San Francisco votes on parent's right to choose circumcision
I need to get back to working, but I ran across this and had to post it.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/sf-to-vote-on-male-circumcision...
Even I am a little freaked out by this, and I thought I was the worlds biggest supporter of not circumcising boys. Ethically, I consider it mutilation, but legally?
Activists gathered enough signatures to put a proposal on the ballot, the city's election board confirmed Wednesday.
The measure aims to prohibit all male circumcisions in San Francisco. Led by Lloyd Schofield who is part of a Bay Area “intactivist” group, the advocates want to eliminate the surgery and liken it to "male genital mutilation."
Schofield and the "intactivists" seek to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco. Under the proposal, a person who violates the proposed ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000). Exemptions for religious reasons would not be allowed.
Column: Circumcising our son– how do we decide?
The measure faces huge hurdles: Legal, religious opposition and varying public opinion. It has brought up some interesting discussions about why we circumcise and whether there are any sound medical benefits.
Empowered Patient: Should teens make their own circumcision decision?
“We hope to get a greater outreach to the people in the city,” Schofield said Wednesday during a celebratory lunch. He said the activists would step up efforts to talk about the issue with residents. “We are willing and happy to talk to people who want a respectful conversation. We’re excited to do it.”
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
DAMN YOU CIRCUMCISION!!
I gotta admit that I think it should be illegal. It seems barbaric to me. I don't care about tradition or religious reasons. Do we condone female circumcision if it's done for religious reasons?
The foreskin of the penis is there for a reason.
(I am sorry in advance if I offend anyone whose religion dictates circumcision, but it truly makes me sick.)
The foreskin of the penis is there for a reason.
(I am sorry in advance if I offend anyone whose religion dictates circumcision, but it truly makes me sick.)
The difference between female circumcision and male circumcision is that female circumcision has a huge component of sexism that seeks to deny pleasure to women and degrade them in any way possible. If it's religious, as it is in Judaism, it represents a covenant with God.
(From this point on, I'm arguing only on the point of male circumcision. I abhor female circumcision, because I don't consider that to be religious. I think they just say it is.)
As a circumcised male, I don't feel as though I've been slighted in any way, and it was not done for religious reasons. The question of whether it should be a parent's right to choose for their child whether circumcision is the right way is difficult at best, and down right polarizing at worst. However, to outright ban the procedure even for religious purposes, is, I think, a violation of rights. If you make a law that interferes with the religious practices of a citizen, is that not unconstitutional?
If/when you have a child, it is absolutely you're right to say "I don't want my child to be circumcised." But to say it's 'barbaric' is hyperbolic. They're cutting off a small bit of skin around the penis when the child is an infant. Find me a man on this earth who remembers being circumcised. That's why it's done at birth.
The foreskin of the penis is there for a reason.
(I am sorry in advance if I offend anyone whose religion dictates circumcision, but it truly makes me sick.)
The difference between female circumcision and male circumcision is that female circumcision has a huge component of sexism that seeks to deny pleasure to women and degrade them in any way possible. If it's religious, as it is in Judaism, it represents a covenant with God.
(From this point on, I'm arguing only on the point of male circumcision. I abhor female circumcision, because I don't consider that to be religious. I think they just say it is.)
As a circumcised male, I don't feel as though I've been slighted in any way, and it was not done for religious reasons. The question of whether it should be a parent's right to choose for their child whether circumcision is the right way is difficult at best, and down right polarizing at worst. However, to outright ban the procedure even for religious purposes, is, I think, a violation of rights. If you make a law that interferes with the religious practices of a citizen, is that not unconstitutional?
If/when you have a child, it is absolutely you're right to say "I don't want my child to be circumcised." But to say it's 'barbaric' is hyperbolic. They're cutting off a small bit of skin around the penis when the child is an infant. Find me a man on this earth who remembers being circumcised. That's why it's done at birth.
I am aware of the differences and extremes between male and female circumcision. But, I still think it's totally and completely wrong, and yes, barbaric.
The covenant with god can wait until a child is old enough to make that choice for himself. I don't think a parent has the right to remove any part of any child's body for their own religious convictions.
I don't see how it's unconstitutional to restrict religious practices if they are barbaric. See restrictions on animal sacrifice. And it's not hyperbole, it's really how I view it. People can talk about "snipping" and hygiene, and "they don't remember the pain", but to me taking a perfectly formed, beautiful human infant child and removing part of their body for whatever reason is so incredibly wrong I can't believe it's still legal.
I'm glad that you're happy with your circumcision and harbor no regrets, good for you.
The foreskin of the penis is there for a reason.
(I am sorry in advance if I offend anyone whose religion dictates circumcision, but it truly makes me sick.)
The difference between female circumcision and male circumcision is that female circumcision has a huge component of sexism that seeks to deny pleasure to women and degrade them in any way possible. If it's religious, as it is in Judaism, it represents a covenant with God.
(From this point on, I'm arguing only on the point of male circumcision. I abhor female circumcision, because I don't consider that to be religious. I think they just say it is.)
As a circumcised male, I don't feel as though I've been slighted in any way, and it was not done for religious reasons. The question of whether it should be a parent's right to choose for their child whether circumcision is the right way is difficult at best, and down right polarizing at worst. However, to outright ban the procedure even for religious purposes, is, I think, a violation of rights. If you make a law that interferes with the religious practices of a citizen, is that not unconstitutional?
If/when you have a child, it is absolutely you're right to say "I don't want my child to be circumcised." But to say it's 'barbaric' is hyperbolic. They're cutting off a small bit of skin around the penis when the child is an infant. Find me a man on this earth who remembers being circumcised. That's why it's done at birth.
I am aware of the differences and extremes between male and female circumcision. But, I still think it's totally and completely wrong, and yes, barbaric.
The covenant with god can wait until a child is old enough to make that choice for himself. I don't think a parent has the right to remove any part of any child's body for their own religious convictions.
I don't see how it's unconstitutional to restrict religious practices if they are barbaric. See restrictions on animal sacrifice. And it's not hyperbole, it's really how I view it. People can talk about "snipping" and hygiene, and "they don't remember the pain", but to me taking a perfectly formed, beautiful human infant child and removing part of their body for whatever reason is so incredibly wrong I can't believe it's still legal.
I'm glad that you're happy with your circumcision and harbor no regrets, good for you.
And this is why this issue is so controversial and will not be easy to solve.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that a lot of people don't see it as a human right issue. It's like your point earlier:
If/when you have a child, it is absolutely you're right to say "I don't want my child to be circumcised."
That really is a crazy idea to me, that it's a paren't choice.
Not a surprise it's coming from San Francisco. I think they elected a pop tart as mayor once.
I love my anteater. I'm glad no one cut his face off.
I laughed.
_____
I'm a milder version of Mirka on this.
I am inclined to agree with Mirka, but it has smatterings of the same arguments that anti-abortion activists have, and this makes me nervous. I think it is mutilation, and I think it has a detrimental affect on the child that the child isn't even aware of.
I wonder how this is going to play out in the election.
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
My religious belief is that the pinky finger is a useless appendage. Should I be able to legally mutilate my children and remove their fingers?
If you're religious, and an adult, and wish to get clipped, go for it. But mutilating your child for some arcane belief system should not be legal at all.
I'm circumcised and it didn't have any detrimental affect on me. Never once have I ever thought "I would feels so much more complete if I had a foreskin! My life is ruined!" And I've never looked down there are saw it as some sort of religious symbol. My parents aren't even that religious. Last time my mom went to church was for a wedding and I'm pretty sure my dad's an atheist. Why they did it, I don't know, but I'm glad they did.
Seriously, you're making it sound like parents are intentionally giving their kids harelips.
Bloke's circumcised, not for religeous reasons or anything, I think his folks got it done for hygiene reasons. He's fine with it and he'd want our kids to be, and I'm ok with that.
But, I'm horrified at people who pierce their children's ears (when it's not a cultural thing).
Hmmmmmm.
I think cutting off a significant portion of a boy's penis and completely rerouting his blood flow and much of his penile nervous system is a little more extreme than punching a couple holes through intact skin.
I would not expect anyone who is circumcised to understand beyond the theoretical why it would be such a passionate topic for other people.
I think it's akin to cutting off a baby's ears. A person that grows up without ears can hear (though not as well as someone with ears) and as long as everyone else has their ears cut off, they would feel perfectly normal about it and wouldn't understand what all this "Pro-ear" bullshit is about. They would consider ears to be ugly and unnecessary.
The only reason we started performing this procedure on most boys in this country was because of the inability of men to clean properly in the trenches in WWI and a lot of people thought that this was the solution to make our men more war ready. In other words, we cut off our boy's precious parts so that they would be more effective killers. We had also became so prude that we could not longer deal with telling our kids to clean underneath their foreskins even when we weren't at war.
That is the sum of why it is more "hygienic".
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Appendix, wisdom teeth, pinkie fingers, foreskin, body hair. All relics of our animal ancestry.
Circumsized males last longer. Any questions?
This is why we can't have nice things.
Uncircumcised men have hundreds of thousands more nerve endings and something like 20%-40% more blood flow.
I think it's pretty selfish of me to mute what a man feels to lengthen the time I get to feel. Also, a circumcised male is smaller then he would be with his foreskin intact and we know that some guys have have a thing relating to their egos about that...
Like I said in the OP, I know exactly where I stand on the issue of whether or not it should be done in the first place. My only dilemma is in whether it should be the law that decides it shouldn't be done for parents. I would much prefer the parents came to that conclusion themselves and this was not an issue.
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Live a little.
Surface area only counts for brain tissue and, despite what actions may indicate, that is not where mens' brains are.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I brought up this issue and where I stand on it on FB and some guy unfriended me over it, saying it "disturbed him" that I thought it was no big issue.
No big loss though, he was kind of creepy.
But seriously, comparing cutting off someones foreskin to cutting off an ear or finger is absolutely retarded.
Once again, this thread is not about debating whether or not it's a good idea to circumcise children. It's about whether whether or not to make it illegal.
Should a child's quality of life be considered within the law? They won't know the difference. It's pretty obvious, just from the responses of this thread, that they don't care that they have had an artery severed and thousands of the most sensitive nerves in their entire body removed. The difference cannot and will not ever be experienced.
But that is just like the experience of a child that grew up with physical abuse. That child will never understand why it's not ok to be hit when they do something wrong. "It's how I learned" they will say. Many kids don't even consider it abuse. It was a normal part of growing up. At what point is cutting off a part of your child's natural anatomy abuse?
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Are you really saying giving a boy a circumcision is like child abuse?
I really hope I'm reading that wrong. Please tell me you aren't because if you're serious about comparing the two then I'm not going to be able to take anything you say seriously again.
I would much rather not have had my face punched-in every day than gotten to keep my foreskin.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Are you really saying giving a boy a circumcision is like child abuse?
I really hope I'm reading that wrong. Please tell me you aren't because if you're serious about comparing the two then I'm not going to be able to take anything you say seriously again.
I wouldn't say it's child abuse but making it illegal could prevent from this ever happening again:
David Reimer (August 22, 1965 – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man who was born as a healthy male, but was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was accidentally destroyed during circumcision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall06/yoonh/psy3135/articles/Colapinto...
So we should outlaw circumcisions because of a few accidents?
I'm sure there are a few cases of kids dying after their doctor gave them aspirin. Let's outlaw that too. After all, taking aspirin is, like getting circumcised, completely optional. Take the option away and we won't have any aspirin-overdoses on our hands. And in most cases the aspirin is given to the child without their consent or understanding of any of the long term affects of taking aspirin, if any.
To the point of the OP, the city of San Fransisco is all about telling you how you have to live. Was a time it was a place of personal freedom, now it's bizarroworld fascism.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Kind of like this place sometimes, huh?
Yeah, because the - what - five simple rules this place enforces are totally repressive.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I'm just being silly
You are.
This is why we can't have nice things.
No, we should outlaw it because in 2011 it is done for no actual medical benefit.
You could make the 'hygiene' argument if this were still 1511, when people only bathed once a month.
At this point it is done for no tangible benefit other than it has been done for an extended period of time. No one thinks it's a good idea to do other unnecessary medical procedures on a child. If you don't think it's in the same level of removing a finger or an ear, what about branding your child? That is exactly the same level of uselessness.
No, we should outlaw it because in 2011 it is done for no actual medical benefit.
Most people who get any kind of cosmetic surgery don't do it for any kind of medical benefit. Also some abortions.
What really irks me is that the people who are vehemently opposed to this make parents who do decide to give their kids circumcisions look like HORRIBLE FUCKING MONSTERS WHO BRUTALLY MUTILATED THEIR CHILD AND SHOULD BE PUT IN JAIL AND/OR STONED and that giving your son a circumcision is akin to burning them with a cigarette or beating them on a regular basis.
Again, I ask, are my parents HORRIBLE FUCKING MONSTERS? Did they MUTILATE ME? Should they be ashamed for what they did even though I have absolutely no problem with it? At all?
And I did the research on the whole "Sex is less enjoyable without a foreskin" thing. I found scientific research that supports it and opposes it. I didn't find anything that said "Getting circumcised will without a doubt make sex less enjoyable." Found pretty much the same results when I researched which was healthier. It's an ongoing debate and neither side is really winning. This seems like a case of pick and choose to me. it also seems like a "Strangers telling other strangers how to raise their kids."
PS: It's not like having a foreskin is 100% safe either. Paraphimosis anyone?
I thought there were a bunch of studies done recently that proves that people who are not circumcised are more likely to get STIs thatn those who are.
That's only because they get laid more.
This is why we can't have nice things.
HA!
No, we should outlaw it because in 2011 it is done for no actual medical benefit.
Most people who get any kind of cosmetic surgery don't do it for any kind of medical benefit. Also some abortions.
Those are adults, not infants making those decisions.
I'm vehemently opposed and consider it a barbaric practice, and I think it should be illegal, and out of the parent's hands. I don't think it makes a person a monster if they go along with a social custom or don't give it much thought. BUT, I do want there to be protection for children under the law against that form of mutilation, yes.
I think it's really great that you're happy with the choice they made for YOU before you knew you had a choice. No offense, but I hope in 20 years that you're really mad at them because your circumcised penis is an anomaly, and not the norm. Again, I don't think they're monsters, but have you ever asked them why they circumcised you?
PS: It's not like having a foreskin is 100% safe either. Paraphimosis anyone?
Yeah, the studies go both ways.
I don't really think of it as telling someone how to raise their kids, but more as a human rights issue. I don't think parents have the right to remove part of their child's body simply because they are his/her parents.
There was a time when it wasn't "possible" to rape one's wife because the concept wasn't socially or legally recognized. I kind of think the circumcision debate will be viewed historically in the same way.
P.S. I was kidding about you getting mad at your parents; I certainly don't want to you to be angry for what was done to you since there's not really anything you can do about it now.
Fuck you. Really don't care if it was a joke or not.
There was a time when it wasn't "possible" to rape one's wife because the concept wasn't socially or legally recognized. I kind of think the circumcision debate will be viewed historically in the same way.
Circumcision is now akin to rape? Nice.
Fuck you. Really don't care if it was a joke or not.
Yeah, quote that and ignore the part about abortions and cosmetic surgery.
I noticed that too.
Nice one Mirka. Classy.
There was a time when it wasn't "possible" to rape one's wife because the concept wasn't socially or legally recognized. I kind of think the circumcision debate will be viewed historically in the same way.
Circumcision is now akin to rape? Nice.
Human rights issues that aren't socially or legally recognized was my point.
In all seriousness, one of the many reasons I was hoping for a girl (among what I considered other, far more important ones, most notably hoping to never hear the phrase, "Hey, dad, let's go outside and throw the ball around!"*) was that the decision would not have to be considered re: circumcision.
Also. Has anyone pointed out that the city of San Fransisco is considering officially sanctioning antisemitism?
* Yes, I realize girls play sports. It would diminish the likelihood however as I would naturally have the most girly-girl imaginable. Big fail there; her most favorite pastime is collecting bugs.
This is why we can't have nice things.
So he will stand out at the nude beach and YMCA shower room but, as a novelty, he may become popular with the ladies.
Mountains out of fucking molehills, drama queens.
Molehills out of mountains.
This is why we can't have nice things.
So he will stand out at the nude beach and YMCA shower room but, as a novelty, he may become popular with the ladies.
You mean fellas, not ladies.
So he will stand out at the nude beach and YMCA shower room but, as a novelty, he may become popular with the ladies.
You mean fellas, not ladies.
Whichever he prefers
So he will stand out at the nude beach and YMCA shower room but, as a novelty, he may become popular with the ladies.
You mean fellas, not ladies.
Whichever he prefers
which is fellas
I wonder how many people have actually witnessed both a circumsision or having to worry about your son's genital area all the time because of adhesions of the foreskin, especially when he is an infant.
I think both ways can be barbaric, and cruel.
Instead of passing a law they should educate the parents, and leave it open for their judgement, just like they should have a ton of classes and courses on basic stuff.
I mean it never ceased to amaze me how education is mandatory as a minor, yet you are free to impregnate and parent kids without any sort of knowledge required.
So...We are still going to die. Right?
Ok, let me try and put this another way.
Oregon has allowed parents to use a religious belief defense in court when their children die or are seriously disabled by preventable medical issues. It's a really hot topic at the moment. Pretty much every year there is a high profile case of children dying from things like pneumonia or something kids normally get vaccinated against. Currently, there is a trial going on because the parents of a two year old let their daughter go blind rather than consent to surgery that would have saved their daughter's sight. It is expected that by the end of June, the Governor will sign into law a piece of legislation that will disallow this defense.
I have exactly the same misgivings about this law as I do about the one in San Fran. Do I want kids to die from the measles or pneumonia or go blind? Of course not! It breaks my heart. But the more responsibilities we take away from parents as to how they raise their kids, what medical treatments they receive, how parents discipline their kids, or even whether and how they educate their children, the more we create a homologous society where every facet of socialization becomes prescribed by law. What responsibilities at that point do parents have for raising their own children? What if the laws we impose on them turn out to be detrimental? At what point is legislating childrearing interfering with personal freedom, something this country was supposedly founded on?
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
I think those things should be a parent's choice. Vaccination, circumcision etc.
There are risks and benefits (ok some of you may dispute the benefits of circumcision) of these things. As long as they are not seriously and deliberatly harming or abusing their children, parents should have the right to choose about the lifestyle their children are brought up in. But I think children should be listened to, as they become verbal and able to make decisions, they should be included in the decision making (to a reasonable extent).
It's about educating parents about the risks and benifits about the medical/health/well-being decisions they have to make concerning their children.
its not the safest. if its done improperly, it cant stunt the growth of the penis. or this is something people have told me, anyway. ive met people who claim this has ruined their lives, and they would never do that to another human being.
www.triplebeard.com
http://darkroomreview.blogspot.com
“...There are so many ways of being despicable it quite makes one's head spin. But the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people's pain. You ought to have some apprehension that the man you see before you was once even younger than you are now and arrived at his present wretchedness by imperceptible degrees.”
-James Baldwin