|
On November 29 2010 13:44 forgotten0ne wrote:
some girls have some issues with uncircumcised ones.
Uh....never heard of or experienced that, and dunno why that argument makes ANY difference in this thread if you genuinely think about it. Complete side note and pretty stupid to say.
I've heard of girls that won't go out with a guy for the length of their hair, or the color of their eyes or skin or something, doesn't really mean that you should change it or more related, have it outlawed
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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.
If it was tradition to chop off a toe would that still be acceptable? To be honest I think its kinda sick that this choice can be made before the child is old enough to decide for himself - if you want to go for it once you are of an age where such a decision can be made then thats fine, just as most everything involving your own body should be, but to have it done at birth is not right =[
|
I don't think this is a good idea. Keep in mind, like with abortion, this may happen through more shady means, and that wouldn't be very safe. Also it's not that bad medically. I'm not sure how I see it as far as religion goes, other than that it's enough of a reason to prevent it from passing entirely.
|
I am not a lawyer, but, if I'm not mistaken, the Free Exercise Clause in the U.S. Constitution focuses solely on the fact that the government cannot recognize any establishment of religion. There is no real justification for either allowing or restricting parents from doing something with their kids simply because it would restrict their religious freedom. It simply comes down to whether or not the parents have a right to perform bodily harm for the "good" of their child depending on how much "good" is being done.
Also, there have been a few occurrences where laws have been prevented due to disparate impact upon members of a certain religion, but I forget which cases were decided for or against this interpretation of the constitution. One of them had to do with forcing all stores to close on Sundays when different religions observe a day of rest of different days. I believe in that case the state had an overriding interest in maintaining a certain sense of economic order that was more important than the disparate impact upon Jews that observed their day of rest on Saturdays instead of Sundays (they were forced to close on two days of the week). Simply arguing for religious freedom is not really a valid way to against this.
|
On November 29 2010 13:44 forgotten0ne wrote:
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.
Yeah, girls will stop giving head if this actually becomes a law.
|
On November 29 2010 13:40 Jarhead wrote:
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?
First of all, yeah, I'm sure it hurts. I get it. I was circumcized. I *totally* remember how it felt!
Except I don't. But pain isn't a reason to not do a medical operation that's beneficial to someone, or else we'd be banning all surgery and operations on babies.
And why the heck do you think STDs are the only thing that circumcision helps protect against?
Here are a few more that circumcision helps protect against, including in babies:
-Urinary tract infections
-Balanatis (inflammation of the glans)
-Penile cancer
Protecting against STDs is not the only justification for getting a circumcision, so it's not like getting the foreskin removed is only relevant when you become a teenager or older. I still think that adults should be protecting their babies from the above risks.
|
On November 29 2010 13:48 Superiorwolf wrote:
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.
Circumcision is done while the child is a baby so they do not have to live with the traumatic experience of having their foreskin cut off for the rest of their life, they cannot remember something that happened when they are so young.
It is known to be beneficial in that it lowers the risk of STDs and makes the genitals cleaner. Its also a religious practice thats been performed since forever ago, i dont see why the government is trying to interfere with religion, ugh thats never a good idea.
|
On November 29 2010 13:44 Sufficiency wrote:
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?
If this becomes law, practically it will probably make little difference in the short term, but the whole point is to get some major talks going on this topic, which could lead to some bigger changes.
On November 29 2010 13:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:40 Jarhead wrote:
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? First of all, yeah, I'm sure it hurts. I get it. I was circumcized. I *totally* remember how it felt! Except I don't. But pain isn't a reason to not do a medical operation that's beneficial to someone, or else we'd be banning all surgery and operations on babies. And why the heck do you think STDs are the only thing that circumcision helps protect against? Here are a few more that circumcision helps protect against, including in babies: -Urinary tract infections -Balanatis (inflammation of the glans) -Penile cancer Protecting against STDs is not the only justification for getting a circumcision, so it's not like getting the foreskin removed is only relevant when you became a teenager or later. I still think that adults should be protecting their babies from the above risks.
While it is true that circumcision can lower risks (which is not the same as protecting against) of the things that you mention, there are many ways of reducing risk and a minor, almost negligible possible benefit is not really a good enough reason for such a drastic medical procedure. In your comparison to vaccination for instance, well, vaccination is the only way to prevent big hitters like poliomyelitis which has no cure, but here there are many ways to prevent and in some cases even cure the diseases like urinary tract infections and STDs and whatnot.
On November 29 2010 13:52 Liquid`Jinro 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. If it was tradition to chop off a toe would that still be acceptable? To be honest I think its kinda sick that this choice can be made before the child is old enough to decide for himself - if you want to go for it once you are of an age where such a decision can be made then thats fine, just as most everything involving your own body should be, but to have it done at birth is not right =[
This is off-topic (in my own thread) but Jinro good luck in the GSL I am rooting for you!
|
This just in. San francisco decides to ban vaccinations since there is an inherent risk involved in vaccinating young children under 18 since they have not made the decision to be vaccinated for themselves.
The only medical reason for uncircumcision i can think of is if the boy is growing up in a nudist colony on the beach, otherwise it makes no difference.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 29 2010 13:42 ZlaSHeR wrote:
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.
Assumings its true that the current rate of circumcisions at American hospitals is already falling to below 50%, then this wont be an issue; you will look the same as about half the other kids, and eventually as almost every other kid.
On November 29 2010 13:53 Lightwip wrote:
I don't think this is a good idea. Keep in mind, like with abortion, this may happen through more shady means, and that wouldn't be very safe. Also it's not that bad medically. I'm not sure how I see it as far as religion goes, other than that it's enough of a reason to prevent it from passing entirely.
Very true... Although as long as its only in SF I imagine people would just go out of state. Not sure if that makes the law pointless or not, it might still have a positive (from my POV) effect on people undecided on the issue.
|
Osaka27089 Posts
On November 29 2010 13:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:40 Jarhead wrote:
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? First of all, yeah, I'm sure it hurts. I get it. I was circumcized. I *totally* remember how it felt! Except I don't. But pain isn't a reason to not do a medical operation that's beneficial to someone, or else we'd be banning all surgery and operations on babies. And why the heck do you think STDs are the only thing that circumcision helps protect against? Here are a few more that circumcision helps protect against, including in babies: -Urinary tract infections -Balanatis (inflammation of the glans) -Penile cancer Protecting against STDs is not the only justification for getting a circumcision, so it's not like getting the foreskin removed is only relevant when you become a teenager or older. I still think that adults should be protecting their babies from the above risks.
There is a lot of literature that suggests what you say is true, but here is also a lot of literature that says "we really don't know". Most countries in the developed world have stopped circumcising boys. In addition, many boys are circumcised for reasons that have nothing to do with health.
You also have to be wary of statistics. Many pro-cut places say there is a TEN TIMES GREATER occurrence of UTI for the uncut, but that only takes the rate to 1%. Hardly an epidemic.
|
On November 29 2010 13:45 BrickTop wrote: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: Show nested quote +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.
You say it's largely pointless, and yet you don't actually back it up with anything...
So protection against urinary tract infection, penile cancer, and balanitis isn't that important? I personally don't care about the religious arguments (I'm non-religious), but I'm for parents making sure that their babies are cared for.
I'm all for open conversation, but why do you think that babies should be more prone to the above three diseases? And please stop calling it mutilation. It's a little snip.
|
On November 29 2010 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:40 Ferrose wrote: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.
Here you go:
"The American Medical Association quotes a complication rate of 0.2%–0.6%,[13] based on the studies of Gee[39] and Harkavy.[40] These same studies are quoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[16] The American Academy of Family Physicians quotes a range of anywhere between 0.1% and 35%.[41] The Canadian Paediatric Society cites these results in addition to other figures ranging anywhere between 0.06% to 55%, and remark that Williams & Kapila[37] suggested that 2-10% is a realistic estimate.[42] The RACP states that the penis is lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.[43]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Potential_complications
I know that this doesn't mention loss of the whole penis, but here is something:
"Activists began creating websites in the mid-1990s, and this process has continued. One such organization distributed questionnaires to circumcised men. The complaints included prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), and pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%). Psychological complaints included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self esteem/inferiority to intact men (50%), genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal (30%). Many respondents reported that their physical/emotional suffering impeded emotional intimacy with their partner(s), resulting in sexual dysfunction.[47] "
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies
|
I don't have STD's and my junk is clean whether its cut or not lol, it's a pretty weak argument in all honesty, if people are genuinely basing the fact that people should get cut for that.
I don't think they're doing this to interfere with religion, they're doing it to interfere with a tradition that, in the definition of the term, mutilates a male before he is old enough to make the decision on his own.
Jinro makes a great point, what if for example, it was shown that you should remove your appendix when you're a baby? That is a useless organ that serves no purpose, should it be done? No, the person should make that decision on their own unless it is like a medical necessity to be removed, foreskin or appendix.
|
To put this into perspective, consider practices in Africa where young girls' genitals are mutilated. This practice is widely condemned by Westerners. Obviously, it is much more painful and actually dangerous than circumcision (which isn't really a health issue either way), but it does raise interesting issues about the ability of a parent to decide to mutilate a child based on a cultural/religious custom.
I think it's not worth banning circumcision (as opposed to other types of cultural mutilation) because of its innocuousness. There is a general belief in one's right to make decisions about one's own body (especially if those decisions are permanent). However, I don't think the foreskin is so important a part, in any sense, that any but an extreme minority will miss it. The argument that it's a natural part of the body doesn't seem that good when it's just a piece of skin that serves no purpose other than aesthetics.
But my opinion might change if in the future the foreskin somehow became so aesthetically important to people that not having one is considered very odd or even disgusting. Then we should let the child make that decision about his own body, considering that the decision will be permanent.
|
Do any of us support female genital mutilation? I assume not. Then why are we in favour of the male counterpart? The only reasons seem to be either traditional/religious or health orientated, neither of which hold much weight with me.
Traditional/religious reasons don't stick for the same reason that we don't sacrifice virgins nor allow polygamy. Many countries have grown beyond these superstitions and discarded them, often to great benefit. The decision to circumcise should be made by the one with the foreskin at an age where they are able to make it. We should not allow members of society take a knife to the flesh of a child for the reason of appeasing the teachings of our ancestors.
Health reasons are feeble fall backs in the age of proper hygiene. Two thousand years ago, it may have been a necessary precaution, but I see no reason to continue it now. It is mutilation as a preventative measure of something unlikely to occur.
Imagine that I want to cut off your newborn's ears because it will make them faster swimmers in the possibility that they are being chased by a shark. Would you consider me reasonable? Probably not. What if I tell you its a tradition of some middle eastern tribe 3000 years ago...
Perhaps it would be best to wait until the person in that flesh is able to have his own opinion.
|
This is a good start. While male circumsition is harmless as far as I know, it does permanently alter the body of the child, and permanent modifications to oneself should only be your own descision, and only when you're old enough to somewhat understand the consequences of your choices. Yes, the parents are your guardians and basically own you as long as you live under their roof, but that does not make you their own clay doll to mold and transform as they see fit. NOT signing this law is in effect saying exactly that - your kid's yours to fix up as you please. Want to add another arm? Perhaps a tentacle? Replace his eyes with tits? You got it!
But this should just be the first step. By far more important would be to outlaw parents having their kids go through plastic operations and botox-injections, as well as liposuctions. Any medical procedure not done in the direct benefit of a child's mental (replacement for injured skin, removal / reparation of birth defects etc) or physical health shouldn't even be considered an option.
For the entire religious thing - yea, if you're wanting to follow all the old rules of your old fairytales, you should follow 'em all. If you don't follow 'em all, forgetting the bris-one won't have Jahve turn his back on you, so don't you worry.
|
I'm very frustrated with these responses so far.
The referring to circumcision as mutilation almost seems to be becoming the entire argument against circumcision here. Please stop trying to appeal to emotions by using shocking terms! Many things can be argued to fall under the category of "mutilation" that are used on children, please explain what separates this from other situations!
Sorry for this, but I just got so frustrated reading this repeated term "mutilation" used as a stand alone argument. So let's have a real debate on this based in the sound logic I know you are all capable of! No sensationalist cheating! 
edit: I guess my response was late. The debate has really improved from the first two pages. Keep the statistics coming guys, you rock!
|
As another thought experiment, if we throw out all the health arguments about circumcision as they are negligible either way, do you think parent have the right to make permanent aesthetic changes to their child's body? Consider a tattoo that can't be removed. Like circumcision, the tattoo will not be normally seen and fairly widely accepted in society. Do you think a parent has the right to put it on their child or must they wait until the child can decide?
|
What term should we use then? In every sense of the dictionary definition of mutilation, circumcision is that lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
