"Whack a Weenie, be fined or go to jail?"

Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by FuzzyKen, May 18, 2011.

  1. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    The idea here is some discussion about legal mandates for or against circumcision it is not discussion of the practice itself. As of today the petition against circumcision has made the minimum number of signatures to go on the ballot in San Francisco, California.

    What would you think of circumcision being made mandatory by statute OR what would you think of circumcision being banned by statute?

    The discussion is about a legal mandate for or against.
     
  2. D_T_Frothingill_Bellows

    D_T_Frothingill_Bellows Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    5
    Bullshit. Give one good reason why either of them should even be a law. It's like making pierced ears mandatory or banned.... it's purely cosmetic.

    Yes there are some things behind it, like uncut guys being more sensitive, or cut guys being easier to keep clean, or uncut guys having a slightly greater chance of contracting HIV... but honestly this is stupid
     
  3. D_o0ro0tplty

    D_o0ro0tplty New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^ fallenangel got it right.
     
  4. TheIrishStallion

    TheIrishStallion New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Messages:
    109
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Unnecessary infant cock butchery illegal? Yes please.
     
  5. JulieInNaplesFL

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,725
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,522
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Naples/ FtMyers Florida
    Verified:
    Photo
    San Francisco Goobernment is pretty much a joke in the world anyway.
     
  6. mandoman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,539
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MA
    It shouldn't have to be a law, I agree. People should have the sense not to cut healthy parts off their kids.
    But, the part I've never been able to figure out, is that girls are federally protected in the US from any kind of genital surgery which is not medically necessary. Boys are not. No one has challenged this in court.
    Why not? Just because the medical machine keeps talking out of one side of its mouth, saying there is no medical reason for it, and making money hand over fist performing the circumcisions?
    It seems odd that the ACLU hasn't gotten involved. Usually they are the first ones there for the underdog, or people who can't protect themselves.
    I'm all for the San Francisco law. Why should a baby be subjected to unneeded genital surgery, because it is born male? I find it sad that a law is needed, but the fact is, these kids are unprotected from the most painful surgery a male can have.
     
  7. Charles Finn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,538
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toledo Ohio
    education has helped some but men need to speak up it is after all our body not our parents it is sad that this law is needed.
     
  8. SirConcis

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,909
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    There are parts of the world where circumcsion isn't common and they don't need a law for that. There is the middle east where circumcision is quasi universal and they don't need a law for that , it isn't even specified in the Koran, it is just a deeply seated tradition.

    I don't see why san francisco should pass a law, unless the law would be to force doctors to provide some information to parents about pros and cons of circumcision.

    Parents make plenty of decisions. Just think about parents who "force" their kids to wear braces just as they enter teenage. This is not only painful, but makes your mouth look ugly. Should that be banned too and children told to wait untl they are 18 to get teeth fixed ?

    What about babies who are born with minir costmetic difformities. Should they be forced to grow up looking difformed and wiat until they are 18 before it gets fixed ? Or shoudl they get fixed up before they enter school so they never have to feel inferior/different ?
     
  9. Charles Finn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,538
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toledo Ohio
    not the same thing at all as removing a part of a boys body that has ne need to be removed
    do you want to remove his teeth too?
    braces may be uncomfortable but they come off once cut you can't be uncut unless you spend years stretching the skin
     
  10. mandoman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,539
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MA
    First and foremost, the foreskin is not a cosmetic defect which needs fixing, no matter what you say. The proposed law is about people being circumcised for no medical reason.
    Even in Saudi Arabia, one of the Middle Eastern countries you cite, 10% of the male population has foreskins. Circumcision is hadith, a suggestion, not a religious law, for Muslims. I'm grateful you don't live in San Francisco. As far as forcing doctors to do anything, it doesn't work in the US. The AMA tried to force them to give unbiased medical information regarding circumcision, and that hasn't happened. They tried to force them to use anesthesia during infant circumcision, and that hasn't happened.
    Far more often, they do obey the law.
    Why is it that such a high percentage of your posts are factually incorrect?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted