Circumcision Ban May End Up On San Francisco Ballot

[Hairylegs]

Do you guys really want the GOVERNMENT ramming your opinions down the throats of others, taking away their freedoms and ability to chose for themselves? I know the San Fran nut cases love to try to control the actions of individual citizens, but personally, I believe in individual freedom, as well as a parent's right to chose. Parent's don't want their boys clipped? Fine with me. I think it's a foolish decision, but it is theirs to make, not mine. I want my kid cut? Get Fred and the mayor of San Fran the hell out of my house and hospital room! This should be a no brainer, but alas, the San Fran wack jobs have no brain to begin with.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

I have been circumcised as a baby, and damn glad I was.

Your location is Jordon, so you're likely Muslim or Jewish, so no duh(it's likely part of your religion, so you have to).

I love how my penis looks, and honestly I find uncircumcised cocks rather strange TO ME, but that's my opinion, and I'm not trying to offend.

Yes well natural selection hasn't favored it. And neither to the public.

Besides, circumcision DOES reduce the risk of penile cancer, significantly- But again this shouldn't force anyone to do it.

uh, really so should i chop off half my dick to reduce the risk of penile cancer of which my chances may be less than one out of 100,000 of which most of which are easy to treat? Every organ in the body could get cancer, the penis is no exception, you might as well as use the same argument and say that it is better to have a smaller penis as this may also reduce the risks of getting this cancer. We also have the HPV vaccine, cancer is usually caused by HPV.

Penile cancer is not something to be concerned even remotely

Such a law would be unfair.

TO WHO? The parent who wants to brand the child and null his entire sex life so that the parent could puppet the child's character too? sounds a bit like the concept called Bonsai kittens. Sickening

Let people do what they want if it doesn't harm (I am cut and don't feel harmed, same with many cut men I know and talked to). If you want to have your kid cut or leave him uncut that's up to you, and nobody should judge you for that.

NO, absolutely not. Would you agree with the cultures who foot mold their children too? What about a mere 50 years ago in the states where lobotomies were the norm, would you agree with this one too? A parent should protect the child, nothing else, certainly not taking away from the child.

I just don't see it is worth so much controversy. As for comparing it to female circumcision; it is unfair since female circumcision has absolutely no benefits whatsoever and it is harmful.

So is male circumcision, and no male circumcision has NO reasonable benefits either. And yes many universities (in the muslim world), do encourage female circumcision and discuss the benifits there of too. Female circumcision may in fact be less medically distructive than male circumsion, as the most commonly practiced female circumsion only removes a fraction of the nerves removed in a male circumcision, it also doesn't remove the much needed protection that the foreskin provides. Either way it's no less than an outrage too.

Calling parents who get their children circumcised is not cool. Live and let others live.

Yes, allow the person to decide upon THEIR OWN body, the parents don't have any right.

PS: Maybe I am biased towards allowing circumcision, but as I said I do not judge those who chose not to do it.

Yes, i won't judge those who chose to do it either, so long and only so long as the ones they are doing it to are THEMSELVES. (and not their 'pet' children)

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Do you guys really want the GOVERNMENT ramming your opinions down the throats of others, taking away their freedoms and ability to chose for themselves?

The government is not taking away freedoms, the government is REAFFIRMING them.
It is the freedom of the CHILD, and NOT THE PARENT. IT IS HIS BODY!

A child(just as with all people) deserves equal protection before the law, and this is what should be given.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

A child(just as with all people) deserves equal protection before the law, and this is what should be given.

This is a disingenuous argument.
As the law currently stands a child does not get equal protection.
They can't legally vote, nor can they legally purchase tobacco and liquor. If an adult has sex with a child they go to jail for statutory rape. Children also cannot drive or even have a job until they reach a certain age. And this is just off the top of my head.

Not trying to compare any of these things to circumcision, of course, but just making a point that children have never been treated as equals in this country or in the world.

 

[Rammajamma771]

Ah, yes! American liberalism as its best. Some Left Coast or Ivy League educated liberal politician thinks he/she knows how you should raise and educate your children better than you do.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Ah, yes! American liberalism as its best. Some Left Coast or Ivy League educated liberal politician thinks he/she knows how you should raise and educate your children better than you do.

Ah yeah... when you don't like something, "blame it on the libs".
Seriously, take that shit to the Politics section and shut up.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

This is a disingenuous argument.
As the law currently stands a child does not get equal protection.
They can't legally vote, nor can they legally purchase tobacco and liquor. If an adult has sex with a child they go to jail for statutory rape. Children also cannot drive or even have a job until they reach a certain age. And this is just off the top of my head.

Not trying to compare any of these things to circumcision, of course, but just making a point that children have never been treated as equals in this country or in the world.

I said equal PROTECTION. They are not "owned", and their freedom needs to be protected.
Secondly, as to infants, having already been born(fate is no choice anymore), well an infant is also somebody who is to become a person, an adult too, and as such, we should be obligated to protect such a future entity as we are at the leaver point of this persons life.

3: as the United Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1 states:
Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.Meaning that we should all be ablidged to offer fair treatment under the law

Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. ...REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PARENTS BELIEVE
Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.No body has the right to take this liberty away from the child, no body has the right to take the right to this choice over his/her own body away from the person them self.

Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.Meaning that PARENTS DO NOT(and are not allowed to say that they do) 'OWN' CHILDREN. They there to do their job and are obliged to protect and not force any restraint on the child own personal life. You may prohibit people from selling cigarretes or porn to children as we are almost certain that the children may not have the knowledge to know how to deal with them, something that the seller should be , however you may not punish the child for getting their hands on the stuff, as it is still their right to do as such.

Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.This includes all citizens, including children.


UN Report on violence against children :

Settings in which violence against children occurs

A. Home and family

38. The family is the natural fundamental group unit of society, as proclaimed by article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 10 and 23 of the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights, respectively. A basic assumption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, contained in its preamble, is that the family is the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members — and particularly children — thereby recognizing that the family has the greatest potential to protect children and provide for their physical and emotional safety. The privacy and autonomy of the family are valued in all societies and the right to a private and family life, a home and correspondence is guaranteed in international human rights instruments.
24
Eliminating and responding to violence against children is perhaps most challenging in the context of the family, considered by most as the most “private” of private spheres. However, children’s rights to life, survival, development, dignity and physical integrity do not stop at the door of the family home, nor do States’ obligations to ensure these rights for children.

 

[Sapien]

The government is not taking away freedoms, the government is REAFFIRMING them.
It is the freedom of the CHILD, and NOT THE PARENT. IT IS HIS BODY!

A child(just as with all people) deserves equal protection before the law, and this is what should be given.

This is a disingenuous argument.
As the law currently stands a child does not get equal protection.
They can't legally vote, nor can they legally purchase tobacco and liquor. If an adult has sex with a child they go to jail for statutory rape. Children also cannot drive or even have a job until they reach a certain age. And this is just off the top of my head.

Not trying to compare any of these things to circumcision, of course, but just making a point that children have never been treated as equals in this country or in the world.

I think your are taking 6928's statement too literally. I believe the "key" word that leads to his intention is "protection". Currently, the legal system does not protect male infants from the the cosmetic surgery "circumcision. However, it does protect female infants, minors from any type of genital modification for non-medical purposes. Also, in normal circumstances an adult could not decide to have another adult circumcised (not sure what the law is for a legal guardian of an extremely mentally challenged adult).

With the exception of the legal right to vote all of your examples are laws that are in place with the purpose to protect minors from harm. I think we all understand and agree that we do need such laws to protect children, the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society. An anti-circumcision law would be similar in nature to these "protection" laws.

 

[technopeasant]

You answered your own question about how uninformed we can get with this sick, dehumanizing post against AIDS victims.

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I am against giving up any rights to government. Every one we surrender adds one more precedent that government can use to take another one. Aids was just an example of possibilities.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

I am against infant circumcision. But, government needs to butt (pun intended) out of peoples lives. All we need is another stupid law telling people how to live their lives. This is not only a stupid idea it opens ever so much more the ways that government can barge into peoples lives. It bothers me that government has not enforced quarantine of people with aids. It is still done with people who have TB, why not? You rarely hear of a person dying of TB. If it had been done the AIDS epidemic would have been over in industrialized countries. But, who wants to give government another right to take ours? How uninformed can you get? Every right we give up is another the government has in it's fist. This is a really bad idea and I seriously doubt it will stand up in court. Since it comes from San Francisco I really wonder if this isn't a gay issue. How is it that every nutty idea seems to come from California the nutty state.

If and where government 'butts' out of peoples lives, then it leaves the justice up to the people, basically gangsterism would become the norm. Is there really any reason at all why people should not force circumcise their parents right back?

" "The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice-the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look to be a proof of guilt.
The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
" -Ayn Rand

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: "The Nature of Government", by Ayn Rand

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Circumcision is not torture, 6928.
This is precisely why I hate these discussions. Red herring comments like that is the equivalent of pro-lifers shoving pictures of aborted fetuses in someone's face because they support a woman's right to choose. And God forbid if someone doesn't fall for all of the tear-jerking, propagated imagery of baby oppression and supposed inhumane infant cruelty.

You may want to bring your moralistic grievances supporting anti-circumcision to those who adamant in cutting every single baby boy that's born. I'm not one of these people even if I protect a parent's right to choose. I am neither "pro circumcision" or "anti circumcision". Do you get it yet?

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Circumcision is not torture, 6928.

Of course it is. You are dulling a persons sexual experience for an entire lifetime,

This is precisely why I hate these discussions. Red herring comments like that is the equivalent of pro-lifers shoving pictures of aborted fetuses in someone's face because they support a woman's right to choose. And God forbid if someone doesn't fall for all of the tear-jerking, propagated imagery of baby oppression and supposed inhumane infant cruelty.

Irrelavant, we have provided medical diagrams here. And no, the argument is not only about the pain experienced during circumcision, neither has it even been mentioned yet that this may even cause brain damage, if not life long trauma(psychology may not fully understand this as of yet), the argument is that this procedure dulls sexual pleasure, ruins physical integrity, and breaks the right of the erson at hand(the child, the person he/she is to become) to chose upon what happens to their own body. And yes, I do not appreciate being circumcised and am very traumatized by the fact that I have now got to live without something I was rightfully born to live with.

You may want to bring your moralistic grievances supporting anti-circumcision to those who adamant in cutting every single baby boy that's born. I'm not one of these people even if I protect a parent's right to choose. I am neither "pro circumcision" or "anti circumcision". Do you get it yet?

So you'd allow some children to be lobotomized too? (this too used to be a recommended and legal procedure), What about the even more subtle tatooing your child, or what about foot-molding. Should we allow parents to perform these procedures upon their children too?

No, it's absurd, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT a parent's right to chose, the PARENT DOESN'T OWN the child, the parent is the custodian to the child, you have not addressed this part either.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Of course it is. You are dulling a persons sexual experience for an entire lifetime

That's not a legal definition for torture. Please leave your sexual biases out of this discussion.

Irrelavant, we have provided medical diagrams here.

Apparently the recognition of simile is not something you're good at.

And no, the argument is not only about the pain experienced during circumcision, neither has it even been mentioned yet that this may even cause brain damage, if not life long trauma(psychology may not fully understand this as of yet), the argument is that this procedure dulls sexual pleasure, ruins physical integrity, and breaks the right of the erson at hand(the child, the person he/she is to become) to chose upon what happens to their own body.

And considering that more than 90% of males who are circumcised (regardless if it's at infancy or adulthood) don't experience any of these traumas, are content with what their dicks look like and function and live fulfilling sex lives, I still don't think a parent's right to choose should ever be revoked in the birthing of a child.

And yes, I do not appreciate being circumcised and am very traumatized by the fact that I have now got to live without something I was rightfully born to live with.

Then you need to take that up with your parents and not project your angst on others based on your own needs and preferences.

So you'd allow some children to be lobotomized too? (this too used to be a recommended and legal procedure), What about the even more subtle tatooing your child, or what about foot-molding. Should we allow parents to perform these procedures upon their children too?

More red herrings. This doesn't help your argument at all.

No, it's absurd, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT a parent's right to chose, the PARENT DOESN'T OWN the child, the parent is the custodian to the child, you have not addressed this part either.

Sorry, I'm not going to address an intentionally disingenuous statement only geared to morally demonize their opponent over overhyped, propagated tripe. You are in no position to judge my morals based on the fact that I don't choose a side on a circumcision debate. You can use all of the propagated imagery and speech about a "baby's rights" and "torture" all you want, in some lame hop that others will view me as a hedonistic ogre that aims to harm children and scar them for life. I am not your enemy here, but I can easily become that if you continue to unfairly view me as one. Seriously, I'm trying my hardest not to say something insensitive or insulting right now but you're making it very, VERY difficult.

 

[deleted15807]

Of course it is. You are dulling a persons sexual experience for an entire lifetime,

And I thought Burger King was 'The Home of the Whopper' :redface:

 

[mandoman]

right. removing 20,000 nerves, and half the skin, couldn't possibly affect sexual experience.

we protect dogs and cats from circumcision by law.
which means, we protect our pets, and girls, but leave our boys to luck, and their parents' understanding of foreskins, in a country which has the fewest per capita.
why do we have laws regarding harming of children? you can't cut off their finger, or toe, but can cut off something more valuable.

 

[deleted15807]

I'm only going to say it once because I don't even want to get wrapped up in another fruitless argument that goes nowhere.

The Wolf Pack lives and dies on these 24/7 fruitless endless arguments. We may say they go nowhere but apparently the Axis Powers feel it goes somewhere and indeed has declared victory each time.

Let me actually clarify on my previous post:

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

JT you can cut-n-paste any of your previous 1000 posts on the subject here. Boilerplate. And congratulations you have now 'contributed' to this discussion. Oft you accuse others of not 'contributing'. So does one get 'credit' for a contribution even if the same 'contribution' is in 10-15 other threads? Is regurgitation actually a 'new' contribution?

 

[mandoman]

Except that the Axis powers were for Fascism, and the people who are working against circumcision are working for each person to have the right to choose to keep any, or all, of their body parts. That is the opposite of Fascism.

 

[JTalbain]

If and where government 'butts' out of peoples lives, then it leaves the justice up to the people, basically gangsterism would become the norm. Is there really any reason at all why people should not force circumcise their parents right back?

Besides the fact that most men who circumcise their sons are circumcised themselves...

And considering that more than 90% of males who are circumcised (regardless if it's at infancy or adulthood) don't experience any of these traumas, are content with what their dicks look like and function and live fulfilling sex lives, I still don't think a parent's right to choose should ever be revoked in the birthing of a child.

Well, using the argument of the pro-circers here, I suppose I'd have to say that most of the people cut as a child are in no position to determine they haven't experienced an effect on their sex life/psychology, having no basis for which to judge. I would mention though, saying over 90% still leaves a wide percentage range of people who are unhappy with the results. At what percentage would you judge the number who are unhappy to be significant?

 

[JTalbain]

JT you can cut-n-paste any of your previous 1000 posts on the subject here. Boilerplate. And congratulations you have now 'contributed' to this discussion. Oft you accuse others of not 'contributing'. So does one get 'credit' for a contribution even if the same 'contribution' is in 10-15 other threads? Is regurgitation actually a 'new' contribution?

That was actually an inquiry, I believe, into Vinylboy's motivations. I clearly stated my stances and motivations and asked for his. Too often we allow those opposing abolition of RIC to present a moving target and never be pinned down under their stances. I'm just asking him why it is he believes what he does. This, by the way, is a question I would never bother asking you again. :tongue:

 

[MalakingTiti]

...
Care to try again.

No because I don't give a shit.

The bottom line is, circumcision is legal and always will be. Find another crusade worth fighting will ya?