San Francisco to ban circumcision

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

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.

[Amy]

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.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

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

Originally Posted by Amy

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.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

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?

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

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.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

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.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

.

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.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by ila

All I said was that the government has no business getting involved in this.

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)

Originally Posted by ila

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.

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.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by Amy

I'm just trying to point out the logical flaw in claiming that matters of legal protections of individuals are not BY NECESSITY a matter for lawmakers)

Typo fixed, sorry.

Originally Posted by Slavetoebony

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.

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

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by Amy

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.

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

[Amy]

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

You are so right, Amy! 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.

[GRH]

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.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

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?

[smc]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

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.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

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?

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.

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by GRH

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.

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.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by GRH

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.

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.

[JodieTs]

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.