San Francisco to ban circumcision
 

There is an effort to ban circumcision in Sab Francisco.
To be on the ballot in November.
Now here's a new law that's on the cutting edge!;)

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011...ovember-ballot

I don't believe that it is the place for the government to dictate whether a child is circumcised or not. It should be the decision of the parents.

I've never seen a country where people get as militant about circumcision as the US. In my opinion it is a personal and sometimes religious decision and this is something that no government should be getting involved in.

A child is not able to make that decision. The bill is to prevent circumcision for children under eighteen years old.

Body modification of ANY FORM is the decision of THE INDIVIDUAL GETTING IT.

Would you support people tattooing their babies?
Giving them breast implants?
HELL NO.

It's no different for genital mutilation.

If the kid chooses it as a cosmetic procedure once they reach legal adulthood, then fine. IT IS THEIR BODY. It belongs to nobody else.

I never stated that I was for or against circumcision. All I said was that the government has no business getting involved in this.

Do you think parents have a right to circumcize their male child?

I really don't see a problem with this. I was circumcised when I was very young and it didn't and doesn't bother me. If one is going to be circumcised it is better to have it done when one is young.

.

OK, this used to be a routine procedure. Now days a lot of men wished they were not circumcised. It seems reasonable that parents should let the son decide since religion is not the big deal it used to be. The idea of San Francisco passing a law against it seems ridiculous, however.

I completely agree with you, randolph. :yes::respect:

Don't you think this law is a tool of the gay community to assure a future of a "virgin " "product"?

Without weighing in on the question, I'd just like to point out that for anyone who knows San Francisco, the neighborhoods in which this guy is collecting signatures to get the proposition on the ballot is a hoot: SoMa, the Castro, the Haight, and Noe Valley. I'd love to hear some of those street conversations!

Gee, I learn something new every day on this forum. I didn't know the foreskin was equivalent to the hymen!:confused:
Gay virgins?:confused: Really? :confused:

More proof that San Francisco is retarded.

If I understand the linked news story correctly then the proposed ban would only apply to the city of San Francisco. I have to wonder if the city really has the power to enact a law like this. It would be rather strange to make a medical operation illegal in one city and yet that same operation would be legal in the rest of the state.

I wonder if it is a put on, it seems so absurd.
However, Fran may have a point, that it has something to do with gays. Circumcision is highly recommended for gays to reduce risk of AIDS.

Play safe and enjoy your buttseks-Mutilate your wiener.

They do. They make the laws.
This is a matter of law.

They exist to serve the citizens of the nation. Those children are citizens of the nation. They are entitled to every right that comes with it. Of course if you're for there being no laws against people doing whatever they want to someone else's body without their informed consent, then I'm sure there are a good few sadistic criminals who would agree with you...

(I'm sure you are NOT in favour of that, I'm just trying to point out the logical flaw in claiming that matters of legal protections of individuals ARE BY NECESSITY a matter for lawmakers)

This inconsistency seems silly. However, if it reduces the number of people who are simply offered it by a doctor looking to make some extra bucks - then it's some small measure of progress. Only people really determined to get it done will go elsewhere for it.

I agree, Ila, and I am sick and tired of the over intrusive nanny state as well. But I don't think this bill is about mature adults making a personal choice about their bodies, but about the rights of children. It's easy for a doctor or parent making a decision about a new-born baby. But as an adult this baby might wish for whatever reason his foreskin was still intact. Once it's gone, you can't put it back. And babies can't give consent.

Typo fixed, sorry.

Yep.
And it's a pretty important part of the body, too. There are a few good reasons we're born with one.

You are so right, Amy!:respect: And government has every right to stop this mutilation of innocent children. It should be outlawed worldwide.

I really can't see why the US makes such a big deal of this, myself. Allowing a cosmetic procedure that was introduced to their country by religious extremists as a means of "preventing masturbation" (Which worked soooooo well, didn't it?) to be routinely pressured on parents of new babies is something that should be really simple for a country which prides itself on freedoms of the individual to see as not being acceptable. ESPECIALLY in a country which regularly has bills on the books in various states which would recognise a foetus as a legal citizen of the country with all the associated rights.

It's a case of VERY selective outrage, it would appear.

I resent what you imply. Circumcision if part of the Jewish covenant with God...Hardly a "cosmetic procedure" introduced by religious "extremists." You are free to disagree with the Jewish faith if you wish; I would in turn disagree with parents that baptize babies. In neither case should the state be intervening in what is a personal decision for the family.

Is female genital mutilation legal in the US? Surely there are already laws against randomly chopping bits off a baby for no reason other than the parents think it will look nice?

The United States enacted federal legislation prohibiting female genital mutilation in 1996. It wasn't until 2006, though, that anyone in the United States was prosecuted for this crime. Khalid Adem was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

It is amazing that in this day and age so many religious people (not just Jews) justify this medieval practice by saying that it's what God wants us to do.
Now, would the Lord really have made such a silly little mistake creating men?

No man or woman has the right to interfere with the body of a another human being and most certainly not a child that cannot voice its opinion.
It should as you say indeed be a personal decision, and therfore no member of the family should have a say on the matter.
In order to protect the rights of all those innicent children, government intervention is absolutely essential.

Are you saying America as a country is 50% populated by Jews?

Circumcision as widely practiced in the US was introduced by CHRISTIAN fundamentalists like Mr Kellogg (Who had many HILARIOUSLY interesting beliefs) who believed it would prevent young boys from masturbating, when all that it actually did was lead to America becoming a world leader in the R&D of lubricants.

But even IF you are a Jewish family, that does not give you any right to impose barbaric stone age religious blood ritual ceremonies on a child. Some Jewish groups HAVE joined modern, civilised society, and replaced such practices with symbolic ritual gestures. It's not a big thing to give up, and any adult is of course free to choose to have it done themselves, just as they can choose to get a prince albert, a penis extension, or a glans bisection. That's their body, their right.

When it comes down to it, you don't see most modern Jews owning slaves, or going out to shopping malls on a weekend and killing all the staff. Time moves on, religious practice moves on, and a bunch of bloodthirsty savages evolve into a well-respected, well-educated, and civilised segment of society, who place society's rules first where it is the decent thing to do.

Bigger picture for a trans site.

Circumcision reduces the available donor material available for sex reassignment surgery. That has an implication for the depth of a neo-vagina
in Vaginoplasty where the penis inversion method is used.

Where non-penis inversion method is used, there is less donor material for labiaplasty.
Dr Suporn uses this technique and he lists circumcision as the first thing to compromise vaginal depth:
The best aesthetics and maximum depth are obtained if the patient has:
1. not been circumcised;
http://www.supornclinic.com/restrict...Technique.aspx

In truth, no parent thinks their baby boy will be Ts so the above consideration is never made.

Female genital mutilation (partial or full clitoridectomy) was never about the girl "looking nice." It's about retarding the onset of sexual desire and killing most of it when it finally came.

Circumcision on the other hand is, as a previous poster pointed out, the Jewish version of a blood sacrifice to god.

Circumcision is also a requirement of Islam. Calling it a blood sacrifice is going over the top.

I couldn't agree more with ila that Enoch Root's statement is "over the top." "Blood sacrifice" involves death. Whatever else one might think of circumcision, in Judaism and Islam it is a religious affirmation of life.

People get their baby girl's ears pierced, they cut their baby's hair...I just think there are a LOT more worthwhile things that the government could be trying to regulate.

Firstly, ear piercing is tempory, they heal up if you stop wearing studs, and second, who the fuck pierces a baby's ears? Like an actual baby? Like in a cot, can't walk, put's small objects in mouth, actuall proper baby. If you're putting earrings in a baby you need a severe lesson in not being an utter fucktard.

Comparing to cutting hair is just retarded. What next? Chewing your fingernails is the same as cutting ur wrists?

You know what is retarded is, you can't get a piercing yourself untill ur 18 in california, but someone can get thier baby pierced. Sooo, a kid under 18 isn't allowed to do what they like with thier own body, but a parent can decide to pierce a baby when the baby is incapable of consent.

Do you think california should get rid of thier current law against tatooing minors so ppl can tattoo thier baby? I mean ur aginst this kind of regualtion right, shouldn'y be the gubments job going about interfering? so lets all tattoo babies, make them more interesting to look at. you know how parents are all like look how cute my baby is, and they expect everyone else to be amazed by thier baby as they are. It's so tedious, but what if they put a kickass tattoo of like Batman or like Sonic the Hedgehog on the babies chest? That would be way cool and then would be a lot less boring when they go showing the baby to everyone.

Could solve the circumcision problem too. Instead of cirmcucinsing the baby, Jewish parents could just have a big tattoo saying 'This baby is property of Yahweh' across it's back as an alternative.


Tattoo your baby today! You know it makes sense!

Anna, don't you know ANYTHING? When Jews get tattoos like that (as we know, tattoos are a huge part of the Jewish religion and culture), they must say: "This baby is property of G-d"

Get with the program, girl!

Sorry folks. I didn't know that "blood sacrifice" in the context of Jews was a loaded term.

I want to offer my special thanks to smc for setting me straight. As some of you may not know, smc is one of the 'chosen people' and thus an expert in 'blood sacrifice' because of his family's centuries-long experience kidnapping the children of gentiles and ritually slaughtering them as sacrifices to their so-called G-d. ;)

Shit, Enoch Root, I told you that in confidence. Now I have to clean up the basement, put my house on the market, and move the fuck out of town!

Now here I don't agree. It shouldn't be up to the parents to decide whether a child's penis ought to be mutilated, but up to the child itself when it's grown up enough to decide that for himself.

Let me tell you something that you apparently don't know, GRH.

Foreskins don't grow back!

For a start the g-d thing is a crock of crap, you do know that it only applies to is actual name, doing it for 'god', which is just a descrition is not required and is just people trying to out Jew each other. Plus you don't need to worry on a tattoo, cos that shit don't rub out!

Although you can stretch the skin back out, I hear. You can "grow" a new foreskin but it takes a while.

A friend of mine had to have his foreskin removed a couple of years ago (he's in his late-40s) - he said it was incredibly painful, both at the time and since as it didn't heal properly, and it's pretty much fucked his sex life up totally...

He had to have it removed why? Whenever I hear about adults having their foreskins removed it immediately occurs to me there were religious reasons (like conversion) or their woman asks for it--I've heard uncut penises are seen as ugly in the West.

Medical problems are more often the reason why adults have it removed, that's why my friend had it done in any case.

So, where did you hear that fairy-tale? I'm sure that's not the case here in Europe. Besides, with the foreskin pulled back it's hard to see the difference.

A circumsized cock looks incomplete to me. Much prefer to look at the uncut version....and enjoy its practical advantages.

Isn't circumcision pretty common in America? I've heard the preference for circumcised members from several places--at the risk of sounding silly: American Pie and a podcast where several men momentarily discussed it, and surely other places which I cannot remember.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_877475.html

A US Representative has introduced a bill that would supersede local efforts to ban circumcision...Instead preserving the ability for Jewish and Muslims to freely practice their religion (and circumcise their babies!). I for one applaud the Congressman for trying to keep the government out of people's personal lives.

So this bill would also make female genital mutilation legal?

I believe the bill only addresses MALE circumcision.

I've never understood how allowing genital mutilation of any kind whatever is an expansion of freedom.