Intactivists attempt to ban circucision in SF

[Dave NoCal]

Good!
Jewish groups oppose circumcision ban in San Francisco | The Raw Story

 

[nudeyorker]

I'm pro jewish in this issue. That's crazy to try to outlaw something like this that is part of an important religious ritual.
I have never heard so many heated conversations about the issue until I joined this site. Either do it don't do it, let you child wait and decide for themselves. When it comes to The Bris people need to back the fuck off.
I think I'll start looking for other peoples religious rituals that I can try to ban because I don't like them and have nothing to do with my life or my faith.

 

[TheCameraMan]

The entire circumcision issue is a mess. I'm pretty apathetic towards the whole debate- afterall most people don't have an issue with whatever they get.

 

[SirConcis]

Should the state have a right to deprive parents of their rights on how to bring up their sons ?

There is a big difference between a recommendation that parents give their sons the right to choose later, and a law which prohibits parents from making that choice for their son.

 

[wallaboi]

Thank God the only "important religious ritual" I went through as an infant, was Christening. Symbolically, I was given a spiritual birth and was joined with my community, escaping scarring of any nature. Not that I believe any kind ritual is necessary to be a fully formed spiritual identity.

Archaic religious notions of marking a child by surgically modifying part of their body is simply that... Outdated, literal and blind interpetatation of some prophet living thousands of years ago, with no connection to our modern llife or understanding of the learning of mankind over that time. Faith should be the only requirement for acceptance to any religion. God does not judge us by our physical appearance.

I don't believe that legislation against circumcision is going to be helpful in the fight to stop circumcision, but I think the discussion about it is.

Religions which currently prescribe circumcision will eventually learn that faith and devotion are more important for the continuation of their church than superficial surgical operations. They will learn that we no longer live in the day or place of Abraham or Muhammad and we have the benefit of thousands of years of learning, philosophy and science.

 

[FuzzyKen]

In some ways I find this interesting because in law one would have to use the same legal precedents used by the anti-abortion individuals. Those individuals claim that the child himself (in the case of circumcision) or himself and herself with regards to abortion is entitled to the right to make decisions governing their own life if and when this is possible.

They also believe that life (or human rights) begins at conception and not at birth.

I absolutely hate the concept of circumcisions being performed without need. The problem is that there are times when need in fact does exist. This could result in infants or younger children being denied treatment if that treatment were "politically unpopular" in the eyes of some political force. It could result in a denial of adult circumcision and in cases where other medical issues make maintenance of a foreskin impossible such as extreme mental retardation.

As much as I dislike circumcision, I would have to be absolutely against this becoming a statute or seeing a medical procedure being denied by statute.

There is no way that this could be written in to law that it would not have a negative impact because people would not apply it correctly, and even worse some would deny treatment just to avoid problems.

 

[Dave NoCal]

Wallaboi wrote:

I don't believe that legislation against circumcision is going to be helpful in the fight to stop circumcision, but I think the discussion about it is.

I agree. The discussion of RIC, which in my opinion has no rational basis, will lead to it becoming increasingly less common. Not being religious, the religious arguments hold no sway with me. Even if I were religious, I think religion is a PERSONAL matter, not a family matter or a cultural matter. My position is that the infant is the owner of his body and his physical well-being is entrusted to the parents. I do not view involuntary cosmetic surgery to alter normal genitalia during infancy to be consistent with the infant's well-being.
Dave

 

[erratic]

I cannot disagree strongly enough that anything with a religious label on it should be unassailable. I believe that is where spirituality turns to dogma, and where faith becomes irrational. In fact, I believe that's where all of the anti-theists most damning arguments begin to make sense.

 

[D_stryhtfg]

Here's a wild and outrageous idea...

How about we let the parents decide? What a mind bender that one is....

 

[BIGBULL29]

Our parents as well as society make many thousands upons thousands of invisible and irreversible decisions for their children as they grow up. A physical one such as circumsicion is no more serious - or even much less so -- than all the other non-tangible ones made for us without any say

How does one then raise a child in a society without a culture?
In a bubble I reckon.

 

[BIGBULL29]

I cannot disagree strongly enough that anything with a religious label on it should be unassailable. I believe that is where spirituality turns to dogma, and where faith becomes irrational. In fact, I believe that's where all of the anti-theists most damning arguments begin to make sense.

The perhaps you need to stop practicing and participating in Western culture, which is strongly rooted in Judaism/Christianity. The mere fact that you cannot go outside of your home naked or steal is rooted in these religions.

Human rights can go way too far. Where do you draw the line? It is a basic human right to be raised in a cultureless society? Be raised in a bubble? Doesn't a newborn have the right to choice what language he will speak, or what kind of parents he will have? After all, these are all irreversible decisions.

 

[vindicator]

Here's a wild and outrageous idea...

How about we let the parents decide? What a mind bender that one is....

Or... how about we let boys make this decision when they are old enough to do so instead of parents choosing for them?

I dont agree with a ban, its better to educate people with facts. The fact is its unneccessary and if its unnessesary men should be able to choose for themselves.

 

[Endued]

Well, I'm in support of it. Infantile circumcision is one of those things I can't quite believe is still allowed in this day and age.

 

[Adaro]

I'm basically supportive of this- in effect, you're either forcing your son into a religious ritual that he may or may not be a part of later, or you are giving your children cosmetic surgery to fit your own personal aesthetic tastes.

I've always been marginally depressed over the fact that I was circumcised, and hate it when people talk about parent's choice. Ok, who should have the rights to how a man's penis looks like, him or his parents?

By my guestimates, about 90% of the world defends whatever they have/don't care, and 5% genuinely like cut, and 5% genuinely like uncut. So why should people who like uncut (like me) be ignored? Why is cut the default when, if people like cut, they can get circumcised themselves, whereas the other way around isn't possible?

I honestly don't see it as any different from giving a baby a piercing or a tattoo. Either way, you don't care about how they'll feel about it or how it'll affect them later in life, all you care about is how it looks now, because later you don't have to deal with it. You don't care about how they might want to choose the look they can be most comfortable with, you don't care about how it may affect their self image in a permanent way (at least, if they don't like being uncut, they can get cut and feel better about themselves).

/rant
(being gay, the fact that I'm cut is basically brought to my attention every time I watch porn, which is fairly often. THIS WILL HAUNT ME FOREVER AREAAF;LSDJ)

 

[maxcok]

I wonder if people who have such a nonchalant (if not outright defensive) attitude regarding routine male infant circumcision - "it's the parents' business", "it's religious tradition", etc., - also take the same view of female genital cutting? If you say, "it's not the same", you're absolutely right. The most common forms practiced on females involve excising labial tissue, which does not compare to the loss of glans protection and subsequent keratinization, loss of sexual function, and loss of sensitivity from thousands of highly specialized nerve endings irretrievably removed in male circumcision. Not to mention the radical aesthetic difference in male circumcision status immediately obvious in any casual nude setting, hardly if at all apparent in females. A clitorectomy might be a closer comparison purely in terms of lost sexual response, but that's a relatively rare practice among societies that practice female genital cutting. Bottom line, neither practice has any justifiable medical basis.

Even though female genital cutting is quite rare in the Western industrialized world and almost unheard of in the US, nevertheless we saw fit to pass a federal law in 1996 prohibiting the practice in any form for females under the age of eighteen. Many individual states have passed laws outlawing the practice entirely. Why do we as a society think the very idea of similarly restricting infant male circumcision is so outrageous? Why are we so horrified by the idea of female genital cutting, yet we blithely accept what is in many ways a more destructive practice for nonconsenting underage and infant males as a routine matter of little importance? The answer is that one is seen as strange, foreign, and barbaric; while the other is commonly accepted, even preferred, as a result of unexamined, blind, cultural conditioning.

It comes down to a simple lack of awareness and unquestioning adherence to tradition. Just because we're "used to it" is not a good reason to continue a harmful, irreversible, outdated practice, whether you live in America or Somalia. It's completely illogical, and it calls for objective consideration and reflection from us if we are to be enlightened as individuals and as a society. I would encourage anyone tempted to dismiss these observations out of hand to spend some time educating themselves on the physiology and function of the foreskin (hint, it's much more than a little flap of extraneous skin) and the psychological, sexual, and identity issues that result for many men who were routinely circumcised, information readily available on several anti-circumcision sites. Try to set aside personal bias and do that with an open mind insofar as you are capable.

Incidentally, the federal law against female genital cutting applies to "Female genital mutilation", a term which I have purposely and assiduously avoided in this post up until this point for the emotional responses it evokes. But male or female, culturally accepted or not, and despite our conditioning, it is what it is.

US Female Genital Mutilation Law

​

 

[erratic]

The perhaps you need to stop practicing and participating in Western culture, which is strongly rooted in Judaism/Christianity. The mere fact that you cannot go outside of your home naked or steal is rooted in these religions.

You have wrongly assumed that my not believing that anything with the "religious" label should be unassailable also means that I don't believe that anything with the "religious" label should be acceptable.

You also wrongly assume that all of modern Western civilization is Christian - or at least as "Christian" as America. But that's a whole other thread.

 

[Seogra]

I wonder if people who have such a nonchalant (if not outright defensive) attitude regarding routine male infant circumcision - "it's the parents' business", "it's religious tradition", etc., - also take the same view of female genital cutting? If you say, "it's not the same", you're absolutely right. The most common forms practiced on females involve excising labial tissue, which does not compare to the loss of glans protection and subsequent keratinization, loss of sexual function, and loss of sensitivity from thousands of highly specialized nerve endings irretrievably removed in male circumcision. Not to mention the radical aesthetic difference in male circumcision status immediately obvious in any casual nude setting, hardly if at all apparent in females. A clitorectomy might be a closer comparison purely in terms of lost sexual response, but that's a relatively rare practice among societies that practice female genital cutting. Bottom line, neither practice has any justifiable medical basis.

Even though female genital cutting is quite rare in the Western industrialized world and almost unheard of in the US, nevertheless we saw fit to pass a federal law in 1996 prohibiting the practice in any form for females under the age of eighteen. Many individual states have passed laws outlawing the practice entirely. Why do we as a society think the very idea of similarly restricting infant male circumcision is so outrageous? Why are we so horrified by the idea of female genital cutting, yet we blithely accept what is in many ways a more destructive practice for nonconsenting underage and infant males as a routine matter of little importance? The answer is that one is seen as strange, foreign, and barbaric; while the other is commonly accepted, even preferred, as a result of unexamined, blind, cultural conditioning.

It comes down to a simple lack of awareness and unquestioning adherence to tradition. Just because we're "used to it" is not a good reason to continue a harmful, irreversible, outdated practice, whether you live in America or Somalia. It's completely illogical, and it calls for objective consideration and reflection from us if we are to be enlightened as individuals and as a society. I would encourage anyone tempted to dismiss these observations out of hand to spend some time educating themselves on the physiology and function of the foreskin (hint, it's much more than a little flap of extraneous skin) and the psychological, sexual, and identity issues that result for many men who were routinely circumcised, information readily available on several anti-circumcision sites. Try to set aside personal bias and do that with an open mind insofar as you are capable.

Incidentally, the federal law against female genital cutting applies to "Female genital mutilation", a term which I have purposely and assiduously avoided in this post up until this point for the emotional responses it evokes. But male or female, culturally accepted or not, and despite our conditioning, it is what it is.

US Female Genital Mutilation Law

​

Well said. I agree with this.

 

[Snozzle]

I'm pro jewish in this issue.

But many Jews are against circumcision.

That's crazy to try to outlaw something like this that is part of an important religious ritual.

Virgin sacrifice was an important ritual to the [Incas? Aztecs? Sorry, can't remember]. They thought without it the sun would not keep rising. (And yes, I know it's not the same, except for the point I'm making, "an important religious ritual")

I have never heard so many heated conversations about the issue until I joined this site.

They're going on all over - parenting sites, medical sites, religious sites, college sites - why should a penis site be exempt?

Either do it don't do it, let you child wait and decide for themselves.

But if you do it, he can't decide for himself.

When it comes to The Bris people need to back the fuck off.

Yes, backing the fuck off of the baby would be a good thing.

I think I'll start looking for other peoples religious rituals that I can try to ban because I don't like them and have nothing to do with my life or my faith.

You do that, it's a free world - just not so free for the baby who happens to be born male in the USA.

 

[Snozzle]

Should the state have a right to deprive parents of their rights on how to bring up their sons ?

It does already. You're not allowed to beat him black-and-blue. You're not allowed to starve him. You're not allowed to cut any other healthy, non-renewable, functional part off his body. You're not even allowed to "give" your son a small tattoo on his side that won't show with clothes on, and a Fresno man is doing time right now for that.

There is a big difference between a recommendation that parents give their sons the right to choose later, and a law which prohibits parents from making that choice for their son.

Yes, there is, and only the second will guarantee him that right.

 

[B_circin867]

For the end of the doing away with circumcision in San Francisco is recorded in other discussions. The bottom line is Gov. Jerry Brown has make it illegal all over CA to ban circumcision (Oct. 3, 2011).