Circumcision ban will go to vote in San Francisco

Why doesn't it surprise me that this is happening in San Francisco?

Was this Nancey Pelosis Idea?

reply to post by Maxmars


So there is such a thing as "uncircumcision" but have you looked into further? It's painful. It's take a long time, and it never gets you what you originally were born with.

Leave boys alone. Let them choose for themselves if they want it or not. The parents should not have the ability to alter their children in these permanent ways. What a gross tradition.

Doesn't this have something to do with the church too? Didn't they suggest doing it to minimize sexual pleasure to keep young boys from masturbating?

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I am so glad I had a girl!

But I think this is a matter that does not belong in legislation but rather in the hands of the family. How fascist to pass a law like this!

How fascist of the PARENTS to choose for their kid whether he gets to keep a piece of HIS OWN BODY.

You must not be a male!

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

That may have been the case in the 1960s, but certainly no more. When was the last time a social trend was started in California, let alone San Francisco? It used to be "as things go in California, they will go in the rest of the country". Other than governmental mismanagement, California ceased to be a trend setter decades ago, which is one of the reason that other than illegals there has been an exodus from the state for over a decade.

edit on 30-4-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)

Off top of my head? Medical marijuana, banning of trans fats, and the recent attempts to ban happy meal toys.

Those are all legal precedents that have begun to take root in other places.

You seems stuck in the 60's culture war, and it is preventing you from seeing valid information when presented. IT must suck to be fighting that old paradigm in 2011.

My son is circumsized. I was in the room when it was done, and he slept the entire time. The procedure was not covered under insurance because it was considered a cosmetic procedure. My husband made the decision because he, his father, his father's father, etc etc has it done and it is something that we chose for him.

To take away the right to choose is ridiculous, simple as that. Its one thing to make it something to pay out of pocket or covered by insurance but to ban it all together is ridiculous. Thats all.

reply to post by EvillerBob

I guess it's proof that evolution is a failure. Why spend all those generations evolving something that is actually less beneficial to our survival than if we didn't have it?

you apparently subscribe to the erroneous notion that there is an ascending movement to evolution, i'm afraid you are mistaken, evolution merely being an old greek word for CHANGE,isn't going anywhere in particular, it's just one thing piled on top of another most of the so called "junk DNA" are actually bits of virii that became attached to the genome.

as for god, well he did order circumcision, as a distinguishing mark [im told to distinguish us from animals] of the covenant, so it is not a case of human presumptuousness at all.

it occurs to me that there may be a bit of jew-baiting behind the anti-circumcision crowd as i seem to recall reading once that the greeks would encourage young Hellenized Jews who were into sports [remember the greek custom was to compete in the nude] to get the uncircumcision operation [oh yes, that operation is actually of ancient origin folks, do remember that plastic surgery was practiced in antiquity; in India there was an operation to replace noses that had been cut off] as a circumcised penis stood out and identified you as a jew.

oh and to all who claim they last longer show me the numbers and links to the studies or was this something you learned from shoot ing the sh*t with your buddies?

10-15 minutes may seem like a long time to some i prefer to think of hours as long and minutes as short

i will also point out to the "haters[?]" that among all your boasting it all seems to be about you, and your mini-me's, you seem to be neglecting the female point of view,
i will just point out that many women are given to faking orgasms,
that this is endemic,
and say no more

There seems to be schism here in figuring out who should get the freedom to decide: the parents, or the child who will have to live with an alteration to his body that he never approved of.

Seems pretty obvious to me. Its one thing to be able to raise your children how you see fit, but when you go hacking off bits of their body, then I don't think you can ever say you believe in personal freedom, since you've just violated a pretty fundamental right: the right to your own body.

However, because its difficult for anyone to see outside of the social norms, nobody finds it strange that people are doing this to kids. But, really think about it...You have just given birth to a baby boy, in all his perfect beauty, and some doctor comes in and says, "Hey, this religious trend was started way back when, and we've kinda kept doing it, even if we aren't religious, and so.... uhm... we'd like to remove the most sensitive part of your kid.......Okay?" That just doesn't fly with me. And seriously, talk about a way to encourage people to forgo any personal responsibility by suggesting that circumcision might prevent STDs. I'd rather take on the responsibility of protecting myself and my partner by using real protection and common sense, and I can just picture the disastrous results when, in the heat of the moment, someone decides that they can skip the condom because they're circumcised! Sheesh! It sounds more like an excuse in my opinion... "Sure I let some guy cut into my kid's most personal body part... but hey...maybe there is some health benefit or something, so I shouldn't feel too bad about it."

I'm sorry but, at best, this is a waste of time and a distraction. Mark my words, if this is passed, the only thing that will happen is A) it is appealed, B) more money--money that people don't have--will be wasted in fines, and C) people go someone else to have this procedure done. If it is this obvious to me, why the heck are our politicians wasting the time and money to bring this to a vote.

Originally posted by Maxmars

... What get's me is this.... They DO know that circumcision can be reversed don't they?

Uncircumcision

The cosmetic surgery you linked to is cosmetic only. It does not restore the lost sensory nerves. Circumcision really is butchery and quite unnecessary as long as a person practices basic hygiene.

I mean, I understand where they're coming from, but I'm sure that people who are fighting for it are equating it with "female genital mutilation", which is absolutely absurd.

Don't get me wrong, though, I totally supported my sister's decision to abstain from circumcising my nephew.

Well, i cant speak for everyone but.......im bald.....i like being bald......no comb overs, no messy dribbles, nothing pulling my hair......i like being bald.

Freedom is letting him decide... Not mom, not dad, not society, and not a medical industry that makes a half billion a year cutting up little babies for no good reason. My ride has a hood and I like it just fine. No problems, no stds and no complaints.

Originally posted by daynight42

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I am so glad I had a girl!

But I think this is a matter that does not belong in legislation but rather in the hands of the family. How fascist to pass a law like this!

How fascist of the PARENTS to choose for their kid whether he gets to keep a piece of HIS OWN BODY.

You must not be a male!

Now, now. I did not come out in support of circumcision. I just feel it is no business of the State's.

Geez.