Ban circumcision in San Fran???

[Thunder]

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....

no, they DO compute.

....if you are trying to make circumcision of 8-day old babies look like torture not seen since the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Are you just going to keep repeating that, or address the point? Again, replace slavery with any of the above mentioned and the point remains the same.

As you can see, your really having to cling to any scrap of a point you can find in this thread as evidenced by your simply repeating your " Slavery is worse than circumcision." point, instead of addressing mine.

 

[Childlike Empress]

How do those irrational cultists explain that God created foreskins in the first place? Was he in error? Or just another cruel joke by the scumbag? How is this rationalized?

In my book it's clear cut. *cough* People who do harm to babies private parts with sharp objects are sick in the brain. Period.

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

1. Foreskin is not part of the penis. It is just a covering of skin over the tip that does not affect the functioning, and pleasure of the penis.

2. It is not "aesthetic surgery." It is a very important part of religious practice for billions of people all over the world, and which is protected by the First Amendment.

3. Circumcision, which clearly is a religious practice for centuries upon centuries, upon centuries, and which is protected under Americans' First Amendment rights, should not be banned.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

But others on your side of the argument have, and you have not said anything to state you disagree. So either you are simply towing the party line regardless of merit, or as the end of this post implies, you do feel that it is a valid point, but wanted to use the fact that you have not stated it yourself as a thumb in someones eye, which , honestly is what your reduced to in this thread so far.

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

1. It is not "unnecessary."
2. It is not "aesthetic surgery.

1A. It is a necessary part of major religious practices.
2A. It is protected under First Amendment rights of the US Constitution.

 

[Mirrorglass]

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.

I know you didn't. I was just pointing it out to Nihilianth, who is agreeing with you, but with arguments that contradict yours.

Anyway, whenever you feel like responding to my previous post honestly...

Eh, who am I kidding. You really should get a blog, if you're not interested in actually discussing issues, though.

 

[sadhatter]

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.



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?



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.



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



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.

Wow, such complete misunderstanding, i don't even know where to start.

Actually, that is a lie, i do.

Go back and read my post, really read it. Then when you realize you completely didn't get the point with the man that is missing an arm, come back to me. Hint: You couldn't have been more wrong.

As far as your views on choice, a full back tattoo wouldn't provide any harm either, but i am sure you wouldn't promote giving it to a child. If for no other reason that it might make them less appealing to a future mate.

And again, as you have ignored before, there cannot be hard evidence that it makes sex more pleasurable, because pleasure is a subjective thing. The range of things people get a sexual thrill from includes damn near anything.

But if none of this sinks in, seriously, re read my post, you literally almost said the exact opposite of what i did , and then replied to it as if it was my opinion. Way to go.

 

[ehcks]

1. It is not "unnecessary."
2. It is not "aesthetic surgery.

1A. It is a necessary part of major religious practices.
2A. It is protected under First Amendment rights of the US Constitution.

1. So what part of it is necessary?
2. What does it do other than change the appearance?

1/2A. The first amendment also protects people from having religion forced upon them.

 

[Darat]

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?

Folks I know we all like to say our piece but why not do as Darth suggested and read some of the other discussions about this topic, if for no other reason than you will find the older threads full of links and references so you can get the facts.

 

[Darat]

1. Foreskin is not part of the penis. ...snip...

Given that statement I have to say that you are very ill-informed of normal male anatomy!

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

That's easy:

Because I am perfectly fine. I feel full pleasure when having sex and I am, incidentally, having a child in about 6 weeks. I have a job that I love, and a house we just bought. We also have two cars. And I have a family whom I love very much. I have an Associates in Specialized Technologies, and a Bachelor's in Secondary Education.

In short, I am pursuing the "American Dream," without any roadblocks, other than normal ones set up in society that even those with foreskins also have to worry about.

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.".

Once again, if it is "not an issue of benefit," then there is no issue in banning it. If you cannot show me evidence for the following:

1. That circumcised men REALLY do care that much about not having a foreskin.

2. That circumcised men are somehow inferior to men who are not.

3. That it reduces pleasure.

4. That is harms your health.

Otherwise, you have no argument, because circumcision is a normal part of religious practice for billions and billions of people across the planet, and which also happens to be protected by the first amendment.
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.

You are assuming that circumcised men care. I have a question for you: Since you yourself are not circumcised, or a part of a major religion, what stake do you have in the argument?

And no, if I REALLY wanted a foreskin, I am not "f'ed" as you say. I can get plastic surgery done to remove skin from my thigh or someplace, and have it sculpted and graphed onto the spot where my foreskin used to be. So the choice is still there.

 

[Nihilianth]

Wow, such complete misunderstanding, i don't even know where to start.

Actually, that is a lie, i do.

Go back and read my post, really read it. Then when you realize you completely didn't get the point with the man that is missing an arm, come back to me. Hint: You couldn't have been more wrong.

As far as your views on choice, a full back tattoo wouldn't provide any harm either, but i am sure you wouldn't promote giving it to a child. If for no other reason that it might make them less appealing to a future mate.

And again, as you have ignored before, there cannot be hard evidence that it makes sex more pleasurable, because pleasure is a subjective thing. The range of things people get a sexual thrill from includes damn near anything.

But if none of this sinks in, seriously, re read my post, you literally almost said the exact opposite of what i did , and then replied to it as if it was my opinion. Way to go.

Very nice dodge! Couldn't argue me point-by-point, as I am able to argue with you.

Also, way to go in dodging the First Amendment points as well. I have posted that in every single one of my posts in this thread. Or else, damned near every post.

GO FIRST AMENDMENT!

 

[Darat]

....snip...

And no, if I REALLY wanted a foreskin, I am not "f'ed" as you say. I can get plastic surgery done to remove skin from my thigh or someplace, and have it sculpted and graphed onto the spot where my foreskin used to be. So the choice is still there.

No you can't as that will not replicate a foreskin, at best it will give an appearance of a foreskin.

 

[talkie toaster]

Should circumcision be banned ??....

Well.....it's no skin of my nose​

Exits stage left to thunderous applause....encore..encore

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

Ah, but in this case, circumcision is not a "magic spell," and Billy is still able to have his dessert in bed just as well as uncircumcised Johnny can. And everyone is happy.

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.

That was a pretty poor point Thunder made, and left me more than a little confused.

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.

As is this one.

 

[Nihilianth]

no, they DO compute.

....if you are trying to make circumcision of 8-day old babies look like torture not seen since the Spanish Inquisition.

Oh, but of course! Silly me! I should have known!

 

[Sledge]

First off, mutilating a child is barbaric. I don't care if your religion says to do it or you're doing it because you think it looks good, it's barbaric and should be grounds for the child being removed from those parents.

The ear piercing thing. I have no problem with making ear piercing illegal for children, and I really don't see why we're comparing the two things. Comparing male and female circumsion makes sense because they're both irreversible genital mutilations carried out on people without their consent. Just because people have been doing it for a long time doesn't make it right.

 

[ehcks]

GO FIRST AMENDMENT!

You keep bringing that up. You seem to forget that it also means you can't force your religious practices upon other people. Specifically, on a child incapable of making their own opinions.

Also, religious practices that deliberately harm unwilling persons aren't protected.

 

[Nihilianth]

Are you just going to keep repeating that, or address the point? Again, replace slavery with any of the above mentioned and the point remains the same.

As you can see, your really having to cling to any scrap of a point you can find in this thread as evidenced by your simply repeating your " Slavery is worse than circumcision." point, instead of addressing mine.

No, by constantly comparing circumcision (a very minor surgery, which doesn;t affect anything about the child's life at any point of time in their life,) to slavery (which, absolteuly, most certainly DOES affect the slave in question to such a huge degree) makes it seem like you are clinging any scrap you can cling to.

BTW, how's the process of coming up with an answer to the First Amendment issue coming along? Haven't heard anything yet. Sounds like a bunch of crickets to me.