San Francisco set to vote on becoming Anti-Semitic

[Nadril]

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.

 

Of course?

 

Circumcision is an argument no one is going to win. It's hard to make arguments based off of things such as "sex might feel better/worse if you are circumcised / not circumcised" and things such as potential health benefits.

 

 

In the end I just can't feel strongly either way. I think it should be a families choice because the child really isn't going to know what its like with/without that little bit of skin.

 

Pretty much though its obvious how the argument will go: People who are circumcised see no issue with it because they feel fine and feel normal. People who aren't don't know what its like without that skin and oppose it or say that it should be the individual's choice.

 

 

 

Point being I think this is one of these topics that is just not going to go anywhere for debate. Feel free to keep making ridiculous assumptions however.

[Faux]

What are the advantages of circumcision anyway? I only know of one - The reduced risk of HIV/other STD's.

 

it's also a lot cleaner in general

 

i don't agree with circumcising children tbh. it should be his choice

[sees_all1]

Point being I think this is one of these topics that is just not going to go anywhere for debate. Feel free to keep making ridiculous assumptions however.

I feel this debate goes a bit deeper, as (correct me if I'm wrong) all of these statements seem to be in the same vein of thought:

 

"I don't think parents should be able to make irreversible medical decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

"I don't think parents should be able to make religious decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

"I don't think parents should be able to make important life changing decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

 

along with

 

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have such heavy influence on their children's medical decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have such a heavy influence on their children's religious decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have a heavy influence on their children's important life changing decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

 

The above is tantamount to saying:

 

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make medical decisions"

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make religious decisions"

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make life changing decisions"

 

Which, in my opinion, is saying that

"I/someone else knows how to raise your children better than you, and you should not be in your children's lives"

[Nomrombom]

Point being I think this is one of these topics that is just not going to go anywhere for debate. Feel free to keep making ridiculous assumptions however.

I feel this debate goes a bit deeper, as (correct me if I'm wrong) all of these statements seem to be in the same vein of thought:

 

"I don't think parents should be able to make irreversible medical decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

"I don't think parents should be able to make religious decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

"I don't think parents should be able to make important life changing decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

 

along with

 

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have such heavy influence on their children's medical decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have such a heavy influence on their children's religious decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have a heavy influence on their children's important life changing decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

 

The above is tantamount to saying:

 

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make medical decisions"

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make religious decisions"

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make life changing decisions"

 

Which, in my opinion, is saying that

"I/someone else knows how to raise your children better than you, and you should not be in your children's lives"

 

I must respectfully disagree. I think that nearly all parents have their child's best interests in mind, but the debate is not over irreversible medical decisions IMO. It is about a single practice, circumcision. In all other cases (such as serious illness, choosing what meds to take, etc.) the parents should be fine to choose. But circumcision is neither necessary nor very medically useful.

 

And it is somewhat reversible. There are a small but growing number of men who are choosing to regrow the foreskin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

[Racheya]

Does it really matter? The child is unaware of what happens so nobody gets 'traumatised' by it. It MAY have health benefits and sexual benefits, but it might not, does it matter either way? Is it worth wasting time arguing over whether little Tommy will get circumcised or not? Obviously it matters to the INDIVIDUAL family, it's not a matter of law if you ask me.

[Nomrombom]

Does it really matter? The child is unaware of what happens so nobody gets 'traumatised' by it. It MAY have health benefits and sexual benefits, but it might not, does it matter either way? Is it worth wasting time arguing over whether little Tommy will get circumcised or not? Obviously it matters to the INDIVIDUAL family, it's not a matter of law if you ask me.

 

Because you're cutting off part of someone's body without their consent, it kind of does matter. And there is in fact evidence of longstanding PTSD-like symptoms in circumcised males.

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Bestinterests

 

"In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."

[The_Gabe]

Does it really matter? The child is unaware of what happens so nobody gets 'traumatised' by it. It MAY have health benefits and sexual benefits, but it might not, does it matter either way? Is it worth wasting time arguing over whether little Tommy will get circumcised or not? Obviously it matters to the INDIVIDUAL family, it's not a matter of law if you ask me.

 

Because you're cutting off part of someone's body without their consent, it kind of does matter. And there is in fact evidence of longstanding PTSD-like symptoms in circumcised males.

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Bestinterests

 

"In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."

 

Psychological risks my ass. How the hell can a new born have psychological risks from this?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Though parents still have a right to decide on what medical procedures their child should go through until they are competent enough to decide for themselves.

 

I don't think many doctors will claim circumcision is a good idea, but they aren't many who would refuse a parents responsibility to decide what is best for their own baby.

[Nomrombom]

Does it really matter? The child is unaware of what happens so nobody gets 'traumatised' by it. It MAY have health benefits and sexual benefits, but it might not, does it matter either way? Is it worth wasting time arguing over whether little Tommy will get circumcised or not? Obviously it matters to the INDIVIDUAL family, it's not a matter of law if you ask me.

 

Because you're cutting off part of someone's body without their consent, it kind of does matter. And there is in fact evidence of longstanding PTSD-like symptoms in circumcised males.

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Bestinterests

 

"In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."

 

Psychological risks my ass. How the hell can a new born have psychological risks from this?

 

Future psychological risks...

[demby123]

This is very similar to the stupid cut vs uncut threads on 4chan, which end up going back and forth in an endless stalemate. Since this procedure is done during infancy, nobody cares about being circumcised or not. If this "mutilation" doesn't cause any real harm long term to the child or any other person for that matter then who are you to force your beliefs onto other people?

 

Hopefully this will go nowhere, because no matter how you look at it, it's a violation of one's right to practice religion. Plain and simple.

[Riku3220]

I have a question. Does anyone here have a problem with piercing a child's ears?

[demby123]

Does it really matter? The child is unaware of what happens so nobody gets 'traumatised' by it. It MAY have health benefits and sexual benefits, but it might not, does it matter either way? Is it worth wasting time arguing over whether little Tommy will get circumcised or not? Obviously it matters to the INDIVIDUAL family, it's not a matter of law if you ask me.

 

Because you're cutting off part of someone's body without their consent, it kind of does matter. And there is in fact evidence of longstanding PTSD-like symptoms in circumcised males.

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Bestinterests

 

"In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."

 

Psychological risks my ass. How the hell can a new born have psychological risks from this?

 

Future psychological risks...

What future psychological risks? It's pretty hard to prove anyone has them with all the biased, contradictory statistics around this subject.

 

There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.

[The_Gabe]

Does it really matter? The child is unaware of what happens so nobody gets 'traumatised' by it. It MAY have health benefits and sexual benefits, but it might not, does it matter either way? Is it worth wasting time arguing over whether little Tommy will get circumcised or not? Obviously it matters to the INDIVIDUAL family, it's not a matter of law if you ask me.

 

Because you're cutting off part of someone's body without their consent, it kind of does matter. And there is in fact evidence of longstanding PTSD-like symptoms in circumcised males.

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Bestinterests

 

"In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."

 

Psychological risks my ass. How the hell can a new born have psychological risks from this?

 

Future psychological risks...

 

Post one documented case of a child circumcised from birth with psychological damage from it.

[sees_all1]

Point being I think this is one of these topics that is just not going to go anywhere for debate. Feel free to keep making ridiculous assumptions however.

I feel this debate goes a bit deeper, as (correct me if I'm wrong) all of these statements seem to be in the same vein of thought:

 

"I don't think parents should be able to make irreversible medical decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

"I don't think parents should be able to make religious decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

"I don't think parents should be able to make important life changing decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions"

 

along with

 

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have such heavy influence on their children's medical decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have such a heavy influence on their children's religious decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

"I don't think parents should be allowed to have a heavy influence on their children's important life changing decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information"

 

The above is tantamount to saying:

 

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make medical decisions"

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make religious decisions"

"Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make life changing decisions"

 

Which, in my opinion, is saying that

"I/someone else knows how to raise your children better than you, and you should not be in your children's lives"

 

I must respectfully disagree. I think that nearly all parents have their child's best interests in mind, but the debate is not over irreversible medical decisions IMO. It is about a single practice, circumcision. In all other cases (such as serious illness, choosing what meds to take, etc.) the parents should be fine to choose. But circumcision is neither necessary nor very medically useful.

 

And it is somewhat reversible. There are a small but growing number of men who are choosing to regrow the foreskin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

Basically, Jews should be allowed to practice their beliefs? Parents shouldn't be allowed to have their baby boys circumcised? Its the same as saying that these parents that make this decision are wrong, and they don't know best.

 

Also, I don't see how traumatic circumcision could be to a baby that has just been forced out of the womb.

[Nomrombom]

Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences, too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.

 

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

[Nomrombom]

I don't give a [cabbage] what the Jews want to do. I would just prefer that people did not violate human rights based on an ancient book that has no evidence of anything behind it.

 

And it's not even just Jews, about 75% of US males are circumcised, and the number of Semitics is far smaller.

[obfuscator]

I don't give a [cabbage] what the Jews want to do.

 

But they do. Why does your preference come first? You have the choice to circumcise your own kid, they aren't trying to circumcise yours...

[The_Gabe]

I don't give a [cabbage] what the Jews want to do. I would just prefer that people did not violate human rights based on an ancient book that has no evidence of anything behind it.

 

And it's not even just Jews, about 75% of US males are circumcised, and the number of Semitics is far smaller.

 

Well, there goes the the first amendment.

 

Also, your logic can go to so many damn things in all religions that it's not even worth listing them; but really, just show me one documented case of physiological trauma from a circumcising from birth.

[Nomrombom]

http://www.circumcision.org/impact.htm

 

(references available upon request)

 

So you can violate human rights under the excuse of religious practice?

[TTanT]

I have a question. Does anyone here have a problem with piercing a child's ears?

I think the general consensus of TIF here is that penis > ear.

[Nomrombom]

I have a question. Does anyone here have a problem with piercing a child's ears?

I think the general consensus of TIF here is that penis > ear.

 

This. Also, pierced ears can 1. be closed/grown back fairly easily and with no effort and 2. does not affect such an important and useful part of the body as the penis. :wink:

[The_Gabe]

http://www.circumcision.org/impact.htm

 

(references available upon request)

 

So you can violate human rights under the excuse of religious practice?

 

On that note, abortion also fits in your argument. Abortion isn't banned, either.

 

That's not what we're talking about though.

 

If your argument is saying no circumcisions should take place at all, and mine is that if you want, you can circumstance your child, that means I'm fighting for freedom, and you're fighting for absolutism, which in essence, is unconstitutional.

 

Furthermore, the source you gave is not what I asked. I asked for a documented physiological trauma from a circumcision from birth.

[Riku3220]

I have a question. Does anyone here have a problem with piercing a child's ears?

I think the general consensus of TIF here is that penis > ear.

 

This. Also, pierced ears can 1. be closed/grown back fairly easily and with no effort and 2. does not affect such an important and useful part of the body as the penis. :wink:

But circumcision hardly affects performance, and it certainly doesn't stop you from procreating.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Earstuds/rings have their own health risks. It's not exactly healthy to go sticking needles into parts of the body needlessly for aesthetic purposes, you know.

[h3art]

It's not violation of individual's right to practice their religion, it's a courageous affirmation of a vulnerable individual's right to body sovereignty and the right to refuse medical treatment and procedures. :thumbup: