San Francisco mulls Ban on Routine Infant Circumcision

[LunicaAshes]

If that was this case then this entire forum should be deleted - you can't "back up" your opinion. There is no incontrovertible factual analysis that is going to descend from the heavens and say "circumcision should be banned" or "circumcision should be allowed." Strange how this issue turns you from a normal poster in a **** one.

I didn't say you shouldn't be here because you can't prove your opinion. I meant that since you have no intention on debating the topic or answering related questions to give us an idea of your stance, your presence is worthless.

[LunicaAshes]

You can't compare the two. A comparison that you could make is cutting the glans in half vs. female circumcision.

It is also a form of female circumcision to remove the clitoral hood and inner labia. This is comparable to a male circumcision. Should this practice be accepted as the norm?

[Kumquatv1]

Obviously I am cut and have no problems with it. I do have to say though the way they do it at hospitals is pretty barbaric. The way we Jews do it is not so bad. My nephew had it done recently and he was over it pretty quick.

[Scuba19]

It is also a form of female circumcision to remove the clitoral hood and inner labia. This is comparable to a male circumcision. Should this practice be accepted as the norm?

One could argue that the clitoral hood and inner labia have more nerve endings and are thus more sensitive than the foreskin. Therefore, it would cause much pain.

Many laws and issues are decided upon by pure opinion without any logic to back the stance up. These opinions then fuel bills that are passed into law. Maybe the populace should be left to decide?

[Blindead]

I didn't say you shouldn't be here because you can't prove your opinion. I meant that since you have no intention on debating the topic or answering related questions to give us an idea of your stance, your presence is worthless.

Yep, I made 6 posts but never put forth my stance or answered any questions. Derp.

[LunicaAshes]

One could argue that the clitoral hood and inner labia have more nerve endings and are thus more sensitive than the foreskin. Therefore, it would cause much pain.

What are you basing this on? Why could one argue that?

Inner labia don't have much feeling at all, and hood tissue isn't very developed in girls before puberty. I would imagine the sensitivity is similar to a male's foreskin, but we'd have to look at the science of it. I just don't know why you'd assume it'd hurt more for the girl.

What if both were shown to cause equal amount of pain? And why does pain even play a factor into this? It's about irreversably surgically altering your child for aesthetics, and because it's apparently easier than teaching them how to wash up. We have those body parts for a reason.

Yes, some males have to have their foreskin removed for medical/comfort reasons, but the same is true of girls' inner labia. I support both when needed, and neither when not.

Many laws and issues are decided upon by pure opinion without any logic to back the stance up. These opinions then fuel bills that are passed into law. Maybe the populace should be left to decide?

It isn't pure opinion that circumcision is not usually needed, and cannot be undone. I do not believe in majority rule when it comes to things that inflict an opinion on the minority with no voice.

It is fact that it is mutilation, so why do it when not needed? We aren't allowed to amputate any other parts of our kids for no reason other than "we like it that way."

Yep, I made 6 posts but never put forth my stance or answered any questions. Derp.

You really didn't accomplish anything. Go back and read your posts.

Anyhow, I'm done with you unless you actually feel like engaging in a discussion of the topic, as I tried to do with you.

[GrokTheCube]

One could argue that the clitoral hood and inner labia have more nerve endings and are thus more sensitive than the foreskin. Therefore, it would cause much pain.

One could argue that, and one would be wrong, factually speaking.

Many laws and issues are decided upon by pure opinion without any logic to back the stance up. These opinions then fuel bills that are passed into law. Maybe the populace should be left to decide?

There's a difference between laws that ban walking your alligator without a leash, and it being A-OK to nail off part of a kid's genitals because some clueless, superstitious barbarians started doing it thousands of years ago.

[Moh7]

Obviously I am cut and have no problems with it. I do have to say though the way they do it at hospitals is pretty barbaric. The way we Jews do it is not so bad. My nephew had it done recently and he was over it pretty quick.

wanna aware the unaware brah?


Dunno why people make a big deal out of cut vs uncut.

[aelephant]

Aren't you a staunch libertarian who doesn't want the govt telling people who wants to do and a staunch christian fundamentalist? Jesus wants your foreskin brah.

ps: anteaters be mad

I consider myself a staunch libertarian that doesn't want the govt telling people what to do.

That said, circumcision isn't something someone does to themselves. Circumcision isn't a victimless crime. It is physical assault and permanent bodily disfigurement.

[JoshSP1985]

Considering this procedure with our current knowledge is essentially plastic surgery with no medical benefit it should be illegal to force it on children w/o their consent.

[JoshSP1985]

I'm glad I'm cut.

I've also never met anyone in reality that claims otherwise.

You can't really appreciate it since you've never had it. I understand why cut guys have the stance they have on the situation though.

[IOnlyLurk]

I'm circumcized, glad to be, and am glad that I had it done as an infant.

With anti-mutiliation argument, then they'd have to ban ear piercings, surgery, etc. Vaccine shots and whatnot put children in a lot of pain and fear, should they be banned too?

I don't see how banning male circumcision will change anything that the female circumcision ban didn't change. Some forms of female circumcision that were banned are significantly less harmful than male circumcision but no one was up in arms about it.

Male circumcision removes a tiny piece of skin and makes it look better and stay cleaner better.

Is 15+ square inches tiny? I personally don't see the attraction to scars, build up of keratin on the glans and the other minor aesthetic problems that circumcision causes. If women can keep their vaginas clean then men can keep their penises clean.

One could argue that the clitoral hood and inner labia have more nerve endings and are thus more sensitive than the foreskin. Therefore, it would cause much pain.

One could argue that since the foreskin has more nerve endings than the clitoris that the foreskin results in a loss of sensation equal to or greater than that of a clitoridectomy.

You can't really appreciate it since you've never had it. I understand why cut guys have the stance they have on the situation though.

Most cut men.

[Kiknskreem]

That said, circumcision isn't something someone does to themselves. Circumcision isn't a victimless crime. It is physical assault and permanent bodily disfigurement.

If you want people to take you seriously, you should drop the ridiculous hyperbole.

My mom once made me go food shopping... I guess that was kidnapping.

[GnastyGnorc]

Several Jewish organizations have weighed in against the ban as well, pointing out that circumcision rituals play an important historical role for many Jews. Schofeld counters that under his proposed law, adults would be free to opt-in to circumcision, but infants would not be allowed to have the procedure until they reach 18.

Sorry buddy, brit millah clearly takes place 8 days after birth, not 18 years.

You can't really appreciate it since you've never had it. I understand why cut guys have the stance they have on the situation though.

You can't really appreciate not having one so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[Kiknskreem]

One could argue that since the foreskin has more nerve endings than the clitoris that the foreskin results in a loss of sensation equal to or greater than that of a clitoridectomy.

One could argue that, yes.... if one was a retard with no functioning knowledge of human genitalia.

[IOnlyLurk]

One could argue that, yes.... if one was a retard with no functioning knowledge of human genitalia.

If you read the post I was responding to you would understand the comparison.

[Kiknskreem]

If you read the post I was responding to you would understand the comparison.

That doesn't make yours any more true.

[IOnlyLurk]

That doesn't make yours any more true.

It wasn't meant to be true...

Actually, it is true that the foreskin and clitoris have comparable amounts of nerve endings.

[danielMSF]

To someone who doesnt think critically that sounds HUGE! It is not. WHen the chances are 1:1000 of contracting during unprotected sex we are talking about a shift to 1.6:1000 odds. Very small statistical number that is ballooned by showing the percentage rather than the facts.

What?
1.6:1000 > 1:1000.... unless I don't understand what you're saying.

If 10 in 10,000 (1 in 1000) instances of unprotected sexual intercourse result in a HIV infection and this is reduced by 60% then the new chances are 4 in 10,000 or 1:2500

1:2500 < 1:1000

I don't know where you got 1:1000 goes to 1.6:1000 which is an increase in risk.

[bird72]

Not very often I agree with the liberal douchebags in this city but I have to give them props for finally doing what us right and banning the practice of circumcision for males under 18.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/polit...6618063.html?1

But you agree that the Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood for their children?

[Kiknskreem]

Actually, it is true that the foreskin and clitoris have comparable amounts of nerve endings.

That doesn't mean there is a comparable loss of sensation from a clitiridectomy as compared to male circumcision.

[IOnlyLurk]

That doesn't mean there is a comparable loss of sensation from a clitiridectomy as compared to male circumcision.

That doesn't mean there isn't.

[Kiknskreem]

That doesn't mean there isn't.

I'm going to redirect you to my first post.....

One could argue that, yes.... if one was a retard with no functioning knowledge of human genitalia.

[lsiberian]

Wow some guys are really passionate about this. Congrats there are much more important issues that San Francisco should take up than becoming an Anti-Semitic community. I think the Jews have suffered enough in history let them practice their faith in peace. The Egocentric arguments made here are ignorant of the communally focused communities that make up the majority of the world's population. Religiously circumcision is the mark of a Jew so a law against it is outright directed discrimination. This would likely end up in the Supreme Court overturned and be a waste of time and money.

[JoshSP1985]

You can't really appreciate not having one so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Lol, doesn't work like that bro

[aelephant]

If you want people to take you seriously, you should drop the ridiculous hyperbole.

My mom once made me go food shopping... I guess that was kidnapping.

Depends on how she "made you"

[Kiknskreem]

Depends on how she "made you"

Exactly.

Telling me to get in the car or I'd get a spanking is not kidnapping, even though she is forcing me to a different location with the threat of violence.

In exactly the same way, getting circumcised in the context of a briss is not physical assault.

Me running into a child's nursery and cutting their foreskin off with my Spyderco would be.

[AKR]

Such a black and white view. I guess if you support individual freedom you think a 5 year old should be able to decide he doesn't want a heart transplant because he's afraid of needles and doesn't want a pre-surgery blood test? If you don't think so, you hate freedom and are a fascist.

What a horrible analogy. One will save your life and the other will mutilate your body for no good reason. How the f*ck can you even compare the two?

And they do it anyways... and while I think calling circumcision a mutilation is pure demagoguery

I'm pretty sure it fits the definition of "mutilation."

I do believe that a culture should be allowed to determine what is acceptable or not. American culture says tattoos are for goobers and socially ostracizes people and sees them as mutilation in many cases. Other cultures see them as a badge of honor. Some people might think getting kids ears pierced is a mutilation - are we gonna ban that now too?

Yes, it's pretty f*cked up that parents subject their children to stressful, painful, pointlessly dangerous situations such as piercing ears, especially with crappy piercing guns which could easily spread diseases. A needlessly cruel procedure for sh*tty parents who care more about treating their child as a fashion accessory than as an innocent child. But don't get me started on that.

People in other cultures can do what they want - that's a hallmark of democracy - and I don't see the US as any different.

Hur hur, brb, allowing clitoris removal because it's the hallmark of democracy. Did you serious just try to justify child abuse as the hallmark of democracy? This has to be one of your dumbest posts ever.

[AKR]

No, I hope YOU'RE trolling. Your argument was based on INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Now you're saying that you want to limit individual freedom?

So the child can make no decisions for himself and the parents are allowed to make them except when you disagree with their decision. Gotcha.

By your ridiculous stance, you could justify child molestation. "duuuur, the child wanted it! They have individual freedom!"

And what's funny is that you talk about individual freedom and a child making the choice. Uh, the parents are the one that make the choice for this to happen. So how about we at least ban parents from forcing it on kids and then they can ask their kid when they're 5 or so if they want a doctor to cut part of their dick off. Let's see what they say.

[ElMariachi]

I'm circumcized, glad to be, and am glad that I had it done as an infant.

With anti-mutiliation argument, then they'd have to ban ear piercings, surgery, etc. Vaccine shots and whatnot put children in a lot of pain and fear, should they be banned too?

I'm not circumcised and happy but you bring up a good point. How is that so often you see little girls, like toddlers that get their ears pierced but I've yet to hear anyone get up in arms about that practice?