy should have a say.
And if the circumcision is done for religious reasons, what happens if the kid ends up converting religions or becoming agnostic/atheist? Then it was for nothing :O
|
On November 29 2010 13:31 Jarhead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 29 2010 13:02 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 12:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
They want to outlaw a medical procedure that can reduce the possibility of diseases and decrease specific health risks?
Yeahhh... there's NO problem with that... ::facepalm:: Not outlaw it flat out, just in the case of minors, and like I said I imagine there will be medical exceptions and whatnot written into the final law if it even makes it that far. Come on bro, I even bolded that part! I noticed that, but it's the parents' and doctors' responsibility to take care of children. If we have medical evidence that circumcision reduces medical risks (and apparently, going by your article, we do), then we should be protecting our children. It's akin to saying "Well we should wait for kids to hit 17 years old so THEY can decide whether or not they want vaccines!" That's nonsense. We need to protect them as early on as possible. We're the adults; we need to care for them. We need to protect our children from what? From not being circumcised? Not exactly the same as a hepatitis vaccination.
I just don't think your argument that "the baby didn't look happy" was a good reason for a baby not to get a medical treatment that apparently has the potential to help them.
And I think it's pretty similar to a vaccination. Vaccines have the potential to help, although they could technically be pointless needle-pricks that "harm the baby". The baby may not ever be in actual danger of getting hepatitis, yet he may get the vaccination just to be safe. Better safe than sorry.
|
Ok, then I did not make it clear that I meant that it is an EXTREMELY painful operation. Not a needle prick. Skin is cut off of the penis.
And again, the health benefits for the baby are very questionable. Worried your two year old might get STDs?
|
On November 29 2010 13:33 killanator wrote:
Theres no way they can pass this. It restricts religious freedom to much. I can understand banning some religious practices(human sacrifice is a litte crazy) but circumcision is completely harmless. While its hygiene benefits are arguable, i dont see the point in banning it at all
How do you define "harmless"?
On November 29 2010 13:36 Ichabod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:12 Irrelevant wrote:On November 29 2010 13:09 Beneather wrote:
What's the point of banning it. Even though it's not necessary shouldn't the parents allowed to choose to have their son circumcised. Plus it's a tradition and the parents mostly choose the best for their child if they really love their child. The issue with that argument is parents are naturally stupid, and in their attempts to do what is best for their child they often believe shit they wouldn't normally fall for, such as the whole diseases and other medical crap which is just flat out not true. Governments can be just as stupid as the stupidest of parents, why do you think governmental intervention is the right choice? Banning circumcision would be like banning piercings, if you disregard the religious implications of the former, they are both purely aesthetic procedures, with limited, if any benefit in today's society apart from 'fitting in.'
How do you define "purely aesthetic"?
Come on, throw me a bone here guys, you can't just go and say outright it's harmless. Really? A painful (scientifically proven) medical procedure that cuts off a piece of someone's body that serves many functions and results in permanent loss of neurosensitivity is "harmless" or "purely aesthetic"? I must be operating by different definitions than you guys. Please elucidate on these statements.
|
On November 29 2010 13:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:31 Jarhead wrote:On November 29 2010 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 29 2010 13:02 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 12:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
They want to outlaw a medical procedure that can reduce the possibility of diseases and decrease specific health risks?
Yeahhh... there's NO problem with that... ::facepalm:: Not outlaw it flat out, just in the case of minors, and like I said I imagine there will be medical exceptions and whatnot written into the final law if it even makes it that far. Come on bro, I even bolded that part! I noticed that, but it's the parents' and doctors' responsibility to take care of children. If we have medical evidence that circumcision reduces medical risks (and apparently, going by your article, we do), then we should be protecting our children. It's akin to saying "Well we should wait for kids to hit 17 years old so THEY can decide whether or not they want vaccines!" That's nonsense. We need to protect them as early on as possible. We're the adults; we need to care for them. We need to protect our children from what? From not being circumcised? Not exactly the same as a hepatitis vaccination. I just don't think your argument that "the baby didn't look happy" was a good reason for a baby not to get a medical treatment that apparently has the potential to help them. And I think it's pretty similar to a vaccination. Vaccines have the potential to help, although they could technically be pointless needle-pricks that "harm the baby". The baby may not ever be in actual danger of getting hepatitis, yet he may get the vaccination just to be safe. Better safe than sorry.
What if the circumcision backfires? What if the kid loses his penis because of it? How is that protecting the child?
It just doesn't seem fair to me.
|
I dunno, its kinda odd reading this thread seeing so many guys saying they wish they weren't cut because it looks weird.
I didn't grow up seing a lotta dicks except in porn, but I can say that I always thought mine looked weird because it WASN'T cut, and it wasn't til I was with a few girls til I stopped caring.
And obviously now that I'm old enough to remember pain and experiences, it's not something I'd get done, but I'm not sure wha tmy take is on this. Do more guys who are cut wish they were uncut, or vice versa, or just not care. Possibly the psychological effects growing up seeing yours as different can hurt your confidence a lot in the later life.
|
Osaka27177 Posts
There is an interesting parallel between this issue and the controversies surrounding Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Basically Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Acts 15:28, among other passages, as showing blood transfusions being against God's law.
In Canada the government has forced children to get the medical procedure over the wishes of their parents (and in some cases the child too) stating that they have to strike a balance between their duties to religious freedom and their duties to protect the people.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/26/supreme-blood026.html
Population polls and government policy has been on the side of giving transfusions. Something tells me that if the JW had the same presence in Canada as the Jewish population has in America, that girl would not have received the transfusion. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
|
I'm sorry to put this arguement into the thread, but from my experience, no girl has ever had a problem giving a blowjob to a circumcised penis, but I KNOW some girls have some issues with uncircumcised ones. (this comes from looks and cleanliness)
Sorry, but I had to throw it out there.
|
I don't see how a city-wide ban can mean anything.
If I want my kids circumcised, can't I just go to some other city to do it?
|
On November 29 2010 13:40 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 29 2010 13:31 Jarhead wrote:On November 29 2010 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 29 2010 13:02 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 12:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
They want to outlaw a medical procedure that can reduce the possibility of diseases and decrease specific health risks?
Yeahhh... there's NO problem with that... ::facepalm:: Not outlaw it flat out, just in the case of minors, and like I said I imagine there will be medical exceptions and whatnot written into the final law if it even makes it that far. Come on bro, I even bolded that part! I noticed that, but it's the parents' and doctors' responsibility to take care of children. If we have medical evidence that circumcision reduces medical risks (and apparently, going by your article, we do), then we should be protecting our children. It's akin to saying "Well we should wait for kids to hit 17 years old so THEY can decide whether or not they want vaccines!" That's nonsense. We need to protect them as early on as possible. We're the adults; we need to care for them. We need to protect our children from what? From not being circumcised? Not exactly the same as a hepatitis vaccination. I just don't think your argument that "the baby didn't look happy" was a good reason for a baby not to get a medical treatment that apparently has the potential to help them. And I think it's pretty similar to a vaccination. Vaccines have the potential to help, although they could technically be pointless needle-pricks that "harm the baby". The baby may not ever be in actual danger of getting hepatitis, yet he may get the vaccination just to be safe. Better safe than sorry. What if the circumcision backfires? What if the kid loses his penis because of it? How is that protecting the child? It just doesn't seem fair to me.
Don't all medical procedures carry some level of risk? Out of curiosity, what percentage of circumcisions have ended with the loss of the entire penis? Can you find this statistic please, since you brought it up? I don't understand how the removal of the foreskin could result in this happening, but you're claiming it can. If it's a significant percentage, I would consider re-evaluating my position; I was of the mindset that it is a relatively safe procedure. Please just show me a reliable statistic.
|
I think the medical benefits of circumcision are negligible compared to the benefits of vaccinations, so the comparison is pointless. Otherwise people in Europe would die from stuff caused by not being circumcised, and I'm not aware of this.
Outlawing would be extremely offensive to some religions, so I don't think it will (or should) be done. However, I think the entire point of this proposal is to at least try to get rid of misinformation like this:
On November 29 2010 12:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
They want to outlaw a medical procedure that can reduce the possibility of diseases and decrease specific health risks?
Yeahhh... there's NO problem with that... ::facepalm::
No offense DarkPlasmaBall, but a lot of american children get mutilated because their parents are as misinformed as you. And I'm not saying that's your fault, that's exactly the reason why there should be talk about this. So even if it doesn't become illegal, people become aware that it's a largely pointless procedure from a medical point of view.
|
The comparison of a circumcision to a vaccination is completely faulty.
A vaccination is a procedure that is relatively painless and known to be beneficial.
A circumcision is the removal of a natural body part (that is there for a reason, I might add), extremely painful and may or may not be beneficial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
