San Francisco man wants to ban circumcision

[Perpetual Change]

I thought everyone was cut?

[ehra]

It's not always necessarily life-saving though.

In any case, I don't understand why everyone is calling it 'mutilation'. It's hardly so. And if you're not circumcised you don't really understand what me or Adami are talking about.

But from a legal standpoint I don't think this law would hold up if only because of the Jewish aspect of it.

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 don't think it should be banned outright, but it shouldn't be up to the parents to decide. What's the significance of a religious ceremony if the recipient has absolutely no concept of what's going on?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

It's not always necessarily life-saving though.

In any case, I don't understand why everyone is calling it 'mutilation'. It's hardly so. And if you're not circumcised you don't really understand what me or Adami are talking about.

But from a legal standpoint I don't think this law would hold up if only because of the Jewish aspect of it.

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 don't think it should be banned outright, but it shouldn't be up to the parents to decide. What's the significance of a religious ceremony if the recipient has absolutely no concept of what's going on?

See: baptism

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that done during infancy as well?

[ehra]

It typically is, and I'd make close to the same argument against that as well.

[GuineaPig]

And baptism isn't the same as physical alteration.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

And baptism isn't the same as physical alteration.

I wasn't suggesting it was. I was replying to ehra's point about religious ceremonies.

[soundgarden]

Like every other religious tradition, circumcision was born out of common practices of the day.  Its not unexpected that this practice originated in the desert areas, where sand buildup in the foreskin can lead to infestation. Its a common practice now among Jews and Muslims, and more of a "maybe' practice among Christians.

I don't understand how any religious person can see this act as ordained by god.  Why would one need to remove a part of divinely created creature.  Imperfection?

On topic:  The ban is ridiculous.  Of all the things to spend time and money on....my god.  Yes, leave it to the parents, but I would say to the parents to really take a hard look at what you are doing.

In Guyana where I came from the Muslims there believed that the proper way to perform a circumcision is during the early teenage years and without any numbing aides.  Essentially the men of the family hold the kid down and the mother takes a knife and 1, 2, 3 done.  The kid of course is in excruciating pain.

Rites of passages like that (and others I have seen and read of, such as lacerating one's skin) makes me reflect on the idea of American religious freedom (but not as much as the nature of religion I should add)

[Mat JB]

Parents should not be allowed to irrevocably mutilate their children for no valid reason.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Parents should not be allowed to irrevocably mutilate their children for no valid reason.

So, I suppose that my religion is not a 'valid reason' then?

And I refuse to believe that this is in any way mutilation. I don't see my dick as mutilated at all. It functions just fine and is sensitive enough for gratification

[eric42434224]

Parents should not be allowed to irrevocably mutilate their children for no valid reason.

-Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
-Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
-Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
-Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
-Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.

https://www.medicinenet.com

These may not be valid reasons for you, but are obviously valid reasons for many.  (I wont even go into Religious reasons)
I am not saying which is right one way or the other, but to say there are no valid reasons is just simply not true.

[El Barto]

He didn't say there were no valid reasons, nor did he suggest what they are/aren't.  The fact is, plenty of parents have their kid snipped because it's just the normal thing to do in this country, and that's silly.  I agree with him in that regard.  If your religion prescribes circumcision, then so be it.  As for the medicinal benefits, those are largely unproven.  It's somewhat telling, IMO, that the ADA and plenty of other doctor's organizations take a neutral stance on it. 

[Adami]

Parents should not be allowed to irrevocably mutilate their children for no valid reason.

I agree, but what does that have to do with this thread?

[TheVoxyn]

The opposite is the norm here (uncut) and I think people think there are health risks with getting cut. I guess the main reason is doing what the rest of the environment does. Almost no one get's cut here, so why should my son get cut? And across the pond it's the opposite.

I think that kinda rules out the health argument. If it was really better for the child to get cut, I don't see why it wouldn't be more common than it is now (over here).




Here being the Netherlands by the way. But I'm pretty sure it holds for most of Europe.

[j]

^Yeah, I think this is pretty much the case.

Like I said earlier in the thread (I think), there are no health risks or benefits to being cut or uncut that occur with any regularity.  Some parents may do it for religious reasons, but I get the feeling that (in both Europe and the states) most pick one or the other simply because it's "the norm".

-J

[73109]

Jew checking in and this is fucking stupid. Leave it up to the parent. If a parent can decide to have their kid under the knife for whatever reason, they chop a part of his dick off and the fact that there is a group who want to ban this completely is insane. Let's ban communion because it is a symbolism of cannibalism and see how that works.

[ack44]

In Guyana where I came from the Muslims there believed that the proper way to perform a circumcision is during the early teenage years and without any numbing aides.  Essentially the men of the family hold the kid down and the mother takes a knife and 1, 2, 3 done.  The kid of course is in excruciating pain.

I see you have no problem with this being legal 

[sonatafanica]

ITT: uncut guys rave about how horrible it is to be circumcised

[ehra]

Who?

[ack44]

The Jew Haters.

a.k.a. Europeans

[ddtonfire]

I haven't seen any good reason it shouldn't be done.

[eric42434224]

I haven't seen any good reason it shouldn't be done.

There isnt any overwhelming reason either way.

[El Barto]

I haven't seen any good reason it shouldn't be done.

"Why not?" is a pretty poor excuse for performing surgery.  

[eric42434224]

I haven't seen any good reason it shouldn't be done.

"Why not?" is a pretty poor excuse for performing surgery.  

"why not?" isnt the reaon it is being done....and you know that.

[El Barto]

It's a big reason why it's being done.  As I've said, if you're Jewish or you truly believe that there are medical benefits to it, then go right on ahead.  I consider those valid reasons (though I disagree with both).  However, I think most people do it just because it's become the norm in this country.  It's also rapidly becoming the exception here, as most doctors are now advising against it as a routine procedure.

[eric42434224]

It's a big reason why it's being done.  As I've said, if you're Jewish or you truly believe that there are medical benefits to it, then go right on ahead.  I consider those valid reasons (though I disagree with both).  However, I think most people do it just because it's become the norm in this country.  It's also rapidly becoming the exception here, as most doctors are now advising against it as a routine procedure.

But doing it because it is the norm isnt the same as "why not?"  Conforming to the norm is a valid reason.

[El Barto]

It's a big reason why it's being done.  As I've said, if you're Jewish or you truly believe that there are medical benefits to it, then go right on ahead.  I consider those valid reasons (though I disagree with both).  However, I think most people do it just because it's become the norm in this country.  It's also rapidly becoming the exception here, as most doctors are now advising against it as a routine procedure.

But doing it because it is the norm isnt the same as "why not?"  Conforming to the norm is a valid reason.

That's an interesting point, and I suppose that you're right that it's not the same as "why not?"  However, I have to disagree that it's a valid reason.  If we're talking about getting you ear pierced or something similarly mundane, then OK.  We're not, though.  We're talking about performing surgery to lop off a piece of somebody's dick.  I think that deserves more consideration than "well, everybody else is doing it."

Furthermore, we're talking about an elective procedure that the child has no control over.  I'm all for a parent being able to make decisions for their kid, assuming it's a decision that needs to be made.  If we're only doing it so the kid will look like everybody else in the 24 Hour Fitness lockerroom, then what's the difference between circumcision and getting him a tribal tat on his arm?  Being elective, it's the sort of thing that he should have some say-so in. 

Lastly, it's an artificial norm.  If the kid had a second nose, then nobody would suggest making him live with it until he could decide whether or not he wanted to look normal.  In this case, though, we're talking about modifying him from the normal state of being a human male into something that American society decided should be the norm. 

[lateralus88]

Guys, uncut generally means that if not properly washed, there will be smegma. And boy, will it be smegma-y.

[Adami]

Guys, uncut generally means that if not properly washed, there will be smegma. And boy, will it be smegma-y.

It also means you go to hell.

[lateralus88]

The amount of smegma is the equivalent to which circle you start off in?

[eric42434224]

And for those who dont know, smegma is smelly cheese.
Smelly cheese is a valid reason.   

[Implode]

The socially constructed norm is definitely, mostly the reason guys in the US get cut. I know a bunch of girls who think uncut penises are gross.

I know that's a bad reason to keep doing it, but I feel that it'd be just as hard to get rid of other arbitrary social constructions here, e.g. underweight being hot, pink=girl blue=boy, girls shave legs and guys don't, etc.

[Philawallafox]

Hold the phone. Baptism is not something that is always done at birth.

There are two kinds of baptism. Infant and adult.

Infant baptism is a symbol of the parents entering into covenant with God to raise the child as a child of God, much like circumcision.

Adult baptism is likened to a rebirth. This is where the person (usually anyone old enough to make a decision for themself. My girlfriend was about 9) chooses for themself to be baptised as a symbol entering into covenant with God submitting their life to him.


On the note of banning circumcision. It's a Jewish thing. I don't understand why so many *non jewish* americans do it in the first place...

[eric42434224]

If you read the thread, you would understand some of the non-jewish reasons.  
Many traditions are started by specific religious groups for certain reasons, and are adopted by others for various reasons.
Nothing wrong with that...see it all the time....like Christians who use Trees, and give presents, in the celebration of Christmas.
Seemed pretty clear to me.

[rumborak]

The socially constructed norm is definitely, mostly the reason guys in the US get cut. I know a bunch of girls who think uncut penises are gross.

No offense, but those girls sound like bimbos. Let's face it, the human penis is a pretty unsightly organ overall, just as much as the vagina. It's fine to have a certain culture-imposed preference, but to honestly say that uncut penises are gross while cut penises are fine, is just silly. That's like saying Rosie O'Donnell is hot with a certain haircut.

rumborak

[El Barto]

The socially constructed norm is definitely, mostly the reason guys in the US get cut. I know a bunch of girls who think uncut penises are gross.

No offense, but those girls sound like bimbos. Let's face it, the human penis is a pretty unsightly organ overall, just as much as the vagina. It's fine to have a certain culture-imposed preference, but to honestly say that uncut penises are gross while cut penises are fine, is just silly. That's like saying Rosie O'Donnell is hot with a certain haircut.

rumborak

Yeah, pretty much what I was thinking.  I suspect the ickiness would wear off pretty quickly for any number of reasons.  While I can certainly see how a girl might have a preference one way or the other going into a relationship, I have a hard time seeing how that would be a deal-breaker if other conditions were favorable.  

Edit: Oh, and this point is rapidly turning moot.  Circumcision rates are plummeting in this country.  In another generation, uncut will be the norm.