San Francisco set to vote on becoming Anti-Semitic

[Omar]

such practices should wait until the individuals involved have the information and willpower to give informed consent.

There have been several posts replying to this assertion already. Yes, in a perfect world, that's how it would be, but it's not a perfect world.

[The_Gabe]

And this is where people stop taking you seriously. You're talking about a literally harmless cultural practice. You seem to hate it solely because it's linked to religion. Grow up, people believe differently than you and have just as much right to that as you do.

 

Ah, so you're denying that consent should be a necessary part of undergoing medical treatment? I'm not stopping people form practicing their religions, or impinging on their ability to do that - see my previous posts. All I'm calling for is a general observance that children are unable to give consent (for instance, lacking the ability to sign legally binding contracts or consenting to sexual intercourse) and that such practices should wait until the individuals involved have the information and willpower to give informed consent.

 

The law isn't against jews or circumcision: it's about informed consent for medical practices. Isn't difficult. :mellow:

 

 

Are you seriously making me go back to the part of the discussion where I pointed out that later circumcisions can be costly, may have complications, a lot more painful, and take longer than the procedures done on birth...

[Furah]

I find the title of this thread to be grossly misleading. The bill is not about targeting the Jewish people in any way, but putting a stop to what is considered genital mutilation on someone who isn't able to voice their opinion. The law will still allow adults to become circumcised if they so wish - and some do - and I'm fine with that, but circumcising a child's skin is both sadistic and non beneficial.

[Omar]

I find the title of this thread to be grossly misleading.

Agree.

The bill is not about targeting the Jewish people in any way, but putting a stop to what is considered genital mutilation on someone who isn't able to voice their opinion.

Word.

The law will still allow adults to become circumcised if they so wish - and some do - and I'm fine with that, but circumcising a child's skin is both sadistic...

Why is that sadism?

...and non beneficial.

Arguable, but irrelevant either way.

[h3art]

 

Are you seriously making me go back to the part of the discussion where I pointed out that later circumcisions can be costly, may have complications, a lot more painful, and take longer than the procedures done on birth...

 

And I'll repeat my assertion that if it is your considered, well thought out and adult position that circumcision is an inherent, core aspect of your world view and faith, then the procedure should not be too much to ask for; what's a little complication compared the to kingdom of heaven?

 

Anyway, you've heard my position on the subject and I'll leave it at that; no need to repeat my views on informed consent Ad nauseam. :thumbup:

[Hamtaro]

Read up on my previous posts. My argument is that nonconsensual, non essential medical practices are an ethically slippery slopes; quite apart from the separate argument that I feel religious parents have no right to force their crackpot beliefs on malleable, uninformed children's minds.

 

Also, nice ad homien there bro. :thumbup:

 

[satire]I'm sorry I'm not brainwashed and lacking in intellectual integrity.[/satire]

 

Nowait, I mean [troll].

Good job avoiding the question I asked multiple times in my post. Better change topic because you can say something without any logical meaning to it :thumbup:

 

I read your previous posts. You repeat the same things over and over again, while I direct you to:

The World Health Organization's thoughts on the subject: http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's thoughts: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

I know they're not so valid as opinion blogs, but I'll have to settle for them =/.

 

Sure, circumcision is non-essential, but then by that logic, neither are vaccines. Guess what? Both increase your chance of not catching a disease! Maybe we should stop vaccinating people because some woman faked a disability after one (just like the supposed "psychological trauma" :rolleyes: that circumcision causes). I am yet to see a negative on the side of being circumcised Yeah, sexual pleasure is obviously super important (which is the same act where you're going to catch a disease more easily, especially if alcohol is involved, thus rendering that argument obsolete leaving nothing). It just seems like bitter anti-religious people who "have everything figured out" are hating on religion for no legitimate reason.

 

Apparently, hating one religion makes you a bigot, but hating all of them makes you a rational thinker (spoiler alert: you're still a bigot). If you don't like the First Amendment, feel free to move to China where religion is nearly banned. Oh wait, that's why my great-grand parents left there... I must be brainwashed because I respect my parents enough to believe they wouldn't lie to me beyond Santa Claus. But, of course, you know for a fact that all religious people are brainwashed at birth, and you're obviously right. Sorry that I grew up in an effective household and ruined your laughable assumption :(.

 

[spoiler=Slightly Off-Topic, but still a reply to your post]I have always loved the people who honestly believe all religious people are brainwashed. They kind of remind me of the creationists who are so solemnly convinced about their beliefs that they refuse to even listen to anything the other side has to say (in a sense, brainwashed). Why don't you take an opportunity to listen for the first time? Religion isn't about having imaginary friends in the sky or however you word it; it's about having a little faith. I know there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of God and this doesn't bother me. I have faith that there is a meaning to life beyond reproduction. I have faith that people are inherently good. I have faith that there's more to life than our short window of time on Earth. If you don't feel that way, that's fine. I would never be able to live a life without any hope or feeling of guidance. If you think this is inherently illogical, you are not open-minded; don't pretend to be. The inherent good nature of mankind amidst wars and all other conflicts exists. If you close your mind to the good, you are a pessimist and will most likely live a miserable life hating everyone. Have a heart. People are by no means perfect and are not meant to be perfect. In the end, it's not what you did wrong that matters, but what you did to help your fellow man.

 

[Omar]

 

Are you seriously making me go back to the part of the discussion where I pointed out that later circumcisions can be costly, may have complications, a lot more painful, and take longer than the procedures done on birth...

 

And I'll repeat my assertion that if it is your considered, well thought out and adult position that circumcision is an inherent, core aspect of your world view and faith, then the procedure should not be too much to ask for; what's a little complication compared the to kingdom of heaven?

 

You seem to be taking your penis for granted. I hope you take care of that thing, or else you'll find out what "a little complication" can be. You're also turning mere humans into superheroes with perfect control of will. Easier said than done.

[h3art]

You seem to be taking your penis for granted. I hope you take care of that thing, or else you'll find out what "a little complication" can be.

 

As someone with multiple, relevant modifications, I'm well aware of issues with complications. :rolleyes: Obviously, the question was a little flippant - however the point still stands.

 

Edit: @ Studio - feel free to flick that to me in PM, let's not go OT again, eh?

[Omar]

You seem to be taking your penis for granted. I hope you take care of that thing, or else you'll find out what "a little complication" can be.

 

As someone with multiple, relevant modifications, I'm well aware of issues with complications. :rolleyes: Obviously, the question was a little flippant - however the point still stands.

 

Actually, I edited my post and addressed it more seriously.

[RpgGamer]

circumcision makes penis cleaning easier sex feel better.

 

Why get rid of it?

[Hamtaro]

Sorry that my cited sources weren't blog entries. Maybe this will make things better:

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

International Clinical Trials

Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [9] was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya [10] and Uganda [11] were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision.

 

In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised. The Uganda study investigators are also examining the following in an ongoing study: 1) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in HIV-infected men and men of unknown HIV infection status, 2) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in the mens female sex partners, and 3) effect of male circumcision on male-to-female transmission of HIV and other STDs.

Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4].

Effects of Male Circumcision on Penile Sensation and Sexual Function

Well-designed studies of sexual sensation and function in relation to male circumcision are few, and the results present a mixed picture. Taken as a whole, the studies suggest that some decrease in sensitivity of the glans to fine touch can occur following circumcision [18]. However, several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change [1922]. The three African trials found high levels of satisfaction among the men after circumcision [9, 10, 11, 16]; however, cultural differences limit extrapolation of their findings to U.S. men.

[spoiler=Science]

 

[Will H]

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult.

 

The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child.

 

The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

[The Observer]

Being Circumcised: No credible consequences with a likelihood of health benefits and painless as an infant

Not being Circumcised: Painful if you want it later in life and possible health hindrances for sexually active persons (thus making the only argument for circumcision redundant anyway)

^Toughest choice ever. I probably just don't understand, though, because I don't, amirite?

 

It's not like contraception is terribly difficult to get a hold of nowadays.

Sure (though arguably contraception isn't perfect), but there's no reason to outlaw a useless thing.

 

I was pushing more for the fact that it doesn't really matter as much as people say. :P

[Will H]

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult.

 

The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child.

 

The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

 

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation.

 

If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol:

 

At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children.

 

If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want.

 

True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it?

[Omar]

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult.

 

The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child.

 

The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

 

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation.

 

If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol:

 

At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children.

 

If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want.

 

True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it?

 

I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that.

 

If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now.

 

Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut.

Some people really believe circumcision is important in a religious way. In that sense, it's not just a matter of making your child's penis pretty, so it's not the same as cosmetic surgery. In fact, it's more threatening to the child's well-being than a medical condition, according to their point of view. It's not an option for them.

[Nomrombom]

I still don't get how people don't get why I think it is a human rights violation. As I have said before, circumcision is the forced, non-consensual removal of part of another person's body, where said body part is NOT and never will be life threatening. Religion should have no bearing whatsoever on forced removal of body parts without consent.

[Hamtaro]

I had my tonsils removed against my will too as a child. I guess I had my human rights violated in the name of good health twice :(

[Nomrombom]

I had my tonsils removed against my will too as a child. I guess I had my human rights violated in the name of good health twice :(

 

 

Wrong. The tonsils can cause/harbor serious disease and can in very severe cases cause death. The foreskin cannot. Your human rights were violated only once :thumbup:

[Orpheus]

I still don't get how people don't get why I think it is a human rights violation. As I have said before, circumcision is the forced, non-consensual removal of part of another person's body, where said body part is NOT and never will be life threatening. Religion should have no bearing whatsoever on forced removal of body parts without consent.

 

To be fair though, getting circumsized earlier is a lot less painful than doing it at the age of, say, 18. And from what I gleamed from the article, a petition of ~7000 people signing it means that a small part of the population of SF is trying to push this law through for everyone else.

[Nomrombom]

I still don't get how people don't get why I think it is a human rights violation. As I have said before, circumcision is the forced, non-consensual removal of part of another person's body, where said body part is NOT and never will be life threatening. Religion should have no bearing whatsoever on forced removal of body parts without consent.

 

To be fair though, getting circumsized earlier is a lot less painful than doing it at the age of, say, 18. And from what I gleamed from the article, a petition of ~7000 people signing it means that a small part of the population of SF is trying to push this law through for everyone else.

 

Then it will fail.

 

And you can get local anesthesia or general - doesn't need to be painful.

[sees_all1]

To be fair though, getting circumsized earlier is a lot less painful than doing it at the age of, say, 18. And from what I gleamed from the article, a petition of ~7000 people signing it means that a small part of the population of SF is trying to push this law through for everyone else.

I thought it was ~7000 people that wanted to vote on the issue. When it comes up on the ballot, we'll know who how many in the bay area want to control this aspect of other people's lives.

[The_Gabe]

I still don't get how people don't get why I think it is a human rights violation. As I have said before, circumcision is the forced, non-consensual removal of part of another person's body, where said body part is NOT and never will be life threatening. Religion should have no bearing whatsoever on forced removal of body parts without consent.

 

To be fair though, getting circumsized earlier is a lot less painful than doing it at the age of, say, 18. And from what I gleamed from the article, a petition of ~7000 people signing it means that a small part of the population of SF is trying to push this law through for everyone else.

 

Then it will fail.

 

And you can get local anesthesia or general - doesn't need to be painful.

 

Please research a subject before posting so this won't turn into another pointless back and forth.

[Nomrombom]

...?

[Orpheus]

To be fair though, getting circumsized earlier is a lot less painful than doing it at the age of, say, 18. And from what I gleamed from the article, a petition of ~7000 people signing it means that a small part of the population of SF is trying to push this law through for everyone else.

I thought it was ~7000 people that wanted to vote on the issue. When it comes up on the ballot, we'll know who how many in the bay area want to control this aspect of other people's lives.

Fair enough. But yeah, it's a small part of the population trying to vote on this matter. And as for it being less painful when you're a baby, I don't remember a thing about it whereas it'd be a lot worse getting it done now.

 

@Fool: Yeah, it's easier to clean if circumsized apparently.

[Distracted]

I was always taught circumcision was healthier, since bacteria and dirt can't pile up under the folds or something to that effect?

 

Either way, what's the problem with circumcision? Honestly, once you're grown up you don't even remember being circumcised and it's not like it's some kind of handicap for life that you're receiving in the name of religion...