Circumcision in San Francisco

Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by B_circin867, May 20, 2011.

  1. B_circin867

    B_circin867 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mountains SoCA
    According to the New York Times yesterday, a group seeking to ban the circumcision of children in San Francisco has succeeded. It will appear on Novembor's ballot. To quote the Times: "If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1000. or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions."

    I believe that parental rights in caring for their children are being compromised. They and with the insight of a physician may suggest having neonatals and adolescents circumcised or not. It is too bad that many believe that circumcision is not considered only uncircumcision. Somehow keeping the foreskin is the only way to go. That belongs to facism not freedom of choice we have in this country.
     
  2. QuintenV

    QuintenV New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nonsense.

    Parent shouldn't have anything to say about this -- afterall, it isn't their penis.
     
  3. mandoman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,539
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MA
    Where were you to stand up for parental rights, when the Feds outlawed removing a girl's clitoral foreskin in 1996?
    I didn't hear any public outcry about that one? Why now?
    Don't they call that sexism?
    Is it your right to cut any healthy body part you want off of your child?
    Please explain why the foreskin is somehow different.
     
  4. Charles Finn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,538
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toledo Ohio
    thank you
    it is not their penis it belongs to the boy
    just because you gave birth to him it is not you body
     
  5. Christiaan

    Christiaan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Donegal, Ireland
    'Tis a disgrace that the nost part of the skin on a boy's penis is the one body part that world-wide is regarded as perfectly acceptable for any one to mutilate and remove for no more reason than a cosmetic fetish of the parents or an adult.

    Indeed I see no exception for it on religious basis, to mutilate and essentially brand a boy as the property of the 'rent's religion. I've yet to see a wee boy who identified himself as a member of a particular faith save he's been told by adults that that's what he was, Jews and Muslims alike.

    As for the States, the fetish they have with non-religious circumcision of lads defies reason. Does it occur to any that it might be grand if the lad had the decision for himself?
     
  6. scottredleter

    scottredleter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    748
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    WOO HOO! I think people are finally starting to get it... Maybe we will finally start to do away with this barbaric body modification procedure!

    And when they start putting doctors in jail for doing it, that will be really interesting.
    And of course, when the insurance company's stop paying for it, it will be all over.
     
    #6 scottredleter, May 20, 2011
    Last edited: May 20, 2011
  7. D_CountdeGrandePinja

    D_CountdeGrandePinja Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    42
    We don't need laws for this - just some common sense!
     
  8. scottredleter

    scottredleter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    748
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Yes, freedom of choice... freedom of choice to keep your foreskin before your stupid parents decide to lope it off with a scalpel under some made up guise of health issues... Kids get ear infections too, but nobody is saying we should dig out their ears to prevent them.
     
  9. scottredleter

    scottredleter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    748
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Yes, we do need laws, because some people don't have any common sense!
     
  10. SirConcis

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,909
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    If the law is an outright ban, it will cause serious problems. First kid that has paraphimosis will likely lose how penis because doctors will not be allowed to circumcise him.

    What about guys with real phimosis ? they will have to wait until they are 18 to see their glans for the first time ?

    Or perhaps travel to a town outside fo SanFrancisco's jurisdiction to get it done.

    If they want to educate parents on whether baby circs are necessary or not, that is fine. But banning all circs until the male is 18 is blatantly stupid. An example of the rabid anti circers going too far.

    If this passes, expects jews to take the law to the supreme court as the law prevents them from practicing their religion. (same with muslims since with muslims, boys are expected to be cut before entrering puberty, which years before he reaches the age of 18).
     
  11. D_Soggie Doggie

    D_Soggie Doggie Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a thought--If parents should have no say in whether an infant is circumcised, why do we allow a mother to have a say in whether her unborn infant lives or dies? I don't understand these contradictory positions.

    I know this is a controversial subject, and I'm not trying to start a religious argument. I'm just thinking out loud.
     
  12. Charles Finn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,538
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toledo Ohio
    and again if it is so good for boys why did we outlaw cutting girls?
    double standard
     
  13. calliesdad1

    calliesdad1 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Just posted in another thread a few minutes ago - I am SO glad I was circumcised as an infant; and am pretty sure I would have been upset to find later that while I had that extra skin there, others did not. I have nothing against seeing uncut guys (in person, or in media!), but prefer cut - I guess because I can relate better. Speaking for myself, the "sensitivity" issue MUST be overrated, because I can't imagine being any more sensitive than I am. At 60, still, all it takes is a breeze or a slight rubbing and ... off to the races! (Yay!)
    There is nothing in my religion advocating circumcision; it was just the thing back then. Judging from all I see, to a large degree it still is. I'm so glad.
     
  14. D_Ben Twilly

    D_Ben Twilly New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's good news for you. I was circumcised at birth and so stripped of the sensitive nerves that I usually can't cum from anything but my iron grip.
     
  15. dizzieddestruction

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    216
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    Atlanta (GA, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I see it as the government not taking away any rights, just protecting them.

    The government isn't taking away parents' rights, because they were not their rights to begin with. They are protecting the rights of the individuals whose penises are in question.

    Just my opinion though, which I know many will disagree with.
     
  16. ges

    ges Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    230
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    Might be time to start rallying against young children having pierced ears. What about young ones being forced to wear spectacles? Tooth-straightening? Needless combing/brushing of hair? how far can we go with objecting to what other people decide to do or not do!
     
  17. dizzieddestruction

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    216
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    Atlanta (GA, US)
    Verified:
    Photo

    These are necessary thingsĀ… :confused:


    What kind of parent wouldn't want the best dental health and vision for their kid? Quite different from taking something AWAY that is not required.

    Pointless to argue this subject because some people don't get it. :rolleyes:
     
  18. B_Craiggers

    B_Craiggers New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southeast, USA
    (comments above)
     
  19. B_Craiggers

    B_Craiggers New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southeast, USA
    One involves the rights of one person (as legally defined) over another person (as legally defined).

    The other involves the rights of one person (as legally defined) over a non-person (as legally defined).

    That's why. If you want to ask why a fetus is considered a non-person legally, take it to another thread :p
     
  20. lovethetoole

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NY
    Verified:
    Photo
    While I definitely see your point, the difference is that when a woman is pregnant, the baby is inside her body, therefore affecting her health. Unfortunately there are 2 lives involved in a pregnancy, which I feel like the pro-choice side ignores. I'm still on the fence about abortion.

    However

    I'm also on the fence about circumcision. Yes, it is your penis, so why should someone else decide to cut it?

    Then again, there's no real effect cutting it should have. The pros outway the cons. It makes for a cleaner penis in the future, less chance of STD contraction, zero chance of phimosis. And the sensitivity issue? I'm sorry, but how can you bitch about that when you were circumcised at birth? You can't miss what you never had. I'm circumcised, glad for it, and my sensitivity is just fine.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted