Circumcision in San Francisco

[B_Craiggers]

Well I am cut and quite happy about it.

You know, I just have to say, I fucking *HATE* this reply and it gets made so often in these threads.

Do you know the meaning of the word empathy? No one is talking about YOU. This isn't about YOU. This is about SOMEONE ELSE.

No one gives a shit if YOU were cut and YOU like it.

This is about letting other people make decisions for their own bodies. Quit projecting your own likes and dislikes onto other people and give them the freedom to make their own choices.

 

[TheIrishStallion]

You know, I just have to say, I fucking *HATE* this reply and it gets made so often in these threads.

Do you know the meaning of the word empathy? No one is talking about YOU. This isn't about YOU. This is about SOMEONE ELSE.

No one gives a shit if YOU were cut and YOU like it.

This is about letting other people make decisions for their own bodies. Quit projecting your own likes and dislikes onto other people and give them the freedom to make their own choices.

Thank you.

 

[MalakingTiti]

You know, I just have to say, I fucking *HATE* this reply and it gets made so often in these threads.

Do you know the meaning of the word empathy? No one is talking about YOU. This isn't about YOU. This is about SOMEONE ELSE.

No one gives a shit if YOU were cut and YOU like it.

This is about letting other people make decisions for their own bodies. Quit projecting your own likes and dislikes onto other people and give them the freedom to make their own choices.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

 

[BuffaloMedic]

I'm a firm believer that circumcision should be something that an adult chooses for himself.

But one way to see a big drop would be for insurance companies to stop paying for it. Especially medicaid. If it became elective and an out of pocket expense, I think more people would seriously look at the risks/benefits.

I would hope, anyways.....

 

[gymfresh]

This is really hilarious! It shows how zealous some anti-circumcision advocates are. It's blatantly anti-Semitic.

Warning: Some Jewish members may find this offensive.

Don't really get your point. One dude, Matt, created a comic strip (2 episodes so far). It wasn't anyone else who had anything to do with the bill -- not the SF sponsor (Lloyd), the signature gatherers or the 12,300 people who signed the petition. There's no proof any of them even saw the comic in question.

The first episode exaggerated a doctor trying to cut a kid and the second episode exaggerated a mohel trying to cut a kid. The other half dozen Jewish characters -- including the girlfriend of the superhero -- are just portrayed as attractive, normal people. Suddenly this is a "grotesque portrayal of Jews", as some commentators have claimed? Get real.

How zealous some anti-circumcision advocates are? Don't you mean one? (Incidentally, even that one guy says he has no problem with medically indicated circumcision at any age or adult circumcision for any reason. Hardly an "anti-circumcision advocate.")

 

[gymfresh]

Doesn't the law exempt medical and religious reasons for circumcision. Some SF person should tell us.

Plus of course there are non-surgical remedies for phimosis.

Naturally the bill as proposed allows for medical necessity, at any age. It's modeled very closely on the federal FGM bill passed by Congress in 1996.

SEC. 5002. EXCEPTIONS.

(a) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is necessary to the physical health of the person on whom it is performed

There isn't a religious exemption because a newborn doesn't profess a religion. And generally speaking, constitutional interpretations of religious expression don't extend to adults practicing their religion surgically on another human being. If the Supreme Court can approve restrictions on wearing a yarmulke (Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)), it can approve restrictions on penile skin removal of a healthy newborn.

Under SFMGMbill, once you turn 18, you can have at it because you like the look, you think it will help you, you were high one afternoon, or even no reason at all. No one can stop you.

 

[Dave NoCal]

BuffaloMedic wrote:

I'm a firm believer that circumcision should be something that an adult chooses for himself.

But one way to see a big drop would be for insurance companies to stop paying for it. Especially medicaid. If it became elective and an out of pocket expense, I think more people would seriously look at the risks/benefits.

I would hope, anyways.....

Actually, that played a big part in the dramatic reduction of RIC in the U.K. Once NHS stopped paying for it the procedure seemed far less important to parents. In just a couple of decades or less, RIC went form around 90% to 2%.
There is a project going on out of U.C. Berkeley to get Medicaid to no longer cover RIC and, last time I checked a couple of year ago, they had been instrumental in getting eighteen states to no longer cover it. MediCal does not.
Ultimately, given the existence a Federal law that totally forbids female genital mutilation (despite cultural or religious concerns, or cutting just a little bit, or BS health concerns, or the desire of parents and society to make masturbatin less pleasurable) this is going to come down to an equal protection under the law issue. This law could be the impetus behind a case that gets to the Supreme Court. THAT, I believe, is the reason pro RIC people fear this law.
Dave

 

[Charles Finn]

very well put

 

[MalakingTiti]

Live and let live. Some aren't into circumcision and some are. Personally I am for it. If you want your disgusting foreskin, keep it. As for me and my sons however, we're snipped.

 

[nicecircjob]

I wish I had been circumcised at birth. Ever since I saw a circumcised penis for the first time, I desired to have one like it.
When I got to Jr. High locker rooms and saw the majority of my class mates were circumcised, I wanted to be circumcised that much more. I think I even developed a
inferiority complex about it. I finally got circumcised as an adult. The cost wasn't cheap either. It cost nearly $1,000. If I had been circumcised at birth I don't think it would hasve cost over $25.00, maybe less.
I wanted my penis to look like most of my peers. I didn't like the appearance of my uncircumcised penis. I thought the circumcised penises looked way better than the uncircumcised ones. I hope the courts overturn the measure if it passes, which I doubt will pass anyway.

 

[TheIrishStallion]

Live and let live. Some aren't into circumcision and some are. Personally I am for it. If you want your disgusting foreskin, keep it. As for me and my sons however, we're snipped.

Carving your opinion permanently into your child's body is acceptable then?

 

[B_Craiggers]

If you want your disgusting foreskin.

Annnnd, we have our closeted gay poster

 

[BIGBULL29]

Carving your opinion permanently into your child's body is acceptable then?

And how does one "carve out" of one's mind what one's parents and society "carved into" it while growing up? I just can't quite figure that one out yet.

People are always so worried about the purely physical and the tangible to the neglect of the purely emotional and immaterial.

 

[mandoman]

Live and let live. Some aren't into circumcision and some are. Personally I am for it. If you want your disgusting foreskin, keep it. As for me and my sons however, we're snipped.

This is the heart of my problem with your attitude. It comes from total bigotry, total ignorance, and prejudice.

Is an uncircumcised woman disgusting to you? She has a foreskin. She also produces about ten times the smegma any man can produce.

The humans that preceded you had foreskins for 4.7 million years. The mammals that preceded them had foreskins for 120 million years.

It's not a snip. That's a myth. The average circumcision amputates half the skin of a penis, along with the most sensitive parts...the inner foreskin, the frenulum, and the ridged bands. The head is not that much more sensitive than the shaft. Play some of the videos of uncut guys beating it, in here, with the sound up. You can hear the difference in their breathing and their moans.

Just because some people have foreskins, doesn't mean you can insult them with every post. You may find me physically disgusting. I find you repulsive, and it is not skin deep, it's to the bone.

Grow some respect. You'll treat people better, and find that you respect yourself more. You can do better, without the attitude and the hate.

As for live and let live, you might consider taking your own advice to heart. Calling people disgusting because you project your prejudice onto them is not exactly live and let live, is it?

 

[mandoman]

And how does one "carve out" of one's mind what one's parents and society "carved into" it while growing up? I just can't quite figure that one out yet.

People are always so worried about the purely physical and the tangible to the neglect of the purely emotional and immaterial.

Discipline, 20 years of therapy, and seeing how much energy can be rerouted into something more positive. I'm still working on it...it's a life in progress.
You're right, almost everyone I know has their work cut out for them, from society carving into them. It's not easy being the person you were put here to be...otherwise, it would happen a lot more often...and easy would prevail.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

And how does one "carve out" of one's mind what one's parents and society "carved into" it while growing up? I just can't quite figure that one out yet.

People are always so worried about the purely physical and the tangible to the neglect of the purely emotional and immaterial.

Which would be a fine analogy, were it 1) possible to not 'impose' in this situation; 2) an irreversible imposition. In fact, the reason that this (avoiding imposing thoughts on kids) strikes you as so absurd is because it's impossible to not impose on someone's mind, and because the mind is a really pliable thing. In other words, the reasons why this analogue strikes you as absurd in the first place, are because it's dissimilar to circumcision. Maybe overt brainwashing would be a closer analogy, if you wanted to limit those two differences.

As important as the emotional and immaterial are, I think that you have a problem with immaterial things in the other sense: You're using analogies that disregard material differences to the point where your analogy is immaterial.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Which would be a fine analogy, were it 1) possible to not 'impose' in this situation; 2) an irreversible imposition. In fact, the reason that this (avoiding imposing thoughts on kids) strikes you as so absurd is because it's impossible to not impose on someone's mind, and because the mind is a really pliable thing. In other words, the reasons why this analogue strikes you as absurd in the first place, are because it's dissimilar to circumcision. Maybe overt brainwashing would be a closer analogy, if you wanted to limit those two differences.

As important as the emotional and immaterial are, I think that you have a problem with immaterial things in the other sense: You're using analogies that disregard material differences to the point where your analogy is immaterial.

Well, if that mind is that pliable, it can easily come to terms with infant circumcision (vast majority of men don't even give it a thought, particularly when it is the norm with no impediment to enjoying sex to the ultimate).:biggrin1:

Millions of millions of very serious irreversible decisions of an immaterial nature are made for us while we grow up (and do bear in mind that "irreversible" doesn't necessarily mean something negative).

Sorry, but nature doesn't always know best. It's not as if circumcision is always just about a "look", or adhering to cultural norms. There are many other reasons to do it, no matter how invalid you think they are (i.e., a smaller risk for contracting STD's, eliminates concerns for any serious foreskin issues that may develop, unpleasant odors [smegma], etc).

 

[Lampwick]

If you completely remove the penis, bigbull29, you completely eliminate concerns for any serious penile issues that may develop. That doesn't make it a good idea, and it's certainly not a valid medical approach to the body and potential medical issues.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Well, if that mind is that pliable, it can easily come to terms with infant circumcision (vast majority of men don't even give it a thought, particularly when it is the norm with no impediment to enjoying sex to the ultimate).:biggrin1:

Millions of millions of very serious irreversible decisions of an immaterial nature are made for us while we grow up (and do bear in mind that "irreversible" doesn't necessarily mean something negative).

Sorry, but nature doesn't always know best. It's not as if circumcision is always just about a "look", or adhering to cultural norms. There are many other reasons to do it, no matter how invalid you think they are (i.e., a smaller risk for contracting STD's, eliminates concerns for any serious foreskin issues that may develop, unpleasant odors [smegma], etc).

Are you actually making a cost-benefits argument, or are you just arguing that there are good-sounding arguments? Like Lampwick is pointing out, your argument doesn't entirely analyze the issues involved. You just point out the pros, and then either pretend the costs don't exist (your last paragraph) or dismiss them by fiat (your first paragraph.)

I understand that not all reversible things are inherently bad. I understand that the human mind can adjust to all kinds of things. I also understand that there are potential benefits to circumcision, which are of course irrelevant if they are outweighed by the costs, and may not justify the preemption of consent if the benefit is at all subjective. One has to analyze, and this is not how: I don't know what empirical basis you have for claiming that "the vast majority of men don't give it thought," or that it's "no impediment for enjoying sex." Or why it matters that it's the "norm" (among who, middle-aged white American men?). And how this vagueness adds up to preempting a kid's consent eludes me.

It sounds like you're more interested in debating the people who claim your dick is inferior because you're circumcised, and that's not a debate I'm interested in. I'm interested in an ethical analysis of what's the ethical thing to do with neonates.

 

[TheIrishStallion]

I still don't see the problem with letting people choose whether or not they want a perfectly healthy and functional organ removed.