The Most Unkindest Cut of All

Looking around for something else to ban, having successfully driven Happy Meals underground, the good people of San Francisco will be asked to consider a ballot measure to forbid circumcision. From the Washington Examiner:

A proposed ballot measure for the November 2011 ballot – when voters will be electing the San Francisco's next mayor – would amend The City's police code "to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18."

Doing so would result in a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail, according to the proposed measure submitted to the Department of Elections.

According to a number of studies, circumcision can significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission—and San Francisco accounts for 3 percent of all HIV cases in the United States. Exit question: Do you want to live in a world of back alley circumcisions?

Comments

[Forbes]

Brought to you by the same folks that thinks the government should stay out of the bedroom...

[Brian Sorgatz]

I wouldn't necessarily vote yes on this, but it sure would have been nice if my foreskin had been protected by such a law when I was born in 1972. I resent the loss of so many valuable nerve endings there. I resent having to wonder my whole life long whether my orgasms might have been a little better.

We Reasonoids defend the right to individual self-determination and the right to sexual pleasure. A baby boy cannot consent to this irreversible procedure. Let's admit the circumcision issue is rather nuanced for us principled libertarians.

[Episiarch]

Too bad there's no real evidence that it reduces sensation*. It's interesting that whiny, unhappy mopes with parental issues like you and Howard Stern are always the ones who are sure their shitty sex lives are caused by missing nerve endings cut off at their parents' behest--and not themselves.

* This is in no way meant to endorse cutting part of an infant's body off before they are capable of deciding for themselves.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Your disclaimer after the asterisk shows that you sympathize with my side of the debate, yet you call me a whiner anyway. I don't get it. If I'm not totally wrong, I'm not merely whining.

[Warty]

Dude, you can be right and still be a whiner. And you are both.

[Pip]

I bet his mother hates him.

[Testiculary]

It's not his fault. When he was circumcised the doctor slipped and cut off his balls.

[Episiarch]

Yes, you are merely whining, because your main concern is not that your parents had you cut as a baby, but that said cut took away sensation, which has no evidence to support it.

I know H&R is cheaper than a shrink, dude, but we won't help you here. In fact, we'll fuck with you as much as we can. Because it's fun.

[Old Man With Candy]

You can fuck with him, but he won't feel it.

[Episiarch]

(slow clap)

Excellent.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Remember that accusations of whining are always a matter of perspective. The airport gropers and peepers of the TSA accuse the rest of us of whining, too.

Remember also that you can never be sure whether you're the fucker-with or the fucked-with.

[Rather]

Brian, "In fact, we'll I'll fuck with you as much as we can. Because it's fun.
Epi just asked you out! NTTIAWWT

[capitol l]

Another boring rejoinder from rather, aka; rctlfy.

If your self imposed task as a writer is to impact your readers as a sub-intelligent 13 year old boy, then you have succeeded old boy.

[rather]

little boy, I missed you too...LOL

[capitol l]

Rather, you're pretty tiresome, but at least you are not as bad as this chick around here named rtcl. She actually measures her self-worth by how much dick she swallows.

Pathetic, right?

[Rather]

Brian, "In fact, we'll I'll fuck with you as much as we can. Because it's fun.
Epi just asked you out! NTTIAWWT

[Joseph4GI]

Actually, there is at least one study that says that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, and not the head as it was once believed.

Google "Sorrells sensitivity study" for more info.

[Abroted Fetus]

I wouldn't necessarily vote yes on this, but it sure would have been nice if my life had been protected by such a law when I was born in 1972. I resent the loss of so many valuable life experiences. I resent having to wonder whether life might have been a little better.

We Reasonoids defend the right to individual self-determination and the right tolife. A fetus cannot consent to this irreversible procedure. Let's admit the abortion issue is rather nuanced for us principled libertarians.

Cleaned that up a bit for ya, Brian.

[Abroted Fetus]

I wouldn't necessarily vote yes on this, but it sure would have been nice if my life had been protected by such a law when I was aborted in 1972

[Colin]

+1

[Ken Shultz]

One of the great things about being libertarian is that I don't have to pretend the world is any more simple than it really is.

Just because I think something is unethical doesn't necessarily mean I think it should be against the law.

[Tulpa]

What the hell is abrotion? Sounds painful. Is that when your vas deferens gets tangled around a testicle?

[CoyoteBlue]

no bro 🙁

[bro]

Bro!
An Abrotion is just when you and a couple of your bros pitch in a few dollars to get suzy from delta chi an abortion, so there will be one less popped collar in 19 years.

[Fiscal Meth]

DON'T ABROT ME BRO!!

[Aborted Fetus]

Way to adress the content of the post, asscunt.

[Hugh Akston]

Be more serious, you guys! Aborted Fetus wasn't born yesterday.

[Fiscal Meth]

Aborted fetus was unborn yesterday.

[Barack Obama]

Also, LOL

[Tulpa]

If you'd only done it once I could have let it go.

[Mr Show with Bob and David]

What's a Gagortion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwPlREhpnbM

[Hobo Chang Ba]

I'm conflicted on both the abortion and the circumcision issue and yes, both do require nuance because they are cases of conflicting rights, which libertarianism doesn't address well. It strikes me both sides are wrong on both issues. On abortion, I find it difficult to conflate aborting an embryo with no pain receptors or brain cells with human murder, and have no interest in making 16 year old Suzy Q get a back alley abortion with a coat hanger because she was sexually assaulted by the HS quarterback. Likewise, I find it difficult to agree that you're not really alive until you're out of the womb and that it's perfectly cool to dice up a baby as long as it's only halfway out. There's no easy line to draw that makes it a black and white issue.

On circumcision, find me the person who remembers the utter pain of being circumcised on the day of birth. I believe 100% it's cruel and painful and will not circumcise my own kid. It's also a religious requirement for certain religions, so will we now arrest parents who give their kids back-alley circumcisions they won't even remember but are now more likely to die from what is otherwise a safe procedure?

On both, education is probably superior to legislation.

[DJ Drugs]

For whatever it's worth, do you think any Rabbis are going to get busted?

What is this really going to turn in to? A law enforced for some groups and not others?

For whatever its worth, the real question, if circumcision/abortion does violate the baby/fetus' self ownership, then isn't the onus on the state to take the most efficient/effective action to protect self-ownership?

Point being, outlawing an action that is malum in se isn't always justified when there are better ways to prevent such immoral actions.

So it looks like I'm agreeing that education > legislation in some circumstances.

Disclaimer: I'm wearing my minarchist hat to make this point; we're assuming a state, not justifying its existance.

[John C. Randolph]

>do you think any Rabbis are going to get busted?

It's pretty obvious that the purpose of this proposed legislation is to basically outlaw Judaism. I don't think it's got much chance of passing, but even if it did, it would get thrown out by the courts.

-jcr

[Joseph4GI]

I think it's a law against cicrumcision.

Hey! Did you know that Jews aren't the only people that circumcise?

Like 97% of all circumcisions in the US are all goy circs. Not to mention them Muslims and Filipinos...

I think people are just fed up with the pseudo-medicine and abuse that is circumcision. No, child genital mutilation.

This may be too early to suggest a ban though; I think there should at least be an exemption for "religious" circumcision, with the condition that these boys' statutes of limitations are extended so that they can sue their mohels if they decide they hated having been mutilated as children.

[Joseph4GI]

So then, you agree that the ban on female genital mutilation should be lifted?

"For whatever it's worth," the abortion debate is null: neither side of the abortion debate can support the circumcision of healthy minors.

Pro-choice. "My body, my choice." For women only?

And "his right to life." But not the right to his body?

If I can't even have my own body, just abort me already!

[DJ Drugs]

For whatever it's worth, I say for whatever it's worth a lot.

[DJ Drugs]

Anyway, to cut through what will happen, if the law is challenged, intent to discriminate against a religion will have to be proved along with no other justifications for the law.

Now there are clearly health justifications to satisfy a court, so a challenge will have to be as applied rather than facial.

And for that, we're going to have to wait a few years.

Beyond that, I'm going to have to crack my federal courts textbook, and I don't know where it is. So that's off the top of my head.

And I just don't think Rabbis are going to get busted. In fact, I don't think anyone will because I think hospitals will follow the law, Rabbis will not and not get busted or simply do the deed outside city limits, as will any other circumcisions that people want to get so really badly.

I just don't see it likely that some cops are going to bust in the door of a bris/brit (however you want to spell it)

[Joseph4GI]

The abortion debate is null: neither side of the abortion debate can support the circumcision of healthy minors.

Pro-choice. "My body, my choice." For women only?

And "his right to life." But not the right to his body?

If I can't even have my own body, just abort me already!

[Jeff]

Co-sign. Also, I'm not entirely sure about why Reason objects to this ballot measure but not the federal law that bars "female circumcision." Under federal law, FC could be as minimally invasive as snipping the clitoral hood, but it's a crime to do.

As for the HIV stats, those reports are juked. They assume that circumcision helps reduce HIV but the stats were compiled in Sub Saharan Africa, where condom usage is nonexistent and HIV rates exceed 30%. The effect of circumcision in America is de minimis to the point that the APA (ped. doctors) has said that it's effectively nothing more than a cosmetic surgery.

In light of the facts that it's a cosmetic surgery, that only 35% of newborn Americans have the procedure done, that Europe has gone on without it for a while, and the fact that you're robbing a boy of a basic choice, why not bar infant circumcision?

[GroundTruth]

Jeff (says I sarcastically) there you go putting those facts into an emotional argument. Now, where would we be if every argument had to rely on a complete data set rather than cherry-picked bits and pieces?

But seriously, I'd like to spend a few minutes with whoever snipped me. But this time, I get to hold the knife and he gets to loose something.

The key point in the legislation is the age, 18; under that age, it ain't a choice. Beyond that point, hey man, it's your bod... do what you want!

[DJ Drugs]

Oh, and I'm all natural, baby.

It's nice.

Sorry to rub it in.

[sage]

I said it earlier but it bears repeating: Covered wagons are ugly. That is all.

[Kristen]

I've only ever seen one in person....it looked like a slightly less wrinkly morel mushroom

[sage]

Here's a Seattleite dressed up like one:

HURR!

[Paul]

Sage, you're supposed to post these in uninteresting threads.

[sage]

Sorry, but it seemed too germane to ignore.

[Paul]

Why do you always have to bring the germans into this?

[sage]

Dude, they marched right in here early on. The sack of those clowns.

[Episiarch]

Because...he's Hitler!

[?]

No face, no personality!

[Almanian]

I don't remember any of it, or even being sentient at age...two days or whatever...and it looks purty now - so I'm OK w/chopping off Junior's helmet. Good enough for me, good enough for you, Junior.

Also, Fuck San Francisco California

[Brian Sorgatz]

Oh, how glib. Don't bother thinking seriously about the issues involved.

[Your Neighbor]

OK

[Dude!]

Don't bother thinking seriously about the issues involved.

You are so in the wrong place for that.

[True Story]

I had mine cut the summer before I started Jr. High School. That was back in the era of communal showers at the end of class. I have six brothers and I was the only one uncut (don't know why), so I knew that my "condition" was somewhat unusual.

I have no before data to compare regarding sensation, but the after data has worked out nicely for me, I must say.

I suppose that as circumcision becomes less than universal, uncut boys won't feel so different, but it made a big difference to me.

[Ornithorhyncus]

My father was circumcised as an adult when he was in the Army. (Supposedly, it was done because of an infection or something.)
He said it didn't make any real difference in sensation.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Although I have no experience in the state of un-circumcision so can't say, I hear more of the sensation is actually for the women.

[wayne]

Funny. Maybe I am your uncle?

My brother was circumcised whilst in the Army. I always assumed he did it because he married a Panamanian woman; Circumcision is a strong cultural tradition in Latin America.

Never asked him about sensation.

[Joseph4GI]

Wow. Where are you getting YOUR infromation. Circumcision is always RARE in Latin America.

Your brother was probably cut because he submitted to pressure in the Army, as most other guys are cut and he didn't want to be "left out." The best reason to circumcise yourself and your children; conformity.

[Joseph4GI]

Right. I'm going to believe your story about your father, who is NOT you, and believe YOUR narrative about HIS experience being uncut/cut. 😉

I hear women in Africa really DON'T think their circumcisions were "that bad" too.

[Jeff]

Less than universal? Only 33% of boys were circumcised in the U.S. in 2009.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan.....ation.html

[Joseph4GI]

Circumcision may or may not have an effect on sensation. But I think that's besides the point.

You don't think there was anything wrong with the fact that you were circumcised "just because" your other brothers were, even though you had absolutely no problems?

Is "so he won't feel so different" really a reason to circumcise? Because back before circumcision started in the US in the Victorian era, having a foreskin was already "universal." Actually, the foreskin, not the lack of it is "universal" among humans and other mammal species with penises.

What are you going to do if you marry asian and your son has slanted eyes? Are you going to get him eye surgery so that he "looks like his peers?" Or if you marry black. Are you going to bleach his skin to make him "ligther" like his buddies? How far does the conformity argument go?

[Joseph4GI]

What if parents started tattooing their kids? (And some already have; see Fresno and Georgia...)

Would you tattoo your kids so that he "matches his peers?"

Most of his peers are doing drugs. Would you let him? Just so that he "matches?"

Conformity. What a silly non-medical reason to circumcise your kids.

[Mojo Risin]

In response to the drugs thing:Ad-der-al.

[GroundTruth]

... from the musical "Anything Goes":

"So, what do you think of capital punishment?"

"Well, it was good enough for my father, so I guess it's good enough for me."

[Vesman]

"Circumcision was promoted by British and American physicians in the 19th century as a means to prevent masturbation. It is more difficult for circumcised men to masturbate as their penile skin does not have the normal mobility. The tightness of the skin can even cause pain during masturbation. Circumcision also may make sex and masturbation less pleasurable due to allowing the glans of the penis to be desensitized by friction from clothing"

[sneaky jew]

Circumcision is jewish stealth technology.

[Portnoy]

Not a problem, I assure you.

[Michael S. Langston]

Exactly how well did that work out for them?

[Kristen]

San Francisco is a really beautiful city....too bad it's full of San Franciscans.

[Xenocles]

I usually expand this to all of California.

[penis]

Me too.

[Kristen]

Except that all of California ain't particularly beautiful...ever been to Escondido?

[Sy]

Yup. I used to live in San Marcos next to CSUSM. Compared to everywhere else I've lived, Escondido is gorgeous. California really does have some beautiful land, even if the natives take it for granted.

[kinnath]

I have the same opinion of France

[Isaac Bartram]

France is full of San Franciscans?

[DJ Drugs]

You're thinking of Assisi.

[PapayaSF]

Hey!

[Oncologist]

"A proposed ballot measure for the November 2011 ballot ? when voters will be electing the San Francisco's next mayor ? would amend The City's police code "to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.""
risk
Will I being arrested for removing the canerous testical of a 15-year-old male?

[ola]

yes

[Xenocles]

Testicals aren't covered under the code, so caner doctors are safe.

[Cyto]

to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.

[Pip]

"to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18."

Illiterate much?

[sage]

Yeah, the testicle clause is dangling right there for sure. They must have had a ball writing this thing, knowing it would drive a bunch of people nuts.

[Almanian]

+rat bagging tea fuckers

[Paul]

It takes major cohones.

[Xenocles]

So cute. Why don't both of you start over at the top of the thread and see if you get it this time.

[Miss Dopportunity]

You won the spelling bee in fifth grade. We're all impressed down here, I can tell you...

[Cyto]

Sorry, I'm lost. I read it as:

Oncologist - "will I get in trouble for removing a cancerous testicle?"

X-man: "No, testicles are not covered under the code"

The code specifically mentions testicles, so it seems pretty straightforward. I hate it when I'm not in on the joke! What did I miss?

[Xenocles]

You are lost because you read it wrong. It was just a lame spelling joke.

[Cyto]

Oh - sorry I missed his canerous. I'll go back and pretend I got it so that I look cool in front of the girls...

[hehe]

The real question is why is there so much scrotum hate in San Francisco?

[San Francisco kinkster]

caner doctors are safe

*Whew.*

[rac]

Hitler is laughing in his grave.

[Pip]

^^THIS^^

Clearly this anti-bris law is anti-Semetic.

[Joseph4GI]

Because the ban on female circumcision is "anti-Sudanese" and "anti-Malaysian?"

[Pro Libertate]

You know who else didn't like circumcisions?

[sage]

rac?

[rac]

Helmet or anteater? Only the wife knows for sure.

[Joseph4GI]

Actually, intact men have the benefit of having both the helmet AND the anteater.

There's a little process called erection, you see, and when this happens, the helmet comes out of the "anteater."

[Masturbatin' Pete]

...fully covered in knob cheese. Yummy!

[Slut Bunwalla]

Lindsay Bluth?

[PapayaSF]

Father Coughlin spoke against it in the 1930s, telling Christian mothers not to submit their sons to this "Jewish ritual."

[Colonel Dietrich]

I must admit that I am uncomfortable with this...Jewish Ritual.

[Aresen]

Aside from the Godwin aspects, just how do they expect this to be viewed in the Jewish community?

[Kristen]

and the Muslims (but they don't really count)

[Pro Libertate]

Hundreds of years ago, people will believe that Mike Godwin was a Nazi.

[Pro Libertate]

Sorry: Hundreds of years from now, people will believe that Mike Godwin was a Nazi.

[rac]

I really liked the first one.

[Almanian]

What rac said

[robc]

He was (is). About posting about Hitler.

[Pro Libertate]

If I were Mike, I'd go around suing people who mentioned my name in association with mentioning Nazis. He's an attorney, so you never know.

[Pip]

There are some who say that Mike Godwin herds sheep.

[Pro Libertate]

Like a Nazi.

[sage]

Hundreds of years ago, people will believe you were a Nazi.

[Pro Libertate]

Me? I'm the least Nazi commenter here!

[sage]

I salute you.

[sage]

I salute you.

[sage]

Once with each hand, apparently.

[Pro Libertate]

In a non-Nazi way, I hope. Kinda sucks for a classicist that the Nazis just had to go and use the Roman salute.

[it]

completely unintentionally

[Hazel Meade]

On second thought. THIS wins the thread. I laughed so hard I cried.

[Jeff P]

...but after 18 it is MANDATORY.

[Aresen]

Yes. They can't deny employment to mohels.

[mohel motel]

Foreskins check in, but they can't check out!

Or something.

[rac]

The Golden Gate bridge would buckle under the weight of the exodus.

[JD]

Of course it's mandatory after 18. Everything not forbidden is compulsory.

[lolhitler]

We can't show it is assault, so we are going to make it assault!

[Brian Sorgatz]

Baby boys don't consent to this procedure. It arguably is an assault.

[?]

They never consented to be born, for that matter.

[Joe R.]

They have a right to undo that decision later if they like.

[Snort]

Chortle

[Graphite]

Not to mention the ability ....

[hmm]

Baby boys can't assent to an appendectomy or the removal of an extra digit either. Are those assault?

What about separation of conjoined twins where death is a likely outcome for one of the twins? Is that murder?

[Graphite]

The belligerent stupidity, it makes my head spin ....

If some infant's foreskin is massively infected to the point of posing a risk of death, then no, removing it is not assault. That's not what's at issue here.

[hmm]

And the extra digit?

[Joseph4GI]

You need to define how the foreskin is anything comparable to a genetic anomaly such as an extra digit.

[Michael S. Langston]

Belligerent stupidity? You've just redefined a fairly harmless medical procedure which literally hundreds of millions of males have gone through without adverse consequences as assault.

& when someone tried to get you to clarify by asking you additional scenario specific questions, they're stupid?

Too funny....

[Graphite]

You've just redefined a fairly harmless medical procedure which literally hundreds of millions of males have gone through without adverse consequences as assault.

No, I didn't. I improved hmm's comparison from its prior total irrelevance by providing a case in which a circumcision without the infant's assent would be justified and necessary, because the risks of the procedure would be far outweighed by the risks of foregoing it. As Jeff points out below, the question is not one of whether certain things can & should be done to infants without their assent (clearly, yes), but whether a somewhat risky surgery with no objective benefits other than "looking just like daddy" is one of those things.

Of course, you gloss over that thousands of males also *have* had adverse consequences as a result of complications from circumcisions. Gotta break a few eggs to make a cut omelet and all, I guess.

[Joseph4GI]

The fact that a harmful medical procedure has been inflicted on "hundreds of millions of males" does not render it "harmless" or "without adverse consequences."

Circumcision changes the way the penis works; it dries out the mucosa, keratinizes the glans. Most circumcised men must use some sort of secondary lubrication FOR EVER.

Unless there is a medical indication for it, circumcision is abuse. It is mutilation. It is assault.

The fact that this has happened to "millions of men" is irrelevant. "Millions of men" were kept as slaves back in the day. I suppose that should have justified slavery...

[Sy]

"Most circumcised men must use some sort of secondary lubrication FOR EVER"

OH TEH HORRORZZ!! TEH DRYNESS!!

[Jeff]

Silly comparison - failing to do the surgeries you mentioned will oftentimes result in death or a substantially diminished quality of life. The benefits to circumcision are essentially nil. Couple the absence of benefits with the pain the procedure causes and the risk of error and it should be seen as per se negligent to do the procedure as a matter of course. Under your logic, parents could consent to have an infant's face covered in tattoos.

If we ban female circumcision, why not ban male?

[hmm]

No, the point is babies can't assent to anything, so saying that it is ipso facto assault because they can't assent is ridiculous.

[Jeff]

Fair enough, but society has decided that there are certain practices that infringe upon the life of a child who will one day be an adult to the point that we deprive the parent the right to make the decision. Children are not chattels. You can't beat your child into a coma, tattoo their faces, amputate body parts, etc. Circumcision is no more than a needless cosmetic surgery for the vast majority of children who are subjected to the practice. It unquestionably hurts and is beyond me why the federal government bars female circumcision while allowing male circumcision.

This isn't just a matter of consent, it's a question of basic public policy.

[Steff]

Dear Jeff: Were I not married, I'd want to have lots of uncircumcised babies with you for that very eloquent statement. Thank you.

[Michael S. Langston]

Please explain how it hurts and exactly what most two day olds remember.

For a bonus - tell me when long term memory forms in infants.

& lastly, what happens when I can change the DNA of a baby which isn't born? Assault because they didn't want to be that tall? Or blond? Or whatever?????

[Jeff]

"Please explain how it hurts "

The foreskin has nerves. Cutting tissue with nerves hurts, both at the time of cutting and in the aftermath due to swelling. Hence, circumcision hurts.

"exactly what most two day olds remember."

Memory isn't the standard for abuse, damage and infliction of pain are. Under your standard, I could walk up behind you and hit you in the head with a brick. If I knocked you out before you realized what happened and then punched you in the face repeatedly, I couldn't be charged for punching you, since you didn't remember it.

What are you getting at with the DNA question? It's irrelevant and only shows that you can't even construct a straw man.

[Michael S. Langston]

Well, when you equate removing a minor piece of skin with "abuse", you're constructing the straw man, not I.

& BTW - you didn't answer the question. You told me about nerve endings, but never said whether it hurt.

& the bonus question, you ignored that as well, but continuing to ignore the first question.

& the rest, are irrelevant. Fact - a person who was uncircumcised @ 2 days old, will not remember any feelings of pain, abuse, guilt, loss of anything else for that matter.

After living for X number of years and having sex, they can't possibly imagine nor know life in the other condition.

Therefore, both the points made - it's abuse and that it reduces sensation are wrong by definition.

This is all some BS brought up from people who have too much time on their hands. They don't remember and can't possibly know a life they never had.

So... it boils down to this - a kid who doesn't want their body in the shape it is now, shouldn't be that way, so the parents can no longer make that choice.

What happens when the choice expands? What happens when kids don't like being that smart? Or that pretty?

Perfectly analogous and not a straw man at all.

Go back to playing with people who find emotional arguments worth something.

For people willing to define words like abuse with real constraints like me, your BS isn't going to work.

[Jeff]

"Well, when you equate removing a minor piece of skin with "abuse", you're constructing the straw man, not I."

Really? Most state laws define child abuse in a way that results in any conduct that leaves a mark or causes an unreasonable amount of pain for the child. If cutting an ear lobe off of a 17 year old would qualify not only as abuse, but also as mayhem, I'm not sure why cutting off the foreskin wouldn't qualify for the same.

"& BTW - you didn't answer the question. You told me about nerve endings, but never said whether it hurt."

I said circumcision hurts. If you're dumb enough to actually believe that chopping penis flesh off with a razor doesn't hurt, you probably buy into the bible. I'd suggest that you reread the passages about how the Israelite convinced hostile tribes to get circumcised so that they could slaughter them as they were recovering - a process that was described as taking upwards of three painful days.

"Fact - a person who was uncircumcised @ 2 days old, will not remember any feelings of pain, abuse, guilt, loss of anything else for that matter."

This isn't a given fact. We actually have a very limited understanding of how human memory operates. It's quite possible that a huge amount of memory is repressed. Even if they don't remember it, it seems to make little sense to subject an animal to needless pain. Under your standard, you could justify putting an infant's leg into water hot enough to cause discomfort, but not a severe burn on the grounds that the kid won't remember it.

"They don't remember and can't possibly know a life they never had."

A point that people who oppose circumcision make all the time. It's unfair to deprive someone the right to a life that they would have had had they been permitted to live in their natural condition. Again, under this argument, I could pierce an infant's ear drums to make them forever deaf and then claim that I did nothing wrong, as they never heard music, they don't know what they are missing.

What's more, every argument you've just advanced applies equally to female circumcision. They don't know what they are missing when they have their clitoral hood removed/pierced at birth, they won't remember the pain of the operation, and according to you, the procedure should fall to the control of the parent. So I ask one last time, why oppose circumcision for one sex but not the other?

[Michael S. Langston]

This is honestly my fault as I started out arguing with your specifics when I failed to start with the broader picture.

You have not proven that male circumcision as practiced in the US amounts to either abuse or mutilation.

You keep saying so. You keep conflating it with other forms of mutilation, but have yet to put forth any actual evidence.

& as far as your... since they don't remember, I can subject them to other pain idiocy... please keep up.

I was only responding to your idea that it's abuse. I was not saying that anything done to a child where they won't remember and won't have adverse affects is ok.

I was only saying that your attempt to redefine a safe medical procedure as abuse doesn't appear to have any evidence, based upon a few facts. One - no memory. Two - no loss.

That doesn't mean everything with no memory and no loss isn't abuse.

It means that when you and others try to categorically redefine something as abuse which hasn't been abuse for centuries, you need to come up with something better than what you have... which as far as I can tell is nothing more than "it would be like that other law."

BTW - I honestly don't care whether individuals choose one way or the other. Just think the argument against it is nothing more than inflamed rhetoric which only seeks to conflate minimal medical procedures with abuse.

& think it's overly obvious that new laws, even this one, aren't needed.

As someone up thread already posted, male circumcision was at 80 some odd percent 60 years ago, now it's around 35%.

Didn't take a law.... nor did it take people conflating it with abuse either.

[Jeff]

"I was only saying that your attempt to redefine a safe medical procedure as abuse doesn't appear to have any evidence, based upon a few facts. One - no memory. Two - no loss."

It's not a given that it is a safe medical practice. It would seem that safety analysis questions whether the benefits of the procedure outweigh the costs. Because the medical benefits are non-existent and because the risks include full amputation of the penis (see eg http://consumerist.com/2008/09.....penis.html), it would seem that the procedure is far from safe.

As for saying that there is "no loss," you seem to ignore the core purpose of the procedure which is, namely, to inflict a loss of skin on the child.

"It means that when you and others try to categorically redefine something as abuse which hasn't been abuse for centuries, you need to come up with something better than what you have"

Ahhh, the appeal to tradition. I knew it had to be lurking somewhere. Under that standard, why bar female circumcision? It's been practiced for just as long, if not longer, than male circumcision. It was never seen as abuse until extremely recently.

"Didn't take a law.... nor did it take people conflating it with abuse either."

No, but it did take an influx of immigrants. Why? Because the drops in male circumcision rates are largely attributed to the increase in the Latino/black/Asian populations who, incidentally, do see male circumcision as abusive.

[Steff]

It would seem that safety analysis questions whether the benefits of the procedure outweigh the costs.

Benefits to Doctors: We get to charge for each and every one we do, and idiot parents who buy into traditional bullshit without doing the research with pay and pay and pay.

[Michael S. Langston]

This is honestly my fault as I started out arguing with your specifics when I failed to start with the broader picture.

You have not proven that male circumcision as practiced in the US amounts to either abuse or mutilation.

You keep saying so. You keep conflating it with other forms of mutilation, but have yet to put forth any actual evidence.

& as far as your... since they don't remember, I can subject them to other pain idiocy... please keep up.

I was only responding to your idea that it's abuse. I was not saying that anything done to a child where they won't remember and won't have adverse affects is ok.

I was only saying that your attempt to redefine a safe medical procedure as abuse doesn't appear to have any evidence, based upon a few facts. One - no memory. Two - no loss.

That doesn't mean everything with no memory and no loss isn't abuse.

It means that when you and others try to categorically redefine something as abuse which hasn't been abuse for centuries, you need to come up with something better than what you have... which as far as I can tell is nothing more than "it would be like that other law."

BTW - I honestly don't care whether individuals choose one way or the other. Just think the argument against it is nothing more than inflamed rhetoric which only seeks to conflate minimal medical procedures with abuse.

& think it's overly obvious that new laws, even this one, aren't needed.

As someone up thread already posted, male circumcision was at 80 some odd percent 60 years ago, now it's around 35%.

Didn't take a law.... nor did it take people conflating it with abuse either.

[Jeff]

See above, double poster.

[Joseph4GI]

Michael,

In most other cases, performing non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals contitutes medical fraud.

If a patient finds out he got a procedure that he didn't need he can sue his doctor for malpractice.

How then, is it possible that doctors are actually performing circumcision in healthy, non-consenting individuals, let alone giving parents any kind of "choice?"

If performing medically unnecessary procedures on non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud, what it is to perform unnecessary procedures on non-consenting individuals on the flimsy premise that "the parents asked for it?"

Is the fact that a procedure can be performed "painlessly and safely" really what makes it "not abuse?" Because it's possible to perform female circumcision with anaesthetic in a "safe environment."

Bottom line: Unless there is an actual medical indication, yes, circumcision IS abuse. It IS mutilation. "The parents wanted it" is a poor excuse because given misinformation, you can make a parent consent to anything. In this sense it's abusive on two levels; it is abusive of parental naivete, and it is abusive of the individual in question.

[Joseph4GI]

Oh, and by the way. Circumcision kills at least 120 babies a year.

This number is concervative at best because doctors are quick to hide their tracks when babies die as a result of circumcision, often misattributing the death to a secondary cause, such as "hemmoraging" or "septic shock."

Other risks include cutting off too much skin, cutting off the glans (see the fate of the Mogen clamp), or cutting off the entire organ (may David Reimer restin peace).

Why should a child be put at ANY of these risks, given that circumcision is medically unnecessary?

[Ken Shultz]

I think one of the problems with your argument is that it doesn't address the fact that I'm completely stoked my parents had the damn thing cut off.

I'll never know how much I got that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise--but if not having the procedure would have cost me any of that?

Maybe I'd have never known what I was missin', but that won't address the gaping hole in your argument...

I'm over here dancing in the endzone 'cause I'm so glad I got the procedure--and you're over there tellin' me how angry I'm supposed to be.

And that just doesn't add up.

[Joseph4GI]

The problem with YOUR argument is that you're missing the point.

OK, you're happy being circumcised. Whoopdiedoo! But is this really relevant, seeing as you formed your opinion AFTER the fact?

Quite a few women in Africa are "stoked" to have been circumcised too. Do you know that?

You WILL never know what you were missing, but that's the entire gaping hole in YOUR argument. It's like the blind man who never saw arguing for blindness.

So you like being circumcised, that's alright. But there are quite a few men who are not.

And why should THEY be happy with a permanent procedure they didn't ask for?

Whether you remember the pain or not, whether you're "dancing in the endzone" misses the point.

Whether you care to admit it or not, unless circumcision is indicated medically, it's medical fraud. It's child abuse.

You go on whistling in the dark if you like. But whether you care to admit it or not, you were a victim of genital mutilation.

Going on and on about how "great it is" is only an attempt to make light of the fact that you can't change your permanent alteration. Denial. Fact is, you really can't know how "great it is" without a basis of comparison. Gaping hole? You got it!

[Joseph4GI]

The foreskin in the male is about as "minor" as the labia and/or clitoral hood in the female.

Is that the medical indication that so compells doctors to circumcise children and elicit a "decision" from parents?

Is pain and whether it is remembered really the issue? Because baby girls can be circumcised also (see Malaysia). It is also possible to administer pain killers to baby girls. Is that what justifies a procedure and makes it "not abusive?"

[Hobo Chang Ba]

According to my authoritative expert sources (Penn and Teller's Bullshit!), the procedure appears painless because it is so fucking painful that the baby goes into a temporary state of shock. "Welcome to the world. Here, we're going to hack off a piece of your most valuable organ." And even if it's nothing more than a painless cosmetic surgery as you say, why couldn't 18-year olds have the same procedure done? Oh wait, because it IS painful.

Not that I'm necessarily for banning it, but it's an interesting debate. Likewise, whether pregnant mothers consuming drugs that cause permanent, unnecessary damage to their child should be convicted of assault. No easy, clear-cut answers, like any conflict between parental and child rights.

[Joseph4GI]

The answer IS easy, and clear-cut:

Doctors have a duty to medicine, not to custom, tradition, religion or parental whim.

Without any medical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals, let alone giving parents any kind of "choice" or "decision" to make.

If doctors are obliged to circumcise boys for "religion," "custom," "tradition," and "because the parents want it," then it only follows that they should also be obliged to cut girls.

"Oh but the two are different" one might say. There might be some truth to that, but that only goes to show you that the above "reasons" circumcision should be allowed are complete BulLsh!t.

[Ken Shultz]

"Doctors have a duty to medicine, not to custom, tradition, religion or parental whim."

What is this, like a priesthood now?!

This is why I'm not an Objectivist--I read "Fountainhead"!

I'm a god damn commercial real estate developer! My architect doesn't have any responsibility to anybody but me--his customer! If he blows up my building--my investment--because he doesn't like how I changed his plans!?

Facing a jury's gonna be the last thing he's worried about.

Anyway, you're wrong. A doctor's responsibility isn't to anybody but his patient. I'm payin' the bill.

I make the call.

[Ken Shultz]

No taxation without representation.

My kid's circumcision is not the city council's decision!

Thus spake Shultzathustra.

[Terry]

"Anyway, you're wrong. A doctor's responsibility isn't to anybody but his patient."

Amen. Who's that?
Hint: He didn't cut the umbilical cord.

"I'm payin' the bill."

That's mighty big of you, Dad. If your ungrateful son pays you back for his delivery, can he get his foreskin back?

[Ken Shultz]

He who pays the bills, gets to make the call.

Beggars can't be choosers.

No taxation without representation.

That's all redundant.

It's also a great reason to be against ObamaCare. The people who paying the bills get to make the call--and I don't want the government making decisions about me--or my children's healthcare.

It's none of your god damn business.

[Joseph4GI]

Please explain why pain and whether or not it is remembered are relevant.

Please explain why the absence of pain alone is what defines "abuse."

Regarding DNA, I'm against designer babies too, as that is playing god. But really, I'm not sure how this is equateable to physically altering a child that has already been born.

For now, let's stick with circumcising a perfectly healthy, BORN child, yes?

[hmm]

Get off my handle...

[Joseph4GI]

Hmm, how are a burst appendix or an extra digit anywhere near comparable to the foreskin, which is normal, healthy tissue?

How is circumcision anywhere near a separation of conjoined twins?

I mean seriously.

[New Born]

We don't consent to that umbilical cord cut either

[lol]

Brian still hasn't consented to that.

[Joseph4GI]

It would fall off anyway. I'm sorry, the foreskin is not anywhere nearly comparable to the umbilical cord which, left to its own devices, falls away anyway. The foreskin has to be ripped apart and cut off.

[Kristen]

Wet blanket is wet

[Joe R.]

It certainly looks like assault to me. Parental approval and an anesthetic don't change the situation.

[Vaccine]

Thank God the Joe R. definition of assault is not to be found in any law, anywhere. Else every parent who got their kid a vaccination would be a felon.

[Joe R.]

Even though I didn't define assault, you are correct that the offense is closer to battery than assault. Assault requires the victim to be aware of the danger.

But hey, if the baby doesn't like having part of his dick cut off, he can't complain anyway, so fuck him.

[Joseph4GI]

Unless a child is suffering a condition for which circumcision is the only medical indication, then yes, it is assault. It's also medical fraud, abuse of parental naivete and abuse of the child. For profit.

[Seamus]

So unless a child is actually suffering from a disease that can be cured by a vaccination, it's assault to vaccinate him? Those needles cause a lot of pain, you know. (And I remember the pain of my childhood vaccinations a lot more than I remember the pain of my circumcision.)

[Warty]

I'm second to no one in detesting genital mutilation, but what the fuck is this guy thinking? All you'll do if you try to ban it is just make the barbarians more stubborn.

[Episiarch]

Because using the government to force people who are doing something you disagree with to stop doing that thing has become most people's automatic reaction to anything they don't like?

[Cyto]

I'm going to propose a new law to stop people from posting stupid things on the internet. That has the bonus effect of saving me lots of time posting things on the internet...

[exhibitionist]

When they banned flashing, I just started doing it where no one could see me.

[Joseph4GI]

Good then, we should lift the ban on female circumcision.

It infringes on freedom of religion and parental choice.

[Kolohe]

" the good people of San Francisco will be asked to consider a ballot measure to forbid circumcision"

Well, per TFA, only if the schmuck gets enough signatures.

[mohel]

Won't happen. We never sign our work.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Don't these people have anything else to do? Why the fuck don't they try some kind of hobby? Or better yet, get a fucking job!

[Lights]

Um, have you seen their hobbies?

[Joseph4GI]

Quoth the idiot who finds the time to respond to an "unimportant" thread.

Apprehension always, always betrays apathy.

Admit it. You care more about this than you'd like to lead others to believe...

[People]

This place is very nice. Weather is incredible. The view is scenic, like out of a dream. The bay is a natural conduit for trade. The water ways flowing through are abundant.

Too perfect. What can we do to turn this place into a living Hell?

[SF]

The weather in SF sucks, unless you happen to be mold.

[RedundantLiberalSanFranciscan]

What do we want? Abortions! When do we want them? Before we're 18! It's a right!

[PapayaSF]

Hey, doesn't the abortion of a baby boy "mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis"? Those get tossed into the medical waste bin along with the rest of the fetus. Maybe they're outlawing aborting boys and don't realize it! Unintended consequences are so much fun.

[Rich]

That is really slick. Pass this thing and Let The Lawsuits Begin.

[Tulpa]

The foreskin probably doesn't develop until late in pregnancy. Probably around the same time the testicles descend.

[cynical]

What about the other two?

[PapayaSF]

The internet tells me that a fetus develops genitals at 3-4 months. So this ordinance could be read as banning abortions of male babies after that.

[Terry]

What's that internet say about the legal definition of 'baby'? 😉

It's grotesquely intellectually dishonest, but as far as the law is concerned, it's impossible to 'abort' a 'baby'.

[Joseph4GI]

Yes. Except that neither side of the abortion issue supports circumcision.

If you're "my body, my choice," why does it only apply to the mother, and not the baby?

And if it's "the right to life," it's the right to life, but not the right to his body?

Neither side of the abortion debate supports the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants.

[Paul]

I hope this fucking passes. I hope it passes. I'll convert to whatever religion and go to church in hopes that it passes.

[Hugh Akston]

Paul, have you come around to the "Burn, baby, burn!" view of life?

[Paul]

No, I've just drunk more deeply from the cup.

[Episiarch]

I agree with Paul that this passing would be amusing as hell. The perfect storm of freedom of religion, child mutilation, the rights of parents to determine things for their own children, and "liberal" San Francisco would be hugely hilarious.

[Warty]

I'll bite as soon as you figure out a way to mix racism and gun control in the mix. Go!

[Episiarch]

1. Racism from the fact that circumcision is part of the Jewish religion, so: anti-Semitism.

2. Sorgatz is so upset at his parents after using them and his circumcision as a projection of why his sex life is so shitty that he goes to a gun store to get a gun to kill them, but the waiting period forces him to wait and he gets even angrier so he uses an axe instead, so: gun control.

[Paul]

Gaybashing: His parents are gay.

[Episiarch]

Misogyny and domestic abuse: his mom is a woman. Maybe his dad is too, I don't know.

[Paul]

Transgender abuse. Wow, how deep does this well go?

[Episiarch]

With Sorgatz, probably to the center of the earth.

Wait...Gaia abuse!

[Dello]

Use a gun to remove the foreskin with.

[Ragin Cajun]

Dale Peterson, mohel!

[Joseph4GI]

Wait, being against circumcision is racist against Jews? Really?

Nevermind the fact that over 97% of circumcisions in the US are all gentile goy cuts?

Nevermind that many African tribes practice circumcision?

The Muslims? Hello?

I'm sure being against female circumcision makes me racist against Africans and Malaysians...

[Digital Ruse]

^^ This. ^^

[Paul]

When can we stop calling progressives "pro-choice"?

[Brian Sorgatz]

Babies can't consent to this procedure. Where is their freedom of choice?

[Paul]

Right in the same bin of choices my daughter has to stay up until 11 at night watching Twilight, or to force me to go through the McDonalds drive-thru so she can have the latest Littlest Pet Shop toy.

[nicole]

Yeah because those are really life-changing medical procedures that will leave her irreparably damaged. Are you planning on perhaps cutting off her earlobes just for fun? Binding her feet? I mean, why the hell not, she's only a kid and thus your property.

[pls]

Yeah, because being circumcised has made me a complete and utter invalid. What a drastic, terrible choice my parents made. I might as well just end my life right now.

[Terry]

now we're getting somewhere?

[Paul]

Circumcision is a perfectly safe and effective medical procedure. We can argue about conflicting studies about the benefits, but throwing in words like "damaged" and "mutiliation" is a bullshit parlor trick that anyone with an IQ over 75 won't fall for.

[Vesman]

"Circumcision is a perfectly safe and effective medical procedure"

and im sure it has zero risk of infection or other issues?

[waffles]

"anyone with an IQ over 75 won't fall for"

you'd hope, but you'd be wrong

[Steff]

There is no perfectly safe medical procedure. And yes, it is mutilation. Hacking off a perfectly healthy body part for the sake of arrogance and cosmetics is mutilation. I wouldn't do this to a full-grown adult I hated, let alone a baby.

[Steff Infection]

Yeah, because there are certainly no medical benefits. It's all a myth! Doctors everywhere are totally wrong!

[Jeff]

You're so right, circumcision is so beneficial that the American Pediatric Association concluded that - "hese data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being"

[Steff]

Exactly. There are no medical benefits to a normal, healthy infant. Not one. There are, however, risks.

[Paul]

Man, it's utterly amazing to watch progressives contort themselves over arguments about abortion and circumcision while throwing in the word "choice".

[Coeus]

but throwing in words like "damaged" and "mutiliation" is a bullshit parlor trick that anyone with an IQ over 75 won't fall for.

So how much of your penis can we cut off until it becomes "damage" or "mutilation"? 10%? 25%?

[Paul]

So how much of your penis can we cut off until it becomes "damage" or "mutilation"? 10%? 25%?

More than what is medically accepted by the FDA. (for one of probably eight dozen acceptable answers) You know, sort of like when a dermatologist performs surgery on your thumb for a basic procedure... there's a point where dermatologists would agree that the procedure might exceed what was medically necessary, and became damaging or mutilating.

Are we playing "let's move the goalposts" and trying to redefine circumcision by engaging in picayune definitions of how many millimeters of skin makes it 'mutilation'?

[Coeus]

there's a point where dermatologists would agree that the procedure might exceed what was medically necessary, and became damaging or mutilating.

Interesting. So it has to be in excess of what is medically necessary? Because circumcision, except in rare cases, isn't medically necessary.

[Paul]

As physicians are decreasingly recommending it as a medically necessary procedure, that has little to do with the worthiness of a San Francisco municipal ban on the procedure.

Breast implants aren't medically necessary either, but the city of Dubuque, IA banning the procedure is laugh-inducing.

If the medical community decides that the procedure has no medical benefit, beyond the jollies of a few sick parents who want to ritually torture and mutilate their children, that's a different process than the demonstrably and self-admitted impaired parents of San Francisco to decide. Oh wait, they can decide. I keep forgetting, this is a procedure which prohibits them from deciding.

Think of it like ATM fees. Remember those? Remember when a city in California banned them, and the Feds slapped them down because only the Feds can "regulate banking"?

There's absolutely nothing about this procedure having no other value beyond the purpose of "mutilation" or "damage". That's a chimera created by the impaired people of San Francisco who can't keep their own children from McDonalds because of the irresistable allure of a toy in a meal.

If it's truly medically unnecessary, I have faith that the medical community will make that determination and stop performing the procedure except in those rare cases. You know, sort of like I can't walk into my doctor and say "Please remove my liver".

[Coeus]

Damn, that is a lot of fail right there. I don't know if I even have time to address it all, but here goes:

Breast implants aren't medically necessary either, but the city of Dubuque, IA banning the procedure is laugh-inducing.

First off, we're talking about babies. I have yet to hear about someone giving a baby breast implants, but I hope, you wouldn't be in favor of it. And if you've watched anywhere near as much porn as I have, there are definitely boob-jobs which can be considered mutilation.

The next two paragraphs don't make any sense in this context, and I suspect you might just be arguing with one of the voices in your head. I believe we were talking about using the words "mutilation" and "damage" in respect to circumcision.

There's absolutely nothing about this procedure having no other value beyond the purpose of "mutilation" or "damage".

Nice. Now we're back on topic. But that paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm gonna guess you mean that there is a value or purpose, but except for HIV (and we've already discussed why that's a bullshit argument) there really isn't. There is phimosis, but circumcision is only recommended in extreme cases.

If it's truly medically unnecessary, I have faith that the medical community will make that determination and stop performing the procedure except in those rare cases.

Faith is for those without reason. And guess what? There are doctors who do just that.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org

[Paul]

So you're an "activist" against this procedure. I get it. For all of your tee-shirt sloganeering, the medical community doesn't share your narrow view.

http://familydoctor.org/online.....e/042.html

But no matter, your strange smile-inducing response to my breast implant analogy misses the point entirely.

This is not something for the self-admitted impaired families of San Francisco to decide, this is something that will be decided by the medical community. Not a tie-dye hiding under his bed from the ravages of a McDonald's toy.

Well, this issue will be decided by the impaired residents of Ess Eff, and we will continue to laugh at them.

By the way, how will you feel about San Franciscans if they decide to vote against this referendum? After all, it will then be a city rife with ritual torture and mutilation of its precious children!

[Joe R.]

"If the medical community decides that the procedure has no medical benefit, beyond the jollies of a few sick parents who want to ritually torture and mutilate their children..."

Funny, that is exactly the AMA's stance, although they phrase it much more diplomatically: http://bit.ly/1s2HKM

"Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice...[e]xisting scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."

In other words, they really do find it "medically unnecessary," but leave the option open since some parents decide to "ritually torture and mutilate their children[.]"

[Coeus]

So you're an "activist" against this procedure. I get it. For all of your tee-shirt sloganeering, the medical community doesn't share your narrow view.

Never said I was an "activist". If fact, the only time I ever talk about this is when smug dolts like you start spouting off. However, I suggest you brush up on your reading skills. Here's a quote from that article you just linked:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary."

That means, yes, it's truly considered an unnecessary medical procedure.

But no matter, your strange smile-inducing response to my breast implant analogy misses the point entirely.

Nope, that point wasn't missed. It was never made. That's why I made a joke. We're talking about a procedure done on people without their consent. Boob-jobs simply don't qualify.

This conversation started with you stating "but throwing in words like "damaged" and "mutiliation" is a bullshit parlor trick" and then I asked you what you would consider mutilation. You said mutilation would be removing more than what was medically necessary. The link you just provided said that circumcision wasn't medically necessary. I think you already knew you lost that point, which is why you keep trying to argue about the law and San Franciscans in general. So lets get right to that.

This is not something for the self-admitted impaired families of San Francisco to decide, this is something that will be decided by the medical community. Not a tie-dye hiding under his bed from the ravages of a McDonald's toy.

Here's a radical idea: How about we let the person we're actually cutting on decide?

By the way, how will you feel about San Franciscans if they decide to vote against this referendum? After all, it will then be a city rife with ritual torture and mutilation of its precious children!

The same way I feel about them now. Most of 'em are fucking idiots. Even if they vote for it, they're still fucking idiots. To trot out an old favorite: Even a stopped clock's right twice a day.

[Azathoth]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary

That's from your cite.

Every benefit listed is prefaced with 'may'.

And you cite this as an organization that favors circumcision?

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Why not the whole thing? Why not re-legalize castration of babies? By the time the kid develops long term memory, they won't remember any pain.

Just saying...

[cynical]

...getting her ears pierced...

[Michael S. Langston]

Babies don't consent to eating either... guess we should stop that crap.

[Rather]

I think it hurts a little more than eating

http://video.google.com/videop.....amp;hl=en#

[Michael S. Langston]

Pain is irregardless, since we subject children to pain for all kinds of other reasons they don't "consent" to

Either parents can force their children to do things in which they don't consent or they can't.

And last time I checked, babies don't consent to much of anything, including eating.

[Steff]

Name a few that remove healthy parts of their body for no medically-necessary reason, and then you'll have an argument.

I'll bet you're on of those knee-jerk parents who had their kid cut and desperately need to defend a painfully stupid choice that wasn't necessary. Or, one of those guys who was cut and desperately needs to pretend your pecker's normal.

Which is it?

[Joseph4GI]

Good. Female circumcision is painful too. But then again, it's " irregardless, since we subject children to pain for all kinds of other reasons they don't "consent" to," right?

[Joseph4GI]

Actually, if you stuff food down a child's throat, that crap SHOULD be stopped.

Not sure this is what this thread is about though...

[#]

i do love using this line with liberals/ progressives on basically every issue.

"Well, obviously because you are such a strong believer in the right to chose, you will agree with me on issue _____"

[grrizzly]

Finally, a San Francisco idea that I completely support. Also, for the first time I totally buy the argument that we need to protect the children! If you guys want your penis to be mutilated, wait until you turn 18.

[Old Mexican]

Re: grrizzly,

Finally, a San Francisco idea that I completely support. Also, for the first time I totally buy the argument that we need to protect the children!

So if you support protecting children from being mutilated, would you then also ask San Francisco to protect children from mutilation (a.k.a. abortion)?

[grrizzly]

I certainly understand the pro-life argument.

[Graphite]

I would ask San Francisco to protect children from post-birth mutilation and infanticide, yes. Seems bizarre to refer to that as "abortion" though.

[Pip]

You would think Ess Eff of all places would be in favor of circumcision:

In recent years, several studies have shown that circumcision reduces the risk of male HIV acquisition by 50-60%, and circumcision is now recommended by WHO/United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) as an HIV prevention strategy. Based on this evidence that the foreskin increases vulnerability to HIV, Dr Godfrey Kigozi and his colleagues hypothesized that the size of the foreskin might be related to the risk of HIV infection.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169009.php

[nicole]

Yeah, and infants have a lot of unprotected sex, so we need to get them before it's too late.

[Paul]

Wow, Nicole, you just won the 100 yard dash to miss the point. Here's your tiara and balloons.

[Kristen]

"nicole" can't possibly really be a chick...never met one of my gender that prefers the morel over the cremini.

[wayne]

I know a lot of chicks who prefer an intact penis. Most European chicks, for example. You must be one of those beached whales from the midwest.

[Steff]

Here's one.

[Azathoth]

Are you kidding? The morel is a far better mushroom than the crimini.

[Jeff]

She actually hit the nail on the head - circumcision's justification applies to older people who are sexually active. If you're pitching it as a way to reduce STD rates, then be honest about it and offer it as an (ineffective) alternative to condoms. It makes no sense to perform surgery on a group of people who run no risk of contracting the diseases you speak of.

[DJ Drugs]

For whatever it's worth, I think being uncircumcised contributes to condom breakage.

[Joseph4GI]

And your proof for this is... ?

[Jeff]

What's my proof that new born infants don't routinely have unprotected sex with people who are infected with HIV/AIDS? Ya got me. I can't cite a single study.....

[DJ Drugs]

My proof? My own experiences. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Make of it what you will.

[Steff]

I'd say it's a perfectly good point. Why do it to a baby when it can be held off until, oh, I dunno, age of consent?

[cynical]

May as well, since people always wait until after the age of consent to start having sex.

Besides, what responsible person would refuse to let a doctor take a whack at their johnson if they saw clear evidence that it reduced the risk of STDs? I mean, it's safety versus sensation -- surely the consistent rate of condom usage tells us that young people almost always err on the side of safety.

[Steff]

What sane person trusts studies of AIDS in Africa to advocate for a unnecessary, cosmetic procedure?

[Sy]

HAAAAHAHAHA.... sorry..

[Coeus]

Keep in mind, many of the studies are done in Africa, where they often fetishize dry sex (to the point of putting desiccants in the vagina). That most definitely has something to do with the foreskin tearing and spreading blood-based pathogens.

[ClubMedSux]

Ew.

[Cyto]

Reading about the whole dry sex thing confused the hell out of me. It is right down there with "furries" for being incomprehensible, only with a sick, sadistic twist.

[Paul]

He lost me after "Keep in mind"

[Coeus]

Not surprising. It's kinda like telling a paraplegic to "stand tall".

[Paul]

It's funny, my sister's a parapalegic and she can stand tall... aks me how she does it?

Your knowledge of all things medical just another hit.

[Coeus]

It's funny, my sister's a parapalegic and she can stand tall

You're right, that is funny.

[Ragin Cajun]

"Do not eat", indeed.

[Paul]

Win.

[african]

What you call "desiccant", we can dust and sand.

[african]

^can^call

[Joseph4GI]

There is a problem with "studies" that fail to correlate with reality.

In the following countries, HIV was more prevalent among the CIRCUMCISED:

Cameroon (4.1% v 1.1%)
Ghana (1.6% v 1.4%)
Lesotho (22.8% v 15.2%)
Malawi (13.2% v 9.5%)
Rwanda (3.5% v 2.1%)
Swaziland (21.8% v 19.5%)

Source: http://www.measuredhs.com

Additionally, According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims (where all men are circumcised). In Malaysia, most, if not all Muslim men are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.
http://www.mmail.com.my/conten.....ys-council

But you won't hear the WHO, UNAids or UNICEF talk about these.

And never mind the case here in the US, where over 80% of the male population is circumcised, yet we have THE HIGHEST HIV transmission rate in the industrialized world.

WHY IS that?

And how would circumcision as HIV prevention relevant in newborns who do not engage in risky sex?

[Joseph4GI]

There is a problem with "studies" that fail to correlate with reality.

In the following countries, HIV was more prevalent among the CIRCUMCISED:

Cameroon (4.1% v 1.1%)
Ghana (1.6% v 1.4%)
Lesotho (22.8% v 15.2%)
Malawi (13.2% v 9.5%)
Rwanda (3.5% v 2.1%)
Swaziland (21.8% v 19.5%)

Source: measuredhs dot com

Additionally, According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims (where all men are circumcised). In Malaysia, most, if not all Muslim men are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.

But you won't hear the WHO, UNAids or UNICEF talk about these.

And never mind the case here in the US, where over 80% of the male population is circumcised, yet we have THE HIGHEST HIV transmission rate in the industrialized world.

WHY IS that?

And how would circumcision as HIV prevention relevant in newborns who do not engage in risky sex?

[Ken Shultz]

I thought the City of San Francisco banning all travel to Arizona to protest Arizona's immigration law was ridiculous, but this is, once again, further evidence that the most partisan among us strive to become the caricatures their opponents make them out to be.

This is the other side of the coin. This is just like fundamentalists in the South putting up a nativity scene or burning Qur'an. It isn't meant to really do anything except provoke a ridiculous reaction in the intended audience.

It's the partisan equivalent of sticking their tongues out at Middle America and the Tea Party. ...who are increasingly seen as obese.

All kidding aside, you got some seriously fat people out there in the Midwest. I've never seen so many fat people in my life. I guess they think that's normal, but comin' from SoCal? Goin' to the Midwest is like goin' to Samoa.

[Ken Shultz]

I end up getting dragged to Disneyland with somebody's kids every couple of years, and that's probably not a good sample of Middle America... ...but I shudder to think what most other countries must think of us if they only have our tourists to go by.

Going by the Disneyland survey, you'd think Japan is full of smokin' hot chicks wearing really short skirts. ...and that Middle America's weighing in at an average of 300 lbs. I'm sure there are plenty of fat people in California. Maybe they just don't ever leave the house?

[Dr. Lecter]

I mean, seriously, for those of you in the Midwest?

Fat and uncircumcised is no way to go through life.

[Buffalo Bill]

I beg to differ...at least on the "fat" part.

[Ken Shultz]

But you gotta admit, that's probably not two things toward the top of the average woman's shopping list.

[asshole]

"I end up getting dragged to Disneyland with somebody's kids every couple of years"

Business or pleasure?

[Azathoth]

Midwesterners generally go to Disneyworld. Those orcas that're wandering Disnyland are from your side of the Rockies.

[J sub D]

Guys who obsess about their "stolen" foreskins are just pathetic.

Sire a son. Don't get him circumcised. Just stop fucking whining.

[Ken Shultz]

But nobody asked me!

They just...*sniffle*...took it.

*sobs*

[Circumcised Male]

I demand my foreskin back!

[Ragin Cajun]

Too late; it's a Senator now.

[Cyto]

There's a whole movement out there for that. They use stretching tools to "regrow" a foreskin. No shit...

Mainstream enough that TV/Radio doctor Dean Edell champions it. Grab a couple of clamps and weights and have at it!

[Grandpa Whithers]

"They use stretching tools to "regrow" a foreskin. No shit."

That's just a ruse. It's not the foreskin they're really needing to stretsh.

[Dr. Lecter]

"I demand my foreskin back!"

With a nice Chianti!

[Warren]

Way to share Ken.

[Ken Shultz]

Hey Warren!

[Warty]

Isn't whining one of the main characteristics of being an American? Quit whining about it.

[Almanian's Missing Foreskin]

EEEY TTTUKKK RRRRRR FOREEESKINNZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!11!11`xdlkkndf@#T^%^q

[Brian Sorgatz]

Quit whining about my whining, you hypocrite.

[Warty]

Every person who's not a primitive screwhead agrees that female circumcision is abhorrent in all its forms, right? Even a type 1a FGM, in which only the clitoral hood is removed, doesn't have any defenders. The clitoral hood, of course, is basically the same structure as the foreskin. So please tell me why cutting off the mucous membrane that protects the clitoris is horrible, but cutting off the membrane that protects the glans is just fine.

[Title IX]

for genitalia!

[Pip]

Look up, Bucko:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11.....nt_2000438

[Warty]

All you have to do to not catch the high-five is wear condoms when you buttfuck the homeless men. Got any less bullshit reasons?

[Tulpa]

The fact that the Jewish ethnicity has propagated for 3000+ years would indicate that the glans doesn't really need protection.

[Warty]

What? You don't really need your fingernails. Come over to my house and let me fix that for you.

[Biter]

Actually, I've been mutilating my own fingernails since about age five.

[Tulpa]

The process of removing fingernails is much more painful and likely to lead to infection than circumcision.

Besides, I don't support forcing adults to be circumcised.

[Steff]

Besides, I don't support forcing adults to be circumcised.

Nope, we're gonna save that for the babies who can't possibly fight back to defend themselves.

You're such a prince!

[Nosepicker]

What do you mean, "You don't really need your fingernails?"

[Joseph4GI]

There is no actual proof that Jews circumcised that far back.

You do know, Tulpa, that the circumcision "covenant" is absent in many earlier texts of the Torah, right?

You do know that circumcision as we know it today exists as early as the 6th century, right?

It's true; rabbis disdained that Jewish men were restoring their foreskins to look more like their Greek counterparts added a procedure called "peri 'ah" to circumcision, whereby the rabbi rends every last bit of foreskin with his sharpened fingernails in order to prevent restoration.

This full foreskin removal is what has become the basis for circumcision in America today.

This is a direct example of how "traditions" get added. So tell me how you know for a fact that Jews circumcised for all 3,000 years, and it isn't just a case of 1984 and the memory hole?

[Ken Shultz]

To me, I think it comes down to an aesthetic issue.

I don't know if females generally have any aesthetic preference--and I don't think I'd trust any survey or study that said they'd found the answer--either way.

I think of it as sort of like when you're going to a job interview. If I don't know anybody there and can't get a hint as to the dress code before I go? I always go formal--suit and tie. 'cause if the person interviewing me expected me to be casual and I show up formal? They're probably not gonna hold it against me. But if the person interviewing me expected me to come formal and I show up casual? Then they're almost definitely gonna hold it against me.

So, applying that principle to a future son, who I plan to name Evel Knievel Shultz, I don't know who he's gonna end up with or what the aesthetic expectations of high school and college chicks are gonna be 20 years from now--but if he's circumcised, no chicks are gonna hold it against him. If he isn't...?

I don't know.

[ItIsReallyMe]

Actually, that was the criteria I used. I polled all the women in my life and it was unanimous. Foreskins are gross - get it cut.

You'd probably get a different result in a country where circumcision is rare, but he's growing up in the US. So he gets US standard issue penis. I hope he's OK with that, but in my defense there were zero votes in favor from the ladies, and several "I wouldn't touch it" real life anecdotes from the ladies (many of whom are... uhm, worldly).

[dfd]

That was my experience whenever the subject came up back in HS or college as well. The girls were essentially unanimous in there dislike of uncircumcised members. Some to the point of claiming they could never date a guy who wasn't cut and at least one telling of her shock at seeing one the first time and how it "freaked her out" and completely ruined the mood.

As a young impressionable male that's all I needed to hear to be most grateful to my parents for making the decision to get me snipped (though I'm equally as grateful that I can't remember it).

[Joseph4GI]

Most guys like a rack of at least a C. So then should it be acceptable for parents to give their daughters boob-jobs to get a better chance of becoming the head-chearleader in High School?

Oh, and what about that little thing called "medical necessity." Isn't that important anymore?

[Hobo Chang Ba]

If it was considered "normal" to be castrated as a child, wouldn't most chicks think being hung is gross?

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, well obviously no one's advocating castration here.

Does the term "begging the question" mean anything to you?

Or maybe some basic anatomy would help? You can look it up, or you can trust me--when they "castrate" bulls? It ain't the foreskin they're aimin' for.

[capitol l]

Yer right, never beg a question, they'll never let you forget it.

Ken, what compels someone to make a comment in the middle of a 500 comment thread in response to a comment 3 hrs old?

[Ken Shultz]

Oh, that's nothing...

I'll be responding to people at the top of the thread tomorrow!

You don't know me. I do what I want.

[Joseph4GI]

Would you cut off your daughter's labia if you heard all kinds of guys saying "ew, long labia is like chewed up bubblegum!" ?

[Ken Shultz]

Blabia, Blabia, Blabia!

Nobody's talkin' about labia!

[Joseph4GI]

What if you lived in Africa because you were deployed or whatever? Would you circumcise your daughter so that she has the "standard African vagina?" Really now.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't live in Africa, and I'd be mad as hell if I got deployed with my daughter to Africa.

...but the answer is "no."

...and it isn't because I don't want her marrying an African.

[Dan]

Who says it's chicks that are going to be having the expectations here? Or have you decided that for him as well?

PS Women think foreskins are gross? Have they looked between their legs lately?

[Ken Shultz]

I'm not saying that's the way it should be; I'm saying if that's the way it is? Then here's what I think.

A lot of times in life--especially in business--we need to make decisions in the face of uncertainty.

A lot o' times, that means trying to look into the future. If I stop making those decisions based on their limited downside--no matter what the future holds--and instead, I start making decisions based on how I think things should be?

Then I'm goin' out of business.

Life isn't as it should be. People miss out on all sorts of opportunities for really stupid reasons--and they never even know it!

I've studied women all my life. I know a few things about 'em, but even a lot of them can't explain on an individual basis why they like and end up with one joker over another. ...at least not in terms that make sense to me.

So, like I said, if Option A has limited downside in +20 years and Option B may have limited upside?

That should be a no-brainer for middle management!

[Ken Shultz]

Are you feelin' me here?

If I'm making decisions in life based on the assumption that in the future? Things are gonna be the way they should be?

I'm in trouble.

[Joseph4GI]

Ken, you are aware that the rate of circumcision in this country has fallen drastically, right? You are also aware that not all girls have a preference one way or another right?

So some girls might hold it against him if he's not circumcised. Others will hold it against it if he is.

But really. Is "what will she think" really a legitimate reason to circumcise a boy? Would you really want your son to go out with and be pussy-whopped by a girl who places all on what his dick looks like?

And really. How is "aesthetic" any kind of "medical necessity?"

Let's take a look at the bottom line:

Before doctors can perform any kind of surgery, there needs to be actual medical necessity. In most other cases, if there is no medical necessity, it constitutes something called "medical fraud."

So the question is, how can doctors even be performing circumcisions in healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone give you or any other parent any kind of "choice" in the matter?

If your son had a deformity and he truly was "different" than the rest, then I could talk with you. But the foreskin isn't a deformity, it's what's normal. Actually, circumcision rates are falling in the US. Something like 33% according to the CDC. And you DO know that the rest of the world isn't circumcised, right? Something like 75 to 80%?

So what other surgeries can parents ask a doctor to perform, and he's obliged to perform them merely on your opinion of what "aesthetic" is? What if you lost a nut and you wanted your son to "look like you?" Could you then demand a doctor remove your son's "nut too," because you lost yours in a football accident and you think it's "sexy?" Really?

[Ken Shultz]

My parents made all kinds of decisions that affected me and my life.

Some of 'em they made better than others.

This is one they were right about!

I ain't got no tortoise comin' out of his shell--I got an angry dragon roaring out of his cave!

...and women love it.

ROOOOOoaoaaarrr!

[Trespassers W]

I don't miss my foreskin. I think It's more aesthetic without it. And I'm not mad that my parents had me circumcised.

Still, I think Warty has it 100% right.

Besides, actually DECIDING to do it when you turn 18 is totally metal.

[Ken Shultz]

"Besides, actually DECIDING to do it when you turn 18 is totally metal."

Right on.

"...and while you're at it, gimme the Prince Albert."

[Trespassers W]

Funny, I was just thinking the converse: "why don't they give babies Prince Alberts as well?"

[Ken Shultz]

You sick bastard!

; )

[Tulpa]

The process is a lot more painful, and the recovery period longer, for adults.

[Ken Shultz]

Totally metal.

[Warty]

Once again, the concept of consent eludes you. And that's not metal.

Silence is Consent

[Tulpa]

Sir Thomas More's foreskin is rolling over in his grave.

[Joe Zilch]

If genital mutilation is wrong for girls in Africa, it's wrong for boys in America.

Or does that make me a racist sexist something or other? I get so confused on these pesky social issues.

[Tulpa]

Foreskin removal is much closer to ear piercing than so-called "female circumcision" on the mutilation severity spectrum.

[Warty]

Bullshit, you scolding prick. Look up the classification scale for FGM.

[Lisa]

The classification scale for FGM includes total removal of the external genitalia. Whereas when people talk about male circumcision in the US, they aren't talking about a range of procedures. Just like when people talk about ear piercing in the US they're not talking about a range that includes ear removal surgery.

[Warty]

What? My point is that the least-shitty FGM is about the same as male circumcision. Is the least-shitty FGM ok, then?

[Tulpa]

That question requires further study.

It's a red herring, in any case. The type that triggers all the outrage is the higher level FGM.

[Coeus]

The type that triggers all the outrage is the higher level FGM.

No it isn't. Removal of the hood is the most common method. That is absolutely what they're all bitching about. They even pitched a bitch about the "pinprick" procedure that was being used to satisfy the more progressive of the religious twits.

[Old Man With Candy]

We Jews have found the secret- circumcision is much like pruning roses. After cutting, they grow back bigger. Ask Milton Berle.

[nicole]

So can you explain why it should be okay for parents to cut holes in their children's ears without their consent? Those holes won't close up if the kid wears earrings through childhood, leaving them irreparably scarred. Why is that so cool?

[pls]

Sounds like if the kid wears earrings through childhood she's cool with it.

Why do you think it is cool to make decisions for my daughter?

[Tulpa]

Er, if anything, it's usually the parents who are resisting the "mutilation" idea, not the other way around.

[Coeus]

Er, if anything, it's usually the parents who are resisting the "mutilation" idea, not the other way around.

I see babies getting their ears pierced at the mall all the time. It's definitely a legitimate compliant. I'd have no problem with adding ear piercing to this proposed law.

[Michael S. Langston]

I was just saying that the other day... if there's one thing we really, really, really need is more laws.

After all, the more laws we have, the more criminals.

[Coeus]

Laws against mutilating babies really don't draw my libertarian ire. But to each his own, I guess. So, Captain Liberty, you mind telling me how legally allowing someone to permanently alter you from your standard form while you're helpless is a libertarian proposition?

[Michael S. Langston]

Just because you redefine a safe procedure which literally hundreds of millions of males have gone through without adverse side effects as "mutilation" doesn't mean that I agree with your definition.

& before you tell me how many women had their clits removed before some called it mutilation, notice I wrote "safe and without adverse effects".

[Coeus]

I'm not going into the mutilation thing again. Ctrl-f mutilation if you want to see the reasons. You didn't answer my question and it doesn't even have the word mutilation in it. I guess reading comprehension isn't Capitan Liberty's superpower. I repeat:

How about you tell me how legally allowing someone to permanently alter you from your standard form while you're helpless is a libertarian proposition?

[Joseph4GI]

So if there were a way to perform a female circumcision, "safe and without adverse effects" it would be acceptable, Mr. Langston?

Nevermind the principle of taking a non-consenting individual, holding her down and forcefully doing it to her?

Really?

[Joseph4GI]

Actually, foreskin removal is very much like labia and/or clitoral hood removal.

But talking about how much more "severe" one mutilation is over the other is a red herring.

It only goes to show you how far the "parental prerogative" argument can go.

Incidentally, did you know that this year the AAP advocated for a "ritual nick" that didn't remove anything? That the AAP admitted that male circumcision would be "worse?"

When something is genital mutilation, when something is a violation of basic human rights, is it really that relevant how much more "severe" one is than the other?

Cutting off the pinky should be acceptable because cutting off the hand is worse.

Is that how it works?

[Tulpa]

You can take my foreskin...FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!1!!!1!!!

[Hazel Meade]

Thread winner.

[Franz Boas]

Do you want to live in a world of back alley female circumcisions?

[Eeeeek!]

[Pro Libertate]

My only problem with being circumcised is that if I ever time travel back to Nazi Germany, they may mistakenly believe I'm Jewish and kill me.

[Episiarch]

Why would the Nazis be looking at your schlong? Wait, it's all clear now: you're a flasher! I knew it! This explains all the raincoats!

[Pro Libertate]

Well, I'd like to think that the Nazis wouldn't look, but since they were obsessive about this stuff and wanted to get rid of people with even the slightest hint of Jewishness, I figured they'd have Gestapo agents in bathrooms and stuff.

I'd probably be okay--I'm almost entirely northern European in appearance. But I don't want to get tortured to death, locked in a concentration camp, or otherwise messed with. I just want to time travel, baby!

[J sub D]

Why would the Nazis be looking at your schlong? Wait, it's all clear now: you're a flasher! I knew it! This explains all the raincoats!

I went back to Nazi Germany with a load of TSA full body scanners. They'd nab him at the airport for certain.

[Pro Libertate]

Now you've ruined my plans to abduct Hitler and take him bowling!

[Aresen]

Hitler had only one ball.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't know if that's ever been proven.

I do know that his cousin killed herself--'cause she just couldn't stand his amorous advances anymore.

I wonder if he was circumcised?

That might explain a lot.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Yay - sort of a Camper Van Beethoven reference.

[ClubMedSux]

Hey dumb-ass... Just travel back in time to prevent your circumcision, THEN travel further back in time to Nazi Germany. Problem solved.

[Pro Libertate]

Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's just hope I don't give myself a cold or something or accidentally make my parents sick. You're totally ignorant about the dangers of time travel, aren't you?

[ClubMedSux]

I rented Back to the Future once and I will watch it.

[Pro Libertate]

That's fine, but if you want to learn the real dos and don'ts of time travel, watch Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Little known fact--it's nonfiction.

[ClubMedSux]

Good call. And by pure coincidence I happen to already own it on DVD (no joke).

[Pro Libertate]

You are dealing with the oddity of time travel with the greatest of ease.

[Ragin Cajun]

Well, I am built that way.

[Jimmy Olsteyn]

No! My parents had advanced views on hygiene!

[Aresen]

100 posts in under an hour.

Kinda shows how to get attention on H&R.

[Enrique]

For me, it's self-evident that circumcision is child abuse, period. I don't care what backward religion you belong to that says it's okay - I simply can't understand how any rational adult could defend the practice of infant circumcision.

Despite our typical skepticism of government overreach, it shouldn't be controversial for a government to ban a violent acts against children. To the extent that people defend circumcision - like Moynihan's reference to some studies about HIV transmission - look, it just doesn't make sense to me.

If you don't watch to catch HIV from a sex partner, it would be easier (although less pleasing) just to wear a rubber. Or to be discriminating about who you sleep with. Or if you're really that worried about it, you can get a circumcision as an adult. Forcing it on an infant is monstrous.

I thought mothers were supposed to protect their children from stuff like this?

[Steff]

Some of us did. You'd be surprised how many times I had to tell doctors 'NO!' when they asked if they could scalpel my son's perfectly formed, intact member.

Nevermind the husband, who had all those stupid fears about him not looking like everyone else...

I won. I'm still smirking about it.

[Warty]

You're more of a man than your husband. I hope you cheat on him.

[Steff]

He's a good man. He just has stupid misconceptions about some things.

[Michael S. Langston]

It's never good to respond to a troll, but... child abuse?

You realize hundreds of millions of males have gone through this procedure with no ill effects at all.

As a matter of fact, they didn't even talk about the possibility of having ill effects until our society became wealthy enough to allow very insecure, whiny, sorry excuses for males time to find yet another reason to hate their parents.

But it's child abuse?

Wow

[Hobo Chang Ba]

I wouldn't call it "child abuse" because 95% of parents who have the procedure done think it is just a little bit of soreness that would only be worse when they got older and will keep their kids from getting AIDS. Not realizing they just sent their newborn into a state of shock from the pain for next to no reason other than social conditioning according to all the credible medical societies...

[Joseph4GI]

Michael, hundreds of millions of blacks were slave in this country.

Strengths in numbers, Mr. Langston? Really?

The fact that an abusive practice is wide-spread does not render the practive not abusive.

Foot-binding was practiced on a wide scale, for example. Female circumcision is quite common in the countries where it's practiced.

Yes, child abuse.

[Seamus]

So is it child abuse to stick pre-pubescent girls with needles to administer the HPV vaccine? After all, if they don't want to catch HPV from a sex partner, they can always try abstinence.

[mj86]

I don't know how you can call it unkind. My wife assures me she'd never go down on anything with a foreskin. I think that's a trade worth taking.

Of course, she's talented, so the benefit side of this analysis isn't uniform.

[Your Neighbor]

she's talented

You're tellin' me!!

[Mail Man]

Wait, what???

[Pro Libertate]

Is she the chick from Cheap Trick's "She's Tight" song?

[Vesman]

"Circumcision was promoted by British and American physicians in the 19th century as a means to prevent masturbation. It is more difficult for circumcised men to masturbate as their penile skin does not have the normal mobility. The tightness of the skin can even cause pain during masturbation. Circumcision also may make sex and masturbation less pleasurable due to allowing the glans of the penis to be desensitized by friction from clothing"

[Circumcised Male]

I can honestly say I've never had trouble masturbating.

[DJ Drugs]

Do you have to use some kind of lubricant?

As a child, I never understood the import of the dispenser of lotion next to the guy's bed in movies.

[wayne]

I assume you took her objections into consideration, and promptly got circumcised to make yourself acceptable to her? It is not what I would have done, but I respect your decision to cut off part of your dick to make it pretty.

[?]

The fact that the Jewish ethnicity has propagated for 3000+ years would indicate that the glans doesn't really need protection.

The Nazi outreach effort is definitely attracting a higher class of commentary.

[Warty]

Tulpa's not a Nazi. He's just a scold, which is much worse.

[Tulpa]

You know who else thought scolds were worse than Nazis...

[waffles]

the jews! oh wait, that can't be right

[CraftD]

If a safe way could be developed, would they permit in utero circumcision? It's not a baby to them at that point so you can do anything you want to it, right?

[Masturbatin' Pete]

+100

[dfd]

Ever wonder what they do with all those foreskins after circumcision?

Well, yeah, me neither. But anyway, it turns out they're worth quite a bit to cosmetics companies who, according to this, will pay "thousands of dollars for a single foreskin."

As a circumcised male, I have to wonder... where's my cut?

[ClubMedSux]

Where's your cut? Right where your foreskin used to be.

[Dan]

Screw cosmetic companies -- foreskins make a tasty snack as well:

http://www.hulahoops.com/

[Grandpa Whithers]

Mmmm, mmm good,
Mmmm, mmm good,
That's why Campbell's soups are,
Mmmm, mmm good!

[ClubMedSux]

I'm withholding judgment until I hear what Glenn Beck thinks about what George Soros thinks about circumcision.

[dfd]

When is The Obama going to address this issue?

[Pro Libertate]

Say, if he's circumcised, that means HE IS A SECRET MUSLIM! [runs screaming into the streets]

[Aresen]

*Imagines birthers demanding to see the "long form**

[Pro Libertate]

For the first time in American history, the public will demand that the president drop his pants. Another first for the Obama administration!

[Barack Obama]

Let me be clear - I understand that there are those who want to see my "Little Kenyan Chicago Foot Long".

Be that as it may, we've got serious work to do to get the economy back to where I want it to be. But we cannot, as a matter of principle, start droppin' our draws every time someone suckin' on a Slurpee? says we should.

They were the ones that put the foreskin in the trash - and we're gonna give them back the scalpel? When you leave the hospital, they write down "D" for "Discharge" - "R" means "Re-admitted"! The failed policies of the last 10 years other party will not put that foreskin back on.

Next question....

[Dr. Lecter]

"Next question..."

As a parent, I think I should be the one to choose whether my baby gets that thing cut off the end of his dingy, isn't that what being an American is all about?

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Funny!

[Woodrow]

Where are all the "liberaltarians" that were sooo committed to the cause?

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Uh, look at about half the comments on this page, dude.

[wayne]

It is already a crime (felony, I believe) to circumcise a minor female. The world does not seem to have ended as a result of that.

What is wrong with letting a young man make the C decision for himself?

[Aresen]

I agree with your point. However, as a circumcised male, I can definitely say that being circumcised did not interfere with my enjoyment of sex. OTOH, female "circumcision" - more accurately, excision of the clitoris - seems more aimed at depriving females of sexual pleasure - which would be more like castration of a male. So there is a substatial difference between the two.

Both practices are silly religious practices, although the female version is far more damaging.

[Vesman]

male genital mutilation was intended to prevent males from masterbating.

that sounds like depriving males of sexual pleasure to me

[Aresen]

If that is so, it failed fairly early in my case.

[Vesman]

"Circumcision was promoted by British and American physicians in the 19th century as a means to prevent masturbation. It is more difficult for circumcised men to masturbate as their penile skin does not have the normal mobility. The tightness of the skin can even cause pain during masturbation. Circumcision also may make sex and masturbation less pleasurable due to allowing the glans of the penis to be desensitized by friction from clothing"

[Fiscal Meth]

And yet I masturbate constantly.

[Circumcised Male]

You're masturbating right now, aren't you?

[Fiscal Meth]

Well of course, if your gonna talk dirty like that.

[Context, genius]

You won't find a doctor in SF who advocates for circumcision because of masturbation. Yet, they still advocate it. I wonder why.

[Your Neighbor]

male genital mutilation was intended to prevent males from masterbating

If you're counting circumcision as "mutilation", um, well....didn't work.

[Kristen]

Well of course it prevented them from masterbating - nobody on earth has yet mastered the art of masterbation. So much so that it's not even a word!

[Jeff]

"OTOH, female "circumcision" - more accurately, excision of the clitoris - seems more aimed at depriving females of sexual pleasure - which would be more like castration of a male. "

You're intentionally defining female circumcision in a misleading way. Under federal law, female circumcision could be as minimally invasive as snipping the clitoral hood. Because the clitoral hood is the functional equivalent to the foreskin, and because snipping is less invasive than chopping 100% of it off, there is no sense in your comparison.

[Joseph4GI]

And Jeff, wouldn't you agree that the fact that we're talking about how "severe" one mutilation is than the other, only goes to show you how worthless the "parental prerogative" argument is?

[Jeff]

Yeah, I'm supporting a ban on circumcision until at least the child is a "mature minor."

[Joseph4GI]

Aresen, can you truly compare sex before and after circumcision?

And did you know that contrary to popular belief, that even women who have undergone the worst kind of FGM, called "infibulation," can and do experience orgasm? You can google the study.

No. Cutting off the clitoris is NOT anything close to "castrating." Not only do infibulated girls feel pleasure, but they're able to reproduce.

"Castration" specifically refers to removing the gonads responsible for the creation of gametes responsible for procreation. "Castration" which is the removal of the testes, is equivalent to the removal of the ovaries.

People against circumcision are often accused of "blowing things out of proportion." I'm afraid that is true of circumcision advocates as well.

[Vesman]

Why should we not ban male genital mutilation?

Last I heard female genital mutilation is condemned by most, why is it different for males?

[Brandybuck]

There is a world of difference. First is the religious aspect, as female circumcision is not performed for religious reason. No really! It's not in the Koran.

Second, the purpose of female circumcision is to explicitly reduce sexual pleasure. This is not the purpose of male circumcision, and there is no evidence that it does.

Finally, and most important: male circumcision only removed the foreskin, female circumcision removes the entire clitoris. There is no equivalent to removing a bit of skin and removing an entire sexual organ.

[Coeus]

If you would read some of the other comments, you'd realize that everything you've said there has already been addressed and refuted (except for the Koran thing, but Jews aren't the only ones circumcised).

[snortimer]

If by 'addressed' you mean Vesman has cherry-picked Wikipedia quotes and taken them out of context, then I agree!

[Coeus]

Actually, all of the points were addressed by people other than Vesman. He was late to the party (but he's still right). I repeat:

Read some of the other comments.

[Jeff]

"There is a world of difference. First is the religious aspect, as female circumcision is not performed for religious reason. No really! It's not in the Koran."

Of course, because only Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the religions that are recognized in America. You're ignoring a slew of tribal religions that DO mandate female circumcision. There is a reason the practice is so hard to stomp out in Africa, and it isn't just because they like the cosmetic effect.

"Second, the purpose of female circumcision is to explicitly reduce sexual pleasure. This is not the purpose of male circumcision, and there is no evidence that it does."

Not true - many times the female circumcision practice is a mark of womanhood. It's a right of passage that is unrelated to sexual activity.

"Finally, and most important: male circumcision only removed the foreskin, female circumcision removes the entire clitoris. There is no equivalent to removing a bit of skin and removing an entire sexual organ."

Also untrue. As defined under federal law, female circumcision could be as minimally invasive as clipping the clitoral hood - read: no skin removed at all.

[Michael S. Langston]

"As defined by law" does not equal "as practiced".

If that's considered "proof" or "refutation" it's lacking.

[Jeff]

Female circumcision isn't practice with clitoral clipping percisely because it's barred by law. There is no normative female circumcision, as practices vary tremendously from area to area, from tribe to tribe, from economic group to economic group. The same could be said for male circumcision. American circumcisions are performed by non-doctor religious figures or by medical professionals in a hospital. In other places, the man or boy is expected to perform the circumcision himself and, due to lack of sanitary practices, oftentimes catches diseases in the practice. Your call for a demonstrated use of clitoral clipping in the United States and inability to understand that there isn't a de facto use of FGM really just shows that you're desperate to preserve circumcision as a practice regardless of fact or inequality of treatment.

[Michael S. Langston]

Please note - your inability to understand what I write, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

So I'll try to write more clearly....

In normal society, words have not only dictionary meanings, but also societal connotations. For instance, retarded means one thing in the medical community, another in elementary school.

Female circumcision is one of those terms. That is, when people use the term, female circumcision, they do not mean "as defined by law", they mean the female mutilation which everyone understands.

So again... "as defined by law" does not equal "as practiced." Or to better help you, it also doesn't mean "as commonly thought of."

& lastly, do you honestly think millions would adopt female circumcision if it wasn't illegal?

Or did you you need that law just to stop you?

[Jeff]

My point was that not "everyone understands" FGM to consist of a certain, fixed set of practices. You say "everyone" understand FGM to be a hugely invasive procedure that involves the removal of the clitoris without providing any evidence. I would advise you to google "clitoral unhooding" to see how wrong you are. In that procedure, the hood alone is removed. It's the functional equivalent of a male circumcision. That being said, it would be illegal to do to an infant girl. Until you can justify barring procedures that are as invasive or less invasive for infant girls while defending male circumcision, your arguments will make no sense.

[Joseph4GI]

The fact that the conversation is veering over to how much "different" mutilation is in one sex than the other only goes to show you that "parental choice" doesn't always work, doesn't it.

Become informed, the whole reason circumcision exists in the US is because it began as a method to explicitly reduce sexual pleasure and stop boys and men from masturbating. You don't need "evidence," that is history, my friend.

And yes, there IS an equivalent of removing a bit of skin.

Did you know that the AAP was proposing the US ratify a "ritual nick" for girls in this country? It was recommended for about a month this May, and it got pulled.

Oh no! The state is telling parents of daughters how to live their lives!

[Fist of Etiquette]

"Damn it, Bones, you're a doctor. You know that foreskin and sensation shouldn't be taken away with a wave of a mohel's wand. They're the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my foreskin taken away! I need my foreskin!"

Once again proving that, as with all things, this topic can best be summed up by tweaking a quote from Star Trek V. (My only regret is that I didn't change Bones to boner.)

[Fiscal Meth]

There shouldn't be a law against the chop

AND

Parents shouldn't chop at their kids genitals.

BOTH/NEITHER

Don't wait for a law to tell you not to origami your kids junk because Abraham said so or because you think it's pretty. Just Stop!!

[Jesse Jackson]

To get the chick
You gotta pretty up
Your prick

You wanna get laid good
You gotta cut off that hood

Cut off the skin
to get your balls on her chin

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!!

[Joseph4GI]

To Me
By C J Lewis

Some people liken the circumcised penis
To beautiful art, like the statue of Venus.
Reducing their subjects to art in a palace,
They care not that men rue the rape of their phallus.
But To me, such a penis just looks very sad,
regretfully mourning the sheath it once had;
Crushed in a clamp and sliced off at birth,
or soon after waiting 8 days in a bris;
Fixed in a state of perpetual despair,
with its tender and vulnerable glans
forever exposed to the air.

Don't fool yourself, Jesse. Scared up is not natural; it's Frankenstein. And your girls that "prefer it" are clueless.

[mick]

The antisemites never cared if there was a health benefit or if the glans are intact. The important thing is to nail the Erwige Jude.

[Six]

My son was considered to be at higher than normal risk for UTI's when he was born. Our doctor suggested that having him circumcised reduces the risk for UTI's by a small amount in boys and thus it was her reccomendation to have him circumcised. Given all of the factors, we CHOSE to have him circumcised.

So would you consider our choice have him circumcised, 'mutilation'? Is it different because his doctor suggested there would be a small health benefit? We didn't have to do it - it did reduce the risk according to his doctor, but it was (according to her) taking his risk from about 8% to perhaps 5% given his health factors at birth (thankfully he never did get a UTI - perhaps it was because we had him circumcised?).

And what about birth marks? My cousin's daughter was born with a large, but completely benign, birthmark on her face. The procedure to have it removed took several trips to the doctor over the first 18 months of her life. Having it removed was purely for cosmetic reasons, and the procedure involved quite a bit of pain. It was decided for multiple reasons - one of them being that it would be a much less disruptive to her life and she would not remember the experience if it was done while she was still very, very young. Were they wrong to have her birthmark removed from her face? Isn't that 'mutilation' as well as that painful procedure that altered the way she looked permanently was done purely for cosmetic reasons?

As parents, we (not the child) CHOOSE whether or not our children recieve all of thier vaccinations, how short/long to cut thier hair and what clothes they are to wear. We even get to choose what schools they go to, where they live, how much access he has to a computer, tv, which sports they play, what they eat, how much time he is allowed to spend with his friends as well as which friends he may spend it with. All of which - and much more - directly affects how our children will be affected in many ways (and have a far greater impact on our sons than whether or not they are circumcised). Is your solution to pass a law for each of those things dictating every aspect of a childs life?

[Six]

Derr - that was a response to Vesman's comments above.

[Vesman]

Six.

so all I need is to find a doctor who will say my daughters risk of UTI will drop from 8% to 5% if i get her circumcised. Is that perfectly fine by your standards?

Can I give my 13 year old daughter brest implants? It would be done for purely cosmetic reasons. perhaps shes a late bloomer and has terrible self esteem issues because of it and she begs her parents for brest implants.

and as for CHOOSING with our kids, how much choice do we really have?

We have so many laws and so many watchdogs and so many people looking out to protect the children, that I don't believe we have as much choice as we believe we do.

[Coeus]

Not to mention, a face birthmark isn't exactly standard issued equipment.

[wayne]

So, do you think you should be allowed to choose to have your daughter circumcised?

[Steff]

One: You're the idiot who chose to believe that a doctor can actually predict that kind of thing without any sort of, oh, I dunno, time put in.

Two: You're the idiot who seems to think that having your infant son strapped to a board, without anesthesia, in order to have perfectly healthy tissue crushed and then cut off is all right.

Three: You're the idiot who can't seem to understand the right of self-determination and bodily integrity.

Finally: You're just an idiot.

Thank you.

[Michael S. Langston]

Statistical analysis proves chances in a statistical way.

Idiot.

[Joseph4GI]

Statistics prove, prove that whether a boy has been circumcised or not, girls have 4x more UTIs.

UTIs are easily treatable in girls using conventional medicine. This is a no-brainer in boys.

It really is absurd to suggest surgery to "reduce the risk" of a condition that is already rare to begin with, and which is already easily treatable.

Kind of like cutting off the toes to prevent fungus.

[Joseph4GI]

Statistics prove, prove that whether a boy has been circumcised or not, girls have 4x more UTIs.

UTIs are easily treatable in girls using conventional medicine. This is a no-brainer in boys.

It really is absurd to suggest surgery to "reduce the risk" of a condition that is already rare to begin with, and which is already easily treatable.

Kind of like cutting off the toes to prevent fungus.

Unless there was an actual medical indication, then yes, you chose to have your sons mutilated.

Yes, what about birthmarks? I find it interesting, the desparate attempt to compare the presence of the foreskin, something that all boys have at birth, to a genetic anomaly like a birthmark.

And you make another interesting comparison; how is circumcision like a vaccine? A vaccine works by creating antibodies in the immune system, thereby enabling it to combat disease. So how is cutting off ANY part of your son's body anything comparable to a vaccine?

But here's the bottom line:

Without any medical indication whatsoever, how is it doctors can be performing circumcisions in healthy children, let alone be giving you any kind of choice?

No, parents can't "choose" everything for their children. This is why there are child abuse laws. This is why if parents "choose" to have their daughter circumcised, they go to jail.

I can already sense the subject change to "but female circumcision is different," but then that just goes to show you how much BS "parental prerogative is," and how far it can only go.

[Graphite]

I like what Penn Jillette says on the whole "lower risk of HIV" red herring: "Our son isn't circumcised, and I guess if he's sexually active, without a condom, in Africa right now, then he's increased his risk of AIDS ... and the rate of transmission of STDs does not mean that you cut part of the body off of an infant. And shouldn't our son have the choice as to whether he wants to wear a condom or cut off part of his dick?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFn0Uuc2OBo

[Tulpa]

The placenta is part of the newborn's body too. We should outlaw cutting that off, I guess.

[Warty]

No it isn't, you sloppy moron. You are an embarrassment.

[Rather]

Warty that's just fucking mean! Tulpa's from another planet. Warty, why do you hate aliens?

[Tulpa]

I'm afraid it is, Warty. Sorry if you find that embarrassing.

[Warty]

Dude, if you actually believe that the placenta is part of the baby's body, you should just kill yourself now. Actually, just do that anyway, dipshit.

[Graphite]

The placenta is part of the newborn's body too. We should outlaw cutting that off, I guess.

You guys do realize how completely stupid and irrelevant this line of argument is, right? And I'm not even talking about calling the placenta "part of the newborn's body."

"HURR, if we don't let parents pierce their kids' tongues at age 1 and tattoo dragons on their asses, next thing you know you won't be cut the umbilical cord, remove his appendix when it's about to burst, or make him get braces!"

There are good arguments to be made against banning circumcision. Conflating a totally elective, cosmetic, and religiously-inspired surgery with lifesaving and medically urgent procedures is not one of them, sorry.

[Joseph4GI]

The placenta is NOT part of a newborn's body.

There is actually debate as to whether or not to cut the umbilical cord off early.

If one waits long enough, the umbilical cord dries up and falls off on its own. So cutting it off really is no issue.

How is the foreskin like an organ that shrivels up and falls off anyway?

Quite a pathetic analogy.

[omg]

San Francisco is doing something sensible for once? I think the 18 thing is a little overkill, the kid should be able to decide for himself when he can communicate successfully and understand the implications of the procedure. But babies can't communicate whether they want the procedure done or not (and if they could, I think the answer would be "no"). I was cut when I was an infant, but I wish I wasn't. Arguments over sensitivity or HIV transmission rates are irrelevant to me, because I think I should make that call myself.

[Steff]

Be careful, you might have a bunch of Libertarian-lites go apeshit on you because they forgot that the right of self-determination doesn't apply to babies.

You're right. It should be your call, when you're old enough to consent to an unnecessary cosmetic procedure, not your parents, who don't have to live with it.

[Steff]

Does apply, sorry.

...not enough coffee.

[wayne]

Whether to circumcise an infant is, to me, a simple decision to make:

Q: Are little boys born with extraneous part?
A: No. Just as little girls aren't.

Q: What is the genesis of this practice?
A: Genital mutilation is an ancient practice rooted in religion and superstition. It is time to abandon this silly practice.

Q: Does it make your dick "prettier"?
A: Some women apparently think so, others do not. It's a wash. Go for the girls who like intact dicks.

Q: Is there any medical benefit to the procedure?
A: No. Some pro circumcision researchers discovered a reduction in susceptibility to HIV infection amongst a relatively small group of men in Africa. I suspect the researchers' motives in this case, and circumcision is irrelevant to infants in any case because infants don't have sex. Circumcision supposedly makes one less prone to penile cancer, although this research is suspect as well.

Q: Is routine circumcision recommended by any professional medical association?
A: No.

Q: Should I, as a parent, make this decision for my infant children? I have two sons, aged 23 and 16. Neither is circumcised, but both are free to decide for themselves to do so if they choose. I also have a daughter; she wasn't circumcised either.

[Steff]

^This. Thank you.

[Coeus]

Seconded. Nicely put.

[PFJO]

I'm in favor of this... no one should be able to mutilate their child (male or female) for any reason. If they want to get a circumcision as an adult for personal or religious reasons then go for it.

[Satan's Advocate]

Does that go for tonsils as well? How about the appendix? Should the child have to give his consent first? What if he doesn't want to go to church or eat his broccoli or mow the lawn?

[wayne]

Should infants have their tonsils removed as a routine matter?

[Jeff]

That's funny - I have both my tonsils and my appendix. The universal practice of removing both must have started after my birth, otherwise you'd look like a douche for comparing dissimilar practices in a hollow attempt to link factual similarities together with a thread.

[Satan's Advocate]

I'll try to dumb it down a little for you then. Parents have almost complete control over their kids' lives until they become legal adults. Like it or not, they don't have to ask their permission to do lots of things to them, some of which some people will always find offensive. Hope that helps.

[Jeff]

"Parents have almost complete control over their kids' lives until they become legal adults"

Ignoring the fact that this is demonstrably wrong....Parents can't abuse their kids. Nor can they decide that they will not feed them. Nor can they stop them from having abortions (or compel them to have abortions) when they are pregnant. They also can't stop them from having surgeries once they are deemed to be "mature," even though they are under the age of 18. Nor can they compel them to have surgeries once they hit that age. They also can't force them to get tattoos - ever.

The rest of your comment simply makes no sense. This isn't a question about a parent circumcising a kid, it's a question about a parent getting someone else to do it. What's more, you still can't explain to me how male circumcision, which is currently legal, is any different (legalities aside) from female circumcision. Nor can you explain why you can do a circumcision on a male infant but can't do other cosmetic surgeries. Law legitimately bars all sorts of practices that have some social background - female circumcision is just one of them. It makes little sense to argue to defend a practice that is irreversible and needless for infants.

[Satan's Advocate]

I have spoken.

[Joseph4GI]

You haven't responded to anything said to you.

[Steff]

Pretty sure it's a case of, "But I didn't research it and I have to defend my decision to be a dumbass because I let someone hack off a healthy, normal piece of tissue from my child!" most of the time.

[Joseph4GI]

So can parents, with their "complete control" also demand doctors circumcise their doughters? Why don't parents need permission to mutilate their boys, but they are thrown in jail for mutilating their daughters?

"Meh, it's different... etc. etc." - Yeah. Pull out everything else. Just goes to show you the "parental prerogative" argument FAILS.

[Sy]

Clearly what we need is for you to head up a federal agency targeting these barbaric and unrefined parents.
Any caught endangering our revenue cows citizens deserves the maximum penalty authorized by law.

[Joseph4GI]

Tonsils and the appendix are usually removed as a last resort, because there is already a medical condition that can't be cured otherwise.

So tell me, Satan's Advocate, how is the foreskin in a healthy child comparable to a ruptured appendix or inflamed tonsils?

I can see that with a ruptured appendix etc., a parent has to make a quick decision. But how is a healthy child in need of circumcision?

How can doctors perform circumcision in a healthy, non-consenting child, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice?"

Or is medicine and health a doctor's SECOND priority?

[Kristen]

If they have to wait until they're 18, hetero San Fran boys ain't getting laid in high school. Tru fax.

[Coeus]

Kristen, you are full of shit on this. I have two friends who are circumsized, and neither one of them have ever lost out on sex when the dick came out. If anything, many women like the novelty. I can fully believe that all your friends in high school said that foreskins were icky. I also know that they vocally agreed on a whole lot of other stuff that they didn't really believe either. Young people (especially girls) are slaves to conformity. Hell, most people of all ages are slaves to conformity. They hold opinions which aren't considered mainstream to themselves.

[Coeus]

Should read:I have two friends who are uncircumsized

[wayne]

kind of sad when a normal penis is characterized as a "novelty". Only in America...

[Tulpa]

I assume you don't use deodorant, shave, get your hair cut, or clip your fingernails and toenails, since all involve alterning a "normal" aspect of the human body.

A guy (or girl) walking around with uncut hair and natural human scent is going to be considered a novelty.

[Tony]

If only our grooming were as permanent. Fucking toenail clipping.

[Steff]

None of those cause severe pain to something that can't fight back, and none of those are permanent.

[Joseph4GI]

Oh? The foreskin grows back like hair and nails?

A guy can always choose to stop wearing deodorant. He can never choose to not be circumcised.

[wayne]

K, I suggest you get a type 1A circumcision, then get back to us.

[Jeff]

Only 35% of newborns are circumcised. True fact.

And if a girl isn't willing to have sex with you because she's afraid of your dick, odds are the sex would have been bad anyway.

[Joe R.]

Good point on the dick-fear.

[STEVE SMITH]

SEX BETTER WHEN GIRL AFRAID! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SHE THINKS SINCE STEVE SMITH STRONGER THAN HER!

[Butts Wagner]

Only 35% of newborns are circumcised. True fact.

In 2009. Yet, as was pointed out above, it was above 50% as recently as 2006(I may be off by a year or two).

Point is, the majority of girls in the US having sex are more likely to encounter a snipped dick. Therefore, it is the "norm." Which means that a sheathed cock is more likely to be considered "abnormal," and therefore scary, because it's more likely to be unknown.

I don't know what this has to do with the debate over the proposed law. I just want to point out that as of today, most guys having sex in the US are snipped, and circumcision rates of boys born in 2009 don't have anything to do with the sexually active population. But again, I have no idea how this is important to the debate about the proposed law. All it does is show that public opinion about circumcision is changing. And using public opinion as a measuring stick isn't always the best reason to pass a law. I mean, clearly, we should keep drugs illegal because laws legalizing marijuana don't pass. Right?

[Joe R.]

If none of the boys are circumcised, then it won't matter, because the girls won't have another choice. They'll get used to it.

Although I guess an Israeli exchange student could clean fucking house.

[Kristen]

For fuck's sake...lighten the hell up. I have, in fact, seen an uncut cock; and I have, in fact, fucked said cock. I was making a commentary on the very thing Coeus cited - that high schools girls are notoriously squeamish when it comes to pee pees.

I suggest you all get on dictionary.com and learn what the definition of the word "facetious" is.

[Graphite]

I was making a commentary on the very thing Coeus cited - that high schools girls are notoriously squeamish when it comes to pee pees.

And Coeus rightly called bullshit. I never had problems getting my uncut pole polished either, and the subject of it being uncircumcised never even came up. In fact, when it's erect and ready for business, I bet most high school girls couldn't even tell the difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis.

Maybe you just hung with a bitchy crowd or something?

[DJ Drugs]

When erect, how does an uncircumcised dong look any different in caomparision with a circumcised dong, with the exception of perhaps the lack of a circumcision scar?

Furthermore, if a girl sees a flaccid dong someone isn't doing it right.

[DJ Drugs]

Er, comparison.

[Kristen]

I should also learn that men take their penises VERY seriously.

(mental note: no teeth, and no joking about getting laid in high school if you have foreskin)

[Coeus]

I should also learn that men take their penises VERY seriously.

Damn skippy.
You should probably also bold the VERY.

[Stormy Dragon]

Actually, I think this is the sort of situation the BLINK tags were put in HTML for.

[Arizona Doper]

Off Topic: AZ medical marijuana proposition is now up by over 4000 votes with 57000 mostly provisional ballots to be counted.

This was an almost 5000 vote swing today. Looks like this phatty is gonna puff, puff, pass.

[Mad Max]

Really? Turning entire families of practicing Jews into criminals? Is that what the tolerant backers of this SF initiative want to do?

There's no need to Godwin this issue - I just need to mention King Antiochus IV Epiphanes

"The king sent messengers with letters to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, ordering them to follow customs foreign to their land . . .

"to build pagan altars and temples and shrines, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, to leave their sons uncircumcised, and to let themselves be defiled with every kind of impurity and abomination, so that they might forget the law and change all their observances. Whoever refused to act according to the command of the king should be put to death."

So how did that work out for him? Hint: There's a Jewish holiday (Hanukkah) celebrating that guy's defeat.

[Mad Max]

Link doesn't work, try this:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1maccabees/1maccabees1.htm

[Coeus]

So how did that work out for him? Hint: There's a Jewish holiday (Hanukkah) celebrating that guy's defeat.

Works for me. A holy war with San Francisco would be vastly entertaining.

[Tulpa]

Most San Franciscans don't have 1 Maccabees in their scriptures. Though you might be able to win over their Speakress of the House since you share the same belief system.

[Mad Max]

They still have Chanukkah in their belief system, especially in the USA. Canonical or not, they know about the events described in Maccabees.

[Mad Max]

The "Speakress" will, I understand, soon be replaced with a . . . what is the misandrist counterpart to the sexist term "Speakress?" Perhaps "Dumb Jock Speaker?"

[Mad Max]

A male speaker could be called a "refuses-to-listen" -er.

Am I right, ladies?

[OBL]

I agree with you dirty jew. Allah will rain death on this city of uncircumcized sodomites.

[Joseph4GI]

Why are Jews the only people that matter?

The federal ban on female genital mutilation of any kind turns many Africans, Muslims, Malaysians etc. into "criminals," yet nobody seems to be too concerned about that.

"But it's different" you might say.

Yeah, but I thought "freedom of religion" trumped everything. Not a good excuse anymore is it.

Cue the long list of "medical benefits..."

[Mad Max]

'having successfully driven Happy Meals underground, the good people of San Francisco will be asked to consider a ballot measure to forbid circumcision.'

Perhaps that documentarian, Morgan Spurlock, can make a movie called *Circumcize me.*

[Tulpa]

Max, the Church is looking for exorcists. This could be your chance:

Despite strong interest in the training, skepticism about the rite persists within the American church. Organizers of the event are keenly aware of the ridicule that can accompany discussion of the subject. Exorcists in U.S. dioceses keep a very low profile. In 1999, the church updated the Rite of Exorcism, cautioning that "all must be done to avoid the perception that exorcism is magic or superstition."

No, not superstitious at all. How could anyone think that belief in demonic possession is superstition?

[Mad Max]

Then I exorcise your comment with the mystical rune: ?

[Mean Girl]

Wow. 325+ comments about circumcision on a Friday night. I'm thinking those dicks were never actually clipped, as most of them seem to be commenting here.

[Graphite]

It's 8:00pm here. I don't know when girls head out to get laid where you live, but it's still too early.

[capitol l]

East coast girls leave at exactly 6:45pm to get laid. Don't be late.

[rac]

I posted on this 7 hours ago. I get on and find it was still going at 9. I have to agree this was a popular subject. Let's face it, guys are sensitive about their dicks. Cut or uncut.

[Mean Girl]

And it'll be up all weekend. The thread, not your dick. Could set a new record for dicks and their opinions.

[rac]

More thn four hours and I have to call the doctor I'm told. So far, my record is four minutes. But I'm working on it.

[Sam Grove]

nocirc.org

[capitol l]

Really?

This is what I come home from work to? All of you motherfuckers better collectively git in the goddamn kichin and cook me some fuckin supper.

Especially you, abroted fetus!

[Tulpa]

You must be pretty twisted if circumcision arguments make you hungry.

[Almanian]

Calamari for an appetizer again?!!?

This was most entertaining. Thanks everybody.

[Fiscal Meth]

Calamari does kinda look like fried circumcision biproducts(leavuns).

[capitol l]

Tulpa, you like to make fun don't you?

We'll see how much you laugh when you wake up with me sittin on yer chest with a bowie knife clenched in my teeth.

Don't forget, we only live miles from each other.

And no, I am not twisted at all.

[Tulpa]

How about cleft palate corrective surgery? There is little medical reason for it, other than concern about social problems for those with cleft palates. Should that surgery be banned for minors as well?

[Warty]

Every thing you say in this thread is stupider than the last. Just stop. It's embarrassing to watch.

[Almanian]

What about clipping my nose hairs? Huh? I did that today. Am i like a "cutter" cause I clip my nose hairs? Is that "mutilation" in San Fran?

What a great topic to end the workweek!

[Graphite]

What about, like, that guy from Total Recall with the other little guy growing out of his chest?

[capitol l]

Open yer mind Quade!

[Joseph4GI]

Yes, how is circumcision like cleft palate corrective surgery?

How is the normal, healthy tissue that is the foreskin a genetic anomaly that needs to be "corrected?"

Unless there is a medical need, or there is an actual physical deformity, something that the foreskin is not, occuring in every male at birth, then yes, it should be banned.

[Fiscal Meth]

WOW. 400 'n somethin'. If there was an article about a circumcision in a mosque near ground zero, Reason could break a thousand.

[capitol l]

Why aren't you with yer new wife?

Breed motherfucker, we need more libertarians!

[Tony]

My mother was a Republican, so don't count your libertarians before they're hatched. Of course, after many years of conversation, now my mother is a godless socialist.

[capitol l]

You think there is a difference between a republican and a godless socialist? Either one licks the boot of authority.

You make these statements, as if to impress, and all you do is reinforce.

[heller]

That doesn't surprise me at all Tony. Republicanism has no real principled backing. It's like religion; you believe what you're born into. Socialism on the other hand is based on arguable principles. Wrong principles, but principles that can be argued for nonetheless.

[Mr. FIFY]

Like Lewis Black said, Tony:

Our two party system is a bowl of shit, looking at itself in the mirror.

So, hats off to your mom for not being a Republican anymore... unless she's a Democrat, in which case she merely jumped from one frying pan to another.

Cue "false equivalence" argument in 3...2...

[Ken Shultz]

Kerry would have been worse!

[heller]

1. On consent: There is no such thing as infant consent. In cases where an action is not an assault, it is therefore up to the parents to decide whether or not to take that action with regards to the child. The question is "is circumcision assault?"

2. In order for circumcision to be an assault there must be an intent to harm the infant and/or harm towards the infant. Circumcision is not intended to harm an infant, nor does it cause harm. The fact that circumcision causes a short pain is not proof that it causes harm.

3. The argument that circumcision is wrong because some might disagree with their parent's decision when they are older is faulty. Some might also disagree with their parents choice of schooling, method of raising, lifestyle choices, etc. This does not make these parents' decisions wrong. None of those choices can be reversed either. It is up to the parents to decide what is best for their child, as long as those choices are not assaulting the child. There simply is no other, better alternative.

[Satan's Advocate]

What he said.

[Ayn_Randian]

Most of the arguments, pro- and anti-cricumcision, are BS:

1. The HIV argument (pro) is BS
2. The aesthetic argument is a wash (pro)
3. The "mutiliation" argument is BS
4. The "child consent" argument is nonsense

The fact is that this impinges on freedom of religion; circumcision is an important rite to the Jews (among others), and absent overwhelming evidence that this is physically and psychologically so traumatic that children/adults never fully recover, those who are in support of the law are Statist fuckheads.

[Statist Fuckhead]

Get a cricumcision, you abroted fetus.

[Ken Shultz]

Other surgeries on babies for purely aesthetic reasons are perfectly acceptable too...

I've read that babies tend to do better, for whatever reason, if they have surgery to correct a cleft lip or a cleft palate in the first few months of infancy too.

I think it goes deeper than freedom of religion. Parents have an inherent right to make the decisions that affect the well being of their children, and the idea that the City of San Francisco can make better uniform decisions than individual parents is ludicrous.

And whether it's about circumcision or cleft lip surgery, everybody who's equating parents making decisions with their child's best in mind--with child abuse? Is being willfully ridiculous.

[Joseph4GI]

What is "willfully rediculous" is your attempt to equate infant circumcision with an actual deformity such as a cleft lip/palate.

How is the foreskin, which is normal, healthy tissue, comparable to a genetic anomaly such as cleft?

Let's question this "inherent right" of parents you mention; could they, for example, demand that their daughter be circumcised for "religious reasons" or because THEY think it's "better for her?"

Why? Why not?

By this time, I'm sure you're thinking of a good response along the lines of "well that's different... female circumcision is worse..."

And you might be right.

But it just goes to show you that "parental choice" or this "inherent right" only takes you so far.

Parents can make "decisions" for their children only so far; doctors have a duty to practice MEDICINE. There comes a time when a doctor must do his duty and REFUSE to perform medically unnecessary procedures on non-consenting individuals. If this constitutes MEDICAL FRAUD in adults, how is it that they can even be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

How is it doctors can even be performing non-medical procedures in healthy children, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice" in the matter?

[Ken Shultz]

"How is the foreskin, which is normal, healthy tissue, comparable to a genetic anomaly such as cleft?"

It's aesthetics.

Parents make all kinds of decisions for their children in the hope of helping their kids fit in...

That's the role of parents. They make various decisions and take various things into consideration to try to make sure their kids will fit in socially when they grow up.

This is one of those considerations.

Do I agree with all the decision parents make? Of course not.

But if you can't tell the difference between parents making decisions that they think will give their kid a better chance to fit in--and child abuse?!

Then, yes, you're being willfully ridiculous.

P.S. Latin women piercing their children's ears for aesthetic and cultural reasons? That isn't child abuse either.

[heller]

Also, no one here said that doctors should be forced to do circumcisions that they disagree with. That has nothing to do with banning circumcisions.

[Joseph4GI]

Aye, but you are saying that parents have every right to demand circumcision for their sons.

Ultimately the person who performs circumcision is the doctor, and he should know better than to perform non-medical surgery on a parent's whim.

Banning circumcision means that doctors won't be able to perform circumcisions on healthy children unless there is an actual medical necessity.

Surgery to address a medical problem. Fancy that!

[heller]

Joseph, your ignorance of medical practice is showing. There is no reason why a doctor cannot perform a purely aesthetic surgery if he determines that there is insignificant risk of harm to the patient.

What you are saying here is that YOU know better than doctors about what surgeries they should or should not perform. You haven't even explained why a doctor shouldn't perform an aesthetic surgery.

Aesthetic surgery is not wrong, nor is it strange.

[Joseph4GI]

Ayn, how is the mutilation argument "BS?" Because you don't think it is?

And how is the child consent argument "nonsense?"

The fact is that "freedom of religion" can only go so far.

Circumcising girls is an important rite to many branches of Islam and many African Tribes. So are parents entintled to demand doctors perform circumcisions on their daughters?

"Oh but it's different... female circumcision is worse," etc. And you might be right.

But this only goes to show you how BS the excuses of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" are you have to change the subject.

There is at least one study, Sorrells, that shows that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, and not the head of it as it was once belived.

I'll have to say I'm not sure circumcision is "traumatic" in children, but I must say that even if it weren't that's no excuse to mutilate a child.

You could take a baby girl and snip out her labia and/or her clitoris and she wouldn't remember either.

Actually, as a better analogy, if I have sex with a girl in a coma, is it rape? Why? Why not? She'll wake up and she won't ever remember right?

Is the fact that babies "don't remember" really any excuse?

Or should doctors have medical cause before performing surgery?

I'm not going to argue with you about religious circumcision performed by mohels at homes or synagogues; that's another ballgame (though it's heartening to know that Jews all around the world including ISRAEL are choosing to abandon bris milah).

But without medical indication, can doctors even be performing circumcisions in healthy children, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice?"

Isn't a doctor's duty to medicine, and not religious custom or parental prerogative?

[Ken Shultz]

So, if consent is such a big deal, I take it you're pro-Life then?

[heller]

Circumcising girls is an important rite to many branches of Islam and many African Tribes. So are parents entintled to demand doctors perform circumcisions on their daughters?

Again, where is this "demanding doctors" point coming from? This ban would mean that the doctors who would consent to perform these circumcisions would no longer be allowed to.

Isn't a doctor's duty to medicine, and not religious custom or parental prerogative?

A doctor has a duty to do no harm to his patient. Unless you are accusing every single doctor that has performed a circumcision of breaking this oath, your point is moot. Doctors perform purely aesthetic operations for no health reasons all the time. That's because doctor's don't have an oath to "only do medicine," they only have an oath to do no harm.

If doctor and parents both consent to giving a child a circumcision, it's really no business of yours.

Also, note that mutilation is defined as an act of physical injury that degrades the physical appearance or function of the body. Good luck arguing that circumcision in any way has degraded the appearance or function of my penis.

I am an atheist, but if I do have a son, I would give him a circumcision. That's because I have no way of knowing whether he will become a religious Jew or not. If he does, then I want him to be happy knowing that he has the single most important Jewish rite. I can't imagine an 18 year or old or older having a circumcision performed on themselves. That is a decision I would never want to put on my son.

And if he isn't religious, there is no harm done. He simply has a cultural signifier that the males in his family have had for thousands of years.

[Joseph4GI]

"Again, where is this "demanding doctors" point coming from? This ban would mean that the doctors who would consent to perform these circumcisions would no longer be allowed to."

You and all other "parental rights" advocates are arguing that a parent has every right to demand circumcision for their children, from doctors willing to oblige.

My argument is, if doctors can perform male infant circumcisions at a parental request or demand because it's this "important cultural/religious rite," then it only follows that they can request the same for their daughters.

"A doctor has a duty to do no harm to his patient. Unless you are accusing every single doctor that has performed a circumcision of breaking this oath, your point is moot."

And this is precisely what I'm doing. Perhaps we were under the delusion that unless circumcision was performed a boy would die from a cancerous penis, but we no longer live in the dark ages. There is no medical excuse for doctors to be performing circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting individuals. Unless there is a medical problem that requires immediate action, circumcision is harm. Doctors that keep circumcising healthy children "because the parents requested it" are breaking their oath to do no harm.

"Doctors perform purely aesthetic operations for no health reasons all the time."

Aside from circumcision, give me a list of purely aesthetic operations that they can perform upon a parent's request.

And no cheating; a cleft, extra digit, birthmark, etc. cannot be compared to the foreskin which is normal, healthy tissue found in every male at birth.

"That's because doctor's don't have an oath to "only do medicine," they only have an oath to do no harm."

Precisely. Which is what circumcision, unless it is medically indicated, is. Unless it is medically indicated, and/or unless a grown person requests it, it is halm, it is assault, it is abuse.

"If doctor and parents both consent to giving a child a circumcision, it's really no business of yours."

Good then. If doctors and parents both consent to give a girl circumcision, it is no business of yours either. The ban against female circumcision should be lifted because it infringes on "religious freedom" and "parental choice."

"Also, note that mutilation is defined as an act of physical injury that degrades the physical appearance or function of the body. Good luck arguing that circumcision in any way has degraded the appearance or function of my penis."

I'm afraid that even though you may refuse to accept this fact, this is precisely what has happened to your penis. Circumcision is a physical injury that degrades the pyisical appearance and function of the penis.

A penis is meant to have a foreskin. Every boy is born with one. The foreskin is meant to, in due time, slide back to reveal the head of the penis, and slide back and forth to provide sexual stimulation. The Foreskin is meant to keep the head of the penis warm and moist to keep it from drying out and from keratinizing, much like the eye-lids. Without the foreskin, the head of the penis is permanently exposed, it dries out becoming keratinized, and the man must use some sort of external lubrication for the rest of his life for masturbation and intercourse purposes.

I mean nevermind that circumcision is the deliberate wounding of a perfectly healthy, non-concenting, defenseless child.

Do you really need me to point out the obivous more?

"I am an atheist, but if I do have a son, I would give him a circumcision. That's because I have no way of knowing whether he will become a religious Jew or not. If he does, then I want him to be happy knowing that he has the single most important Jewish rite. I can't imagine an 18 year or old or older having a circumcision performed on themselves. That is a decision I would never want to put on my son.

And if he isn't religious, there is no harm done. He simply has a cultural signifier that the males in his family have had for thousands of years."

And if he's not religious and didn't want this? Oh well, that's just too bad, so long as YOU'RE happy with HIS circumcision, right?

I'm sorry, but an atheist you are not. You still cling to religious superstition, and it is telling from this last statement.

You "can't imagine an 18 year or old or older having a circumcision performed on themselves," but you can in an 8yo? Really?

"That is a decision I would never want to put on my son."

Why on EARTH would your son have to be circumcised at 18? What if he wants to decide to keep his whole body for until he wants? You asked me earlier "of what business of mine" is it if parents and doctors agree to mutilate a child. Of what business is of YOURS what your 18 yo son decides?

HIS body, HIS choice.

[heller]

My argument is, if doctors can perform male infant circumcisions at a parental request or demand because it's this "important cultural/religious rite," then it only follows that they can request the same for their daughters.

Female circumcision is a mutilation, male circumcision is not. The two are not analogous.

There is no medical excuse for doctors to be performing circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting individuals. Unless there is a medical problem that requires immediate action, circumcision is harm. Doctors that keep circumcising healthy children "because the parents requested it" are breaking their oath to do no harm.

Again, not having a medical reason for performing a surgery does not mean that you are harming the patient. Maybe you don't know what harm means, or maybe you are just being deliberately ignorant.

I'm afraid that even though you may refuse to accept this fact, this is precisely what has happened to your penis. Circumcision is a physical injury that degrades the pyisical appearance and function of the penis.

You're a fucking idiot. Please explain to me in detail how my penis has been aesthetically and functionally degraded.

You seriously must be retarded to believe this crap.

The Foreskin is meant to keep the head of the penis warm and moist to keep it from drying out and from keratinizing, much like the eye-lids. Without the foreskin, the head of the penis is permanently exposed, it dries out becoming keratinized, and the man must use some sort of external lubrication for the rest of his life for masturbation and intercourse purposes.

I can tell you from personal experience that you are dead wrong on this. I have never suffered any discomfort in that area, nor have I needed lubrication. You're just dead wrong here, and you're foisting your ignorance on someone who actually has 1st person knowledge of what it is like to have a circumcision.

I mean nevermind that circumcision is the deliberate wounding of a perfectly healthy, non-concenting, defenseless child.

Do you really need me to point out the obivous more?

It's hardly obvious when your only actual argument is that something which has no positive medical effect is harm. This is simply illogical. The lack of a positive effect does not mean the presence of a negative effect.

And if he's not religious and didn't want this? Oh well, that's just too bad, so long as YOU'RE happy with HIS circumcision, right?

Didn't I JUST explain the reasoning behind this? If he isn't religious, there is no negative effect to having a circumcision. I suffer no negative side effects, no one that I know suffers negative side effects. Get off your ivory tower and try looking at it from the viewpoint of people who actually have circumcisions, you insufferable troglodyte.

Why on EARTH would your son have to be circumcised at 18? What if he wants to decide to keep his whole body for until he wants? You asked me earlier "of what business of mine" is it if parents and doctors agree to mutilate a child. Of what business is of YOURS what your 18 yo son decides?

HIS body, HIS choice.

Again, you completely missed the point. Maybe you should go back to elementary school, because it looks like you missed a few classes on reading comprehension. If my son becomes religious, he would obviously feel the need to have a circumcision. I would not want my son to have to undergo that surgery at that age just because I neglected to do it when he was younger, because of my lack of religious belief.

Circumcision at an early age will benefit my son if he is going to be religious. If he isn't then it still has no negative effect. Therefore it is in the best interests of my son to have him circumcised.

[Joseph4GI]

"I'm an atheist... but just in case..."

Riiight...

😀

[heller]

You're an idiot.

[Joseph4GI]

1. Unless there is an actual medical necessity, there is no such thing as "parental consent" for elective surgery either. Unless there is a medical indication, then yes, circumcision is "assault," and a whole bunch of other things too. When a doctor performs a medically unnecessary surgery a patient did not request, it's called malpractice. When he knowingly deceives a patient into getting surgery he doesn't need, it's called MEDICAL FRAUD. I'm not sure what it's called to try and convince parents of letting you perform medically unnecessary procedure on their child, but I'd say it's professional abuse. Because it involves the direct violation of a child, I'd also say it's child abuse. And, since it involves fondling the child's sexual organs, i'd have to say it's child sexual abuse. Child rape. It's many things in one.

2. Related to #1. Surgery isn't performed on a patient because it's "not harmful." Surgery is performed because there is a MEDICAL NECESSITY. Unless there is a MEDICAL INDICATION, then yes, it is harm. It is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue. The pain and whether it is remembered or not is irrelevant; you can circumcise a baby girl and she wouldn't remember it either. And by the way, the pain is not "short," it lasts for at long as the wound is open and is being soaked in urine.

3. This argument is based on a dubious premise; that there is actually any sort of "decision" that parents can make. - Unless there is a medical problem that needs to be fixed, there is no decision to make. Unless there is a medical indication, then yes, circumcision is assault and many other things. If parental prerogative trumped everything, then doctors would be obliged to also perform female circumcision as well; after all, it's her parents' religion etc.

[heller]

Unless there is an actual medical necessity, there is no such thing as "parental consent" for elective surgery either. Unless there is a medical indication, then yes, circumcision is "assault," and a whole bunch of other things too.

This is all your opinion, and bears no resemblance to legal reality. Parents do have the right to make all kinds of "elective" choices for their children. I already mentioned that parents decide where their children go to school, what they eat, what they wear, and almost every other aspect of their lives. To single out aesthetic surgery among these decisions as assault is ridiculous.

Just as an adult would make all those lifestyle choices for themselves, including whether or not to have aesthetic surgery, a parent must make these decisions for children that by definition do not have the ability to make these decisions.

When a doctor performs a medically unnecessary surgery a patient did not request, it's called malpractice. When he knowingly deceives a patient into getting surgery he doesn't need, it's called MEDICAL FRAUD. I'm not sure what it's called to try and convince parents of letting you perform medically unnecessary procedure on their child, but I'd say it's professional abuse. Because it involves the direct violation of a child, I'd also say it's child abuse. And, since it involves fondling the child's sexual organs, i'd have to say it's child sexual abuse. Child rape. It's many things in one.

But the guardians of that patient did request it, and the doctor deemed that it was not harmful.

And can you show evidence that doctors are tricking people into getting their children circumcisions? Now you're really starting to show the crazy conspiracy theories. It seems like you either have some emotional baggage with this subject or you are completely ignorant of the facts, so your arguments are devolving into ridiculous tirades and baseless assertions that don't really help your cause.

Related to #1. Surgery isn't performed on a patient because it's "not harmful." Surgery is performed because there is a MEDICAL NECESSITY. Unless there is a MEDICAL INDICATION, then yes, it is harm.

So you're saying we should outlaw plastic surgery? Is that what I'm hearing. Come on, now you're just being ridiculous.

Lack of a medically positive reason does not mean that there is a medically negative effect. This is simple logic.

If parental prerogative trumped everything, then doctors would be obliged to also perform female circumcision as well; after all, it's her parents' religion etc.

Again, no one here is arguing that parental choice can trump a doctor's right to decide whether he wants to perform the surgery or not. Parental choice doesn't trump this, but it does exist.

[heller]

In short, less hyperbole, more logic please.

[Joseph4GI]

Heh heh, yes. Less hyperbole, more logic.

Please stop trying minimize male genital mutilation.

[heller]

I never said anything about genital mutilation. I'm talking about male circumcision, you dolt.

[Joseph4GI]

"This is all your opinion, and bears no resemblance to legal reality. Parents do have the right to make all kinds of "elective" choices for their children. I already mentioned that parents decide where their children go to school, what they eat, what they wear, and almost every other aspect of their lives. To single out aesthetic surgery among these decisions as assault is ridiculous."

Flimsy comparisons. Aside from circumcision, there is no other "asethetic surgery" that parents can request for their children, unless there is an actual deformity.

Oh, and by the way, unless there is an actual necessity, doctors cannot be performing surgery, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice." This isn't my opinion, this is fact. Legally, performing non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals already constitutes MEDICAL FRAUD.

"Just as an adult would make all those lifestyle choices for themselves, including whether or not to have aesthetic surgery, a parent must make these decisions for children that by definition do not have the ability to make these decisions."

So then, it follows that if an adult woman can make the "life style choice" of getting her labia and clitoris removed, then it only follows that parents can make this "choice" for their daughters, since they don't have the ability to make this decision.

"But the guardians of that patient did request it, and the doctor deemed that it was not harmful."

Again, surgeries are performed because there is a medical necessity, not because they are "not harmful." Without medical necessity, doctors cannot be performing surgery, let alone elicit any kind of "decision" or acknowledge any kind of "choice" from parents. Because guardians "request" a surgery does not make it any more "necessary." A doctor has every duty to refuse to perform male circumcision, as he does female circumcision.

"And can you show evidence that doctors are tricking people into getting their children circumcisions? Now you're really starting to show the crazy conspiracy theories. It seems like you either have some emotional baggage with this subject or you are completely ignorant of the facts, so your arguments are devolving into ridiculous tirades and baseless assertions that don't really help your cause."

Quoth the individual who is resorting to ad-hominem... when arguments no longer work, the tactic of the losing side is to try to damage the other person's image. Another name for this is "mud-slinging." If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Poison the well, and no one else will drink.

Bottom line is that without medical necessity, doctors have no business performing circumcisions in healthy, non-consenting individuals. As a medically unnecessary procedure, a doctor's duty is to refuse to perform them. That they are performing them based on the flimsy alibi that "a parent requests it" brings into question their morals as a doctor. Most often parents are given information about circumcision aimed at making them sign a consent form. Doctors provide pro-circumcision information, forbid nurses or other personell from talking about anti-circumcision information and call this "fair and balanced information," when refusing to even perform male infant circumcision should be as default as refusing to perform female infant circumcision.

Yes. Doctors are LYING to naive parents. Nurses have been fired for talking about the other side. Call it "conspiracy" or whatever you want. This is what is happening in our country today.

"Lack of a medically positive reason does not mean that there is a medically negative effect. This is simple logic."

Yes. But even simpler than this is, surgery is performed because there is medical necessity, not because there is isn't a "medically negative effect." And, it also depends on what you call "medically negative effect." Deliberately causing a wound on a child's penis and exposing it to urine and feces for two weeks, for example, is a medically negative effect to me. I'm not sure what it is to you...

"Again, no one here is arguing that parental choice can trump a doctor's right to decide whether he wants to perform the surgery or not. Parental choice doesn't trump this, but it does exist."

Good. Then by "parental choice," a parent should be able to have her daughter circumcised, and, if there is a doctor that is willing, he has every reason to oblige.

[heller]

Also, female circumcision is a form of mutilation, since it often greatly reduces the female capacity for sexual pleasure. Male circumcision does not.

[Joseph4GI]

Actually, this isn't true. Not that my stance will ever change on FGM, but this study shows that victims of even the worst type of FGM, namely infibulation, still experience orgasms.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.....3/abstract

And the Sorrells study shows that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, and not the head as once commonly believed.

Am I really supposed to believe that cutting off over 20,000 nerves ISN'T going to have an effect on sensitivity?

[heller]

Having an orgasm does not mean that your capacity for sexual pleasure isn't reduced.

And the Sorrells study shows that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, and not the head as once commonly believed.

Am I really supposed to believe that cutting off over 20,000 nerves ISN'T going to have an effect on sensitivity?

Even if there was a study that was backed by the scientific community (the Sorells study is not) that showed that removal of the foreskin reduced sensitivity, this does not mean that circumcision in any way degrades the function of the penis. Less sensitivity does not mean that you cannot reach the same level of arousal or pleasure. Circumcised females do not just lose sensitivity; their capacity for sexual pleasure is reduced. Removal of the foreskin does not reduce the capacity for sexual pleasure.

[Azathoth]

Having an orgasm does not mean that your capacity for sexual pleasure isn't reduced.

Then how do you know that your sexual pleasure has not been reduced?

Yes, circumcised men can orgasm, they can experience sexual pleasure, but is it greater than, less than, or equal to that felt by uncircumcised men?

If it is greater than that felt by uncircumcised men then there is a pro-circumcision argument. If it is less than or equal to that of circumcised men, then this is an argument against circumcision.

If you have not experienced both, then you cannot know if you're missing something.

But it is simple logic to say that if circumcision does not provide some positive then there is no logical reason to do it.

[CK]

Circumcisions cut off the most sensitive part of the penis and are rarely needed for legitimate medical reasons. Banning them altogether is a bit much for the aforementioned religious reasons, but to suggest that cutting off a body part that evolved as a natural piece of the male anatomy is comparable to fixing a cleft palate or addressing some other medical condition is just bullshit. Foreskins are in no way comparable to biological or genetic defects.

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

[Ayn_Randian]

Circumcisions cut off the most sensitive part of the penis

A total lie.

If you want to be taken seriously, you can stop linking to activist-driven websites.

I find it hypocritical that we as libertarians are slinging around "scientific consensus" as the end-all, be-all of the debate, when I look at other 400+ comment AGW threads and see the exact opposite.

We should be a little more logically consistent.

Arguing with rabid anti-circumcision zealots is a lot like arguing with religionistas of other flavors, in fact.

[Ref]

Are you saying that your link is better than his link? This tactic presupposes that blog commentators are logical and honest, and that they will see the errors of their ways and be convinced of your righteousness and thank you in a magnanimous and equitable fashion.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[sniff]

Ha-ha-ha. Heh. Ho.

[CK]

I'd better stop linking people to Reason and Cato sponsored studies then when providing evidence for libertarian positions then. If you had taken the time to read the link, which it's obvious you haven't, it's a peer reviewed study published only a few years ago. Just because it's hosted on an activist website doesn't negate its validity.

[Azathoth]

Arguing with rabid anti-circumcision zealots is a lot like arguing with religionistas of other flavors, in fact.

And yet you're the one arguing for maintaining the religion based surgery--go figure.

[hmm]

Imagine that. A thread on penis gets 400 comments. At least we know where priorities lie.

[Charlotte Sometimes]

No shit. After reading comments here, I usually leave amused and grinning (and more informed). Now I feel all unsettled because my two healthy, happy, circumcised sons are playing (i.e, trying to kill each other) downstairs without a care in the world, but clearly I'm a monster for allowing them to be assaulted. And my Australian shepherd? Docked tail. I'm doomed to rot in Hades. I'm just going to blame my circumcised husband ;P

[Joseph4GI]

No one is calling you a monster for having agreed to circumcise your sons, Charlotte. After being fed all the lies that circumcision is the best thing since sliced bread, why WOULDN'T you have chosen it? I will call your doctor a monster though, for s/he should have known better than to pawn elective non-medical surgery on you and your children.

It really is telling that you are comparing your circumcised sons next to your docked Australian shepherd. Is that really how you consider your children? As a modifiable accessory like your dog? Really, now.

[Charlotte Sometimes]

Seriously, you could not tell by the dreaded ";P" that I was being tongue-in-cheek about my docked dog (and husband-blaming)? You obviously feel very passionately about this topic and have a lot more information than we had access to when we had to make the decision. Much of what was said above (particularly by Jeff) gave me pause; I think I'd leave the decision to my boys if there were do-overs. You make some very good arguments, but you might want to lose the attitude. You'll reach more people who have yet to make the "To circumcise, or not to circumcise" decision if you don't antagonize those you are trying to persuade (and educate). Because, honestly, after reading you smugly question the depth of my love for my children, all I could think was, " 'Really, now,' fuck you and the high horse you rode in on." You have great information. You should stick to it and resist throwing in douchey shit. Because the messenger does count for something. For the record, I adore my children. And the damn bob-tail dog, too.

[Joseph4GI]

Sorry Charlotte,

I really am tired of dealing with the attitude of "I'm right by mere virtue of being a parent" myself.

I've figured, I better say what I want, how I want. Those who will listen will listen, those who won't already had their minds made up to begin with. I can't win' em all.

Some of the people in our cause are the "go for the honey" kinds, me, I personally like to smack idiotic agruments around as soon as I see them.

Sorry I missed your sarcasm...

I don't blame you for having circumcised your sons. Actually, it sounds like you genuinely only wanted the best. I'm glad that you are admitting on here that you would probably re-consider now that you know more. Not very many parents have this courage and decide instead to ride their ignorance to the end with their fingers in their ears.

I really do question parents who compare circumcising their boys, those whom they carried for 9 months in their wombs, to docking their dogs. Sorry, but when I hear such a comparison, yes, I will question a mother's care for her sons. Children aren't puppies; they're people.

Again, I don't blame you for having circumcised your sons. I don't think any parent can be blamed.

But the cat's out of the bag. We no longer live in the dark ages. We have the internet, and it's a shame that with all this access to information, people want to continue to stick their heads further into the sand.

Bless you for actually taking time to consider that you could have been better informed.

If only other parents weren't so proud... :-/

[Joseph4GI]

Here's the bottom line.

Making profit from non-medical surgeries performed on non-consenting individuals constitutes a little thing called MEDICAL FRAUD.

Without medical indication, how is it that doctors are performing circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting children, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice" in the matter?

Since when are doctors obliged to perform needless surgery in children because a couple of naive parents' "opinion" that it "should be done?"

Aren't doctors obliged to practice MEDICINE and not "religion," "culture," and/or "custom?"

If a doctor is obliged to cut a BOY for "cultural/etc. reasons," then shouldn't he also be obliged to cut a girl?

"Meh, but that's different," some may say. This may or may not be true, but it just goes to show you what s!ht "religion," "tradition," "culture," and "parental choice" really are.

No, parents can't ALWAYS "decide" to do whatever they want to their children, and doctors can't ALWAYS perform needless surgery "upon parental request."

"Religion," "custom," "tradition" and "parental choice" are flimsy alibis, and Female circumcision is a clear example of this.

A doctor's first duties are to MEDICINE and his PATIENT first, and to parental whim second, maybe even third.

[Tipper]

Lost in all the nonsense above is the central issue of whether the state--absent proof of any real harm to the child--has a right to interfere in the personal choices of the parents. Happy Meals today, circumcisions tomorrow, mandatory helmets next week. Happy to help. Now go get a life, you friggin' narcissists!

[Joseph4GI]

Quoth the individual has all the time in the world to read this long thread, and furthermore, reply to it.

I'll "get a life" when you lead by example. 😉

[Tipper]

Nah. I just scanned the crazy bits. Besides, if you've read one...

[Tipper]

Anyway, one last comment: "Since when are doctors obliged to perform needless surgery in children[?]"

Since never. As far as I know, nobody is forcing them to do it.

[Joseph4GI]

But if you pay attention, "the parents made me do it" is usually the excuse.

Not "the child was suffering from an infection from which he could have died if I did't cut him," or "the foreskin became a cancerous tumor and just HAD to be removed."

Circumcision seems to be the only procedure that doctors are obliged to do on a parent's whim...

[Bloom County]

Opus: "Hold my calls, please. I'm off to have my nose liposuctioned."

Milo: "You haven't heard?"

Opus: "Heard what?"

Milo: "The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional last week... and you know what that means..."

Opus: "Illegal back-alley liposuctions!!"

Milo: "I'm leaving before this goes anywhere."

[Joseph4GI]

There is a problem with "studies" that fail to correlate with reality.

In the following countries, HIV was more prevalent among the CIRCUMCISED:

Cameroon (4.1% v 1.1%)
Ghana (1.6% v 1.4%)
Lesotho (22.8% v 15.2%)
Malawi (13.2% v 9.5%)
Rwanda (3.5% v 2.1%)
Swaziland (21.8% v 19.5%)

Source: measuredhs dot com

Additionally, According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims (where all men are circumcised). In Malaysia, most, if not all Muslim men are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.

But you won't hear the WHO, UNAids or UNICEF talk about these.

And never mind the case here in the US, where over 80% of the male population is circumcised, yet we have THE HIGHEST HIV transmission rate in the industrialized world.

WHY IS that?

And how would circumcision as HIV prevention relevant in newborns who do not engage in risky sex?

[Neu Mejican]

You don't understand much about science, it seems.

[Joseph4GI]

Elaborate.

Is "science" the art of writing "studies" that produce the results you want and then extrapolating these results to create policies that require your "solution" to a problem?

[heller]

Joseph4GI, why should anyone take you seriously when at first you accuse doctors who perform circumcisions of being child rapists and con men, then argue that parents are forcing doctors to perform circumcisions? Along with your idiotic assertions that male circumcision is mutilation, that parents who decide non-medical things for their children are assaulting them, etc., I see no reason not to lambaste you as an obsessed nutjob.

[Joseph4GI]

Nice attempt at a straw-man argument...

Since when have I ever argued that parents are "forcing doctors to perform circumcisions?" How absolutely absurd.

What I AM arguing is that circumcising doctors are making this claim. Their justification always seems to be "the parents made me do it." What, were there WIRES?

A also never made the assertion that parents who decide non-medical things for their children are assaulting them. What I DID say was that unless there is a medical indication for it, yes, circumcision is assault.

You see no reason to "lambaste" me as an "obsessed nutjob" because you cannot find one.

Refute my claims.

For most other non-medical procedures performed on non-consenting individuals, this constitutes medical fraud. An adult who finds he was given the wrong surgery can sue for malpractice. It only follows, then, that doctors who perform circumcisions in healthy children who do not need them are engaging not only in medical fraud, but in abuse of power, and abuse of children.

Unless there is a medical necessity, circumcision is assault. It is abuse. It is taking advantage of parental naivete. Because it involves the forceful ripping apart of a child's genitals, yes; circumcisers of children and/or non-consenting individuals are RAPISTS. Rapists of the worst kind, taking advantage of helpless children.

[heller]

Since when have I ever argued that parents are "forcing doctors to perform circumcisions?" How absolutely absurd.

You've repeated this argument many times:

"So can parents, with their "complete control" also demand doctors circumcise their doughters?"

What I AM arguing is that circumcising doctors are making this claim. Their justification always seems to be "the parents made me do it." What, were there WIRES?

Really? That's the one ridiculous argument I HAVEN'T seen you make in this thread... Looks like this wasn't a strawman after all.

A also never made the assertion that parents who decide non-medical things for their children are assaulting them. What I DID say was that unless there is a medical indication for it, yes, circumcision is assault.

Those two statements are equivalent, you illiterate dolt.

Saying, "Circumcision is harmful because it does not medically benefit the patient"

is the same thing as saying, "Plastic surgery is wrong because it does not benefit the patient"

Saying, "Parents don't have the right to have their children circumcised because there is no medical reason to do so"

is the same thing as saying, "Parents don't have the right to feed their children cheese because their is no medical reason for them to do so"

You see no reason to "lambaste" me as an "obsessed nutjob" because you cannot find one.

Refute my claims.

I already refuted your claims. And the reason I get to lambaste you as an obsessed nutjob is because you are in fact an obsessed nutjob.

For most other non-medical procedures performed on non-consenting individuals, this constitutes medical fraud. An adult who finds he was given the wrong surgery can sue for malpractice. It only follows, then, that doctors who perform circumcisions in healthy children who do not need them are engaging not only in medical fraud, but in abuse of power, and abuse of children.

There is no such thing as infant consent, so equating adult medical fraud to it makes no fucking sense. It is up to the parents to make these decisions for their children, so it is not medical fraud when a doctor and parents agree to have circumcision performed. Since circumcising male infants IS NOT ASSAULT (since their is no intent to cause harm and it does not cause harm), it is not child abuse either.

Unless there is a medical necessity, circumcision is assault.

WRONG. Look up the definition of assault. You have not stated a single valid reason why non-medical surgery is assault. YOU FUCKING FAIL YOU ILLITERATE FREAKING NUTJOB. Why don't you go harass actual rapists, instead of falsely accusing people who are doing no harm to anyone.

[Joseph4GI]

"What I AM arguing is that circumcising doctors are making this claim. Their justification always seems to be "the parents made me do it." What, were there WIRES?"

Heller: Really? That's the one ridiculous argument I HAVEN'T seen you make in this thread... Looks like this wasn't a strawman after all.

Well I'm making it. Doctors today, when asked, will often wash their hands of responsibility by saying "the parents wanted it, I performed it, end of story."

"A also never made the assertion that parents who decide non-medical things for their children are assaulting them. What I DID say was that unless there is a medical indication for it, yes, circumcision is assault."

Heller: Those two statements are equivalent, you illiterate dolt.

Saying, "Circumcision is harmful because it does not medically benefit the patient"

is the same thing as saying, "Plastic surgery is wrong because it does not benefit the patient"

Saying, "Parents don't have the right to have their children circumcised because there is no medical reason to do so"

is the same thing as saying, "Parents don't have the right to feed their children cheese because their is no medical reason for them to do so"

No, my dear friend. Insisting that two statements are equivalent doesn't make them so. No. There is a clear difference in deciding to circumcise a child because he has a disease that cannot be cured any other way, and simply giving him a circumcision "because we wanted to," a non-medical reason.

You seem intent on trying to equivocate what I say by making your own inequivalent statements.

No, circumcising a healthy child is in no way comparable to feeding him cheese. Circumcising a healthy boy is equivalent to circumcising a healthy girl.

As a parent, you are entitled to feed your child whatever you want, so long as it is not poison that will kill him, or a harmful agent that will make him sick. If you do, this is called child endangerment and you can get your child taken away from you.

Heller: I already refuted your claims. And the reason I get to lambaste you as an obsessed nutjob is because you are in fact an obsessed nutjob.

No, you haven't refuted my claims. Lambaste all you want; mud-slinging and name-calling is in no way equivalent to addressing an argumentative point. It's called evasion coupled with poisoning the well.

Heller: There is no such thing as infant consent, so equating adult medical fraud to it makes no fucking sense. It is up to the parents to make these decisions for their children, so it is not medical fraud when a doctor and parents agree to have circumcision performed. Since circumcising male infants IS NOT ASSAULT (since their is no intent to cause harm and it does not cause harm), it is not child abuse either.

Here's what makes no fucking sense; you seem to be implying that male children are born with an inherent problem in their penis that doctors need to, and can only address by circumcision.

I will state again, before doctors can even perform a surgery in a healthy, non-consenting infant, it needs to be established that the child is in need of surgery. That without the surgery, the child will die or suffer the adverse effects of a disease or condition that cannot be addressed by any other means. Without a medical problem or condition to address, how can the doctor even be performing the surgery, let alone elicit any kind of "choice" or "consent" from a parent?

Most definitely it is up to parents to make all kinds of decisions for their children; your statement is based on a faulty premise. The premise that in a healthy, non-consenting child, there is actually a decision to make. A necessary surgery that parents can be "consenting" to.

Until you can establish that circumcision is a medically necessary procedure in a healthy, non-consenting child, then, I reiterate, yes, circumcising male infants IS assault. It is the abuse of power; it abuses naive parents, not to mention the child in question. Unless circumcision addresses a specific medical problem, yes, cutting off a child's foreskin is deliberate harm. It is a deliberate wound, a deliberate destruction of the flesh of a healthy, non-consenting individual.

"How many legs does a dog have if you called its tail a leg? None. Because calling a dog's tail a leg, doesn't make it one."

You can insist that circumcision is not harm, mutilation, abuse etc., all you want, but that doesn't refute the fact that it is, and I am showing you why.

"Unless there is a medical necessity, circumcision is assault."

Heller: WRONG. Look up the definition of assault. You have not stated a single valid reason why non-medical surgery is assault. YOU FUCKING FAIL YOU ILLITERATE FREAKING NUTJOB. Why don't you go harass actual rapists, instead of falsely accusing people who are doing no harm to anyone.

I think I've more than laid it out for you. Non-medical surgery in and of itself is not assault, if and when an individual knowingly and conscientiously requests it for himself. Non-medical surgery is malpracticed when imposed on an individual who never requested it. In convincing an individual that he needs a non-medical surgery he in actuality does not is called "medical fraud." It's a con job. In forcefully cutting off a healthy, non-consenting individual's foreskin, doctors are engaging in child abuse. Child rape. Yes. All doctors who circumcise healthy, non-consenting children are causing irreparable harm. That this harm is denied is secondary.

I'm sure you'll bring up the "parental consent" argument again, which is why I'll lay that out again for you; your assertion is based on the dubious premise that there is actually a surgery for a parent to consent. Without medical indication, how is it doctors can even be performing circumcisions in the first place? And, in a surgery that isn't even supposed to be taking place in the first place, how is "parental consent" even relevant?

I think you will simply just never answer me, will keep repeating your non-sensical arguments and will keep simply ignoring my questions and assert that I'm just this nutjob. Knock yourself out.

[heller]

Well I'm making it. Doctors today, when asked, will often wash their hands of responsibility by saying "the parents wanted it, I performed it, end of story.

Washing their hands of what? Again, circumcision is not a crime, it is not assault, it is not rape. Only in the bizarro-world that you apparently inhabit do those things resemble truth.

No, my dear friend. Insisting that two statements are equivalent doesn't make them so. No. There is a clear difference in deciding to circumcise a child because he has a disease that cannot be cured any other way, and simply giving him a circumcision "because we wanted to," a non-medical reason.

This is a complete diversion from the topic at hand. You STILL haven't explained why circumcision for a non-medical reason is BAD. Comparing it to medical circumcision doesn't show anything relevant to that question, and I never even equivocated those two things.

No, circumcising a healthy child is in no way comparable to feeding him cheese. Circumcising a healthy boy is equivalent to circumcising a healthy girl.

The first is infinitely more comparable than the second. Having your child circumcised has about as much risk of harm as feeding that child a piece of cheese. Male circumcision is not mutilation, female circumcision is. You are simply using sophistry to push your idiotic beliefs. Just because they both use the word circumcision doesn't mean they are the same thing.

As a parent, you are entitled to feed your child whatever you want, so long as it is not poison that will kill him, or a harmful agent that will make him sick.

Then it follows that a parent should be able to circumcise their son since there is little to no risk of harming the child. Only an idiot like you can't see that circumcision is much less risky than many things we allow parents to do with their children.

Here's what makes no fucking sense; you seem to be implying that male children are born with an inherent problem in their penis that doctors need to, and can only address by circumcision.

I might sound like I implied that to people with mental deficiencies like you. But any sane person with a healthy brain can see that I never said or implied anything like that. The foreskin is neither problematic nor necessary. It is merely an aesthetic choice to have it removed. You want people to think that parents are mutilating their sons, but this is clearly not the case.

I will state again, before doctors can even perform a surgery in a healthy, non-consenting infant, it needs to be established that the child is in need of surgery.

First of all, saying non-consenting infant is redundant and merely a rhetorical tool. No infant has the ability to consent. Consent for an infant is decided by the parents. Circumcisions require consent from parents solely, so calling the surgery "non-consensual" is negative hyperbole.

Second of all, why is this necessary to perform surgery? Why? Why? Their is no rule of medical ethics that says this, nor is there a logical reason for it. There is no reason why an aesthetic surgery that a doctor has determined is safe to perform should not be performed. You are not a doctor, you do not have the ability or the power to make that decision for them.

Most definitely it is up to parents to make all kinds of decisions for their children; your statement is based on a faulty premise. The premise that in a healthy, non-consenting child, there is actually a decision to make. A necessary surgery that parents can be "consenting" to.

The surgery isn't medically necessary, but it does serve a purpose, and there is no reason not to do it that outweighs that purpose. This is what you have not shown. What significant reason is there not to circumcise?

Until you can establish that circumcision is a medically necessary procedure in a healthy, non-consenting child, then, I reiterate, yes, circumcising male infants IS assault.

Again, this sentence does not make sense.

Your argument is:

1. Circumcision is not medically necessary.

2. Surgery that is not medically necessary is harmful.

3. Circumcision is harmful.

#2 has no logical backing. There is no reason why a surgery that is not medically necessary must be harmful to the patient. A surgery can be completely medically neutral, yet have positive, non-medical results.

You can insist that circumcision is not harm, mutilation, abuse etc., all you want, but that doesn't refute the fact that it is, and I am showing you why.

No, you aren't showing me why, you are just repeating it. I, on the other hand, have 1st hand knowledge of the effects of a circumcision. You have nothing.

I think I've more than laid it out for you. Non-medical surgery in and of itself is not assault, if and when an individual knowingly and conscientiously requests it for himself. Non-medical surgery is malpracticed when imposed on an individual who never requested it.

Parents consent for their children, you ignorant ass. If the parents did not consent to having their infant circumcised, THEN it would be assault. But that is not what this law is outlawing. It is outlawing CONSENSUAL circumcision, circumcision that the guardians of the infant have consented to.

In convincing an individual that he needs a non-medical surgery he in actuality does not is called "medical fraud." It's a con job. In forcefully cutting off a healthy, non-consenting individual's foreskin, doctors are engaging in child abuse. Child rape. Yes. All doctors who circumcise healthy, non-consenting children are causing irreparable harm. That this harm is denied is secondary.

You're like a broken record. This has nothing to do with making it against the law for parents to seek circumcisions for their sons. You can continue to repeat the conspiracy that doctors are tricking people into getting circumcisions, but this has nothing to do with reality or with the issue at hand. Also, I have had a circumcision, yet I suffer no "irreparable harm" at all. That's reality! Come down to the real world, wacko!

I'm sure you'll bring up the "parental consent" argument again, which is why I'll lay that out again for you; your assertion is based on the dubious premise that there is actually a surgery for a parent to consent. Without medical indication, how is it doctors can even be performing circumcisions in the first place? And, in a surgery that isn't even supposed to be taking place in the first place, how is "parental consent" even relevant?

Parental consent has everything to do with the matter. You already admitted that a consensual unnecessary surgery is not assault. Parental consent takes the place of infant consent. Circumcision of an infant is therefore consensual when the parents consent to it. You can't have it both ways! Either you are arguing that all consensual aesthetic surgery is fine (which includes circumcision), or you must argue that aesthetic surgery should not be allowed. You are arguing both right now.

[Joseph4GI]

I can't blame parents that decided to circumcise their sons; with misinformation you can convince parents to consent to anything.

I blame doctors, for it should be their duty to refuse to perform non-medical surgery on non-medical individuals, and it is their duty to be giving parents ALL information, not just the information that will lead them to sign the consent form for non-medical circumcision.

In essence, there shouldn't even BE a ready-made circumcision form.

Why is circumcision expected as the default as opposed to telling parents how to take care of their intact children?

Pathetic. Charlatanistic doctors play a role; some parents demand circumcision, but then why are doctors obliging? Why are they obliged to perform male, but not female circumcision?

You could say that "male and female circumcision are different," and MAYBE you're right. But then it goes to show you "I'm the parent, I decide" is complete BS.

[Joseph4GI]

"How is the foreskin, which is normal, healthy tissue, comparable to a genetic anomaly such as cleft?"
>It's aesthetics.

It's aesthetics, but a cleft, extra digit etc., is an actual deformity. What other normal part of the body are parents allowed to request modified for "aesthetics?"

Not having labia or a clitoris is "aesthetics" too.

"That's the role of parents. They make various decisions and take various things into consideration to try to make sure their kids will fit in socially when they grow up.

This is one of those considerations."

Except when it comes to female circumcision in an African community, right?

"Do I agree with all the decision parents make? Of course not."

I don't either, but some of these "decisions" in this country, such as circumcising your daughter, beating your child half to death, etc. has consequences.

"But if you can't tell the difference between parents making decisions that they think will give their kid a better chance to fit in--and child abuse?!

Then, yes, you're being willfully ridiculous."

OK, then you also agree that female circumcision in African countries as a "parental decision" that will give girls a better chance to fit in is ALSO not "child abuse."

"P.S. Latin women piercing their children's ears for aesthetic and cultural reasons? That isn't child abuse either."

Now you're on the right track! 🙂

[Ken Shultz]

I think parents should be able to have that thing cut off the end of their kid's dingy if they want to--and that's what being a libertarian is all about.

P.S. Dog-fuckers.

[Joseph4GI]

Good, then parents should also be able to havethe labia and/or clitoris cut off their kids' hoohaa if they want to.

Hooray for libertarians!

[Ken Shultz]

We also defend dog-fuckers!

P.S. For the last time, nobody's talking about labias.

[Joseph4GI]

Sorry, labias are the equivalent of the foreskin... they're "extra," and some people think they're "ew gross."

Let's talk about "esthetic."

Some people think that labias are disgusting; it looks like chewed-up bubble-gum.

So like, I want to have my daughter's labia removed. I don't want some guy looking down there and rejecting my daughter because she has "chewed-up bubble-gum."

[Joseph4GI]

Incidentally, did you know that at least one "study" suggests that FGM, beautifully re-coined as "labiaplasty" here, can actually HELP woman's sexual satisfaction, even her partner's?

http://www.labiaplastysurgeon......study.html

From the site:
- The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction,
- An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both "outer" and "inner" work.
- The clinical study also cited data specifically regarding improvement in sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction.
- The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner's sexual satisfaction as well.

I want my daughter and her potential boyfriends to have this "satisfaction" too. I mean, they're going to be circumcised and desensitized, might as well compensate by giving my daughter a nice make-over and a tight just for them.

I should be able to do this to my daughter. -I'm- the parent, -I- decide. And if it's called "labiaplasty" instead of "female circumcision," then this means it's not "harm," but good. Nothing works like a good name-change you know...

[Ken Shultz]

I mean, how can you expect anybody to take that argument seriously?

If we don't put a stop to circumcisions, then we're just gonna slide down the slippery slope and before you know it? Everybody's gonna be lobbin' off every newborn's labia?!

That argument's insulting to my intelligence. I'm sorry if I haven't been takin' it seriously, but what's the alternative?

You're right! It's all about the labia?!

[Joseph4GI]

Well, maybe YOU'RE not taking my argument seriously dude, but it was YOU who brought up "aesthetic" and the freedom of parents to operate on healthy children who have no genetic anomalies and/or deformities, based on purely "aesthetic values" and "wanting your child to fit in."

Yes. If male circumcisions are allowed, "because it's tradition," "because it's parental choice," because it's my religious freedom," then yes, it only follows that female circumcisions should be allowed as well.

It's YOUR argument, sir. Now you don't wish to take it seriously?

[Red Smith]

To be fair, labia are a slippery slope.

[Ken Shultz]

Incidentally, you all know what I think this is really about, right...?

Okay, all of you don't--it's about Gay Marriage!

The gay and gay friendly politics of San Francisco will continue to make mountains out of mole hills--on every issue they can can think of that has to do with Christianity or children and families, so long as gay people continue to be actively discriminated against...

These silly flailing of theirs against kids who eat Happy Meals and kids who get circumcised will only go away when Christians and family people stop supporting the government legally discriminating against gay people.

The next bit will be about taxing churches or some other form of ridiculousness--but especially when it's comin' out of San Francisco, always remember--anybody who supports government actively discriminating against gay people shouldn't be surprised to see politically active gay people lashing back at families and Christians.

[Joseph4GI]

When all else fails, change the subject...

[wayne]

how is banning circumcision of children related to lashing out at Christians and families?

[Joseph4GI]

Wayne, the same way banning female circumcision is lashing out against Muslims, African tribes and Malaysian families that circumcise their daughters...

A pox on anyone who dare speak out against our sacred cow!

[Ken Shultz]

It's just another grenade in the culture war.

You're talking about the San Francisco City Council here!

In the South? Cultural conservatives thumb their noses at liberals by burning Qur'an, putting up nativity scenes, refusing to take the Confederate Flag down, putting the ten commandments up and trying to force prayer and intelligent design in public schools...

The liberals on the San Francisco City Council? Why wouldn't they push back? And for the same obvious reasons! They do stuff to piss of conservatives--every chance they get...

They take Happy Meals away from children, they do gay pride parades, they try to take away parents' ability to give their kids circumcisions--all for the sole purpose of pissing off Conservatives. Especially in the wake of the Tea Party victory...

These are the same people who within in the last few months prohibited anyone working for the city from traveling to Arizona--to protest Arizona's immigration law.

Hello?

I'm not connecting any dots here--I'm pointing out the obvious!

This is just another volley in the culture war. It's So Friggin' Obvious. It's too obvious for Capt. Obvious.

If we stop letting the government discriminate against gay people, a lot of this stupid stuff will go away. Nobody cares that much about other people's business normally--use the government to actively discriminate against a group like gay people--and why wouldn't you expect them to push back?!

...against "breeders" with kids and Christian "nutters" especially. I'm not changing the topic--that is the topic.

[wayne]

When female circumcision becomes a "parent's choice", I will entertain the notion that male circumcision is a parent's choice. I will still consider circumcision of either sex to be child abuse, of course.

[Neu Mejican]

False equivalencies do not help your arguments guys.

The better comparison would be

"When getting your infant daughter's ears pierced becomes a parents choice, I will entertain the notion that male circumcision is a parent's choice."

[Graphite]

When getting your infant daughter's ears pierced becomes a parents choice

You were saying about false equivalences? I'd say it's more comparable to piercing an infant's tongue. And your fish oil comparison below is BS, no better than the people saying, "if you can't circumcise your kid then ya can't make him eat either, can ya?"

[Neu Mejican]

Actually, the fish oil example is on target. There is some weak medical evidence of benefit, mainly in reducing rare complications. But, again, such small effect sizes that it would hardly be medically recommended. There is, also, a small chance of harm (like circumcision), but the chances of that are exceedingly small (like circumcision).

The tongue piercing is a close enough equivalence, but carries a higher risk of complications than the circumcision.

But there are meaningful differences between male and female circumcision that Wayne is ignoring. The primary ones being the degree of harm (much greater for females) and the lack of ANY medical argument for benefit.

Really a much ado about nothing argument. But one that is fascinating in the passion that some bring to the table.

[Neu Mejican]

no better than the people saying, "if you can't circumcise your kid then ya can't make him eat either, can ya?"

Not at all the argument I was making. If parents are responsible for the medical choices related to their child, they need to be informed and allowed to make a good faith effort to choose. If they think the small benefits justify the equally small risks, who the fuck are you or wayne or j4GI to tell them their choice is abuse?

[Graphite]

I'm sorry, what benefits, exactly? So far I've heard, "he would look just like daddy," "high school girls wouldn't be creeped out by his pee pee," and, "if he buttfucks the homeless guys without a condom, he has a 25% chance of contracting HIV instead of a 50% chance."

Is there something else?

I'm not even arguing that it should be banned and illegal at this point. Just wondering why the fuck a parent would actually want to do this to their children.

[Joseph4GI]

No, the fish oil example misses the mark. A child can always choose to stop taking the fish oil. Once a child is circumcised he has to live with that for the rest of his life.

And, actually, no. Tongue piercing is not even close to circumcision, as circumcision causes a deliberate wound, where the child must endure the constant contact of bacteria and urea in his own urine and feces. Circumcision also REMOVES a substantial amount of flesh, whereas in a tongue piercing, at the very least the tongue stays in place. I'd say that tongue piercing is closer to ear piercing, though it is higher up on the danger scale...

Where do you get your basis of comparison to say that "female circumcision and male circumcision have meannigful differences," ie, the "harm" which is "much greater in females?"

You DO know that there are varying degrees of female circumcision right? And that not all are as bad as people blow them out of proportion to be. You DO know that the AAP wanted to propose a "ritual nick" for parents that circumcise girls in this country right?

And you DO know that there are at least two studies that show a "reduced HIV transmission rate" in circumcised girls right? The most prominent one I can think of is Stallings. (Google Stallings and female circumcision)

The bottom line is, is a doctor supposed to be performing surgeries in a child because of dubious "potential medical benefit?" Or because there is actual a medical necessity?

"Really a much ado about nothing argument. But one that is fascinating in the passion that some bring to the table."

People would REALLY like to believe that circumcision is a "non-issue." But if this were so, then we wouldn't be having these long discussions about "nothing."

If it were truly "nothing," then bills like these would pass swimmingly. OBVIOUSLY circumcision is a "non-issue" until somebody proposes we stop doing them...

[Joseph4GI]

Except piercing a child's ears is not at all like male circumcision.

Try removing the child's ear.

For the record, I also oppose child ear-piercing, but in my experience, this is a statement that is more widely accepted and agreed upon.

When doctors start performing ear-piercings in the name of "medical benefit," I'll be the first in that line.

[Azathoth]

You can, right not, pierce your daughters ears--and pierce your sons ears. These two things are equivalent. They are both ears.

You can have extraneous skin removed from your sons genitals, but you cannot have extraneous skin removed from your daughters genitals. Equivalence. At least in procedure and area, no?

Interestingly, the removal of extraneous skin from one's daughters genitals is seen as mutilation because it might decrease her level of sexual pleasure in the future. But this same consideration does not extend to sons. Non-equivalence.

We don't let primitive screwheads(I really liked that reference) carve up our girls in the name of their stupid gods, why do we allow the same operation, created by the same primitive screwheads, in the names of the same stupid gods, to be done on our boys?

And, for all those who cry 'it's different!', understand something--if we'd been carving up our girls vaginas in the West for the last thousand years, like we do our boys penii, we'd think it was just as normal and rational as we do taking scalpels to our son's dicks

[Joseph4GI]

This is the bottom line:

"Parental choice" has its limits, as do doctors.

Unless there is an actual medical necessity for which circumcision is the only viable solution, doctors have no more business performing circumcisions in newborns anymore than parents have business requesting it.

Performing the wrong operation on a patient constitutes malpractice.

Charging money to perform a non-medical surgery on a non-consenting individual constitutes medical fraud.

Performing circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting children and adolecent not only constitutes medical fraud, but it also constitutes the abuse of parental naivete, the abuse of the non-consenting individuals in questions, and a violation of their basic human rights.

Performing non-medical surgery on non-consenting individuals constitutes damage, harm, mutilation and a violation of basic human rights.

The rights of the parent end where the rights of the child begin.

It's high time boys got the same protection from genital mutilation as girls.

Unless the child is suffering from a problem that requires circumcision, doctors cannot be performing it, let alone let parents make any kind of "decision."

"Parental choice" and/or "religious freedom" are irrelevant when it comes to non-medical procedures and non-consenting individuals.

Doctors have a duty to perform surgeries that are medically indicated, or which fix an actual genetic anomally.

The circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is damage. It is harm. It is mutilation. It is a violation of basic human rights.

As long as the state bans female circumcision without exempt for "parental choice" or "religious freedom," it should do the same with male circumcision.

If "parental choice" and "religious freedom" are more important than medical necessity as some people argue, then the ban on FEMALE circumcision should be lifted.

You can't have one without the other. To label the genital cutting of one sex "mutilation" but not the other is a sexist double-standard.

[Ayn_Randian]

The circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is damage. It is harm. It is mutilation. It is a violation of basic human rights.

Despite the millions of people (literally) walking around without problems?
Just stow it already, jackass. You have been mucking up these threads with your hyper-emotive hysteria.

[Joseph4GI]

Ayn,

I hate to disappoint you but yes, whether guys care to admit it or not, they are walking around with problems.

The problem is they're choosing not to view it as such, which is fine for them, but not fine to impose on others.

If you don't consider living for the rest of your life missing a body part, dried out mucosa and a keratinized glans, having to use lube for the rest of your life and giving your partner a dried out vagina "problems," you're in the clear.

I mean, not to mention the immediate damage and harm you're causing a child.

Yes, I hate to break it to you but taking a knife and cutting off a child's foreskin and leaving his wound to sit in a feces and urine filled diaper is harm and child endangerment.

If you don't like this thread, you can always choose not to vis it it.

[Neu Mejican]

I hate to disappoint you but yes, whether guys care to admit it or not, they are walking around with problems.

Yep, that one made me laugh out loud.

The problem is they're choosing not to view it as such, which is fine for them, but not fine to impose on others.

But it is fine for you to impose your view on others? Cuz yours is "correct", bottom line nonetheless. Get over yourself dude.

If you don't consider living for the rest of your life missing a body part, dried out mucosa and a keratinized glans, having to use lube for the rest of your life and giving your partner a dried out vagina "problems," you're in the clear.

Hmmm...never had to use lube, you seem stuck on this one. Wonder why?

I mean, not to mention the immediate damage and harm you're causing a child.

Yes, I hate to break it to you but taking a knife and cutting off a child's foreskin and leaving his wound to sit in a feces and urine filled diaper is harm and child endangerment.

You have read all the literature, it seems...what is the rate of infection/complications resulting? You know the number, why not cite it? Is is because at a rate of less than 0.2% it harms your argument?

If you don't like this thread, you can always choose not to vis it it.

If you don't like people telling you to shut up, you might try a different mode of argumentation. Like one that is fact based, perhaps.

[Neu Mejican]

Strangely, the best retort to the thousands of words you have written here is that you are quite simply incorrect in almost every point you make.

Equating this to mutilation or assault is simple hyperbole. It is more akin to parents who give their kids fish oil to promote brain development.

It is a safe medical procedure that may have a small protective effect against exceedingly rare conditions in childhood, and may provide a modest resistance to sexually transmitted diseases after sexual maturity. No strong medical reason to do it as the effect sizes are small, but certainly nothing about it that equates to harm.

[Graphite]

No strong medical reason to do it as the effect sizes are small, but certainly nothing about it that equates to harm.

Except when it gets botched, of course ....

[heller]

The same can be said of any surgery, not just circumcision.

[Graphite]

Except that with other surgeries, there is usually some benefit (saving a life, correcting a serious ailment, repairing a broken body part) to counterbalance the risks.

[heller]

The aesthetic purpose of the surgery does outweigh the risk, which is extremely negligible. For example, there is considerably more risk to putting your baby in a car (even with a car seat, even driving at or below the speed limit, etc.) than having your baby circumcised.

[Neu Mejican]

Except when it gets botched, of course ....

Parenting is fraught with dangers much more perilous. Like peanuts, perhaps.

[Graphite]

You're right. Hey, why not leave half-full buckets of water around the house? 'Csuse you know, your kid could always get mauled by a grizzly, which would totally be worse than drowning.

[Joseph4GI]

@Neu Mejican,

"Strangely, the best retort to the thousands of words you have written here is that you are quite simply incorrect in almost every point you make."

Really? To simply dismiss the questions I ask is your best resort?

I challenge you to address the points I make instead of simply saying I'm incorrect.

"Equating this to mutilation or assault is simple hyperbole."

Unless there is a medical indication, for cutting off part of your son's penis, then yes, it is mutilation and assault. There is simply no way around that.

"It is more akin to parents who give their kids fish oil to promote brain development."

Really? Cutting off part of your son's penis is giving him fish-oil? NOT impressed...

"It is a safe medical procedure that may have a small protective effect against exceedingly rare conditions in childhood, and may provide a modest resistance to sexually transmitted diseases after sexual maturity. No strong medical reason to do it as the effect sizes are small, but certainly nothing about it that equates to harm."

Methinks that you yourself are preventing yourself from calling it harm because you don't want to consider that you are living your life in permanent harm, and/or that you have allowed harm to your child if you have one and agreed to have him circumcised.

You miss the mark. You can make female circumcision "safe." You can make the amputation of ANY body part "safe." Does the fact that a doctor can pull off a procedure "safely," even "painlessly" make it justifiable to do to a child, let alone make it an option for parents?

If female circumcision could be pulled off "safely," and "painlessly" so that a baby girl doesn't remember it as an adult, does that make it a candidate for a procedure parents can request and doctors can be performing?

No, circumcision is not "safe." There is no such thing as a "safe" amputation of healthy organs. Just like cutting off the healthy labia, hands, legs, or any other part of the body is "harm," cutting off the foreskin of a healthy child is harm. I'm pretty sure there are "safe" methods for foot-binding. Breast-ironing. Trephination. Doesn't justify doing it to a child "if parent requests it" or "if it's tradition" in the least.

Circumcision MAY provide "a small protective effect" against rare conditions in childhood. But you know what, this "effect" is already achieved through the power of modern medicine. Since when does it make any sense to be mutilating children to prevent a disease that is already rare and easily preventable? And since when is this "modest resistance" to sexually transmitted diseases relevant in a child who does not have sex?

Get it through your head: Circumcision FAILS as HIV prevention, or the prevention of any other STD for that matter. Even if the latest "studies" are correct, circumcision would only "reduce the risk of HIV by 60%," and only in males. Which means men are still at risk for 40%, and women 100% (see Wawer study). Which means circumcision FAILS. Circumcision FAILS as STD prevention so much that even circumcision advocates themselves cannot stress the use of condoms.

It is insanity to be providing a weak and dubious alternative to a method of prevention it cannot even hold a candle to.

There is no medical reason to circumcise a child, and this alone equates the circumcising of healthy, non-consenting individuals as "harm."

Bottom line question everyone seems to be dancing around the candle on:

For doctors to operate on a child, they need a medical indication, or the child needs to have a genuine deformity or genetic anomaly that cannot be fixed in any other way than surgery. (These may include a cleft, extra digit, etc.)

Without a medical indication, doctors cannot be performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

So how is it parents feel entitled to a something doctors can't even be performing? And how is it doctors are defending "parental choice" of a procedure that they know is medically unnecessary?

[Neu Mejican]

@Neu Mejican,

"Strangely, the best retort to the thousands of words you have written here is that you are quite simply incorrect in almost every point you make."

Really? To simply dismiss the questions I ask is your best resort?

Yep. It is strange, but that is probably the strategy.

I challenge you to address the points I make instead of simply saying I'm incorrect.

I did...in the most efficient means available...lumping them together into a mass of hyperbole and saying they are incorrect.

"Equating this to mutilation or assault is simple hyperbole."

Unless there is a medical indication, for cutting off part of your son's penis, then yes, it is mutilation and assault. There is simply no way around that.

Yes there is. Mutilation means something and circumcision does not conform to the standard meaning of the word as used by most people. Sorta like how Dane Cook can't really be called a "comedian."

"It is more akin to parents who give their kids fish oil to promote brain development."

Really? Cutting off part of your son's penis is giving him fish-oil? NOT impressed...

Oh the shame.

"It is a safe medical procedure that may have a small protective effect against exceedingly rare conditions in childhood, and may provide a modest resistance to sexually transmitted diseases after sexual maturity. No strong medical reason to do it as the effect sizes are small, but certainly nothing about it that equates to harm."

Methinks that you yourself are preventing yourself from calling it harm because you don't want to consider that you are living your life in permanent harm, and/or that you have allowed harm to your child if you have one and agreed to have him circumcised.

Again, you don't seem to understand simple words, like "harm" in this case.

You miss the mark. You can make female circumcision "safe." You can make the amputation of ANY body part "safe." Does the fact that a doctor can pull off a procedure "safely," even "painlessly" make it justifiable to do to a child, let alone make it an option for parents?

Actually, not true of female circumcision. And, yes, if it causes no harm, is safe and painless, there is no reason to second guess parents about their decision. Like piercing an ear, for instance, which is a permanent "injury" (if we use your twisted semantics). No reason to condemn parents for their choice.

If female circumcision could be pulled off "safely," and "painlessly" so that a baby girl doesn't remember it as an adult, does that make it a candidate for a procedure parents can request and doctors can be performing?

No, circumcision is not "safe." There is no such thing as a "safe" amputation of healthy organs. Just like cutting off the healthy labia, hands, legs, or any other part of the body is "harm," cutting off the foreskin of a healthy child is harm. I'm pretty sure there are "safe" methods for foot-binding. Breast-ironing. Trephination. Doesn't justify doing it to a child "if parent requests it" or "if it's tradition" in the least.

More false equivalencies. Really hurts your argument. Really.

blockquote> Circumcision MAY provide "a small protective effect" against rare conditions in childhood. But you know what, this "effect" is already achieved through the power of modern medicine. Since when does it make any sense to be mutilating children to prevent a disease that is already rare and easily preventable? And since when is this "modest resistance" to sexually transmitted diseases relevant in a child who does not have sex?

Get it through your head: Circumcision FAILS as HIV prevention, or the prevention of any other STD for that matter. Even if the latest "studies" are correct, circumcision would only "reduce the risk of HIV by 60%," and only in males. Which means men are still at risk for 40%, and women 100% (see Wawer study). Which means circumcision FAILS. Circumcision FAILS as STD prevention so much that even circumcision advocates themselves cannot stress the use of condoms.

A 60% reduction in the infection rate is a reasonably large effect. If you are arguing that it is unjustified because it does not provide 100% protection you are grasping at straws worse than I thought.

It is insanity to be providing a weak and dubious alternative to a method of prevention it cannot even hold a candle to.

There is no medical reason to circumcise a child, and this alone equates the circumcising of healthy, non-consenting individuals as "harm."

There ya go again.

Bottom line question everyone seems to be dancing around the candle on:

For doctors to operate on a child, they need a medical indication, or the child needs to have a genuine deformity or genetic anomaly that cannot be fixed in any other way than surgery. (These may include a cleft, extra digit, etc.)

Without a medical indication, doctors cannot be performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

So how is it parents feel entitled to a something doctors can't even be performing? And how is it doctors are defending "parental choice" of a procedure that they know is medically unnecessary?

Again, you are ignoring the context in very important ways. There are real, although fairly small, medical benefits. Circumcision lowers risk for rare conditions like penile cancer and several types of infections in childhood (leaving aside HIV in adulthood, for now).

For every minor medical complication resulting from circumcision, something on the order of a half-dozen urinary tract infections and 2 cases of penile cancer are prevented. Again, this is a small effect size...not large enough to warrant a recommendation that it be done routinely, but these are real benefits that parents may want to consider providing for their sons. And as that is one of the primary charges of parenthood (to be the medical advocate for your child that makes the choice based on your best judgment of benefit and harm), the BOTTOM LINE is that your attempts to turn this into an issue of "mutilation" and "abuse" is misguided. The fact that you pepper your arguments liberally with misinformation means that you are not only misguided but unaware of how biased your view of this issue has become.

[Liberal Douchebags]

Didn't we make ourselves clear? "My body, my choice" only applies when WE want it to apply.

[Ken Shultz]

Like I said, you get in their business and tell them they can't marry each other--'cause of who they are?

...and why wouldn't you expect them to get in your business and tell you what you can and can't do?

If you've persistently defeated what they see as their right to get married, how reasonable is it to expect them NOT to retaliate?! ...in all kinds of ways.

This is one. Just wait till they start trying to tax churches--that ain't really gonna be about what they say it is either. Why would they be hostile to Christianity?

Does that question even need to be asked?

[Terry]

Since when is your son's body yours?

[Ken Shultz]

Since when is it the city council's?

[heller]

Notice: there is no longer any need to reply to Joseph4GI's post-diarrhea. All his points have been refuted, he is merely repeating them over and over again. For best results, please continue to ignore this histrionic little fuck.

[Joseph4GI]

@Heller

The reason you cannot reply to my "post-diarrhea" is because you cannot.

My points have NOT been refuted, and it is you who merely repeats your faulty logic over and over again.

YOU can continue to ignore me if you want heller...

Rule of the sore loser; when all else fails, resort to name-calling and mudslinging. Nothing works like poisoning the well...

...histrionic little fuck...

I think I've made a friend...

🙂

[heller]

The reason you cannot reply to my "post-diarrhea" is because you cannot.

Well first of all, learn how to write a coherent sentence. Second of all, I have replied to you, and I can reply to you, but there is no longer any need, since you simply repeat nonsense like a dribbling little baby.

Rule of the sore loser; when all else fails, resort to name-calling and mudslinging. Nothing works like poisoning the well...

That's dependent on my arguments failing, which they have not. Your have.

The rule of the sore loser is to repeat his failed points, even after they'be shown to be wrong. I reserve the right to call you an illiterate, mentally deficient, little histrionic fuck for it.

[prolefeed]

Let's cut the Gordian knot here -- virtually any ballot measure proposed by elected officials in San Francisco is almost certainly going to be a profoundly statist bad idea in stringent opposition to everything libertarians hold dear.

This default assumption goes doubly so if it has anything to do with child-rearing, since elected officials in SF probably don't have children or any practical experience raising them.

You can further double the already overwhelming likelihood of said ballot measure being a bad idea if it is something that has never been proposed anywhere else in the country, or at least anywhere else outside of CA.

And after reading a sampling of the comments on this thread, I'm convinced the default assumption is the correct one here -- this ballot measure banning circumcisions is a terrible idea, statist idiocy just like the banning of Happy Meals.

[Joseph4GI]

There are other interesting comparisons I've seen here.

For a change of pace, let's talk about abortion.

When talking about circumcision, some people think it's cute to bring up abortion because it involves the issue of "choice."

But if you really look at it, neither side of the abortion debate should be vouching for infant circumcision.

For the pro-abortion, "pro-choice" side, it is often argued that abortion should be a woman's choice. It's "her body, her choice." Which is fair enough, if you're looking at it from the standpoint of a woman who wants to assert the rights to her body. But it is quite self-contradictory to be arguing for both the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body, while at the same time insisting that you have the right to impose elective non-medical surgery on a body that is not your own. Can pro-abortionists/pro-choicers really be arguing "my body, my choice" for women, but not the same for male children? You either believe in equal rights for all, or rights only for the female sex.

For anti-abortion, pro-lifers, the argument usually goes something along the lines of "the child's right to life." "It's NOT your body. It's the body of a child living inside you." These stances come from the standpoint of the child and his given status as a separate individual. But can people with such a position ALSO argue in favor of the circumcision of the child in the same breath? How is it "the child's right to life," but then not the child's right to his own body? Is it the child's right to his own body, or his parents'? Which is it? It cannot be both. If parents can "choose" circumcision for the child based on "parental choice," then it should only follow parents should also be able to choose to abort. Either parents are master of the child and his body, or they are not.

So when analyzed more closely, the abortion debate is really a moot point.

HIS body, HIS choice.

A child's "right to life" means he also has the right to his whole and complete body.

[Joseph4GI]

Bottom line:

Unless there is medical indication, circumcision is deliberate harm. It is damage, it is abuse, it is a violation of basic human rights.

How is circumcision deliberate harm?

The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue found in all boys at birth. The foreskin is not a birth defect or genetic anomaly analogous to a cleft or an extra digit. The foreskin is an intrinsic part of basic human anatomy. Unless there is a medical indication that cannot be addressed in any other way, circumcision is the deliberate destruction of this normal, healthy piece of flesh. It is blatant damage to the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting individual.

This may be a desired damage however; adults choose to destroy parts of their body all the time, for "aesthetic." They mar their skins for tattoos, they get piercings, they stretch their ears out. Women get breast implants. Some adult men may decide to get circumcised, even though it may not be medically indicated. And this is perfectly fine, so long as it is the individual is the one deciding this is what s/he wants.

It's taking a healthy child and doing such things to him for non-medical reasons such as "custom," "tradition," "religion," or "parental choice" that make it harm, damage, abuse, and a violation of basic human rights. It's the principle of taking a healthy, non-consenting individual and reducing him to an accessory that parents can modify and change at will, like a pet dog, or a doll. It's degrading and dehumanizing.

Unless there is medical indication, doctors are deliberately harming, damaging, mutilating healthy, non-consenting individuals. They are fooling parents into believing that it is this "choice" that they can make.

Unless it is medically indicated, circumcision is harm, damage, destruction and abuse. It is the rape of helpless, non-consenting children.

And dare I say that, even though most men will not care to admit or even consider it, millions of men are walking around with damaged genitalia. Yes, they were abused as infant babes, yes, other-wise intelligent doctors did this to them, and yes, their parents allowed them, either inadverdently and well-intentioned, or in willfull ignorance.

Either 80% of the world's men are walking around with genetic anomalies, birth-defects, etc. in need of correction, or 20% of the world's men are walking around with damaged goods. Which is it?

Let us remember that the circumcised penis is NOT natural. It is an artificial, contrived state. It is the penis with a foreskin that is standard equipment. It is having a foreskin that is normal and natural.

Unless there is medical indication, the circumcision of children is harm, damage, destruction, child endangerment, child abuse, rape and a violation of basic human rights.

We no longer live in the dark ages. Perhaps circumcision served a purpose once, but like all science and medicine, it is now completely absolete, such as blood-letting and trephination. Modern medicine allows us to give children all the "benefits" of circumcision without the actual surgery. Modern medicine always seeks to PREVENT surgery, not necessitate it.

Doctors now know, and have known for the longest time that circumcision is medically unnecessary procedure. They know that it causes deliberate pain, and that it needlessly puts children at risk of infection, if not ablation of their genitals, and/or the death of the individual. Any "benefits" attributed to circumcision can already be achieved in non-surgical, non-invasive ways.

How is it that doctors continue to perform circumcisions in healthy, non-consenting infants, let alone pretend like they can give parents any "choice" or room for any kind of "decision?"

I'm still awaiting patiently for an answer...

[Ayn_Randian]

tl;dr.

[Neu Mejican]

Doctors now know, and have known for the longest time that circumcision is medically unnecessary procedure. They know that it causes deliberate pain, and that it needlessly puts children at risk of infection, if not ablation of their genitals, and/or the death of the individual.

When those risks are put up against the benefits, infection rates are lower in circumcised boys. The ablation and death arguments are so rare as to be barely worth mention. You know the number...how many deaths from circumcision in a medical setting in the US since 1950?

[heller]

^^^retarded

[An Annoying Pedant]

"It is the rape of helpless, non-consenting children."

Please shut up. For all the love in the world, please stop posting on this thread.

[hmm]

I'd donate to Reason, if hey secure my handle...

How about a lil' contractual interaction?

[secure every handle]

Stop veering on-topic.

[hmm]

I'll veer wherever I damn well please!!

*starts veering*

[syd]

As someone with, what a doctor called a" partial circ," I don't much care for the the extra cleaning that my foreskin requires but the extra perceived sensation is nice. My flaccid dick looks like it's wearing a mock turtleneck and we all know that women LOVE those.

[Neu Mejican]

An Annoying Pedant|11.14.10 @ 10:19AM|#

"It is the rape of helpless, non-consenting children."

Please shut up. For all the love in the world, please stop posting on this thread.

I think, perhaps, we should encourage him to keep posting on this very thread. It will reduce the harm he does in the world and keep him from screaming at passing cars on some street corner.

[An Annoying Pedant]

I wanted him to stop because his verbal ranting was becoming vile and disgusting. He equated male circumcision with child rape. I realize this is very nearly an anything goes forum, and while I wouldn't have it any other way he crossed the line. I know we don't ban non-bots around here, so the only civilized thing to do was ask him to never post again by his own choice, something he seems to value. I hope he never comes back.

[Neu Mejican]

One last one that needs to be cleared up.

Even if the latest "studies" are correct, circumcision would only "reduce the risk of HIV by 60%," and only in males. Which means men are still at risk for 40%, and women 100% (see Wawer study). Which means circumcision FAILS. Circumcision FAILS as STD prevention so much that even circumcision advocates themselves cannot stress the use of condoms.

Notice that most women get HIV from an infected man. If the rate of infection is reduced in the male population, guess what, the rate of infection goes down in the female population as well. That is why, from a public health perspective, there is reasonable argument for the campaign to encourage the practice in areas with high HIV rates.

Also of note, when we talk about complications from circumcision, they are about 10 times higher for circumcision when it is done as an adult compared to neonatal circumcision. If harm is the metric, the argument is in favor of neonatal rather than adult circumcision. But, as has been mentioned, given the very small effect sizes for penile cancer and urinary tract infections that are the protections that obtain prior to sexual maturity, the issue of the individual's choice needs to be put into the cost-benefit calculation that compares adult to neonatal circumcision.

Informing parents of these issues is important. Misinformation designed to scare parents from zealots like J4GI and wayne muddies the waters and ends up doing real harm, imo.

Reasons for:
Small reduction in the chance of infections (yep, it is a lower risk of infection to have a healing circumcision in that diaper that scares J4GI so much than to have an uncircumcised penis...just not enough lower to make it a compelling argument).

Reduced rate of penile cancer (of over 60,000 cases in the US identified in the last survey I read, only 10 were among circumcised men).

The already mentioned reduction in HIV risk (the biggest medical effect). Genital ulcers are also less reduced.

Con:
0.2% chance of minor medical complications.
Most childhood infections that are prevented can be easily treated if they arise.
The individuals choice about these is taken away because the procedure is a permanent change.

Red herrings:
Sexual function
Mutilation/abuse
False equivalencies with Female Circumcision

[Neu Mejican]

To elaborate on the false equivalency.

Female circumcision, if performed correctly, leaves the woman in a state that increases her risks for many very serious medical complications. The risks of the procedure itself are many times higher, but even if we ignore those risks or they do not arise, the procedures desired end-state has negative health effects for the woman. This is not equivalent to male circumcision.

[Warty]

1: There's no correct way to do FGM. It's a hideous barbarism in all cases and deserves nothing but scorn.

2: You're guilty of your own false equivalence when you conflate the worst FGM type (excision of the clitoris & labia with infibulation) with the minor types that are more or less eqivalent to circumcision. If you wouldn't cut off your little girl's clitoral hood, why would you cut off your boy's foreskin?

3: The disease argument is just as much of a red herring. If you would circumcise your son to reduce his chances of AIDS, you might as well have his toenails removed so that he never gets an ingrown toenail.

Also, this:

the issue of the individual's choice needs to be put into the cost-benefit calculation

is a telling statement. "You want a choice in your life? I'll think about it."

[Neu Mejican]

1: There's no correct way to do FGM. It's a hideous barbarism in all cases and deserves nothing but scorn.

Agreed. "Correct" here is used in a sense relative to the goals of the procedure and without creating additional harms.

2: You're guilty of your own false equivalence when you conflate the worst FGM type (excision of the clitoris & labia with infibulation) with the minor types that are more or less eqivalent to circumcision. If you wouldn't cut off your little girl's clitoral hood, why would you cut off your boy's foreskin?

Not sure I would say the "minor" types are as "minor" as male circumcision...as all come with increased medical risk, a situation not found in boys.

3: The disease argument is just as much of a red herring. If you would circumcise your son to reduce his chances of AIDS, you might as well have his toenails removed so that he never gets an ingrown toenail.

As I said, there is pretty little compelling medical reason to support the practice. But that cost-benefit analysis is for parents to make for their children. It is not mine to make for them.

Also, this:

the issue of the individual's choice needs to be put into the cost-benefit calculation

is a telling statement. "You want a choice in your life? I'll think about it."

Not sure what your problem with this statement is. Liberty is a very important factor to consider in any policy decision. In this case you are balancing the liberty rights of the parents (who have a right to make medical decisions for their children) and the liberty rights of the child (who do not have an ability to assent or consent at the time of the procedure).

Parents place limits on their children's liberty. Are you saying that is improper?

[Warty]

It's an improper choice for the parent to make. That's all.

[heller]

Banning circumcision makes about as much sense as making circumcision mandatory. Yes, it is impossible for someone to give their non-consent as an infant, but it is also impossible for them to give affirmative consent. What if someone in the future regrets that their parents didn't get them a circumcision because the law prevented it? Now they will have to get one as an adult, a much riskier and unpleasant experience. That is why we have parents. Parents make the decisions that we are incapable of making. Telling parents they have to always choose not to circumcise is just as dumb as saying they always have to circumcise. ONLY parents can make these decisions.

[Warty]

I wasn't clear, I suppose. I don't want to ban it, but I reserve the right to think you're a barbaric cockbreath if you have your kid snipped.

[Ken Shultz]

"It's an improper choice for the parent to make. That's all."

Again, I love being libertarian, 'cause it means I get to call all kinds of stuff stupid and improper without anybody assuming I'm advocating a law to ban it...

The question on the table, though, isn't about whether circumcision is an improper decision for parents to make.

The question is whether it's a proper decision for city government to make.

[heller]

Why though? What is negative about having a circumcision?

[Warty]

Why though? What is negative about having a circumcision?

Having part of your body amputated can't be anything but a negative, can it?

And yes, I'm aware that this thread is deader than my foreskin.

[Graphite]

Reduced rate of penile cancer (of over 60,000 cases in the US identified in the last survey I read, only 10 were among circumcised men).

Link? You're kind of, maybe making a good case if these figures are accurate.

If you're going to throw out the ablation and death risks as being too rare, you may as well do that with the lower HIV risk in the case of American males, because the number of new infections that would actually be prevented on the margin (American male has unprotected sex and doesn't contract HIV from his positive partner specifically because he is circumcised) are probably in the same realm of frequency. I could see circumcision being indicated for individuals with very risky sexual lifestyles (i.e. lots of unprotected sex with many partners), but that's something no one can known until the individual reaches adulthood.

[Neu Mejican]

NIH, CDC, WHO all have good informative summaries on this issue. Not sure why I need to dig out a link you can find yourself.

Not a very strong argument in the end as the incidence is low.

[Neu Mejican]

There's a typo there...that should be 110, not 10.

Most estimates put the reduction in risk of this very rare disease from something like 3/100,000 to around 1/100,00. The reduction in risk is only seen in infant circumcisions. Childhood and adult circumcisions don't seem to matter at all. HPV is probably a big player and it is unclear what the relationship between penile cancer, infant circumcision and HPV is..., but one could speculate that the foreskin is more vulnerable to HPV infection, resulting in higher cancer rates.

Again, the cancer argument is not compelling. Only the HIV argument makes any sense, and that is only in a context with high risk of infection.

[Neu Mejican]

And to further clarify. The reduction in risk is for invasive penile cancer. Not for all types of penile cancer.

Here's the Mayo clinic summary of benefits

Circumcision may have various health benefits, including:

* Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it easier to wash the penis ? although washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis isn't generally difficult.
* Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections may be more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
* Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can also lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
* Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.
* Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections ? including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Circumcision may not be an option if certain blood-clotting disorders or penis abnormalities are present. In addition, circumcision may not be appropriate for premature babies who still require medical care in the hospital nursery.

Circumcision doesn't affect fertility, nor is circumcision generally thought to enhance or detract from sexual pleasure for men or their partners.

and the one from AA (who don't recommend it as a routine procedure)

*
Medical benefits, including
o
A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
o
A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in all males.
o
A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
o
Prevention of foreskin infections.
o
Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
o
Easier genital hygiene.

[Neu Mejican]

Dang, that is the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics).

[Skew your data much?]

A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in all males.

A really honest advocate would have included females in the assessment!

[Nooge]

Something about cocks brings the libertarian commentariat out of the basement.

[Warty]

Jesus, this got crazier since I left. You're not really helping the cause, Joseph4GI.

Also, I can't believe that this thread doesn't have a single mention of Dr. Kellogg and why he's a major reason that goys cut their babys' dicks.

[Quare fremuerunt gentes?]

Plural of goy is goyim.

[heller]

Actually it can be either one since the word goy has been adopted into English.

[Ken Shultz]

I thought I knew a lot about Kellogg...

What's the Kellogg connection?

[Dunno]

He wanted to snip Tony Tiger?

[Warty]

He and other Victorian sexophobes advocated it to prevent little boys from jacking off. It didn't work out so good.

[Ken Shultz]

Ha!

Funny how the temperance movement started... They seem to have started off with huge goals, and watered them down over time...

First they advocate circumcision to combat autoerotic behavior; then they try to use the government to stop us from drinking alcohol; then they shoot for the drug war, smoking in restaurants and trans-fats...

Someday, maybe they'll graduate to reasonableness.

[Bookfarce]

21 people like this.

[anarch]

Looking around for something else to ban, having successfully driven Happy Meals underground, the good people of San Francisco will be asked to consider a ballot measure to forbid circumcision.

There are Happy Meals, and then there are happy Meals, yo.

[George]

Let's all just be honest here, circumcision was never started out of medical necessity, it's been carried out for centuries to stop masturbation. In that way, it's just like the mutilation of female genitalia that has been frowned upon, with good reason, all over the globe, carried out by Muslims.

Supporting the practice of circumcision because it reduces the risk of AIDS is about as logical as supporting the practice of homophobia because gay men are more prone to contract AIDS than others.

With that said, I'm not sure if you should actually ban circumcision, as long as the medical community can in some form defend it as a medical practice. Yet, how come one doesn't defend such a practice when Muslims do it to girls?

[Cyto]

Let's all just be honest here, circumcision was never started out of medical necessity, it's been carried out for centuries to stop masturbation.

Well, if that was the intention then I'd say they failed miserably.

[Ken Shultz]

In fact, wouldn't making that kind of thing harder more difficult actually encourage that sort of thing?

Talk about unintended consequences!

I don't have any data to back this up, but I suspect it could be persuasively argued that making the male member less sensitive may have opened the door to sexual practices that may not have been so pervasive otherwise...

I mean, I know there's nothing new in terms of sexual practices under the sun, and I'm sure the advent of widely available pron made people more likely to know about and emulate what they saw. ...but before circumcision was so commonplace, it shouldn't be surprising or controversial to suggest that people probably compensated for males having less sensitive members by altering common sexual practices...

...which would have the exact opposite effect as that intended. No surprise there.

Does that mean circumcision being the standard was a necessary prerequisite for the sexual revolution?

I have no idea, but it probably didn't hurt any.

Thanks Dr. Kellogg!

[heller]

Yet, how come one doesn't defend such a practice when Muslims do it to girls?

Because female circumcision actually degrades the function of the genitalia. Male circumcision does not.

And I disagree with this whole line of reasoning that because one group of people performed circumcisions for a bad reason (and btw, circumcisions don't actually reduce the male sex drive), circumcisions have no value.

For one, they make genital hygiene easier and they slightly reduce the risk of penile cancer. These are generally accepted by the medical community. Some studies have also shown that it can reduce the risk of HIV. Considering the negligible risk of the operation, why shouldn't people get circumcisions?

[Almanian]

The counter said 646 comments - COME ON, 19 MORE TO 666!!!

(counting this one as 647)

[Why]

And they say HuffPO has the stupidest threads.

[Reason]

It's time someone said it, loud and clear: that infant circumcision -- including so-called "religious" infant circumcision -- is an atrocity and a fraud; that it's a brutal, perverse, outrageous violation of a helpless human being's right to his own body; that it's child sexual abuse in its most vicious, most destructive, most cunningly disguised form; that it literally censors a child's life -- kills part of the child -- even if he never realizes it, because it severs him from a uniquely specialized, uniquely sensitive means of perceiving, experiencing, sharing and enjoying his existence; that the reasons given to justify it are myths and lies; that it's the ugliest, saddest, most sickening scandal in the history of medicine and an infamy to societies that tolerate it and to institutions that sanctify it; and that anyone involved even remotely with cutting, tearing, crushing or burning off the foreskins of babies -- or anyone else by force, coercion or deceit -- is as guilty of causing human suffering as the monsters of Auschwitz and in the name of humanity should be exposed, confronted, stopped, brought to trial, and imprisoned.

Regardless of anyone's "reason" for circumcising a baby, the fact remains that infant circumcision is foreskin amputation by force -- the deliberate, irreversible destruction of a normal, natural, functional part of someone else's body -- living, protective, erogenous tissue that is rightfully his and that he instinctively wants to keep intact -- at a time in his life when he can't understand what is being done to him -- or why -- and can't speak for or protect himself.

Infant circumcision is, in other words, human vivisection -- legalized, institutionalized, sanctified human vivisection.

Reason and attempts at persuasion will not deter those who, driven by the compulsion to destroy what they secretly envy but can never have, and desperate to make their own tortured partial penises seem normal -- and for who knows what other god-awful reasons -- persist so relentlessly in defending, promoting, misrepresenting and performing this crippling, disfiguring mutilation.

The birthright of males -- all males -- to keep all of the penis they are born with must therefore be secured by law.

[Jesus H.]

It's time someone said it...

You mean like the 661 comments before yours?

[heller]

See above for why all those claims are wrong.

[Warty]

Holy shit, 660. Let's go for 666.

[Jesus H.]

Some asshole will just keep commenting till it gets to 667.

[Jesus H.]

Not that you are an asshole, Warty.

[Jesus H.]

I want to be perfectly clear about that.

[Jesus H.]

So...what's new with everyone?

[Jesus H.]

How about those Cowboys?

[Jesus H.]

Are we there yet?

[Jesus H.]

Is this thing on?

[heller]

Anyone who compares circumcision to rape really should be cared for in a mental institution.

[Almanian]

So anyway, it took some BALLS to post this. Man, people sure got TESTES about it - everyone when NUTS. I had to SACK out because it went on so long. Time to return to our life PODS and hit the SACK - another day in the BAG.

This is the most scrotiliciousist thread ever. Well done, all.

[CynDaVaz]

"Exit question: Do you want to live in a world of back alley circumcisions?"

I want to live in a world where it's illegal to mutilate the healthy genitals of all children - female OR male. Baby boys deserve the same protection from this as baby girls currently receive (unconstitutionally).

[CynDaVaz]

"Anyone who compares circumcision to rape really should be cared for in a mental institution."

Anyone who fails to recognize that circumcision is an assault on the sexual organs of a helpless victim needs a serious education in what's involved during circumcision, the reason it even got started in America, and what's lost and damaged when part of the male anatomy is needlessly amputated at birth.

[Aqua Buddha]

Do you want to live in a world of back alley circumcisions?

What, a world where back alley circumcisions evolved from MEN?!?!?