Ban Circumsision in San Fran

[tabbyblack13]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n7048210.shtml

That's right. In the city of San Francisco there are a group of people trying to get signatures. This is to place a ban on circumcisions within city limits on the ballot for the city to vote on. The people proposing this ban is willing to trump religious beliefs and parents choice on this matter.

I do remember there was a study out some time back (I cannot really recall where I saw it) that a circumcised males had a lower chance of contracting STDs. The CDC is has not made an official recommendation on this issue as of yet.

Personally I think it should be up to the parents and should not up to any government.

Mods, I didn't know if this was something to post under Social Woe or religion. If you think this is in the wrong spot please move. Thanks.

[smileyeagle1021]

Yes, circumcision has been shown to reduce the occurrence of certain diseases, but as I understand it, with proper cleaning and modern medicine, that difference is practically within the margin of error for testing.
Also, let's not beat around the bush, most parents aren't doing it for religious reasons anymore, most are doing it for cosmetic reasons because they think a circumcised penis is more pleasant looking and they think society expects a man to be circumcised, not because they are concerned about health.

[MaggieTheCat]

I don't think the operation should be banned entirely; if an adult male wants to have it done, fine. But I personally do think it should be against the law for parents to circumcise their male child before the child has any say in the matter. It is a physically altering operation that cannot be undone (yes, I believe we have determined that the physical appearance of a foreskin can be replaced after circumcision, but the nerve endings that are removed or destroyed during circumcision can never be restored.) Once a kid hits 18, if he wants to get it done on his own, fine. But parents should not mutilate their children's bodies when they're infants, even if it's for religious beliefs. What if the kid decides to follow a different religion when he's older?

[HYHYBT]

All true... but what would be the effects of such a ban? The majority, who just have their babies circumcised because that's what you do, will mostly stop. Those who consider it an important religious point (ahem) will, most likely, get it done anyway, or perhaps do it themselves if need be. So either the ban will cause people to go elsewhere to get that done, or they will do it illegally. Which means that if something goes wrong (as is bound to happen once in a while) they'll be afraid to get medical attention.

Meanwhile, I *suspect* the harm from being circumcised is vastly overstated. After all, the ONLY people who would know are those who had the procedure done AS ADULTS, and who had sex before and after to compare. Has anybody done a serious, unbiased survey of just them? Are there even enough such people to do such a survey?

(This post by a man who has been, according to his parents, circumcised TWICE. Really.)

[AdminAssistant]

But parents should not mutilate their children's bodies when they're infants, even if it's for religious beliefs.

This this this this. It's genital mutilation, no more, no less.

ETA: However...I still don't think it should be banned, because people will do it anyway, and if they're bound and determined to do it, then it should at least be done safely. I would really like it if doctors took more of a stance against it, though.

[Plaidman]

It's a hot button issue.

One hand it is mutilatation. Flat out. Something that doctors aren't suppose to do.

But on the other hand, it's religion, and it's bad to put limits on issues of religion that doesn't harm the majority of people.

At this point, it is more average for a man to be circimcised then not. Some girls may be grossed out by that, though I've yet to witness that firsthand. I have had guys grossed out when they see me that way many many years ago during brief period I was taking swimming lessons. Doggy dick If I remembered right.


Personally, I don't think it should be banned. But at same time, I'd hope parents wouldn't do it til kid had a choice. It's a hot button, that's for sure.

[joe hx]

I'm against circumcision, but banning it? That's too far for me.

(yes, I believe we have determined that the physical appearance of a foreskin can be replaced after circumcision, but the nerve endings that are removed or destroyed during circumcision can never be restored.)

I've seen pics of "restored foreskin." It doesn't look the same.

So either the ban will cause people to go elsewhere to get that done, or they will do it illegally. Which means that if something goes wrong (as is bound to happen once in a while) they'll be afraid to get medical attention.

Plus they might get it done in not-so-sanitary manners, similar to abortions when those were illegal.

the ONLY people who would know are those who had the procedure done AS ADULTS, and who had sex before and after to compare. Has anybody done a serious, unbiased survey of just them? Are there even enough such people to do such a survey?

I'll have to ask my brother. We were both uncircumcised. He damaged his penis when he was having sex with his girlfriend and had to get circumcised. Took him like a week or more to recover.

[Greenday]

I thank God every day (ok not really) that my parents had me mutilated when I was a baby. I would have gotten it done anyway given the choice. And it saved me a lot of pain.

[Andara Bledin]

My brother isn't circumcised, and he's quite happy to be that way.

My mother thought the whole practice, especially for non-Jews, was asinine.

I'd like there to be more education against unnecessary medical procedures, particularly involving babies and younger children.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

IBut on the other hand, it's religion, and it's bad to put limits on issues of religion that doesn't harm the majority of people.

why?
Religion endorsed selling your daughters into slavery-we banned that.
Religion endorsed owning slaves-we banned that.
Religion endorsed human and animal sacrifice-we banned that
Religion endorsed child brides-banned that
Religion endorsed multiple wives-banned that

Sorry just because something is a "Religious belief" doesn't mean it's untouchable, or "doesn't harm the majority"* as a matter of fact if that's the only reason for it, all the more reason to question the need for it.

*and considering it is a Christian and Jewish belief and 80.1% of Americans fall into that category(1.7% Jewish 78.4% Christian)-I'd say that's a staggering Majority of the people wouldn't you?

[Eisa]

Religion endorsed homosexuality is evil...oh wait we haven't banned that yet, now have we.

I don't think it should be banned. All it will cause is people doing it on their kitchen table with a steak knife...can't see ANY possibility of *that* going wrong.

[Amina516]

I dont think it should be banned either. It is and should remain a persons/parents choice. I cant tell you the number of ADULT circumcisions Ive assisted in due to the skin just complete tightening up to the point where the poor old guy cant even get out a drop of pee. Not to mention the buildup of cheese under there.

That being said, my son in uncirced. His daddy isnt and I decided to leave his be as well.

And if cirumcision is mutilation...well, throw me in jail for having my daughters ear pierced when she was a baby.

[Andara Bledin]

Pierced ears close up. I know that all too well. It's not really in the same realm at all, although a similar situation in that the parent is making a body modification decision on behalf of someone who has no say or even knowledge of such.

I've actually never understood having a baby, who can't even stay upright, have pierced ears. It seems to me to be an unnecessary risk. *shrug*

^-.-^

[MaggieTheCat]

Yeah, piercings aren't in the same league as circumcision. If a parent has their child's ears pierced as a baby and when the kid gets older, they decide they don't want pierced ears, just take the earrings out. The holes will mostly or entirely shut eventually. Foreskin does not grow back or heal over time.

I agree with whoever said that doctors should not be so nonchalant about unnecessary medical procedures. My mom had her tonsils out when she was a kid, not because she needed to, but because it was the normal thing to do to kids of a certain age back in the day because tonsils were "not necessary." More recent studies have shown that while tonsils are not vital to survival, they should not be yanked out if not absolutely necessary. Same with my mom's appendix; she had gall stones and had to have her gall bladder removed, and while they were in there, they took her appendix out too, just 'cuz they could. It wasn't infected, it wasn't damaged, there was nothing wrong with it. Why fix what's not broken?

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

If any law were passed, there would have to be exceptions. I was circumcised at age 10 for medical reasons, because I could have run into problems when I hit adolescence. If there was a law in place that kept that from happening I could have potentially run into serious trouble.