Ban circumcision in San Fran???

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/ushealthjewsreligioncircumcision

very very interesting topic.

first of all, I think comparing circumcising 8-day old males to genital mutilation of teenage girls in Africa, is petty week.

#1. genital mutilation of girls in Africa is to prevent them from enjoying sex.

#2. genital mutilation of girls in African is done at an age when they can clearly and vividly remember the experience, and can suffer days and days of pain due to it.

#3. Jewish & Muslim circumcision is done at a very young age. The circumcised male feels the pain for only a few seconds, and then it is gone. There is no evidence that these babies experience any pain hours....if not even minutes after the event. And there is NO evidence whatsoever, that any circumcised males remember the event. I know I sure don't, and I know that even as a young child, I had no memory of the event.

#4. There is a lot of research showing the health benefits of having a boy circumcised. Research in southern Africa showed a decrease in HIV transmission rates to the male of 50%, in circumcises males. That is no chump change.

#5. Jewish & Muslim circumcision is not done to harm the child, or punish him, contrary to female African circumcision.

#6. This clearly violates the separation of Church and State. Such a law would be no different than banning ritualized ear-piercing, branding, etc etc.

It would be one thing, if the folks in SF demanded that all baby boys receive some form of pain killer before the procedure was done, in order to dull the pain. But this is not their concern. Their concern is clearly not the pain the baby suffers, but the ritual itself..and probably even its religious nature.

Seeking to have the govt. ban a private religious act, because of its religious nature, is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[Arcade22]

Comparing female circumcision with it's male counterpart is ridiculous. Not saying that it shouldn't be banned, if only because it makes penises look terrible. When they are old enough to get an earing or a tattoo then they can start slicing and dicing their private parts as they wish, but parents shouldn't be able to choose for their kids when they are too young to have a say in it.

Seeking to have the govt. ban a private religious act, because of its religious nature, is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

So polygamy should be legalized? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Mormons who feel that their religious freedoms are being oppressed by the US government...

 

[Thunder]

Not saying that it shouldn't be banned, if only because it makes penises look terrible

I proudly disagree.

When they are old enough to get an earing or a tattoo then they can start slicing and dicing their private parts as they wish, but parents shouldn't be able to choose for their kids when they are too young to have a say in it.

what about parents choosing not to give their parents vacines?

what about haircuts?

should we forbid parents from doing ANTHING to their children until the child is mature enough to make the decision for themselves?

what about parental rights?

 

[ReverendClog]

I have never crossed paths with you before, Thunder, so Hello!.

I am crossing paths with you now.

Points 3-6 are nonsense.

Circumcision is a stupid and possibly harmful procedure.

 

[Mirrorglass]

So you're saying that according to the US law, it's allowed to ritualistically brand or give ear-pearcings to newborn children?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Hmm, maybe somebody can link to the last marathon circumcision threads so we can cut to the chase. (Clever pun, eh?)

OK, I'll do that.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145898&highlight=circumcision

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116423&highlight=circumcision

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41504&highlight=circumcision

What is different about what's going on in San Fran?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

#1. genital mutilation of girls in Africa is to prevent them from enjoying sex.

And also for cultural and aesthetic reasons.

#2. genital mutilation of girls in African is done at an age when they can clearly and vividly remember the experience, and can suffer days and days of pain due to it.

Okay.

#3. Jewish & Muslim circumcision is done at a very young age. The circumcised male feels the pain for only a few seconds, and then it is gone. There is no evidence that these babies experience any pain hours....if not even minutes after the event. And there is NO evidence whatsoever, that any circumcised males remember the event. I know I sure don't, and I know that even as a young child, I had no memory of the event.

Now see, that is where we got into problems in another thread. Is it really ethical to cause pain if they won't remember it? Also, evidence?

#4. There is a lot of research showing the health benefits of having a boy circumcised. Research in southern Africa showed a decrease in HIV transmission rates to the male of 50%, in circumcises males. That is no chump change.

And such research has stayed there, because it hasn't been repeated elsewhere. Linky.

It also smacks of blatant post-hoc reasoning. We know why circumcision became popular in US culture- to prevent male masturbation.

#5. Jewish & Muslim circumcision is not done to harm the child, or punish him, contrary to female African circumcision.

No, it is also done to make their genitalia aesthetically appeasing and to suit their cultural mores, rather like female circumcision.

#6. This clearly violates the separation of Church and State. Such a law would be no different than banning ritualized ear-piercing, branding, etc etc.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but having religious motivations isn't a blank check.

It would be one thing, if the folks in SF demanded that all baby boys receive some form of pain killer before the procedure was done, in order to dull the pain. But this is not their concern. Their concern is clearly not the pain the baby suffers, but the ritual itself..and probably even its religious nature.

Or it could be the needless medical procedure that carries risks and acts as a permanent body modification of a child who can't consent.

Just saying.

Seeking to have the govt. ban a private religious act, because of its religious nature, is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

It is interesting that it mostly isn't a religious act, and that it isn't being banned for religious reasons.

But please, cry out against the persecution more. Just like kids get to cry out against permanent body modifica... oh, wait...

 

[Thunder]

No, it is also done to make their genitalia aesthetically appeasing and to suit their cultural mores, rather like female circumcision..

evidence? I have never heard this before.

 

[Thunder]

So you're saying that according to the US law, it's allowed to ritualistically brand or give ear-pearcings to newborn children?

I've seen very young girls with ear piercings. should that be illegal?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

what about parents choosing not to give their parents vacines?

You are comparing circumcision to vaccines? Really?

what about haircuts?

Really?

should we forbid parents from doing ANTHING to their children until the child is mature enough to make the decision for themselves?

Congratulations on slaying your strawman.

what about parental rights?

What about child rights?

 

[Thunder]

What about child rights?

if children should have the right to say "NO", to anything that a parent wants to do to them, then this would mean children would have the right to say no to haircuts, ear piercings, having their nails clipped, wearing glasses, etc etc etc.

...eating brocolli, taking medicine, finishing their vegetables before dessert,.....

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

evidence? I have never heard this before.

And yet you saw fit to compare the two...

Rite of passage
Through interviews of various African women, female circumcision is shown to be symbolic as a rite of passage to womanhood. Girls are showered with gifts and attention after being circumcised. In some societies the experience includes secret ceremonies and instruction in cooking, crafts, child- care, and the use of herbs. After circumcision, adolescent girls are also allowed to be married. By complying, they also please their parents, who can arrange a marriage and gain a high bridal price for a circumcised daughter. Among the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania, girls are circumcised publicly. Then the cutting becomes a test of bravery and a proof that they will be able to endure the pain of childbirth. Circumcision gives girls status in their communities, because they are seen as women after being circumcised instead of as girls (Abusharaf 1998). These examples reinforce the positive meanings associated with circumcision- purity, fertilty, and womanhood.

Uncircumcised women
Mothers who have their daughters circumcised believe they are doing the right thing-because their children would become social outcasts if they did not get circumcised. The consequences of not undergoing the ritual are extreme. Negative meanings attached to symbols are also learned through social interactions. An uncircumcised woman is labeled unclean, impure, and unfit to marry, bear children, or attain respect in old age. Interviews of the Sabiny people of Uganda state that an uncircumcised woman who marries into the community is always lowest in the pecking order of village women, and she is not allowed to perform the public duties of a wife, such as serving elders. Uncut women are called girls, no matter what their age is, and are forbidden to speak at community gatherings. The social pressures are so intense that uncircumcised wives often become circumcised as adults (Abusharaf 1998).

Woman's virginity
Another less common reason given for infibulation or excision is decreasing a woman's sexual desire in order to preserve virginity. Infibulation is intended to dull women's sexual enjoyment, and it appears to be extremely effective. In a survey conducted in Sierra Leone, circumcised women reported feeling little or no sexual responsiveness. The clitoris is always at least partially removed during the operation, and without it orgasm becomes practically impossible. Uncircumcised women are generally assumed to be promiscuous, and man-chasers (Abusharaf 1998). Purity and virginity are closely associated with circumcision. Symbolic interactionism would argue that this concept is learned through interactions of individuals within a society.

Tradition and Folklore
Female circumcision is deeply enmeshed in local traditions and beliefs. Interviews of 21 Bedouin women in southern Israel uncovered several reasons for circumcision. The most common is social pressure to maintain tradition. The second most common is the belief that uncircumcised women are not good bakers or cooks. Many women believe that after circumcision, women are cleaner. The justifications for female circumcision vary. Interviews of ethnic groups in Nigeria believe that if a woman's clitoris is not removed, contact with it will kill a baby during childbirth. Other people believe that without circumcision, the female genitalia will continue to grow. Vaginal secretions, produced by glands that are often removed as part of the surgery, are thought to be unclean and lethal to sperm. These examples of folklore show socially constructed negative symbols towards uncircumcised women. These social symbols are learned through interactions with other women and girls.

Linky.

Sexual: to control or reduce female sexuality.
Sociological: for example, as an initiation for girls into womanhood, social integration and the maintenance of social cohesion.
Hygiene and aesthetic reasons: where it is believed that the female genitalia are dirty and unsightly.
Health: in the belief that it enhances fertility and child survival.
Religious reasons: in the mistaken belief that FGM/C is a religious requirement.

Linky.

 

[Arcade22]

what about parents choosing not to give their parents vacines?

If that's harmful to their kids health then the social services should step in.

what about haircuts?

Hair grows back, foreskin doesn't.

should we forbid parents from doing ANTHING to their children until the child is mature enough to make the decision for themselves?

No. But this is one of many stupid cultural practices that we should weed out.

Also, circumcision was used as a way to punish masturbating adolescents way back. I doubt this is common place now but plenty of people advocated that boys who were caught masturbating should be circumcised unanesthetized, as the pain and soreness would make it more than displeasurable for repeat offenders to keep up the practice.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

if children should have the right to say "NO", to anything that a parent wants to do to them, then this would mean children would have the right to say no to haircuts, ear piercings, having their nails clipped, wearing glasses, etc etc etc.

...eating brocolli, taking medicine, finishing their vegetables before dessert,.....

Again, congratulations on slaying your strawman . I said quite a few times that my problem is that it is an unnecessary, permanent body modification.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha
No, it is also done to make their genitalia aesthetically appeasing and to suit their cultural mores

please provide evidence that this is one of the reasons Muslims & Jews circumsize their male babies.

 

[Aepervius]

Male circumcision may not be as tragic as female one, but it is still a *mutilation* that you impose on a baby which is unable to say no. Sorry, but the bottom line is that those circumcision are mostly done on cultural ground, in both case, and the so called health study benefit only came much later as a justification.

*any* mutilation, operation, should ONLY be made on medicinal ground (I leave beauty operation as on the fence), but cultural or religious ground are not acceptable IMHO.

 

[Thunder]

Also, circumcision was used as a way to punish masturbating adolescents way back. I doubt this is common place now but plenty of people advocated that boys who were caught masturbating should be circumcised unanesthetized, as the pain and soreness would make it more than displeasurable for repeat offenders to keep up the practice.

what the heck does this have to do with Jews circumsizing their 8-day-old baby boys?

 

[Thunder]

Male circumcision may not be as tragic as female one, but it is still a *mutilation* that you impose on a baby which is unable to say no.

as is ear piercings.

 

[kerikiwi]

what the heck does this have to do with Jews circumsizing their 8-day-old baby boys?

What does a ban have to do with Jews circumsizing their 8 day old baby boys?

 

[lionking]

If Jews or Muslims wish to become circumcised for religious reasons, let them decide to do it at age 18. Problem solved. I can just see thousands of happy, devout men queuing up for this.