San Francisco set to vote on becoming Anti-Semitic

[Danqazmlp]

Oh yeah, being anti-semitic for wanting to ban circumcision. It should be decided when the person is old enough if any.

If you want to pull that card, why allow parents to make any body-related decisions for their children at all?

Oh for christ sake, circumcision is a choice that should be decided by the guy himself when he is old enough, not due to religious or whatever belief, unless it's a medical situation.

This is my, so it seems, crazy viewpoint on this forum.

 

I'm glad my parents decided to get mine done as an infant. If you wait until the person is conscious enough to make the personal choice, that would mean he's now reached the point where circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience.

 

circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience.

 

So circumcision is a painful, difficult, dangerous, uncomfortable medical procedure that is FORCED upon a very young child.

 

The benefits of circumcision are miniscule in a first world country like the United States. It IS forced mutilation. In many places, forced mutilation is considered torture.

 

Let's say I create a religion which follows our god saying that we must cut off our big toes. Nobody would allow or support it. But they support and allow circumcision...

 

TL;DR Circumcision is (in the way it is done without consent of the victim) a human rights violation.

 

 

I think this has to be the best example I have ever seen of twisting somebodies words. The procedure is more dangerous/painful once they are aware, as in, not children.

[Sir_Squab]

but it's an individual choice.

I'll say the vast, vast, vast majority it is not personal choice, for infants and small children are too small to give consent to everything. They can't consent to anything in fact.

 

 

But hell, I don't care. But since it does piss of religious folk, I hope it passes.

 

Wow. Really? What have you got against religious people? I personally don't care one way or another. Um, so for everyone who says its painful, did you not like read the part about anesthetics?

 

Oh yeah, being anti-semitic for wanting to ban circumcision. It should be decided when the person is old enough if any.

If you want to pull that card, why allow parents to make any body-related decisions for their children at all?

Oh for christ sake, circumcision is a choice that should be decided by the guy himself when he is old enough, not due to religious or whatever belief, unless it's a medical situation.

This is my, so it seems, crazy viewpoint on this forum.

 

I'm glad my parents decided to get mine done as an infant. If you wait until the person is conscious enough to make the personal choice, that would mean he's now reached the point where circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience.

 

circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience.

 

So circumcision is a painful, difficult, dangerous, uncomfortable medical procedure that is FORCED upon a very young child.

 

The benefits of circumcision are miniscule in a first world country like the United States. It IS forced mutilation. In many places, forced mutilation is considered torture.

 

Let's say I create a religion which follows our god saying that we must cut off our big toes. Nobody would allow or support it. But they support and allow circumcision...

 

TL;DR Circumcision is (in the way it is done without consent of the victim) a human rights violation.

 

If you want to cut off your big toe because you think God told you to, go ahead.

 

Lastly, this:

 

Looking at this thread, the only people who have had the procedure (is that what you would call it?) Support it, and do not support the vote.

 

Then, it seems as if it is only those who would never have it done, never have had it done and are of other faiths which support it. Those who have had it done do not seem as fussed. Seems a bit judgemental. Those who it won't effect having all the say, doesn't seem right.

[Danqazmlp]

Edit: @ Ring: That's because for males, there are very few negatives if any for doing it, even the possibility of health benefits. The same cannot be said for females, so they cannot be compared at all.

[Alg]

edit: if we were discussing female circumcisions everyone would agree with the ban and call it disgusting and barbaric but suddenly if someone's holy book allows male ones its acceptable? OH RELIGION YOU SO FUNNY.

A good first step might be learning what a circumcision is.

[Danqazmlp]

That's because for males, there are very few negatives if any for doing it, even the possibility of health benefits. The same cannot be said for females, so they cannot be compared at all.

so the mutilation of childrens body parts is alright as long as a holy book allows it and it doesnt have many negative health affects?

 

Did I say anything about the holy book? Please stop putting words in my mouth, it is not wanted.

 

Yes, as long as it has no negative effects on health or the life of the person at all, I see no problem with it. It is much more like an ear piercing than any other procedure. As I said, there are as far as I know, no negative effects on those who have had it done (although those who have here may be able to give some insight into that) so has no negative effects on the life of those at all. Using the word mutilation is massively exaggeration it. Considering the possibility of it having positive health effects, it seems like it could be more irresponsible to not have it done. But then, that would be not doing it based on our faith right?

[Alg]

what makes you think I dont know what it is.

 

Still falls under involuntary genital mutilation.

It's quite a leap from the removal of a useless piece of skin to the removal of most/all of the [bleep]oris.

If you're a male and are circumcised shortly after birth, you aren't going to miss that little piece. The important parts are still there.

[Nomrombom]

It doesn't matter whether it's useful. It's part of that person's body, you can't just decide to cut it off.

 

And there are negatives to it - it's painful and forced upon you. It also of course reduces sexual pleasure. The bonus being it reduces the chance of infection with HIV? It seems like if you go putting your genitals in someone else who has HIV/AIDS you're going to get it anyway.

[Alg]

even if there were no negative affects its much the same as if you had the star of david, Islamic moon thing, or the christian cross carved on your arm as an infant. Its quite a leap to say the health benefits of doing so make up for it.

...Right.

 

I think I'm done here.

[Danqazmlp]

edit: if we were discussing female circumcisions everyone would agree with the ban and call it disgusting and barbaric but suddenly if someone's holy book allows male ones its acceptable? OH RELIGION YOU SO FUNNY.

A good first step might be learning what a circumcision is.

 

what makes you think I dont know what it is.

 

Still falls under involuntary genital mutilation.

 

 

 

Did I say anything about the holy book? Please stop putting words in my mouth, it is not wanted.

 

Yes, as long as it has no negative effects on health or the life of the person at all, I see no problem with it. It is much more like an ear piercing than any other procedure. As I said, there are as far as I know, no negative effects on those who have had it done (although those who have here may be able to give some insight into that) so has no negative effects on the life of those at all. Using the word mutilation is massively exaggeration it. Considering the possibility of it having positive health effects, it seems like it could be more irresponsible to not have it done. But then, that would be not doing it based on our faith right?

 

lets see health positives, cleanliness and supposively making std's harder to transfer [positive source on that? or is it only case studies that cant be replicated?]

 

Unless your the guy in the bathing thread who refuses to bathe forever this probably wont be a problem, and STD's will still transfer easily if you dont use a condom.

 

If anything circumcision does make you less sensitive as the foreskin removes is very sensitive.

 

 

You know, I love it when people use made up arguments. According to this source, it Increases sexual sensitivity and reduced the chances of contracting HIV. Also concluding no adverse effects:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00979.x/abstract;jsessionid=BF507BA24691034ECDE916A8ACD2E79C.d03t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+21+May+from+10-12+BST+for+monthly+maintenance

 

There are also these publications from both the UN and a major medical organisation:

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

http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf

 

 

So, please continue using you're imagined arguments, but they will probably be ignored from this point forward. The same can also go to Nomrombom. I am not saying these are conclusive, but they have much more weight than your argument.

 

 

Please refrain from using assumptions when trying to negate my arguments.

[The_Gabe]

Oh yeah, being anti-semitic for wanting to ban circumcision. It should be decided when the person is old enough if any.

If you want to pull that card, why allow parents to make any body-related decisions for their children at all?

Oh for christ sake, circumcision is a choice that should be decided by the guy himself when he is old enough, not due to religious or whatever belief, unless it's a medical situation.

This is my, so it seems, crazy viewpoint on this forum.

 

I'm glad my parents decided to get mine done as an infant. If you wait until the person is conscious enough to make the personal choice, that would mean he's now reached the point where circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience.

 

circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience.

 

So circumcision is a painful, difficult, dangerous, uncomfortable medical procedure that is FORCED upon a very young child.

 

The benefits of circumcision are miniscule in a first world country like the United States. It IS forced mutilation. In many places, forced mutilation is considered torture.

 

Let's say I create a religion which follows our god saying that we must cut off our big toes. Nobody would allow or support it. But they support and allow circumcision...

 

TL;DR Circumcision is (in the way it is done without consent of the victim) a human rights violation.

 

Nomronbon, please know what you're talking about before you reply with something as nonsense as this. First of all, having it done a few days after you're born makes the procedure quick, easy, and nearly painless. When you have it done as an adult, the procedure becomes really painful, difficult, possibly expensive (surgery) and with many possible complications.

 

Second: Circumcisions do help prevent the spread of HIV.

 

Third: Do you even know the definition of mutilation?

tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.

3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

 

Oh look, because the foreskin is so essential and without it you are crippled.

And if you are going to point at definition 3, then please tell me how a body part is perfect if you can altar it to help your health?

[Millard]

Anti - Semitic? Please don't pull that crap, I imagine you're the type of person who thinks people who criticise Israel are anti-semetic?

 

 

And I thank my parents everyday that they didn't circumcise me.

[Nomrombom]

Fine. So what do you call forcibly and without consent or prior knowledge, cutting off a part of someone's body?

 

And whatever else you want to say, circumcision is chopping off a body part without consent. It doesn't matter if it's important or not - it should be each person's choice.

 

 

And to whoever replied to my post concerning me creating a religion calling for removal of big toes, let's step it up. I create a religion calling for removal of the entire outer ear. Should I be able to force that on a child just because my book or whatever says so?

[Danqazmlp]

Fine. So what do you call forcibly and without consent or prior knowledge, cutting off a part of someone's body?

 

And whatever else you want to say, circumcision is chopping off a body part without consent. It doesn't matter if it's important or not - it should be each person's choice.

 

 

And to whoever replied to my post concerning me creating a religion calling for removal of big toes, let's step it up. I create a religion calling for removal of the entire outer ear. Should I be able to force that on a child just because my book or whatever says so?

 

No, because that would be mutilation as both parts are important, both physically and socially.

 

It is like taking out your appendix, it does very little if anything at all, so cannot be considered mutilation.

[Cheat]

I know this is reducti (something latin)* but I'm pretty sure if I went and cut someone's appendix out without their consent I would be considered to have mutilated them.

 

*Anyone know the phrase, it's a latin phrase meaning to take a argument to its logical extremes to prove a point.. ?

[sees_all1]

This discussion has been going along at a faster rate than I've anticipated.

 

 

In my opinion, the 7k+ signatures they obtained were a waste of time, effort, and ink. From the article:

 

nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised, a much higher proportion than the worldwide average of 30 percent.

 

I can tell you first hand that I don't begrudge my parents from making that decision within the first week I was born. I can't remember much of anything before I was about 6 anyway, and I seriously doubt its made me or anyone else (who received the procedure as an infant) emotionally scared for life.

 

I do remember reading studies conducted on improper anesthesia and circumcised males, that later on in life they were less tolerant to pain or something. It may be worthwhile to search for, if you're in the against camp. I'm not going to search for it, because I quite frankly don't care.

 

 

The other argument that has been brought up about families making decisions for their children - I disagree with this. What is a family supposed to do in the event that their child has leukemia, and their given treatment options are amputation or chemo, where one may have a high success rate but serious consequences, and the other a lower success rate, but when successful no long term consequences?

Its a decision the infant can't make, which is why the guardians make it.

 

These same arguments could be applied to infant Baptism - parents are going to do their best to raise their family Christian, and that includes baptizing their children. I see having a Brit Milah as a similar ceremony to a Baptism. This decision is one where the person later in life won't want to make, and those that would want to pursue their parent's faith might be upset at their parents for making that decision more dangerous and more painful.

 

While my comment in the OP was a bit of a dig at the "hanger in an alley" argument from pro-choice people, I see this piece of legislation, if passed, will only serve to inconvenience Jews. Instead of going to a bay area hospital, they'll have to instead travel outside the city limits in order to legally fulfill their religious obligations.

If the law passes, Congrats San Francisco, your openness and general tolerance of everything other than religion has now made it more inconvenient for Jews to practice their faith.

[Nomrombom]

I just can't believe that people actually support non-consensual chopping off of any body part, regardless of it's use or non use.

[Nomrombom]

The other argument that has been brought up about families making decisions for their children - I disagree with this. What is a family supposed to do in the event that their child has leukemia, and their given treatment options are amputation or chemo, where one may have a high success rate but serious consequences, and the other a lower success rate, but when successful no long term consequences?

Its a decision the infant can't make, which is why the guardians make it.

 

That is much, much different. In the case of a child with cancer, their life is immediately threatened. In the case of circumcision, it is completely unnecessary. The tip of a penis is not going to kill someone like cancer is, and therefore should not be the decision of someone else.

[Alg]

Sees, the one thing to remember is that San Francisco isn't exactly large. Ten minutes of driving and you can be in a different county.

[The_Gabe]

Anti - Semitic? Please don't pull that crap, I imagine you're the type of person who thinks people who criticise Israel are anti-semetic?

 

 

And I thank my parents everyday that they didn't circumcise me.

 

I'm happy with the decision my parents have made as well (circumcise).

[Danqazmlp]

So it seems even more now since my original post, that those who have had circumcisions support them being allowed, while those without don't support it.

 

That alone should start alarm bells ringing.

[sees_all1]

The other argument that has been brought up about families making decisions for their children - I disagree with this. What is a family supposed to do in the event that their child has leukemia, and their given treatment options are amputation or chemo, where one may have a high success rate but serious consequences, and the other a lower success rate, but when successful no long term consequences?

Its a decision the infant can't make, which is why the guardians make it.

 

That is much, much different. In the case of a child with cancer, their life is immediately threatened. In the case of circumcision, it is completely unnecessary. The tip of a penis is not going to kill someone like cancer is, and therefore should not be the decision of someone else.

Postponing the decision 18 years makes it much more painful and dangerous, which is what the law is and why it isn't so different.

[Piscis_Rex]

Oh yeah, being anti-semitic for wanting to ban circumcision. It should be decided when the person is old enough if any.

If you want to pull that card, why allow parents to make any body-related decisions for their children at all?

Oh for christ sake, circumcision is a choice that should be decided by the guy himself when he is old enough, not due to religious or whatever belief, unless it's a medical situation.

This is my, so it seems, crazy viewpoint on this forum.

 

I'm glad my parents decided to get mine done as an infant. If you wait until the person is conscious enough to make the personal choice, that would mean he's now reached the point where circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience.

 

circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience.

 

So circumcision is a painful, difficult, dangerous, uncomfortable medical procedure that is FORCED upon a very young child.

 

The benefits of circumcision are miniscule in a first world country like the United States. It IS forced mutilation. In many places, forced mutilation is considered torture.

 

Let's say I create a religion which follows our god saying that we must cut off our big toes. Nobody would allow or support it. But they support and allow circumcision...

 

TL;DR Circumcision is (in the way it is done without consent of the victim) a human rights violation.

 

Nomronbon, please know what you're talking about before you reply with something as nonsense as this. First of all, having it done a few days after you're born makes the procedure quick, easy, and nearly painless. When you have it done as an adult, the procedure becomes really painful, difficult, possibly expensive (surgery) and with many possible complications.

 

Second: Circumcisions do help prevent the spread of HIV.

 

Third: Do you even know the definition of mutilation?

tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.

3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

 

Oh look, because the foreskin is so essential and without it you are crippled.

And if you are going to point at definition 3, then please tell me how a body part is perfect if you can altar it to help your health?

regardless of whether or not defintion 3 can be applied, I'd say that definition 2 is definitely relevant. It's issues like this that are problem with multiculturalism, the traditions of a lot of cultures can be viewed as inhumane, or repulsive by people who are not a member of that culture. Personally I'm opposed to the idea of altering anything about a person's body for purely superficial reasons, particularly religious reasons, as to me it seems like a way of indoctrinating your child into a religion before they're even capable of understanding any of the reasons behind it.

[K4ylan]

Maybe I just don't understand the logic behind it, but why would they be so concerned over some kids penises?

[Alg]

Maybe I just don't understand the logic behind it, but why would they be so concerned over some kids penises?

I don't know about you, but that's the one area I would be concerned about. Heads? chests? Legs? vital organs? No, stronger sports cups plx.

[Cheat]

what happens to the childs' own body should be up to the child himself.

so by that logic school should be optional?

 

And to those saying it's not anti-semitic, it obviously is... they're talking about a blanket ban on a religious rite followed by semitic religions...

 

What? Of course he is not saying that, he's saying that something directly and irreversibly affecting a child's body for no serious gain bar to conform to an ancient religion should be the choice of that concerned. I know a number of human rights lawyers because of my brothers work and this very issue comes up fairly often. Some people consider the 'disfigurement' as barbaric as rape - I would never go this far - however, I do see it as unnecessary and not particularly something to be actively encouraged. I also don't quite understand the argument that the people who have had the procedure and think it's fine opinion should be taken as any more valid than that of those with no experience of the problem. It's like the belief that politicians should represent all strata's of the community - only disabled politicians could understand disabled issues. Only black politicians can understand the issues around being black. It is often very difficult for someone from a religion or particular belief to simply go against it. It is highly unlikely that someone who has been circumcised would be terribly unhappy with it, however they have not had experience of the other, have had no choice in the matter and their body has been changed without their knowledge. Personally I think that teaching religious beliefs to children as stone cold gospel is very wrong - this may sound racist but most Jews will agree with Jewish rhetoric about circumcision this does not mean they are right!