First referendum on banning circumcisions performed on minors

[watdafukman]

I love how you people label it, "mutilation" as if you're rendering it useless..

i don't think you know what mutilation means

i will direct you to the dictionary definition

to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts

enjoy

[Newsflash]

God forbid we teach boys to wash their penors correctly instead of lopping parts of it off.

Thumbs up San Fran, hope it passes.

[coffey06]

It seems to me that those in San Francisco who support this ban on infant circumcision are rationally obligated to support a ban on medically-unnecessary abortion as well. Abortion is obviously more intrusive and violative than circumcision (since the former is killing of the entire body while the latter is only killing and removal of part of the body) and an unborn human is also not able to give consent. The only difference between an infant and an unborn baby is the stage of development. Both are genetically complete humans and an infant relies on the care of his parents only slightly less radically than an unborn child relies on his mother.

[watdafukman]

It seems to me that those in San Francisco who support this ban on infant circumcision are rationally obligated to support a ban on medically-unnecessary abortion as well. Abortion is obviously more intrusive and violative than circumcision (since the former is killing of the entire body while the latter is only killing and removal of part of the body) and an unborn human is also not able to give consent. The only difference between an infant and an unborn baby is the stage of development. Both are genetically complete humans and an infant relies on the care of his parents only slightly less radically than an unborn child relies on his mother.

The reason I bring this is up is because I have a hunch (obviously no scientific polling to back it up) that many of those who support the ban on infant circumcision are also pro-choice.

brb comparing a 2 month old fetus with a baby

[Beeewbs]

I love how you people label it, "mutilation" as if you're rendering it useless..

It is what it is. Read a dictionary.

It's not mutilation, female circumcision is mutilation, male circumcision is removing useless skin.

Wrong. The skin is not useless. You should try learning about your own genitalia. Again, why should everyone have their dicks mutilated or whatever you want to call it just because you do?

[Plainandtall]

It's not mutilation, female circumcision is mutilation, male circumcision is removing useless skin.

Please watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuDhkiDdns

and then compare it to this:

http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html

and then try to say that again.

[southeastoz]

Hardly. The average GP wont hesitate to tell you why getting circumcised is "ideal".

No.

Does anyone know what percentage of kids are still getting cirsumcised in the us? I remember reading a study in aus saying that only ~1% of kids are still getting it.

It is most certainly genital mutilation and should be left with the individual once they reach the age of consent.

[Rdez]

Good decision. Minors cannot consent to surgery, and as such, they should not be subject to any surgery that is not medically necessary.

There's a lot of things done to minors that aren't medically necessary.

Also, medically necessary is just a matter of opinion, ultimately.

This is nothing more than an attack on Religious freedom and Parental rights by left wing statists.

[Rdez]

No.

Does anyone know what percentage of kids are still getting cirsumcised in the us? I remember reading a study in aus saying that only ~1% of kids are still getting it.

It is most certainly genital mutilation and should be left with the individual once they reach the age of consent.

In the U.S.? Well, anecdotal evidence, the Maternity ward nurses told us 'more have it done than not'. That's at a suburban Chicago white middle class area hospital.

So take that as you will.

[Rdez]

It is what it is. Read a dictionary.



Wrong. The skin is not useless. You should try learning about your own genitalia. Again, why should everyone have their dicks mutilated or whatever you want to call it just because you do?

Please educate. What is wrong with my dick?

Works just fine last time I checked. Don't feel mutilated at all. Women have always enjoyed the look, feel, and function of it.

[mistercollie]

A baby boy doesn't know what a foreskin is, and isn't in any way prepared to make a logical judgment on whether or not he wants to keep his.

Supporters complain that banning infant genital modification impedes "religious freedom".

Babies don't have developed ideas on any subject, and certainly not metaphysical, moral, or medical ones.

Not only is it a gross violation of civil liberties, it also just doesn't make any sense at all.

I have no idea how a State can vote this into effect and still legalize abortions. That entire line of reasoning, I thought, entitled parents with ALL the power to decide on the future of a child - born or unborn. If every child in development had actually been given the opportunity to be born, wouldn't they also have been entitled to the same equal civil liberties? Hypocrites. Now you suddenly plan to decide everyone's conscience for them, in the name of "civil liberty" and "religious freedom" just because you can all agree that the baby is a "living, breathing life".

Truth is, you couldn't be anymore ass backward from the truth. By your line or reasoning, "if babies don't have any developed ideas" then is it not up to the parents, the one's responsible for raising this individual, allowed to stipulate their own conscience that "has plenty of developed ideas"?

It's sad to know that every social issue comes down to such blatant intellectual dishonestly. "Mutilation", "obstruction of civil liberty", "unfair" - have not all these same words been used to shut down the abortion lobby? Hypocrites. Fair and square.

[Beeewbs]

Please educate. What is wrong with my dick?

Works just fine last time I checked. Don't feel mutilated at all. Women have always enjoyed the look, feel, and function of it.

It doesn't matter how you feel or how women like it. That does not define whether something is mutilated or not.

Here's your education:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9987.html

The foreskin has three known functions: protective, sensory, and sexual.

During infancy, the foreskin is attached to the glans and protects it from urine, feces, and abrasions from diapers. Throughout life, the foreskin keeps the glans soft and moist and protects it from trauma and injury. Without this protection, the glans becomes dry, calloused, and desensitized from exposure and chafing.

Specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure.

The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexu...cumcision1.htm

The foreskin (also known as the prepuce) is a portion of skin on the penis that covers and protects the tip of the penis, also known as the glans. It can be a tough world for a glans -- there's abrasion from undergarments, cold winter weather and dry air. It's good to have a protection policy in place, and the foreskin provides that protection for the glans.

When males are born, the skin on the penis extends over the glans, protecting it on day one from the wear and tear it will undergo in that lifetime.

While its outer appearance is the same as any other skin on the penis, the foreskin is home to many nerve bundles and blood cells, and its inner surface is similar to the inside of your mouth, helping the glans stay naturally lubricated. Between the outer layer and the moist inner layer is a ridged band with additional nerve endings. A piece of tissue called the frenulum connects the foreskin to the glans. It looks (and functions somewhat) like the connective tissue beneath your tongue. When the penis is flaccid, the frenulum tightens to narrow the opening of the foreskin.

And now you know how an unmutilated penis works.

[Godfrd824]

It is what it is. Read a dictionary.



Wrong. The skin is not useless. You should try learning about your own genitalia. Again, why should everyone have their dicks mutilated or whatever you want to call it just because you do?

Medical student here, so I know how it works, it's not needed, there are some good things about it, there are some bad things about it, i'm my opinion the good is even with the bad, I don't even understand how people bitch about it, you have a foreskin, your cock works just fine, you don't have a foreskin, it still works just fine, people are making a big deal out of nothing, also most people who are circumcised don't care, and in the US, most people who aren't, wish they were.

[Plainandtall]

The reason I bring this is up is because I have a hunch (obviously no scientific polling to back it up) that many of those who support the ban on infant circumcision are also pro-choice.

Coffey- Abortion is a red herring. I am an activist who supports this ban (not just for SF, but for the entire country- the law protecting women from genital cutting but denying males equal protection is unconstitutional) and I can tell you that among genital integrity activists, the opinions about abortion are split about the same as in the general population. I happen to support a child's right to life. Although my ideas on the two subjects exist independently, my belief in the child as a unique entity, a human being deserving of protection from harm is a foundation in both.

Many people who support genital integrity are of a conservative mindset that supports the rights of the individual. It's really impossible to make generalized assumptions about who "those people" are- there are all kinds of people who get this.

[Beeewbs]

Medical student here, so I know how it works, it's not needed, there are some good things about it, there are some bad things about it, i'm my opinion the good is even with the bad, I don't even understand how people bitch about it, you have a foreskin, your cock works just fine, you don't have a foreskin, it still works just fine, people are making a big deal out of nothing, also most people who are circumcised don't care, and in the US, most people who aren't, wish they were.

You're a medical student - not a doctor. You don't have the right to an expert opinion yet. Are you even basing your opinion on medical research? What exactly are the "good" and the "bad," according to you?

[RBLOCK]

I have no idea how a State can vote this into effect and still legalize abortions. That entire line of reasoning, I thought, entitled parents with ALL the power to decide on the future of a child - born or unborn. If every child in development had actually been given the opportunity to be born, wouldn't they also have been entitled to the same equal civil liberties? Hypocrites. Now you suddenly plan to decide everyone's conscience for them, in the name of "civil liberty" and "religious freedom" just because you can all agree that the baby is a "living, breathing life".

Truth is, you couldn't be anymore ass backward from the truth. By your line or reasoning, "if babies don't have any developed ideas" then is it not up to the parents, the one's responsible for raising this individual, allowed to stipulate their own conscience that "has plenty of developed ideas"?

It's sad to know that every social issue comes down to such blatant intellectual dishonestly. "Mutilation", "obstruction of civil liberty", "unfair" - have not all these same words been used to shut down the abortion lobby? Hypocrites. Fair and square.

My definition of a human being is someone not subsisting on an umbilical cord. I look for an independent respiratory and digestive system. And no, that doesn't mean I think it would be fine to circumcise a newborn and then cut the umbilical chord right after that.

If your argument is that every potential hypothetical baby has an unerring right to be born, then miscarriages are manslaughter and handjobs are genocide.

[Godfrd824]

lol as if a first year has learned anything about the foreskin in medical school

maybe you know it's innervation, big deal bro

circumcision procedures also come with potential complications, you should know that. first, do no harm. in the absence of any significant, documented benefit, it is unethical for a doctor to conduct a circumcision

You got me, but I speak from having a foreskin, I get a rash if I don't shower right after fuking, or if I don't shower everyday, that's one of the bads of this thing. There are a few more.

[coffey06]

Coffey- Abortion is a red herring. I am an activist who supports this ban (not just for SF, but for the entire country- the law protecting women from genital cutting but denying males equal protection is unconstitutional) and I can tell you that among genital integrity activists, the opinions about abortion are split about the same as in the general population. I happen to support a child's right to life. Although my ideas on the two subjects exist independently, my belief in the child as a unique entity, a human being deserving of protection from harm is a foundation in both.

Many people who support genital integrity are of a conservative mindset that supports the rights of the individual. It's really impossible to make generalized assumptions about who "those people" are- there are all kinds of people who get this.

Thank you. Your points are well-taken. Perhaps I will amend my initial post to exclude the final sentence since it is indeed unfounded.

[RBLOCK]

lol as if a first year has learned anything about the foreskin in medical school

maybe you know it's innervation, big deal bro

circumcision procedures also come with potential complications, you should know that. first, do no harm. in the absence of any significant, documented benefit, it is unethical for a doctor to conduct a circumcision

I had a circumcision revision about a year ago because the neonatal job was very poorly and unevenly done. My personal experience is part of the reason I'm opposed to it being performed on infants. Speaking, then, as someone who underwent the same surgery as an adult, I can say that it is pretty painful. Recovery took about three weeks, so it didn't devastate my life. People claiming that the procedure would be impossible to tolerate as an adult haven't had it done as adults. And considering that I was an adult the second time around, I have a higher threshold for pain tolerance. Do you think a man or a boy is better able to withstand pain? I would vote that the man usually is.

Botched surgeries on infants are extremely common. The surgeon has no idea how much skin to take and there isn't any careful monitoring of healing. The more gruesome botches include skin bridges and malopposition. If an adult is circumcized, he can get educated about what to watch out for and keep careful track of his healing progress.

That being said, I still don't think many adults will want to be circumsized when they do some research. This study from Morris Sorrells indicates that each tactile area removed by circumcision is more sensitive than the most sensitive remaining structure on a circumcised penis (and, for circumcised men, the most sensitive spot was the scar line at which those crucial structures were removed):

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

[coffey06]

My definition of a human being is someone not subsisting on an umbilical cord. I look for an independent respiratory and digestive system. And no, that doesn't mean I think it would be fine to circumcise a newborn and then cut the umbilical chord right after that.

Why not? By your very definition that newborn is not a human until the umbilical cord is cut.

[mistercollie]

If your argument is that every potential hypothetical baby has an unerring right to be born, then miscarriages are manslaughter and handjobs are genocide.

A miscarriage is an unfortunate thing, but simply sperm & egg cells (alluding to your second term now) by themselves are not life creating of themselves. Conception, to me, is the 'origin' - the 'beginning' of the process of life. Your argument is that there is a biological point where "life" is worthy of preservation. However, in regard to the OP, he clearly cannot deny (and neither can you) that neither circumcision, nor even birth, are ever remembered by a newborn. Most of his memory during his development years are hardly remembered either...

...again, intellectual dishonesty. Your refutation involves no facts by which we can agree on, simply a redefining of terms and morality. At least I am willing to stay consistent with my conditions. You want to take rights away from their parents to decide. What a parent wants to do with the future of their born (or unborn) child is not my decision. I will make my own. I am simply calling out the hypocrisy.

[Rdez]

It doesn't matter how you feel or how women like it. That does not define whether something is mutilated or not.

Here's your education:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9987.html



http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexu...cumcision1.htm



And now you know how an unmutilated penis works.

If I don't think it's mutilated, then that's all that matters. It's MY body, isn't it?

[Newsflash]

It seems to me that those in San Francisco who support this ban on infant circumcision are rationally obligated to support a ban on medically-unnecessary abortion as well. Abortion is obviously more intrusive and violative than circumcision (since the former is killing of the entire body while the latter is only killing and removal of part of the body) and an unborn human is also not able to give consent. The only difference between an infant and an unborn baby is the stage of development. Both are genetically complete humans and an infant relies on the care of his parents only slightly less radically than an unborn child relies on his mother.

The reason I bring this is up is because I have a hunch (obviously no scientific polling to back it up) that many of those who support the ban on infant circumcision are also pro-choice.

I am absolutely 100% against the involuntary disfigurement of a minor. This includes circumcision, piercings, tatooing, etc. I believe that adults who intentionally disfigure a minor without its informed and expressed consent should be brought up on criminal charges just as if they had assaulted and caused injury to someone else's child.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with abortions during the first 4 weeks of pregnancy. 62% of all pregnancies are naturally aborted in the first 12 weeks anyway. Moreover, during the first 4 weeks there's no physiological possibility of consciousness in the embryo.

Between weeks 4 and the end of the first trimester, I'd support the right to abortion in the instance of rape. A woman who becomes pregnant through rape should, in my opinion, have the right to decide whether or not she wants to use her body to bring that fetus to term within a reasonable amount of time from the crime. I also believe that measures such as the "morning after" pill should be provided as an option to rape victims immediately after the rape examination has been performed. After week 13, the development of the fetus has reached a point where I no longer believe that abortion should be a viable option unless:

The mother-to-be's life is in clear and greater-than-normal danger if she continues to carry the child to term. If an impending mother's life is at greater-than-normal risk if she carries the child to term, then I believe she should have the right to choose herself over the fetus regardless of whether it's day 1 for the embryo, or birthday for the fetus. If the fetus is not viable, that would mean a choice between carrying to term at great risk to herself, or having an abortion to ensure her own survival. If the fetus is viable, then I believe the choices should be either carry to term or have a cesarean - unless the particular circumstances of that mother makes cesarean somehow a greater risk than normal to the mother, in which case abortion to save her own life should still be an available option to her.

[Rdez]

You got me, but I speak from having a foreskin, I get a rash if I don't shower right after fuking, or if I don't shower everyday, that's one of the bads of this thing. There are a few more.

This is again, anecdotal - but the maternity ward nurses and pediatricians told us the boys who don't get circ'd end up with lots of urinary infections and complications from that, which is a reason why lots of parents get their male infants circ'd.

Take it as you will. Not a definitive study of course.

[RBLOCK]

A miscarriage is an unfortunate thing, but simply sperm & egg cells (alluding to your second term now) by themselves are not life creating of themselves. Conception, to me, is the 'origin' - the 'beginning' of the process of life. Your argument is that there is a biological point where "life" is worthy of preservation. However, in regard to the OP, he clearly cannot deny (and neither can you) that neither circumcision, nor even birth, are ever remembered by a newborn. Most of his memory during his development years are hardly remembered either...

...again, intellectual dishonesty. Your refutation involves no facts by which we can agree on, simply a redefining of terms and morality. At least I am willing to stay consistent with my conditions. You want to take rights away from their parents to decide. What a parent wants to do with the future of their born (or unborn) child is not my decision. I will make my own. I am simply calling out the hypocrisy.

If it makes a difference, I don't support abortions. I think people need to grow up, be responsible, and use redundant methods of contraception if they want to have sex but don't want children. I'm looking to the constitution to validate my belief that the baby becomes a human being when it exists independently of the mother. If it's considered a human prior to that, then we're legally demanding that the mother carry it to term, violating the amendment against chattel slavery. I'm not willing to do that.

Newborns most definitely experience pain, and circumcision has been shown to disrupt breastfeeding and the bonding process between the child and mother. Bloodwork demonstrates that stress hormone levels shoot through the roof when the procedure is performed. I'm inclined to think that those factors indicate that the procedure carries with it the implication of developmental difficulty.

Lastly, this line of argument is always ad hominem, even if anti-circumcision individuals don't support abortion. Pro-choice and pro-life people agree that born babies are human beings. So, instead of fighting for the rights of people we all agree are people, you instead want to criticize pro-choicers for the time window in which they consider people people and ignore the rights they're trying to protect? Wouldn't it be more productive to address issues on which we can agree first?

[Beeewbs]

If I don't think it's mutilated, then that's all that matters. It's MY body, isn't it?

Nope. Why won't you just look up the definition of the word? Do you accept that your penis does not function as it would have naturally functioned had it not been cut? I'm done argue semantics. The fact is foreskin has a purpose and circumcision prevents a human from deciding if that purpose is important to them.

[RBLOCK]

If I don't think it's mutilated, then that's all that matters. It's MY body, isn't it?

Yes, and it should have been YOUR choice, not someone else who didn't own the penis in question.

[RBLOCK]

No.

Does anyone know what percentage of kids are still getting cirsumcised in the us? I remember reading a study in aus saying that only ~1% of kids are still getting it.

It is most certainly genital mutilation and should be left with the individual once they reach the age of consent.

It's been declining pretty quickly as parents get more informed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/he...ch/17circ.html

[Beeewbs]

You got me, but I speak from having a foreskin, I get a rash if I don't shower right after fuking, or if I don't shower everyday, that's one of the bads of this thing. There are a few more.

So, let's just cut off part of everyone's penis so they don't have to shower every day. And I don't think the dick rash relates to your foreskin. I've never heard of that issue with foreskin.

[Beeewbs]

Yes, and it should have been YOUR choice, not someone else who didn't own the penis in question.

This. lol @ him getting all defensive about it and not realizing that he's just making a point for us.