San Francisco man wants to ban circumcision

[El JoNNo]

Relevant video about the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaxHzk7b4aY&feature=sub

Oddly enough it came up today in my youtube subs


Also I'm against circumcision and I'm fine with it being banned. I see no valid reason for it at all.

[Implode]

Religion?

Also, I'm curious to know the proportion of people for and against that are cut and that aren't cut.

[El JoNNo]

I don't have a religion.

[lateralus88]

But other people do. That's a pretty callous reason if you ask me.

[El JoNNo]

Who said that was my reason. He wrote "Religion?", I merely answered.

[lateralus88]

I think he was saying religion rhetorically, seeing how it's one of the valid reasons behind circumcision.

[El JoNNo]

There is no validity in chopping off a piece an organ, unless it is posing a threat to the child. I don't think anyone's religious opinions are valid in this case.

[73109]

unless it is posing a threat to the child.

Infection?

[El JoNNo]

unless it is posing a threat to the child.

Infection?

If a baby is born with an infected foreskin and it had progressed to the point that it needed to be amputated then yes. That would be posing a threat.

[73109]

What about the fact that because of a foreskin, any male has an increased chance of an infection in his penile area for the rest of his life?

[sonatafanica]

I don't think there's that much of a risk of infection with keeping the foreskin.

[pogoowner]

Religion?

Also, I'm curious to know the proportion of people for and against that are cut and that aren't cut.

Time for a poll, perhaps?

[hefdaddy42]

Religion?

Also, I'm curious to know the proportion of people for and against that are cut and that aren't cut.

Time for a poll, perhaps?

Probably not. 

[El JoNNo]

What about the fact that because of a foreskin, any male has an increased chance of an infection in his penile area for the rest of his life?

Yeah, if you don't keep clean. Unfortunately there is a 100% chance of reduction of sexual sensitivity in the penis if this procedure is forced upon an infant. Possible death from infection because of circumcision would be eliminated if the procedure is not done.

This whole "well it might get infected" bull is ridiculous. My gallbladder might get infected or might produce gallstones. 

[ehra]

Also, I'm curious to know the proportion of people for and against that are cut and that aren't cut.

What does this even matter? This thread is full of people going "well you're uncut so you wouldn't understand." lol? At that we might as well just also say that since you're cut and never knew what it was like to be uncut you shouldn't be able to make the decision for anyone else. It really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

[GuineaPig]

Also, I'm curious to know the proportion of people for and against that are cut and that aren't cut.

What does this even matter? This thread is full of people going "well you're uncut so you wouldn't understand." lol? At that we might as well just also say that since you're cut and never knew what it was like to be uncut you shouldn't be able to make the decision for anyone else. It really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

[ehra]

That too 

[El JoNNo]

Agreed.

[pogoowner]

Religion?

Also, I'm curious to know the proportion of people for and against that are cut and that aren't cut.

Time for a poll, perhaps?

Probably not. 

Probably a good choice.

[j]

Unfortunately there is a 100% chance of reduction of sexual sensitivity in the penis if this procedure is forced upon an infant.

This is completely false.  The few studies that have been done show either no difference or that circumcision *increases* sensation.  But again, there is NO conclusive evidence either way.

-J

[El JoNNo]

In the past I have read otherwise. I will agree there needs to be more intensive studies.     

[Implode]

Also, I'm curious to know the proportion of people for and against that are cut and that aren't cut.

What does this even matter? This thread is full of people going "well you're uncut so you wouldn't understand." lol? At that we might as well just also say that since you're cut and never knew what it was like to be uncut you shouldn't be able to make the decision for anyone else. It really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

I'm just curious. I mean in my experience, I haven't met anybody who was cut and regrets that. And of course, most uncut men wouldn't get cut later. I just find that fascinating.

https://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/circumcision-preferences-dictionary.htm

In that article it says around 85% of American men are cut while only around 10% are in Europe. I didn't realize there was that big of a difference.

[skydivingninja]

I'm cut and I'm absolutely fine.  Do I have reduced sexual sensitivity?  How the hell am I supposed to know?

Basically, there are some possible medical benefits (I suspect this is the reason I was circumsized) and some religious traditions, and if either of those are enough, fine.  Like PLM said, you're only a few days old when they do it.  You're not going to remember it.  But also, like El Barto said, give the parents accurate information, then let them decide.  Circumcision because "why not" isn't a very good reason, though.

[Adami]

I think it comes down to this.

Circumcised men have no desire to be uncircumcised.

Uncircumcised men have no desire to be circumcised.


It doesn't matter either way, let the parents do what they want.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I'm must more concerned that so many people think it's somehow 'mutilation'

[El JoNNo]

I'm concerned that you don't.

[Adami]

I'm concerned that you don't.

Is every form of cosmetic surgery mutilation?

[eric42434224]

mutilation is a bit over dramatic.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

mutilation is a bit over dramatic.

And that's an understatement.

[El JoNNo]

I'm concerned that you don't.

Is every form of cosmetic surgery mutilation?

No; in most cosmetic surgery both participants are willing. A parent should not have the right to on a a whim cut off a piece of there child without valid reason. As discussed in this thread there is a debate on the health benefits and risks, since the evidence brought forth is agreed 100% upon by medical science, it is experimental at best.

As for religious reasons, it is a pitiful excuse. Some old man whom was willing to kill his own son, goes around chopping off the foreskin of himself, his family and his slaves because he thinks God told him too.   

mutilation is a bit over dramatic.

And that's an understatement.

If someone held you down cut open your scrotum and removed a testicle, you would not consider this mutilation? After all you can produce more than enough sperm and hormones to make up for the lost testicle. Why don't the Jews do this as well? It seems to be perfectly logical? Does it not? While we're at it let’s remove the nictitating membrane, evolution made it useless before we were apes.     

[Adami]

Hey El Jonno, don't get your son circumcised.

End of discussion.

[The Texas Pirate!]

The heart of the debate for me, PLM is this: do parents have a right to physically alter their child?

Yes they do. They have the right to kill the child before it is born, then the state should have NO say in the upbringing and or any physical modifications, or the religious or lack thereof.  Now as a case for banninig the circumsising the foreskin of infant boys this man has no case. it is protected under the first amendment, as a religious ceremony it is protected as such.

[Zook]

There is minimal risk of infection if the uncut penis is always cleaned. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. If you're going to be that unsanitary to not wash your dick then you pretty much deserve what ever infection you get.

[hefdaddy42]

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

[icysk8r]

I think it comes down to this.

Circumcised men have no desire to be uncircumcised.

I would say you are completely wrong about this.