San Francisco man wants to ban circumcision

[eric42434224]

I think it comes down to this.

Circumcised men have no desire to be uncircumcised.

I would say you are completely wrong about this.

I would say you have absolutely no basis to say this.  He is not completely wrong as I am cut and have no desire to be uncut.

[Super Dude]

It's not a testicle, an organ, or a muscle; it's basically a flap of skin.

This, and the only thing it does for ya is grow smegma.

[GuineaPig]

It's not a testicle, an organ, or a muscle; it's basically a flap of skin.

This, and the only thing it does for ya is grow smegma.

And increase your sexual pleasure.

[Super Dude]

Which of course is worth it for all the smegma.

[ehra]

I think it comes down to this.

Circumcised men have no desire to be uncircumcised.

I would say you are completely wrong about this.

I would say you have absolutely no basis to say this.  He is not completely wrong as I am cut and have no desire to be uncut.

And if you're not circumcised you don't really understand what me or Adami are talking about.

I am, actually, which is a bit confusing to me considering no one in my family is even Jewish. It's completely unnecessary and, if given the choice, I'd definitely turn it down since there's really no point in it.

[Super Dude]

I haven't read most of this thread so I don't know if this has been highlighted, but what about San Francisco Jews whose religious practices are halted by this ban?  I'm not talking about reform Jews and the less observant because it's likely this will lead to further assimilation on their part, but what about the conservative and Orthodox Jews, who will probably feel rather persecuted against?

[ehra]

No idea. Like I said earlier, I don't think it should be banned. I just don't think it's the parents' place to make that decision.

[eric42434224]

I think it comes down to this.

Circumcised men have no desire to be uncircumcised.

I would say you are completely wrong about this.

I would say you have absolutely no basis to say this.  He is not completely wrong as I am cut and have no desire to be uncut.

And if you're not circumcised you don't really understand what me or Adami are talking about.

I am, actually, which is a bit confusing to me considering no one in my family is even Jewish. It's completely unnecessary and, if given the choice, I'd definitely turn it down since there's really no point in it.

I was merely stating he was wrong, as I had no desire to be uncut.  I am sure others do.

[Super Dude]

No idea. Like I said earlier, I don't think it should be banned. I just don't think it's the parents' place to make that decision.

So whose choice is it?  If it's the child's then fine, but believe me, circumcision is much worse and way more traumatic at 13 years than it is at 8 days.

[7StringedBeast]

It should be up to the parents simply because it shouldn't be up to a few law makers to decide.

Seriously, why is it ok nowadays for one person to have a problem with something and we have to cater to that one person's problem with a societal norm.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  If you want to get it done for your child, get it done.  The system is fine the way it is, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Super Dude]

It should be up to the parents simply because it shouldn't be up to a few law makers to decide.

Seriously, why is it ok nowadays for one person to have a problem with something and we have to cater to that one person's problem with a societal norm.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  If you want to get it done for your child, get it done.  The system is fine the way it is, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

This

[El Barto]

I'll ask again.  If it's the parent's decision to do something that's largely cosmetic to their child, then what's the difference between circumcision and a big flaming skull tattoo like Otto the Bus Driver?

Again, I'm all for parents being able to act based on religion and to a lessor extent, possibly mythical health benefits, but doing so because it was the societal norm seems pretty wrong to me. 

[7StringedBeast]

You wear pants because it is a societal norm.  Laws are basically there because they are societal norms.  Honestly, who cares?  It doesn't effect you at all.  It doesn't hurt the child.  I'm sure there are far more medical reasons against getting a tattoo done on an infant than circumcision. 

Let's not get hung up on semantics.  A little bit of logic goes a long way.

[ehra]

I was merely stating he was wrong, as I had no desire to be uncut.  I am sure others do.

Actually, the way being "wrong" works is to say something (like "circumcised men have no desire to be uncircumcised") and then have that thing turn out to not be true. Icy wasn't wrong to say Adami was "completely wrong" because he was.

It should be up to the parents simply because it shouldn't be up to a few law makers to decide.

Seriously, why is it ok nowadays for one person to have a problem with something and we have to cater to that one person's problem with a societal norm.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  If you want to get it done for your child, get it done.  The system is fine the way it is, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I guess the people who have irreversible cosmetic surgery done to them are just SOL then. We wouldn't want to offend anyone.

[El Barto]

Here's a novel solution.  When insurance companies stop covering it since it's no longer considered medically necessary, I suspect the societal norm will change in a big-ass hurry.  Jews will still have it done since a Rabbi isn't going to hit you for $3k (insert Jewish greed joke here) like the hospital will. 

[7StringedBeast]

I was merely stating he was wrong, as I had no desire to be uncut.  I am sure others do.

Actually, the way being "wrong" works is to say something (like "circumcised men have no desire to be uncircumcised") and then have that thing turn out to not be true. Icy wasn't wrong to say Adami was "completely wrong" because he was.

It should be up to the parents simply because it shouldn't be up to a few law makers to decide.

Seriously, why is it ok nowadays for one person to have a problem with something and we have to cater to that one person's problem with a societal norm.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  If you want to get it done for your child, get it done.  The system is fine the way it is, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I guess the people who have irreversible cosmetic surgery done to them are just SOL then. We wouldn't want to offend anyone.

What are you talking about here?  People who choose to have surgery or people who don't?  I'm going to assume you are talking about infants who have "irreversible cosmetic surgery" umm its really not that big of a deal.  Seriously.  Mountain out of a molehill. 

[ehra]

I was merely stating he was wrong, as I had no desire to be uncut.  I am sure others do.

Actually, the way being "wrong" works is to say something (like "circumcised men have no desire to be uncircumcised") and then have that thing turn out to not be true. Icy wasn't wrong to say Adami was "completely wrong" because he was.

It should be up to the parents simply because it shouldn't be up to a few law makers to decide.

Seriously, why is it ok nowadays for one person to have a problem with something and we have to cater to that one person's problem with a societal norm.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  If you want to get it done for your child, get it done.  The system is fine the way it is, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I guess the people who have irreversible cosmetic surgery done to them are just SOL then. We wouldn't want to offend anyone.

What are you talking about here?  People who choose to have surgery or people who don't?  I'm going to assume you are talking about infants who have "irreversible cosmetic surgery" umm its really not that big of a deal.  Seriously.  Mountain out of a molehill. 

Of course I mean people who don't choose it themselves, why would I have any problem with people choosing to have it done on their own?

If the whole thing isn't a big deal then why should it matter if parents aren't able to make the decision for their kid? It's apparently not a big deal for people to have this done to them and have no say in the matter, but heaven forbid anyone suggest that the parents shouldn't be able to make that decision. I guess that's supposed to make sense.

[7StringedBeast]

Why in the world should YOU have the right to tell other people whether or not to do this ritual?  It doesn't hurt the child.  Why does someone who is not the mother or father have any right in saying whether or not this should be performed.  It doesn't have any adverse effects.  The majority of American men have it done.  If it were so horrible, it wouldn't be done.  It's fine the way it is.  Do it if you want, don't if you don't want.

There are all sorts of complications in child birth.  Mothers die, baby's get deformed.  Maybe we should ban child birth?

[ehra]

Why in the world should YOU have the right to tell other people whether or not to do this ritual?  It doesn't hurt the child.  Why does someone who is not the mother or father have any right in saying whether or not this should be performed.  It doesn't have any adverse effects.  The majority of American men have it done.  If it were so horrible, it wouldn't be done.  It's fine the way it is.  Do it if you want, don't if you don't want.

There are all sorts of complications in child birth.  Mothers die, baby's get deformed.  Maybe we should ban child birth?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm saying the parents shouldn't be able to make the decision. Seriously, read what I've actually said before getting all indignant.

"Do it if you want, don't if you don't want" sounds nice and all, but it's kind of hilarious to say that when my whole point has been that the decision was already made for me. You don't get to say I have a choice in the matter when I had absolutely no choice in it.

[7StringedBeast]

I mean making the choice for the kid.  I'd say its a lot better to get it done when the child is a few days old.  Parents make ALL the decisions for their children.  Should we start banning other decisions parents have to make for their children?  Like say what color to paint their room, or what toys to get them, or what music they get exposed to?  All things that can developmentally shape a child.

No thanks.  Get out of my life government.  Where does it stop?  Parents make the choices for their infants.  Babies cannot do anything for themselves.

[ehra]

So the best you can come up with is a slippery slope argument?

[7StringedBeast]

I've already made my point.  You just don't want to see it.  The fact is we shouldn't have the government telling parents what is best for their children.

Why do you even care about what other parents choose for their children?  If you want to give your kid the choice, then give your kid the choice.  If another parent wants to have it done and raise the child with that, then let them.  It's not hurting the kid.  There is no good reason for a ban.  You cannot come up with a good reason for it.  You have great reasons for not doing it.  But no good reason to ban it for everyone.  That's what I'm getting at.

[ehra]

The fact is we shouldn't have the government telling parents what is best for their children.

I'm not saying they should.

Why do you even care about what other parents choose for their children?

Because I didn't have the choice and I wish it hasn't been done to me, and it'd be nice for other people to not have to deal with that themselves. It's something called empathy.

If another parent wants to have it done and raise the child with that, then let them.

I'm not saying they can't.

It's not hurting the kid.

I didn't say it was

There is no good reason for a ban.

Seriously, read my posts for a change. I'm against the ban.

[7StringedBeast]

Then can I ask why are you even arguing with me?  Given your last post we seem like we 100% agree on the topic at hand.

[ehra]

No we're not agreeing, are my posts really that hard to understand?  


I'm against the ban. However, I think it should be up to each person to decide for themselves if they want it done. Not the parents.

[7StringedBeast]

ohhh jeez sorry.  I thought the article was about banning parents from the right to choose.  I didn't realize it was an across the board ban.

So still, then my argument still stands.  Why shouldn't parents have the choice to choose?  I have already laid out great reasons why they should be able to choose.

Just because you wish you had the choice doesn't mean everyone does.  There should be no ban on the parents right to choose.  Parents should have the right to make that decision for the kid.  Because its best to have it done at a young age.  Before the kid can even make the decision for themselves in the first place.

And then there is the religious aspect of it as well.  What would you say to those parents?  Because its not hurting the child.

EDIT: 
Also, I'd imagine there would be a bunch of people who would want the procedure done later in life and would be upset that their parents couldn't have done it earlier when it wouldn't have been a painful process.  So yeah it goes both ways.

[ehra]

Just because you wish you had the choice doesn't mean everyone does.

Then they can choose to have it done. I can't choose to have it reversed.

Parents should have the right to make that decision for the kid.  Because its best to have it done at a young age.

Why? Why don't we care about what the kid has to say on the matter or how they might feel about it later on in life, but when it comes to the discussion of if the parents should be able to decide we're so against them being "traumatized"?

I thought there weren't any health risks and it didn't hurt the kid?

And then there is the religious aspect of it as well.  What would you say to those parents?  Because its not hurting the child.

There is the religious aspect of it, which is being forced on the kid.

[bosk1]

Even aside from the right to freedom of religion, there is a First Amendment Right for parents to raise their children and make decisions for their children as they see fit without governmental interference.  Of course, there are limitations on that right.  But I have yet to see that mentioned in the discussion, so I'm throwing it out there as well since people in this discussion seem unaware that there is even such a constitutional right.

[ehra]

I don't think it's being ignored so much as we're wondering how far that does or should go.

Do earlobes have much use? If they were removed at birth would it have any negative side effects later in life? Would their removal at birth for no reasons (or even "religious" reasons, assuming there was a religion that promoted earlobe removal) be protected under the first amendment?

[7StringedBeast]

Even aside from the right to freedom of religion, there is a First Amendment Right for parents to raise their children and make decisions for their children as they see fit without governmental interference.  Of course, there are limitations on that right.  But I have yet to see that mentioned in the discussion, so I'm throwing it out there as well since people in this discussion seem unaware that there is even such a constitutional right.

Where is that written into the first amendment?  I don't recall the first amendment saying anything about children.  I am curious where this is coming from.

Should we ban parents having kids tonsils taken out?  I just think its the parents choice to raise their children.  If you want to give your kid the choice that's great for you.  Do that.  But don't infringe on some other parent's right to make the choice for the child when its an infant.  For whatever reason they see fit.  People in this country need to stop thinking they are the best parent to ever grace this planet and know how all other people should parent their kids.  I dunno, that's my real issue with this I think.

[ehra]

As far as I know, there are well documented health reasons to support tonsil removal.

[bosk1]

Where is that written into the first amendment?  I don't recall the first amendment saying anything about children.  I am curious where this is coming from.

Much like the right to privacy, for example, it is not explicit, but has been interpreted by the courts to be implied by the freedoms offered by the First Amendment.  The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld it, so it is considered to be a constitutional right.  Plenty of courts have limited its application in various circumstances, as with other rights, but it is unequivocaly considered by the courts to be a constitutional right.

[El Barto]

You keep insisting (7SB) that there's no harm in circumcision.  The verdicts still out on that one.  The fact is, we have no way of knowing what the case is since we have no frame of reference.  The absence of obvious harm doesn't preclude harm that's unseen.  Of course that goes both ways, but lets not just assume that it's a meaningless decision.  Given the fact that there's no way of knowing what's best, I'd suggest deferring towards the evolution and the development of a part that does actually serve a purpose beyond appearance.  

[Adami]

You keep insisting (7SB) that there's no harm in circumcision.  The verdicts still out on that one.  The fact is, we have no way of knowing what the case is since we have no frame of reference.  The absence of obvious harm doesn't preclude harm that's unseen.  Of course that goes both ways, but lets not just assume that it's a meaningless decision.  Given the fact that there's no way of knowing what's best, I'd suggest deferring towards the evolution and the development of a part that does actually serve a purpose beyond appearance.  

You'd think several thousand years of circumcision would yield some pretty conclusive evidence. Unless of course you're looking for a minute bit of potential harm that no one has noticed yet. In which case who cares?

[El Barto]

You keep insisting (7SB) that there's no harm in circumcision.  The verdicts still out on that one.  The fact is, we have no way of knowing what the case is since we have no frame of reference.  The absence of obvious harm doesn't preclude harm that's unseen.  Of course that goes both ways, but lets not just assume that it's a meaningless decision.  Given the fact that there's no way of knowing what's best, I'd suggest deferring towards the evolution and the development of a part that does actually serve a purpose beyond appearance.  

You'd think several thousand years of circumcision would yield some pretty conclusive evidence. Unless of course you're looking for a minute bit of potential harm that no one has noticed yet. In which case who cares?

I would consider a loss of sensitivity to be harm.  The problem is that there's no way of knowing whether or not such a loss exists.  For some reason, most people who are already sexually active don't seem to be interested in having part of their dick cut off for the benefit of research.