Circumcision Ban in SF

[Cybercode]

I seen a thing a few days ago where a circumcision ban will NOT be on the ballot. My question is: Do you think circumcision should be banned?

I say no, because A) I'm cut myself. and B) With being un-cut, there is a higher risk for diseases like AIDS and other STDs.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I would say no because although I think circumcision should be discouraged because of its needlessness, circumcision often has little effect on the penis; therefore, banning it could violate religious freedom.

[Amnesiac]

Circumcision is an unnecessary cosmetic procedure that should not be performed until the child is able to consent to the surgery. The health benefits it provides are negligible; the appearance of one's penis should be left up to them.

[Angel Androgynous]

B) With being un-cut, there is a higher risk for diseases like AIDS and other STDs.

That's a load of BS. (http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/circumcision-and-stds)

A person should have a right to their body. If circumcision is so special, why don't I see un-cut guys lining up to get one?

[Cybercode]

That's a load of BS. (http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/circumcision-and-stds)

A person should have a right to their body. If circumcision is so special, why don't I see un-cut guys lining up to get one?

Well I seen somewhere, a while back, that when un-cut, it is a lot harder to put a condom on, leading to a greater risk of getting infected. And plus you don't know what is hiding under all that foreskin.

Here is one of my sources

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

[Neptune]

I think it should be against the law to have a baby circumcised for any other reason then his health. If his health is in danger or something regarding that then it is okay in my opinion. It shouldn't be banned for lifetime though, if a thirteen year old wants to get circumcised then should be allowed to.

[Cache]

Well, its a Jew thing. I'm an uncut gentile... So yeah only for religious and health reasons.

[StoppingTime]

Well, its a Jew thing. I'm an uncut gentile... So yeah only for religious and health reasons.

"A Jew thing". Wow.

This is correct though. It is, and though the son may not practice Judaism, I believe the parents can make the decision of religion. This is my opinion, don't bash please.

[Amnesiac]

Well I seen somewhere, a while back, that when un-cut, it is a lot harder to put a condom on, leading to a greater risk of getting infected. And plus you don't know what is hiding under all that foreskin.

Having trouble putting condoms on – something that I doubt is actually a problem – is a minor issue that doesn't require surgery while an infant. I'm uncut, and trust me, there's nothing "hiding" under there. I take showers. I'm not a filthy fuck.

Here is one of my sources

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[25] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.

The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."

Circumcision is not necessary in a developed nation like the United States. Sure, in developing areas of the world where HIV infection is a persistent problem, it may be, but I doubt any child will contract HIV in the time between their birth and when they can consent to what should be an optional surgical procedure.

[Cybercode]

I'm uncut, and trust me, there's nothing "hiding" under there. I take showers. I'm not a filthy fuck.

I brush my teeth every day three times a day and there's still nasty bacteria living in my mouth. You can wash all you want and still can't get everything out from every "nook and cranny". and with cut you can clean easier.


but I doubt any child will contract HIV in the time between their birth and when they can consent to what should be an optional surgical procedure.

true...but bacteria can still build in there. it's like keeping your arms at your side (completely closing your pits) and doing something that will require a lot of sweating. bacteria builds up over time.

[AlmostHomeless]

Personally I wish I was cut. I can't figure out my stance on whether it's okay for parents to make the decision.

[Amnesiac]

I brush my teeth every day three times a day and there's still nasty bacteria living in my mouth. You can wash all you want and still can't get everything out from every "nook and cranny". and with cut you can clean easier.

Still, is this something that merits such a dramatic surgery right after birth? No. Cleanliness is a personal preference, and it's ridiculous to argue that you can "clean easier" when cut – the effort required to clean any penis is minuscule.

true...but bacteria can still build in there. it's like keeping your arms at your side (completely closing your pits) and doing something that will require a lot of sweating. bacteria builds up over time.

And it can be cleaned. The apparent "cleanliness" of circumcision doesn't merit having it done at birth.

[Cybercode]

And it can be cleaned. The apparent "cleanliness" of circumcision doesn't merit having it done at birth.

OK you do have a good point. But still with all that skin, something can be building up in there. Doesn't necessarily have to be at birth. But let's get right back to the main point on the discussion. Do you think it should be banned from the US or anywhere for that matter? Do you think other people don't deserve to be cut? It can depend on weather at birth or at 50 years old.

[Angel Androgynous]

I don't think that it should be banned if the person consents to having it done...

[Amnesiac]

OK you do have a good point. But still with all that skin, something can be building up in there. Doesn't necessarily have to be at birth. But let's get right back to the main point on the discussion. Do you think it should be banned from the US or anywhere for that matter? Do you think other people don't deserve to be cut? It can depend on weather at birth or at 50 years old.

It should be banned in the United States specifically, as well as other developed nations where medical groups have deemed it frivolous, with exceptions for conditions where circumcision is a medical necessity.

Being cut is a personal decision, and I don't really care one way or the other. If a 50-year-old wants to be cut, they should have the right to do so. However, it isn't fair to the infant, an individual, to have his parents' religious beliefs forced on him. There's a point where the individual rights of one person end, and another's begin. Circumcision, in almost all cases, is the intrusion on the individual rights of the child by the parents. It's simply not a necessary or even recommended procedure.

[Sebastian Michaelis]

A) I'm cut myself. and B) With being un-cut, there is a higher risk for diseases like AIDS and other STDs.

There isn't a higher risk for AIDS or STDs, if you have unprotected sex and your partner has AIDS or a STD you'll be getting it whether you're circumcised or not. If a person doesn't wear a condom it isn't because of their circumcision status, it's because they are a lazy unconcerned dumb ass.
So what, you brush your teeth three times a day. Some people have two showers a day. I doubt anything could build up so bad down there in that short amount of time that you need to cut the foreskin off. If you're going to support circumcision, then I'd suggest you find a better point then that it is easier to keep clean because you don't have to pull back some skin which takes all of a second of your life.
It is a ridiculous procedure and it should be up to the owner of the penis to choose how they want it to look. Circumcision at birth is the equivalent of a Prince Albert at birth, pointless, not that I've ever heard of a baby getting his penis pierced at birth.

[Cybercode]

BTW with the title, I read about the ban being taken off from the voting ballots in San Francisco, so that's why I put "Circumcision ban in SF". I just wanted opinions for the general population of the US and other countries.

[thecanjump]

Ban on infant circumcision, yes. A natural penis is much more natural. (Did that on purpose)

[PureReality]

Circumcision is an unnecessary cosmetic procedure that should not be performed until the child is able to consent to the surgery. The health benefits it provides are negligible; the appearance of one's penis should be left up to them.

I don't agree with this. By the time the child fully understood the whole concert, he'd be like 10, which I think is way too late then. It should be up to the parents, not the child.

And, I don't think the government should have any say in circumcisions. I think it's for the better good anyway.

Cut here.

[Amnesiac]

I don't agree with this. By the time the child fully understood the whole concert, he'd be like 10, which I think is way too late
then.

How would it be "too late"?

It should be up to the parents, not the child.

But it's the child's body, not the parent's. It's not a necessary procedure, as I said, it's basically cosmetic. Children should never be subject to cosmetic surgery without their consent.

And, I don't think the government should have any say in circumcisions. I think it's for the better good anyway.

Cut here.

One of the main purposes of government is to dictate the boundaries of individual rights. Circumcision is a widespread, but fading, religious fad that has long violated the individual rights of the child.

I really don't think forcing children to undergo nearly irreversible cosmetic surgery that provides basically no tangible health benefits is for "the better good".

[PureReality]

Circumcision is an unnecessary cosmetic procedure that should not be performed until the child is able to consent to the surgery. The health benefits it provides are negligible; the appearance of one's penis should be left up to them.

How would it be "too late"?



But it's the child's body, not the parent's. It's not a necessary procedure, as I said, it's basically cosmetic. Children should never be subject to cosmetic surgery without their consent.



One of the main purposes of government is to dictate the boundaries of individual rights. Circumcision is a widespread, but fading, religious fad that has long violated the individual rights of the child.

I really don't think forcing children to undergo nearly irreversible cosmetic surgery that provides basically no tangible health benefits is for "the better good".

Did a little bit of research, yeah, it wouldn't be too late. I was thinking of the pain until I realized that an anesthesiologist would numb the area.

Being circumcised, for me, has not affected me and I'm glad I'm circumcised. Of course it doesn't mean every individual that is circumcised is happy about it; it might be the child's body, but for me, I just believe that is one of the things that a parent should have a say over.

Sure, I understand where you are coming from with the boundaries of individual rights, but it's an individual right to be circumcised, so it shouldn't be banned. And, of course, with that, it definitely shouldn't be banned to not be circumcised. :eek:

[Amnesiac]

Being circumcised, for me, has not affected me and I'm glad I'm circumcised. Of course it doesn't mean every individual that is circumcised is happy about it; it might be the child's body, but for me, I just believe that is one of the things that a parent should have a say over.

Sure, a say, but they shouldn't be the ones making the final decision.

Sure, I understand where you are coming from with the boundaries of individual rights, but it's an individual right to be circumcised, so it shouldn't be banned. And, of course, with that, it definitely shouldn't be banned to not be circumcised. :eek:

I was saying that circumcision by parents should be banned. I'm not saying circumcision should be banned, I'm just saying it should be held off until the kid's of the age of consent for that type of cosmetic surgery.

[Cybercode]

I'm just saying it should be held off until the kid's of the age of consent for that type of cosmetic surgery.

the thing is they won't understand until they are in their teens

[PureReality]

Sure, a say, but they shouldn't be the ones making the final decision.



I was saying that circumcision by parents should be banned. I'm not saying circumcision should be banned, I'm just saying it should be held off until the kid's of the age of consent for that type of cosmetic surgery.

Right, I get where you're coming from and totally respect your opinion. :yes:

the thing is they won't understand until they are in their teens

Yeah, that's what I saying too. And by then, they might not want to be go through with it anyway. :yes:

[Amnesiac]

the thing is they won't understand until they are in their teens

And why is that a bad thing?

[abdheuuuchjc]

Who ecking cares, why is this such an issue having/lacking skin on my pecker doesn't effect anyone

[Infidelitas]

I think the child should be old enough to be given a choice.

Personally, I am un-cut, and I think it looks dirty, and to me it feels dirty.
So I think the child should have the choice to whether they get cut or not. And it definitly shouldn't be banned.

[Amnesiac]

Who ecking cares, why is this such an issue having/lacking skin on my pecker doesn't effect anyone

Some people do care. Who cares if you don't?

I mean seriously, this is actually an issue that affects more people than you'd expect.

[abdheuuuchjc]

How does this effect anyone if pink Floyd has more or less skin will I be healthier probably not this shouldn't be an issue becuz it doesn't have any effects exept for the small percent of people who get big willy cut off during the surgery

[Dabigdtc]

it should be a choice

[RoseyCadaver]

It should be banned in my opinion.I'm one of the lucky few who had to suffer the negative effects of circumcision :)!It's not like my penis is dis-formed or anything,it's just part of the foreskin grew back on the head.

I also believe it should be a child's choice for when they get older.

I have heard that they do have medical procedures to get your foreskin back....

[Genghis Khan]

I personally couldn't give a shit. Both are dicks and fully functional. I mean really, I wouldn't care if I had foreskin or didn't.

[Maxxie]

In my opinion, Circumcision without consent should be illegal. However... I personally like mine (and others :D) cut, so it really doesn't matter to me.

[Perseus]

I personally couldn't give a shit. Both are dicks and fully functional. I mean really, I wouldn't care if I had foreskin or didn't.

This is my stance on things. And I seriously do not understand the whole mentality of restoring one's foreskin. I mean, Jesus, it's just a flap of skin that doesn't matter. Your penis still works.

[Dabigdtc]

How would it be "too late"?



But it's the child's body, not the parent's. It's not a necessary procedure, as I said, it's basically cosmetic. Children should never be subject to cosmetic surgery without their consent.



One of the main purposes of government is to dictate the boundaries of individual rights. Circumcision is a widespread, but fading, religious fad that has long violated the individual rights of the child.

I really don't think forcing children to undergo nearly irreversible cosmetic surgery that provides basically no tangible health benefits is for "the better good".
i agree with this guy 200%, there is no medical prof that circumcision halts anything it is not up to to the parents to make such a big decision it is unnecessary not to mention the first ones to practice this were Jews

[pattycake]

I'm uncut and my parents said it was because they didn't want one of the first things I feel to be pain so they didn't do it. But if parents want to have there kids cut they can have them cut

[Genghis Khan]

not to mention the first ones to practice this were Jews

What does that have to do with anything?

[Perseus]

not to mention the first ones to practice this were Jews
Uh... Egyptians did it before them and so did other cultures.

[Rawwwrr]

Banned until the child turns 18. It's their body, their choice. It shouldn't be up to the parents to make such a huge decision.

[StoppingTime]

not to mention the first ones to practice this were Jews

Please, tell me what is this supposed to mean? (And no, we weren't), but the reasoning with the Egyptians was obviously different.

[Dabigdtc]

Please, tell me what is this supposed to mean? (And no, we weren't), but the reasoning with the Egyptians was obviously different.

ok i will openly appoligise about this i really dont know why i said this

[Firebolt]

For the hygiene argument - Foreskins are not filthy, feral creatures which are designed to give you cancer. Cleaning under them is very easy.

As for the Third World bit. When they started the huge African circumcision campaign, the patients/victims were known to say "great, now I won't have to wear a condom", because they thought getting cut would solve everything. But it won't. Why not just start giving them condoms rather than wasting vast amounts of time and money mutilating people and accomplishing nothing?!

[ImCoolBeans]

Please don't bump old threads. The last post in this before yours was from october, nearly a year ago. :locked: