Ban circumcision in San Fran???

[sadhatter]

awwwww!!!! look at this happy baby getting her ear pierced!!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=492&pictureid=4365[/qimg]



...shall we make this a crime as well?

Can the ring ever be taken out? If not, then yes.

Ear piercing, with the exception of large gauge holes, is not permanent, and does not end up in one missing a part of their body.

 

[Thunder]

" White people have been enslaving black people for decades, i am confused as to why this has suddenly became an issue. " Just because something is old doesn't make it right, good or beneficial.

Btw, the united states has only been around for around 229 years, did jews secretly make the united states 170 years before everyone got there and start with the circumcising?

you are comparing circumcision of 8-day old male Jews, as part of our 3,000 year old religious tradition...to the African Slave Trade??????

wow!!!!!!!! (what is this logical fallacy, folks?)

and you are right, I should have said "North America". Not the United States.

thank you for pointing out that minor detail/error that really has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Nihilianth]

Your missing the point.

You are okay with it because you have no experience with a foreskin. Maybe you would feel the same, maybe you wouldn't. But the choice was removed from you, you have no frame of reference to say if you would rather have one or not.

Again, the choice doesn't really matter. It doesn't affect my life in any way, shape, or form.

It would be like saying " Coke is disgusting , i am a 7-up man myself. Oh, no i have never tried Coke and i never will be able to, but i can say i prefer 7-up to it. ".

Show me evidence that having a foreskin can be more pleasurable than not having one, and I might concede this point. Otherwise, your comparisons of sodas does not suffice.

And your rebuttal is equivalent to saying " Well i guess you would have to find people who have tried 7-up and coke and ask them. " and i can hope you see how silly this would be. We are not talking about which one is better, we are talking about being able to make an educated choice which is removed when someone else makes the choice for you.

You are the one that brought it up by saying "what if you, without ever experience a foreskin, might like having one better?" How can I like having a foreskin better, unless it is more pleasurable to have sex?

Otherwise, whether you have one or not, doesn't really matter, and doesn't affect anything in your life. Therefore, not being given a choice on the issue doesn't really matter.

ETA: I also like the deflection of the more serious matter of cutting into the First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[MontagK505]

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.



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...

I think most people object because it's forced on under-age women. And the early LDS has a habit of kidnapping non-Mormon women for their harems, which was the main reason the US Gov. put a stop to it.

 

[sadhatter]

I can see your point about comparing a haircut to circumcision. But my question is: If you can ban circumcision, where does "banning" decision-making for parents end? Where does it end in overtunring our Constitutional rights, as Americans? (Assuming you are American. But since we are talking SF, we are talking about the USA.)

I know that is a slippery slope argument, and they can be logically fallible, but this is a legitimate concern.

Other problems:

1. There is no evidence it provides adverse health affect.

2. There is no evidence it adversely affects a male's ability to function in society.

3. There is no evidence it adversely affects a male's ability to function in bed.

4. There is no evidence it is any less pleasurable.

5. There is no evidence that males who have been circumcised, really care all that much later in life if they don't have a foreskin.

It should end at anything that is permanent, i believe i made that quite clear. If it can't be reversed, ( with the obvious exception of necessary surgeries.) then a parent should not be able to do it. Seems pretty reasonable.

And any evidence for benefit is well beside the point. The issue is choice not benefit.

And again of course there is no evidence they really care that much later in life. They have never had one, so they cannot make the decision if they would rather have had one. what exactly is so hard to understand about that?

Kids in the 30's didn't sit around saying " Gee i wish i had some video games right now." because they never had experience with them. The same way people who have never had foreskin arn't going to say " Gee i wish i had foreskin." because they have never had experience with it.

And considering pleasure is a subjective thing ( some people like hot sauce on their **** ), one cannot just ask someone with foreskin and make an educated decision, like for example a man with one arm could ask someone with two how it works. It is something that one would have to have, in order to say they don't want.

 

[sadhatter]

you are comparing circumcision of 8-day old male Jews, as part of our 3,000 year old religious tradition...to the African Slave Trade??????

wow!!!!!!!! (what is this logical fallacy, folks?)

and you are right, I should have said "North America". Not the United States.

thank you for pointing out that minor detail/error that really has nothing to do with the thread.

For the love of crap, it was an example of something old that is now seen as bunk, replace slavery with alchemy, homeopathy, bloodletting, and get back to me with a real reply.

 

[Thunder]

It should end at anything that is permanent, i believe i made that quite clear. If it can't be reversed, ( with the obvious exception of necessary surgeries.) then a parent should not be able to do it. Seems pretty reasonable.

I have heard of men actually reversing their circumcision, by stretching the remaining skin at the base over the tip.


yup...its true.

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/node/18922

http://www.4restore.com/media/MediaHighlights/AskMen_com%20-%20Foreskin.htm

http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.08_WholeLifeTimes/

 

[ehcks]

awwwww!!!! look at this happy baby getting her ear pierced!!




...shall we make this a crime as well?

Yes.

A 10 year old can say "Mommy, can I get an earring?" A 10 day old baby can not. A 10 day old baby also can not say "Mommy, can I have part of my penis cut off?"

Aesthetic surgery with no practical use should not be performed on people too young to question it.

 

[Thunder]

Yes.

how about making it illegal for parents to withhold dessert until Billy eats his vegetables?

why should parents have the right to deny children food? shouldn't that be a crime too?

 

[Mirrorglass]

I have heard of men actually reversing their circumcision, by stretching the remaining skin at the base over the tip.


yup...its true.

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/node/18922

http://www.4restore.com/media/MediaHighlights/AskMen_com%20-%20Foreskin.htm

http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.08_WholeLifeTimes/

That doesn't really go well with "There is no evidence that males who have been circumcised, really care all that much later in life if they don't have a foreskin", does it?

 

[Thunder]

For the love of crap, it was an example of something old that is now seen as bunk, replace slavery with alchemy, homeopathy, bloodletting, and get back to me with a real reply.

comparing circumcision of 8-day-old baby boys, to a lifetime in often brutal slavery and bondage, is a pretty pathetic comparison.

and I'm sure...you're aware of that.

 

[MontagK505]

um...this law would make it a crime for Jews to circumsize their 8-day old sons.

if this law passes, it would certainly have one major result: less Jews and Muslims in San Francisco.

You've discovered the hidden agenda.

 

[ehcks]

how about making it illegal for parents to withhold dessert until Billy eats his vegetables?

why should parents have the right to deny children food? shouldn't that be a crime too?

Excess sugar is not a necessary part of a proper diet. Positive reinforcement is also a useful way to raise your kids.

This has nothing to do with unnecessary aesthetic surgery on babies.

 

[Thunder]

That doesn't really go well with "There is no evidence that males who have been circumcised, really care all that much later in life if they don't have a foreskin", does it?

isn't it wonderful that I have NEVER made such a claim?

I think it is.



...though I have to say, I have never heard a circumcised male complain that he wants his foreskin back. but maybe I'm just sheltered from the true state of mind of the American male.

 

[sadhatter]

Again, the choice doesn't really matter. It doesn't affect my life in any way, shape, or form.



Show me evidence that having a foreskin can be more pleasurable than not having one, and I might concede this point. Otherwise, your comparisons of sodas does not suffice.



You are the one that brought it up by saying "what if you, without ever experience a foreskin, might like having one better?" How can I like having a foreskin better, unless it is more pleasurable to have sex?

Otherwise, whether you have one or not, doesn't really matter, and doesn't affect anything in your life. Therefore, not being given a choice on the issue doesn't really matter.

ETA: I also like the deflection of the more serious matter of cutting into the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Please tell me how you know this has not effected your life in any way shape or form. I would like to know how one can make a decision on something they do not have any experience with.

Again, pleasure is subjective, of course there is not going to be hard evidence that it gives more pleasure. The same way there is not going to be any hard evidence that getting whipped, having candle wax melting on you or getting **** on, is pleasurable. It is a person by person thing, some people thing having their johnson tossed in a mouse trap is a 10/10 on the pleasure scale, personally i would harm a person for trying it. Some people may want to be circumcised later, some may not, sex is one of the most subjective things out there, to sit there and demand hard proof that it makes sex more pleasurable is simply silly. It is not an issue of benefit, it is an issue of being able to make the choice yourself, and you saying " i wouldn't care if i was circumcised " makes about as much of a point for it as me saying " I would break someones hand if they tried to circumcise me.".

Which is to say, none.

I had the choice to get circumcised at any point and i choose not to, you have had that choice removed. Even if i accept your " I can tell if i want it, and i don't." at face value, we have two people , one who says they prefer being circumcised , one who says they prefer being not. obvious proof that attitudes on circumcision vary by person. So to take away this choice, which we have solid proof that people feel differently on from your child, is simply not right. If i ever felt the want to go get circumcised , i could. You on the other hand, if you ever wanted a foreskin are f'ed.

 

[MontagK505]

how about making it illegal for parents to withhold dessert until Billy eats his vegetables?

why should parents have the right to deny children food? shouldn't that be a crime too?

Have you cornered the worlds supply of straw?

 

[sadhatter]

I have heard of men actually reversing their circumcision, by stretching the remaining skin at the base over the tip.


yup...its true.

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/node/18922

http://www.4restore.com/media/MediaHighlights/AskMen_com%20-%20Foreskin.htm

http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.08_WholeLifeTimes/

Do yourself a bit of a favor, and go read up on the success rate of cosmetic penile surgery in regards to attempting to make more than is there. Hint, complications are high, and they are not pretty at all.

And beyond that, you have now subjected your child to 1 surgery now , and one later in life if they decide they want to have a non circumcised penis , if you had left the decision in their hands they would have had 1 at most, and 0 at least. Avoiding unnecessary surgery is a plus to me, but you know, whatever floats one's boat.

 

[Nihilianth]

It should end at anything that is permanent, i believe i made that quite clear. If it can't be reversed, ( with the obvious exception of necessary surgeries.) then a parent should not be able to do it. Seems pretty reasonable.

It is a permanence that doesn't really matter. It does not affect the overall health and well-being of the child. If anything, there are health benefits to HAVING circumcisions done.

And any evidence for benefit is well beside the point. The issue is choice not benefit.

If there is no benefit to be gained or lost, then why put a law on the books which limits the "free exercise thereof" for the separation clause in the US Constitution?

And again of course there is no evidence they really care that much later in life. They have never had one, so they cannot make the decision if they would rather have had one. what exactly is so hard to understand about that?

Because, it makes it impossible to understand your argument when it comes to "choice." Basically, whether or not you have a foreskin, seems to be "6 of one, or half dozen of another." There is no reason to restrict a well-established religious practice of Jews, Muslims, and Christians, as protected in the First Amendment.

Kids in the 30's didn't sit around saying " Gee i wish i had some video games right now." because they never had experience with them. The same way people who have never had foreskin arn't going to say " Gee i wish i had foreskin." because they have never had experience with it.

And it doesn't make their lives any less meaningful, does it?

And considering pleasure is a subjective thing ( some people like hot sauce on their **** ), one cannot just ask someone with foreskin and make an educated decision, like for example a man with one arm could ask someone with two how it works. It is something that one would have to have, in order to say they don't want.

Ah, now you are making a comparison of having a foreskin, to a man with one arm. Said comparison does not computer, because having one arm, obviously does affect the lifestyle of that person to some degree.

But that wasn't the point of my suggestion to do a survey of men who have been circumcised. The point my that suggestion, was to find out just how many circumcised males care whether or not they were given the choice. I would put a million dollars on the line by guessing that no less than 99% of all circumcised males could care less.

If people who have been circumcised don't care they have no been given a choice, then how is it anyone's business to put a ban on the book, restricting a very important part of religious practice, for the three largest religions on the planet, and which is protected by the First Amendment?

In any case, who says cutting off the foreskin has to be permanent? I would think that plastic surgery could easily fix that problem if the person REALLY wanted one.

 

[Nihilianth]

For the love of crap, it was an example of something old that is now seen as bunk, replace slavery with alchemy, homeopathy, bloodletting, and get back to me with a real reply.

I ask the same question:

You are comparing circumcision to not only slavery, but now with alchemy, homeopathy, and bloodletting?

Man, these comparisons really do not compute....

 

[sadhatter]

how about making it illegal for parents to withhold dessert until Billy eats his vegetables?

why should parents have the right to deny children food? shouldn't that be a crime too?

Billy has the ability to go and get a desert at some point in his life after that. If you were to cast a magic spell that made billy never able to consume desert again, then i would have an issue.

Second point, much the same. They do have the right to do that, but not if it is permanent. I am sure you can see the obvious issue with permanently denying someone food.

Seeing as you brought up a surgery to replace the foreskin, what would be wrong with parents sowing their child's mouth shut and leaving room for a feeding tube into which they puree whatever they want the kid to eat? I mean the kid can always surgically get their mouth opened again.