|
On November 29 2010 13:09 Irrelevant wrote:
Seems like this board picked up a dvd box set of Penn and Teller's BullShit and is trying to fight everything BS has disproved.
I'm not going to argue this whole thread, because this is absolutely retarded, and there shouldn't be a law for or against this sort of thing, but whatever.
I just wanted to say that Bull Shit also disproved that exercise can change a person's body type, which is 100% inaccurate... that is to say that their research is often slanted to prove a point.
|
On November 29 2010 15:15 Tarbosh wrote:
This thread has been a real eye-opener for me. I guess I am alone where in my community uncircumcised penises are somewhat looked down upon. Not in a serious way or anything, more in the manner that the occasional joke will be made about someone being uncircumcised. I've never seen anyone defend their uncircumcised self or be proud of it, until reading this.
naw ur not alone in that
On November 29 2010 15:17 Mora wrote:
Circumcised penises are more fantastic than uncut ones.
/contribution
gross dude
.... but now im curious. why?
|
On November 29 2010 15:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 15:01 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 14:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I can't see it getting banned until age seventeen, because many of the above diseases can be contracted as a baby or adolescent. It would be nice to have a lowered risk even as an infant. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that it is acceptable to foist a permanent, damaging medical procedure on infants that cannot decide for themselves because it "would be nice" to have a lowered risk of some diseases, which, again, depending on the studies you want to believe, can be less than 1%. Just think about that for a second. Your literary manipulation excites me  I can do it too I beg to differ. I'm advocating a procedure that's harmless to the vast majority of those who receive it, in return for the possible medical benefits of a plethora of terrible diseases.
Yeah, maybe that'll work if you're using some obscure definition of "harmless". It is harmful to 100% of the people that receive it, this is not an argument, it's proven medical fact.
And even if you straw man it that way, it's still not a valid argument since you're not advocating the procedure, you're advocating forcing that procedure on people who cannot decide for themselves.
On November 29 2010 15:13 us.insurgency wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 15:01 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 14:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I can't see it getting banned until age seventeen, because many of the above diseases can be contracted as a baby or adolescent. It would be nice to have a lowered risk even as an infant. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that it is acceptable to foist a permanent, damaging medical procedure on infants that cannot decide for themselves because it "would be nice" to have a lowered risk of some diseases, which, again, depending on the studies you want to believe, can be less than 1%. Just think about that for a second. That is for the parents to decide. All of the men i have seen in the shower (lol no homo) after football is circumsized. It is normal for our culture to get circumsized, and nobody felt mutilated or damaged. I dont want the government to tell me how to raise my children. It looks normal to me and thats my choice.
No one is telling you how to raise your child. You can raise your son and tell him circumcision is normal, tell him of all the benefits and whatnot, and when he is 18, encourage him to go get it done.
The government, in this instance, is not telling you how to raise your children, it is protecting your children from bodily harm that you might cause, and trust me there are plenty of other ways it does that.
You're absolutely right, it should be your choice, that is if you want circumcision or not. Just like it should be your child's right to decide if he wants circumcision or not.
|
United States512 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying (unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember... in which case, wtf
It doesnt hurt if u do it in the first 2 weeks. I on the other hand had to get mine done when I was 8 for medical reasons and it hurt like a knife stabbing my dick when I pee'd. Some stupid woman doctor and my mom woudln't let my dad get it done. My brother got his done when he was a few days old by a rabbi.
I can't believe so many people think its mutilation and are against it.
|
On November 29 2010 12:53 Krigwin wrote:
Basically, a guy proposes to make it flat-out illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 17, parent approval or not. I imagine there are some medical concerns that must be considered and whatnot in the final writing, but it looks like the biggest force behind the pro-circumcision side are the religious, which is pretty interesting since it seems like a medical procedure to me.
How many people would be willing to be circumcised at 17 years old even if they liked the idea? I imagine they'd be too weirded out to do so.
On November 29 2010 12:53 Krigwin wrote:The United States remains the last Western civilization still in favor of circumcision, which has been falling in almost all European countries, and is of noticeably lower rates in Canada. Anti-circumcision movements have been growing for decades in the US as a result of this, and this, should it become law, would be the first big "intactivist" victory. This is also kind of interesting since female circumcision is illegal in the US, but the legality of male circumcision has never really been fought over (except for this bill, apparently).
Circumcising a female has COMPLETELY different effects on them than it does on males. It actually lowers the sex drive and pleasure of sex for a female significantly and depending on how much is cut, it can practically eliminate all pleasure. It destroys relationships and marriages when your partner gets no pleasure out of you and doesn't care for sex much. So yea keep it illegal.
As for male circumcision, completely outlawing it is very extreme and if somehow they're able to go through with it, people will just schedule their births at hospitals outside that city. Which would have a negative affect on the hospitals revenue or they can wait and get it done elsewhere.
Honestly can it really be called mutilation if the benefits outway the harm? I mean calling it mutilation puts it in the same category of people getting their arms chopped off.
|
Elective surgery should be elective.
'Elective' doesn't mean chosen for you by your parents btw.
On November 29 2010 15:08 Malarkey817 wrote:
It's simply a cosmetic change.
It's functional tissue.
If your parents decided, "oh BTW head hair is unsanitary and slightly gay so we had you permanently plucked" I'm guessing you wouldn't appreciate.
To Lloyd Schofield, I say "You have no more right to be my parent than my parents do."
My parents have no more right to cut parts of my dick off than I do. In fact, I was sort of hoping they had less.
Maybe they'll sign my dick over to my wife when I get engaged. If they approve my wedding of course.
On November 29 2010 15:15 Tarbosh wrote:
This thread has been a real eye-opener for me. I guess I am alone where in my community uncircumcised penises are somewhat looked down upon. Not in a serious way or anything, more in the manner that the occasional joke will be made about someone being uncircumcised. I've never seen anyone defend their uncircumcised self or be proud of it, until reading this.
Show them you can eat ants and they'll STFU.
|
On November 29 2010 15:26 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying (unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember... in which case, wtf It doesnt hurt if u do it in the first 2 weeks.
Gonna be quite hard to prove that. It would also be hard, for the people that do so, to argue that there is no psychological damage when they have no training or skills in the field except introspection which would be highly suspect to defense mechanisms.
|
On November 29 2010 15:26 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying (unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember... in which case, wtf It doesnt hurt if u do it in the first 2 weeks.
what makes you think that???
|
On November 29 2010 15:20 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 15:01 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 14:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I can't see it getting banned until age seventeen, because many of the above diseases can be contracted as a baby or adolescent. It would be nice to have a lowered risk even as an infant. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that it is acceptable to foist a permanent, damaging medical procedure on infants that cannot decide for themselves because it "would be nice" to have a lowered risk of some diseases, which, again, depending on the studies you want to believe, can be less than 1%. Just think about that for a second. Hyperbole is a big part of the problem in this debate.
I strongly disagree. What part of that was hyperbole?
He is against it being banned, which necessarily implies that he thinks it is acceptable, whether in only some cases or whatever. The part about lowered risk was practically quoted verbatim. The stuff about it being permanent or damaging? Medically proven.
The only exaggeration is the exact percentage of risk that may be altered by circumcision, and that can go in either direction based on the literature.
|
On November 29 2010 15:08 Malarkey817 wrote:
It's simply a cosmetic change.
It's functional tissue.
If your parents decided, "oh BTW head hair is unsanitary and slightly gay so we had you permanently plucked" I'm guessing you wouldn't appreciate.
|
On November 29 2010 15:23 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 15:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 29 2010 15:01 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 14:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I can't see it getting banned until age seventeen, because many of the above diseases can be contracted as a baby or adolescent. It would be nice to have a lowered risk even as an infant. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that it is acceptable to foist a permanent, damaging medical procedure on infants that cannot decide for themselves because it "would be nice" to have a lowered risk of some diseases, which, again, depending on the studies you want to believe, can be less than 1%. Just think about that for a second. Your literary manipulation excites me I can do it too I beg to differ. I'm advocating a procedure that's harmless to the vast majority of those who receive it, in return for the possible medical benefits of a plethora of terrible diseases. Yeah, maybe that'll work if you're using some obscure definition of "harmless". It is harmful to 100% of the people that receive it, this is not an argument, it's proven medical fact. And even if you straw man it that way, it's still not a valid argument since you're not advocating the procedure, you're advocating forcing that procedure on people who cannot decide for themselves.
It's not a strawman. I certainly wasn't harmed by my circumcision. And heck, if the probability of me getting certain diseases was lowered, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me! Please watch the sweeping generalizations and hyperbole with statistics. 1% here, 100% there. I have a degree in mathematics, and it makes me facepalm when people get a little too excited with making up numbers that don't properly represent reality.
I'm not sure how many times I have to point out that the diseases that circumcision can help prevent can be contracted as a baby. Babies cannot make informed decisions. Neither can adolescents. This isn't just about STDs. I've listed many infections and problems. This is about parents deciding if the best, most protective course of action for their babies is to cut off a little snip of skin. It's not mutilation. It's not killing the kid. It's not even something they'll remember if they're babies. But it can be beneficial to them.
And you accuse me of strawman arguments?
|
This is a BIG FUCKING WASTE of time and money. seriously? California can't afford to pass legislation like this, much less the United States as a whole. We don't have the economy which provides a luxury to spend time and money on a bill like this. It might be low cost, yes, but there are still potential hidden costs, which would come apparent with the proposition and bill examined more closely. I wish California would quit with the nanny legislation, and wasting their citizen's tax dollars.
|
Babies can't make decisions for themselves so I'd just judge what is best for them by trying to work out how they would decide if they were an adult. An adult would get vaccinated so the baby should be too. An adult wouldn't want someone to chop their wang, so I wouldn't force it upon a baby.
I don't really care if people have foreskin or not. It's a non-issue. I guess more important for the law is the ethics of it. I once spoke to an expectant mother who said she was going to get her child circumcised. When I asked her why she said it "looked better". I thought that was rather disgusting. A medical argument would make more sense from an ethical point of view. Although I'm not really sure there is one.
|
Agree with the guy above me. Also, being circumsized, I think it's actually more of a visual thing thing than anything. It looks better that way to me. And from random (often drunken) convos with other people they say it's for aesthetics more than anything nowadays, and they usually agree it looks better circumsized.
|
Q: Why did circumcision become so popular in America?
A: It was a Victorian era cure for masturbation
|
On November 29 2010 15:34 Mindcrime wrote:
Q: Why did circumcision become so popular in America?
A: It was a Victorian era cure for masturbation
How did it cure masturbation? That part is pretty confusing to me... To think about at least lol.
|
On November 29 2010 15:19 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 15:16 blitzkrieger wrote:
Wow my home town is so dumb. My younger brother got circumcized as a baby by a rabbi and I got circumsized when I was like 7-9 or so in a hospital for medical reasons. My mom and some stupid woman doctor said it hurts the baby and they wouldn't let my dad have it done. And when ur a baby it doesn't hurt at all but it was a huge pain for me that lasted a long time since I had to get it done for medical reasons.
You cant just "get circumcized when ur 18" because it is really painful, expensive, and requires surgery when you get to that age. I remember it hurt SOOOO bad to pee like someone sticking a knife in ur dick and I didn't want to drink liquids because it hurt so bad to pee. As a baby there is no pain b/c there are no nerves there.
I think we should pass a law that SF can't pass any laws.
The religious reason is a mark to show that the Jews are God's people. I'm not sure what the Christian one is, prob simimlar. This just seems like liberals trying to keep God out of society for the billionth time.
And LOL @ mutilation... you guys are idiots. Its absolutely fine. The female circumcision where they cut off the clit is mutilation, this isn't. If done right as a baby there are only health benefits for male circumcision. Yep, trying to keep God out of a government with a constitutional clause for a separation of church and state is so wrong 
The "separation of church and state" principle (there is no separation clause) has been so horrendously warped. What started as a prevention of theocracy has turned into a war on religion.
Forcing a ban on a mostly religious and entirely cosmetic procedure goes against the whole freedom of religion bit in the first amendment.
|
On November 29 2010 15:34 Rebornlife wrote:
Agree with the guy above me. Also, being circumsized, I think it's actually more of a visual thing thing than anything. It looks better that way to me. And from random (often drunken) convos with other people they say it's for aesthetics more than anything nowadays, and they usually agree it looks better circumsized.
Ah yes. aesthetics. So should parents be able to force their children into getting labiaplasties?
|
seems like someone has way too much time on his hands.
if he's gonna be an activist, why not be an activist on the Elan School or something or other.
but circumcision? >_<
|
On November 29 2010 15:38 adeezy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 15:34 Mindcrime wrote:
Q: Why did circumcision become so popular in America?
A: It was a Victorian era cure for masturbation How did it cure masturbation? That part is pretty confusing to me... To think about at least lol.
It doesn't. But people thought it did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
