SF To Cut Out The 'snip'?

fr8mech · Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:48 am

First, I suck at puns, so the title is all I'll submit.

How did I know, when I read this headline, that it would be San Fransico?

Jewish groups oppose circumcision ban in US city

Well, at least it's something the Jewish and Muslim communities can come together on.

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:53 am

Good for San Francisco and hopefully the rest of the civilized world ends this brutal and barbaric procedure.

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
First, I suck...

Probably not the best choice of words when talking about the penis.

Cadet985 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:09 am

To quote part of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No court would ever let a law such as this stand, if it were even to pass. I'd even be willing to let a first year law student argue against this, its so cut and dry.

Marc

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:12 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
To quote part of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No court would ever let a law such as this stand, if it were even to pass. I'd even be willing to let a first year law student argue against this, its so cut and dry.

Has nothing to do with the 1st. Amendment.
This has everything to do with the right of a newborn. It's a brutal & barbaric practice in which the newborn has no choice.

SOBHI51 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:16 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
This has everything to do with the right of a newborn. It's a brutal & barbaric practice in which the newborn has no choice

If done properly it is not painful, that area has no nerves. On the other hand it is very healthy as after cutting there will be no bag where bacteria might grow.

Cadet985 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:22 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
Has nothing to do with the 1st. Amendment.

The minute it infringes on the right to freely practice a religion, it has everything to do with the First Amendment. Circumcision has been a part of Judaism and Islam for thousands of years.

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:24 am

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 4):
If done properly it is not painful, that area has no nerves. On the other hand it is very healthy as after cutting there will be no bag where bacteria might grow.

There is very little to no health benefit to this procedure. It should be up to the newborn when he turns 18 if he wants this done to his body.

Cadet985 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:25 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
There is very little to no health benefit to this procedure. It should be up to the newborn when he turns 18 if he wants this done to his body.

From what I have read and heard from numerous doctors, there is a lot more risk with circumsision as the person gets older.

Gemuser · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:27 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 5):

The minute it infringes on the right to freely practice a religion, it has everything to do with the First Amendment. Circumcision has been a part of Judaism and Islam for thousands of years.

As an interested by stander, the 1st says "Congress shall make no law". As congress is not making this law, how come it's supposedly covered by the 1st? My understanding is that some of the original states were in fact religious states and they were not bound by this.

Gemuser

Pyrex · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:29 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):

To quote part of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No court would ever let a law such as this stand, if it were even to pass. I'd even be willing to let a first year law student argue against this, its so cut and dry.

Banning circumcision is not the same thing as banning religion, just banning parts of its practice. Under that same logic laws against polygamy would be unconstitutional under the first amendment, as they go against the stated beliefs of some Muslims (and Mormons).

I am usually the first one criticizing loony San Francisco laws, but in this case I must say, good for them. Now if they could also ban Kosher and Halal meat to make sure animals are killed humanely and not bled to death and I might just reconsider my views on that city.

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:30 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 5):
The minute it infringes on the right to freely practice a religion, it has everything to do with the First Amendment. Circumcision has been a part of Judaism and Islam for thousands of years.

The minute religion infringes on someone's body and forced mutilation, the 1st. Amendment shouldn't apply.
Perhaps the problem is with Judaism and Islam.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 7):
From what I have read and heard from numerous doctors, there is a lot more risk with circumsision as the person gets older.

...and what percentage of uncut men voluntarily get circumcised for non-religious reasons?

TheCommodore · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:31 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
There is very little to no health benefit to this procedure.

Says who ?

I suggest you have a look at this link.

http://www.circinfo.net/

Its a VERY well documented fact, that circumcision protects from a whole host of things !

There are also benefits for women too.

[Edited 2011-03-06 20:32:54]

Cadet985 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:32 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 8):

Federal laws and constitutional amendments supercede all lower laws, such as those of cities and states.

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:35 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
Says who ?

I suggest you have a look at this link.

http://www.circinfo.net/

Gee!
A link that is biased in favor of circumcision. Yep that is a reliable source.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 9):
Banning circumcision is not the same thing as banning religion, just banning parts of its practice. Under that same logic laws against polygamy would be unconstitutional under the first amendment, as they go against the stated beliefs of some Muslims (and Mormons).

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 9):
I am usually the first one criticizing loony San Francisco laws, but in this case I must say, good for them.

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:36 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 12):
Federal laws and constitutional amendments supercede all lower laws, such as those of cities and states.

See reply #10.

Gemuser · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:41 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 12):

Federal laws and constitutional amendments supercede all lower laws, such as those of cities and states.

So how does that apply here? Unless there is a Federal or CA law banning the cut, the city law would apply and as Congress has not banned it, how does the 1st apply?

Gemuser

Cadet985 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:44 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 15):
So how does that apply here? Unless there is a Federal or CA law banning the cut, the city law would apply and as Congress has not banned it, how does the 1st apply?

The first amendment bans the government from passing any laws regarding religious practice. So while you are correct that there is no specific law saying that this can or cannot be done, the Constitution says that there can be no laws made upon the free practice of religion.

Aaron747 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:47 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 10):
The minute religion infringes on someone's body and forced mutilation, the 1st. Amendment shouldn't apply. Perhaps the problem is with Judaism and Islam.

Perhaps so, but as a Jew who has been 'mutilated' I don't really see it this way. Personally I have derived no ill effects from the procedure, and women I've been with have been rather complimentary of the results. Either way, no harm, no foul

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:49 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 16):
The first amendment bans the government from passing any laws regarding religious practice. So while you are correct that there is no specific law saying that this can or cannot be done, the Constitution says that there can be no laws made upon the free practice of religion.

You're missing one important factor. The baby himself. He has no choice.
This is a procedure that is altering his natural state of being. It's mutilation against his will. That is NOT protected by the Constitution.

Cadet985 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:50 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
You're missing one important factor. The baby himself. He has no choice.

Superfly, so if a baby needs an operation to save its life, are you saying that it should be put off until the baby can make its own decision?

Gemuser · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:51 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 16):
The first amendment bans the government from passing any laws regarding religious practice.

No it doesn't, it bans "the Congress" ie the Fedral government (I assume, thats what Im asking). How does that ban on the Federal government effect state/local laws?

Gemuser

DiamondFlyer · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:52 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
You're missing one important factor. The baby himself. He has no choice.
This is a procedure that is altering his natural state of being. It's mutilation against his will. That is NOT protected by the Constitution.

So then, naturally, you're against abortion as well, since the baby has no choice in that matter either?

-DiamondFlyer

Aeroflot777 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:53 am

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 4):
On the other hand it is very healthy as after cutting there will be no bag where bacteria might grow.

Any self-respecting, un-circ man will know how to take care of himself and ensure he is bacteria free - Personal Hygiene 101.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
I suggest you have a look at this link.

So you supply a link that is wholly in favor of circumcision? Doesn't really work to prove a point.

Yes, it protects from a few sorts of diseases... but that only applies if men are complete morons to not take care of their own bodies. We were born with skin, and unless you have a religious reason - I don't see any reason why circumcision needs to be an automatic procedure. No reason for it. If people want to do it later on down the road, then by all means.

Aeroflot777

N1120A · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:54 am

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):

Well, at least it's something the Jewish and Muslim communities can come together on.

Not to mention atheists who are opposed to increased risk of penile cancer, strangulation, infection and sexually transmitted diseases.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
Good for San Francisco and hopefully the rest of the civilized world ends this brutal and barbaric procedure.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):

Has nothing to do with the 1st. Amendment.
This has everything to do with the right of a newborn. It's a brutal & barbaric practice in which the newborn has no choice.

In your opinion it is "brutal" and "barbaric" and it has everything to do with the First Amendment. This is a fundamental religious practice.

Its also a recognized prophylactic medical practice. Are you also saying that parent's shouldn't be able to prophylactically remove moles from their child's skin?

Quoting article:
The American Academy of Pediatrics holds that there are both benefits and risks to infant circumcision, and recommends that parents make the choice for themselves.

And that is how it should be.

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:55 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 19):
Superfly, so if a baby needs an operation to save its life, are you saying that it should be put off until the baby can make its own decision?

Circumcision isn't a life saving operation.

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 22):
Any self-respecting, un-circ man will know how to take care of himself and ensure he is bacteria free - Personal Hygiene 101.

Soap & water does wonders.

TSS · Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:04 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
I suggest you have a look at this link.

http://www.circinfo.net/

That's a heavily pro-circumcision slanted site run by Brian Morris, a tireless circumcision advocate who's known to play a bit "fast & loose" with "facts" in order to advance his agenda.
For the other side of the circumcision argument, here's a different link-
http://www.circumstitions.com/

Also, here's an excellent point-by-point video response to the episode of "The Doctors" tv show that discussed the proposed circumcision ban in San Francisco, including citations for it's sources of information-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Lm396q8KA

fr8mech · Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:14 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 20):
No it doesn't, it bans "the Congress" ie the Fedral government (I assume, thats what Im asking). How does that ban on the Federal government effect state/local laws?

I believe that legal term is "incorporation". As I recall, from my meager legal learnings, is that the Bill of Rights have been applied to the Several States. In other words, the same laws that restrain the federal government also restrain the state governments and local governments. Example using the Fourth Amendment: regardless of where you live in the US; the police (federal, state or local) are restrained from searching your person or property, absent a warrant or probable cause.

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 22):
and unless you have a religious reason

And there's the rub (I guess I did it again); SF may be able to ban circumcision in all cases.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
So then, naturally, you're against abortion as well, since the baby has no choice in that matter either?

Good question.

Pyrex · Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:26 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):

We're agreeing on a lot of stuff lately. It is starting to freak me out a bit.

TSS · Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:26 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 16):
Quoting gemuser (Reply 15):
So how does that apply here? Unless there is a Federal or CA law banning the cut, the city law would apply and as Congress has not banned it, how does the 1st apply?

The first amendment bans the government from passing any laws regarding religious practice. So while you are correct that there is no specific law saying that this can or cannot be done, the Constitution says that there can be no laws made upon the free practice of religion.

However, the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", and since any genital cutting of a minor female, even a pinprick, even if dictated as necessary by religion, has been illegal in the US since 1996, there is a precedent set for overriding the religion clause of the First Amendment.

Gemuser · Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:43 am

Quoting TSS (Reply 28):

However, the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

OK, but how does "equal protection" apply in this case??? (I'll admit I not even sure what that means!)

Gemuser

N1120A · Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:47 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 20):
How does that ban on the Federal government effect state/local laws?

Incorporation through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Most of the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):

You're missing one important factor. The baby himself. He has no choice.
This is a procedure that is altering his natural state of being. It's mutilation against his will. That is NOT protected by the Constitution.

Again, parent's shouldn't be allowed to remove potentially cancerous moles?

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 22):
Any self-respecting, un-circ man will know how to take care of himself and ensure he is bacteria free - Personal Hygiene 101.

Goes way beyond whether you keep yourself clean.

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 22):
Yes, it protects from a few sorts of diseases... but that only applies if men are complete morons to not take care of their own bodies.

Right. Because soap and water prevents cancer. And STDs. And penile strangulation.

Quoting TSS (Reply 25):

For the other side of the circumcision argument, here's a different link-

Another heavily slanted article that likes to pick and choose.

On the other hand, the UN and WHO have encouraged male circumcision to combat HIV/AIDS.

Quoting TSS (Reply 28):
However, the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws",

Quoting TSS (Reply 28):
and since any genital cutting of a minor female, even a pinprick, even if dictated as necessary by religion, has been illegal in the US since 1996, there is a precedent set for overriding the religion clause of the First Amendment.

There is an interesting argument there, except that FGM and male circumcision are very different. One involves removing the clitoris, which is the equivalent to removing a man's penis entirely. Not the same thing, and one will meet Strict Scrutiny (removal) and one won't (circumcision of foreskin).

Also, there is no established religious basis behind FGM. Rather, it stems from tribal customs. There is significant, as in billions of people in more than a single religion, basis for male foreskin circumcision.

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:27 am

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 27):
We're agreeing on a lot of stuff lately. It is starting to freak me out a bit.

LOL!
What's going on here? We're supposed to be enemies!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Again, parent's shouldn't be allowed to remove potentially cancerous moles?

No the parent should not have the right to force genital mutilation (circumcision) on their newborn sons.
Forced circumcision isn't practiced in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Are there higher cases of penile cancer on these continents?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
And penile strangulation.

Don't most guys strangle their penis just about every day?
Choking the Bishop as a religious practice.

TheCommodore · Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:39 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):
Gee!
A link that is biased in favor of circumcision. Yep that is a reliable source.

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 22):
So you supply a link that is wholly in favor of circumcision? Doesn't really work to prove a point.

But it dose, because...

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 22):
Yes, it protects from a few sorts of diseases

So isn't that a good thing then, if it protects from diseases ?

Obviously not in your book.

[Edited 2011-03-06 22:40:04]

Superfly · Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:55 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 32):
So isn't that a good thing then, if it protects from diseases ?

Obviously not in your book.

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 22):
Yes, it protects from a few sorts of diseases... but that only applies if men are complete morons to not take care of their own bodies.

TSS · Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:37 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 32):
Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 22):
Yes, it protects from a few sorts of diseases

So isn't that a good thing then, if it protects from diseases ?

Which diseases are we talking about specifically?

As a general litmus test, what is the incidence of these diseases in the mostly circumcised USA versus the incidence of the same diseases in mostly non-circumcised European countries?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Are you also saying that parent's shouldn't be able to prophylactically remove moles from their child's skin?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Again, parent's shouldn't be allowed to remove potentially cancerous moles?

"Potentially cancerous" as in a mole that has changed size, shape, or color in a short period of time? Sure. But to just "prophylactically" remove any mole that is normally covered by clothing and has given no indication whatsoever that it is "potentially cancerous"? I'm inclined to say "No".

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Its also a recognized prophylactic medical practice.

Source: http://www.askdrsears.com/html/1/t012000.asp
"This is a decision that many parents face. There are many misconceptions and out-of-date information that parents may read. Here is a summary of the pertinent issues that you should consider when making this decision.

Medical benefits - THERE ARE NONE! Do not circumcise your baby because you think there are some medical benefits. A recent review by the American Academy of Pediatrics looked at all the data from the past decades to see if there truly were any medical benefits. Their conclusion - NO. There are no significant medical benefits that make circumcision worth doing."

kiwiandrew · Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:42 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
It should be up to the newborn when he turns 18 if he wants this done to his body.

It's interesting the way we seem to regard a child as being the property of the parents to do with as they please . I wonder what would happen if there was a religion which insisted on the removal of the right hand from all newborns - would we consider that to be consistent with religious freedom and feel that we had no right to interfere ? I suspect not , and yet the difference is only a matter of degree .

I think there was a poster in another thread who made the point that religion , like pornography , should be reserved for adults . If when a child grows up he decides that he wants to believe in the same religion as his parents then he can make his own decisions about circumcision .

I have always found it very strange that many branches of judaism ban tattoos and piercings and other forms of body modification but then insist on a very extreme and non-consensual form of body modification . I guess consistency has never been a strong point as far as religion is concerned .

kiwiandrew · Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:47 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
On the other hand, the UN and WHO have encouraged male circumcision to combat HIV/AIDS.

Using condoms and a water based lube will do far more to combat HIV/AIDS than circumcision .

DocLightning · Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:19 am

As a pediatrician, here are my thoughts.

1) There is no evidence that circumcision reduces overall health risks sufficiently to justify the procedure. The best numbers needed to treat are in the high tens. 77 circs to prevent one case of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.
2) Given that there is no overwhelming evidence to recommend the procedure medically, it becomes a cosmetic procedure.
3) No other irreversible cosmetic procedure (not including those that repair a disfigurement) is done on children that age because they cannot consent.
4) Health insurance does not cover any other purely cosmetic procedure not intended to repair a disfigurement.
5) Therefore, it seems that there is no rational justification to support circumcision.

So yes, I do look forward to the day when male circumcision is gone.

I think that this is a horrible way to go about it. It will have no effect at all, because parents wanting circs will get them a 15 minutes' drive away.

Furthermore, while I consider my moral analysis above to be completely unassailable and incontrovertible, others may not. Trying to impose your will upon others with intrusive laws will only seed public discontent and cries of anti-religionism. It would be far wiser to try to educate the world about the ethical implications of circumcision and turn public sentiment against the procedure by consensus, rather than by regulation.

LAXintl · Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:29 am

Nutty folks in SF.

Seems like they enjoy banning all types of things in life.

Here is a recent top-10
1. Happy Meal toys
2. Plastic Bags
3. Sale of bottled water on city property
4. Smoking
5. Sale of baby animals
6. Segways in public areas
7. Sodas sales on city property
8. Arizona
9. Advertising with displays firearms, or violence
10.Sitting in a public street 7am-11pm.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/10-...s-that-are-banned-in-san-francisco

Aeroflot777 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:56 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Goes way beyond whether you keep yourself clean.

No it doesn't. If you are clean, take a shower everyday and protect yourself properly if you engage in sex, you should run into no problems having a foreskin over your penis. More than half the world seems to be doing fine.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Right. Because soap and water prevents cancer. And STDs. And penile strangulation.

What does soap and water have anything to do with cancer? STDs.... take proper care of yourself and you will be fine - I don't know how many times one needs to say that. Penile strangulation - really? If a medical necessity arises, then sure get circumcised if you wish. Personally never had a problem with penile strangulation myself

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 32):
Obviously not in your book.

So you take my sentence, split it in half, and comment on the first part? Awesome.

falstaff · Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:53 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 38):
Segways in public areas

That is one I can agree with... Those things are annoying!

lewis · Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:43 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Right. Because soap and water prevents cancer. And STDs. And penile strangulation.

Yep, because us Europeans keep falling like flies, especially because of the third thing - I didn't even know what that is until now. Any real data to show that cancer and STD rates are higher on average in Europe?

blrsea · Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:18 pm

circumcision is not done in India too by non-muslims. I don't know about China though. But looks like majority of the population of the earth don't go in for circumcision. And majority of muslims in India don't get circumcision done by a doctor, but by a maulvi or someone like that if I remember correctly

Having said that, circumcision isn't forced on any kid in US, and I know plenty of hindus in US who don't go for circumcision. Instead of banning the practise legally, wouldn't it be better to have the doctors advice parents that there is no medical benefit to the circumcision, and leave the final decision to them? Maybe the law would instead make it mandatory to inform the parents of the non-advantages of circumcision, just like the way counselling is required in some states before going in for abortion?

travelin man · Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:19 pm

I am circumcised (and I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim).

I have no recollection of the procedure, and if it "hurt" me (a poor defenseless baby) then I certainly have no memory of this "barbaric" procedure. I've had no ill effects from it either.

Not sure why there is controversy about circumcission. Has San Francisco banned parents from getting their child's ears pierced as well?

Aeroflot777 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:41 pm

Quoting lewis (Reply 41):
Yep, because us Europeans keep falling like flies, especially because of the third thing - I didn't even know what that is until now. Any real data to show that cancer and STD rates are higher on average in Europe?

Amen, brother.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 42):
Having said that, circumcision isn't forced on any kid in US, and I know plenty of hindus in US who don't go for circumcision. Instead of banning the practise legally, wouldn't it be better to have the doctors advice parents that there is no medical benefit to the circumcision, and leave the final decision to them?

The problem is exactly this. Because there are no definitive medical benefits to the procedure - it should not be done on autopilot. In many situations, circumcision is done as standard being left out only if the parents request so. The point is that it should be the opposite. Leave the child in his natural form UNLESS it needs to be done for a medical or religious reason. The parents should obviously have a say in the "go" or "no-go" part of the decision.

Quoting travelin man (Reply 43):
Not sure why there is controversy about circumcission.

As mentioned above, the standardization of the procedure is the problem, not actual circumcision.

Aaron747 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:49 pm

Quoting blrsea (Reply 42):
I don't know about China though. But looks like majority of the population of the earth don't go in for circumcision.

It's not common in Japan at all either, but most porn performers in Japan have had it done. I wonder why?

seb146 · Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:09 pm

I have never understood circumcision. It is a flap of skin all males are born with. We, according to Christans, are made in His image. That includes foreskin. Why get rid of a part of God? It is very barbaric. A medical procedure where the one being operated upon has zero say in whether or not he wants the procedure done. Wasn't there an outrage some years ago over female circumcision? Why is this any different? Plenty of men have been mutilated from this barbaric practice. However, it is a religious practice and, as such, should not be banned. As is the case with Constitutional questions, one has to take the good with the bad.

kiwiandrew · Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:12 pm

Quoting travelin man (Reply 43):
I've had no ill effects from it either.

That you know of ... I am not going to go into too much detail in case the mods decide to ban me , but I can assure you having had experience with a large number of men both intact and cut that those who are cut have much less sensitivity and their reactions ( or lack of reactions ) during sex certainly suggests to me that they have suffered ill effects ... and I am sure that anyone , male or female , who has had experience of giving oral sex in particular to both cut and intact men will confirm that there is a noticeable difference .

Quoting blrsea (Reply 42):
Having said that, circumcision isn't forced on any kid in US

Actually it is , show me one kid who requested circumcision rather than having it forced on them by their parents .... if it is done without consent of the individual it isn't any less forced just because it was the parents rather than the authorities who forced them to undergo it without their informed consent .

I am curious whether , in the land of litigation , any adult male has sued their parents for having this done to them and thereby reducing the degree of sensitivity of a rather important part of their anatomy .

kiwiandrew · Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:17 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 46):
Wasn't there an outrage some years ago over female circumcision? Why is this any different ?

Even though I am vehemently opposed to non-consensual male circumcision I have to advise you that there is world of difference to the degree of mutilation involved in the two types of procedures . As mentioned by a previous poster so-called "female circumcision" is actually the removal of the entire clitoris , equivalent to removing the entire penis for a male .... far more drastic .

fr8mech · Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:21 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
Furthermore, while I consider my moral analysis above to be completely unassailable and incontrovertible, others may not. Trying to impose your will upon others with intrusive laws will only seed public discontent and cries of anti-religionism. It would be far wiser to try to educate the world about the ethical implications of circumcision and turn public sentiment against the procedure by consensus, rather than by regulation.

Outstanding post.

I agree that a governmental push to eliminate this procedure will produce a backlash, especially from the religious sectors.

I'm ambivalent to this. I'm not cut, but my son is. We had it done after consultation with the doctor (non-Semitic). I see no real ill-effects (in either my son or myself). As I recall, he didn't even cry when it was done.

I'm thinking, like Doc, that if this practice is to be eliminated or at least confined to the strictly or orthodox religious, it will happen through education and not coercion.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net