San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision


Recommended Posts

My point, if you were actually reading, is that circumcision is REQUIRED for Judaism. On the other hand, NOT being circumcised is NOT required for atheism. So what is YOUR point, and how many times will I have to reword it to get a direct response?

Like I said. No one is born religious. So they don't become Jewish at 8 days old. They have to accept Judaism first.

Then how can people convert to being Jewish? (not having a go, just curious).

They get circumcised later on in life then, which I'm guessing sucks royally. Obviously, you can't have been circumcised at 8 days if you weren't already, so it is what it is. However, doesn't mean there's any excuse to wait when you are able to do it the right way.

That cannot be reasonably used to justify any religious activity. If rape was an integral and mandatory part of many people's religion, it would not be deemed acceptable, so therefore the reasoning you use above holds no weight in any situation.

As has been proven, circumcising people who'd rather have a foreskin harms them. You can find examples on the Internet of people who dislike the fact their parents circumcised them and many of them would class this as harm caused toward them.

I don't know of any religion that makes rape a mandatory practice (not one that's practiced here anyways), so I'm not sure how comfortable I feel addressing this point. I also don't think rape is equivalent to snipping off the foreskin.

There are people who think vaccines cause autism, and should be banned, and I'm sure some of them were given vaccines as children too. They'd make the same argument. Am I trying to say their opinion doesn't matter? No. However, their opinion is outweighed by the opinion and needs of many, many others.

Just like people have a freedom of religion, people also have a freedom from religion. Babies do not have the capacity to decide to follow a religion and therefore their freedom from religion should be protected, in case it turns out they do not wish to follow a religion.

and how does being circumcised prevent them from this choice?

Like I said. No one is born religious. So they don't become Jewish at 8 days old. They have to accept Judaism first.

I'm going to try this one more time, and then you're on your own. I can't keep explaining this, 5 times a day, just for your absurdly dense self.

The torah says the circumcision must be done at 8 days. If the child is not circumciced at 8 days, that is a huge deal. Therefore, if the child did decide to become Jewish (and whether you'd like to believe it or not, he most likely will) that is something he would be VERY upset about. On the other hand, if the child decides otherwise, then that's fine too. I fail to see how the circumcision forces him to be Jewish. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

Now, if you'd like to move on to other points on why circumcision should be banned despite the above, or if you'd like to point out where I am wrong in the above statement, please go on, but if you're going to continue on with this bs about freedom of religion and whatnot, just stuff it, and have a good day.

Apparently what matters here is that the parents accept Judaism, so the children have to deal with it. Oy vey!

As above. They don't have to deal with anything. They can choose to be atheist still.

They get circumcised later on in life then, which I'm guessing sucks royally. Obviously, you can't have been circumcised at 8 days if you weren't already, so it is what it is. However, doesn't mean there's any excuse to wait when you are able to do it the right way.

I don't know of any religion that makes rape a mandatory practice (not one that's practiced here anyways), so I'm not sure how comfortable I feel addressing this point. I also don't think rape is equivalent to snipping off the foreskin.

There are people who think vaccines cause autism, and should be banned, and I'm sure some of them were given vaccines as children too. They'd make the same argument. Am I trying to say their opinion doesn't matter? No. However, their opinion is outweighed by the opinion and needs of many, many others.

and how does being circumcised prevent them from this choice?

I'm going to try this one more time, and then you're on your own. I can't keep explaining this, 5 times a day, just for your absurdly dense self.

The torah says the circumcision must be done at 8 days. If the child is not circumciced at 8 days, that is a huge deal. Therefore, if the child did decide to become Jewish (and whether you'd like to believe it or not, he most likely will) that is something he would be VERY upset about. On the other hand, if the child decides otherwise, then that's fine too. I fail to see how the circumcision forces him to be Jewish. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

Now, if you'd like to move on to other points on why circumcision should be banned despite the above, or if you'd like to point out where I am wrong in the above statement, please go on, but if you're going to continue on with this bs about freedom of religion and whatnot, just stuff it, and have a good day.

As above. They don't have to deal with anything. They can choose to be atheist still.

Yes but by saying the Torah, you're assuming the child is religious from the start. But Babies are not religious at birth. They don't even know what religion or god is. Thus people are making an irreversible decision, under the threat of "god".

Wanted to ask a question about something I just read

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html

It's easier to keep a circumcised penis clean, although uncircumcised boys can learn how to clean beneath the foreskin once the foreskin becomes retractable (usually some time before age 5).

So before the age of 5, you can't even peel it back? I never knew this (understandably) but wouldn't that mean that even taking the whole "just roll it down and clean it" argument into consideration, you're still at a higher risk till that point?

Oh, also:

Some people claim that circumcision either lessens or heightens the sensitivity of the tip of the penis, decreasing or increasing sexual pleasure later in life. But neither of these subjective findings has been proved.

Hahahahaha

Edit: oh, and it goes on!

Perhaps one of the hardest parts of the decision to circumcise is accepting that the procedure can be painful. In the past, it wasn't commonplace to provide pain relief for babies being circumcised, but because studies have indicated that it benefits the infant to receive anesthesia, most doctors will now provide it.

We even provide anesthesia for the little tykes now! Isn't that sweet? <3

If only I were so lucky (even though I can't remember it).

Finally:

Despite the possible benefits and risks, circumcision is neither essential nor detrimental to a boy's health. The AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) do not endorse the procedure as a way to prevent any of the medical conditions mentioned previously. The AAP also does not find sufficient evidence to medically recommend circumcision or argue against it.

Huh. Sounds good to me.

Yes but by saying the Torah, you're assuming the child is religious from the start. But Babies are not religious at birth. They don't even know what religion or god is. Thus people are making an irreversible decision, under the threat of "god".

Been talking to babies recently ? /s

You guys do realize that it's not strictly done for religious reasons, right?

Yeah, we do realize that but honestly I don't know why anyone would do that. But I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make here...

Yeah, we do realize that but honestly I don't know why anyone would do that. But I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make here...

I think more people get it done for sanitation reasons than any other.

Here's some stats for the US:

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

The report refers to sanitary reasons throughout the entire document.

I understand that Canada and Europe have substantially lower incident percentages. So, depending upon what country you're talking about, religious reasons may or may not be the primary reason why people get circumcisions.

I think more people get it done for sanitation reasons than any other.

Here's some stats for the US:

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

The report refers to sanitary reasons throughout the entire document.

I understand that Canada and Europe have substantially lower incident percentages. So, depending upon what country you're talking about, religious reasons may or may not be the primary reason why people get circumcisions.

I still don't see a point in all of this.

I couldn't care less if they ban circumcision for the rest of them as it means nothing to them, their reasons to be easily proved to be false by a simple research, while the religious circumcision can't be proven wrong, even if it came from an invisible entity that you and I don't believe in.

I still don't see a point in all of this.

I couldn't care less if they ban circumcision for the rest of them as it means nothing to them, their reasons to be easily proved to be false by a simple research, while the religious circumcision can't be proven wrong, even if it came from an invisible entity that you and I don't believe in.

Your simple search will also list contradictory results. It then becomes a matter of the better sell.

About the "permanetly damaging surgery", the "damaging" part is simply a lie to make the sentence look "strong" (if you know what I mean).

A question for you. Circumcision, IIRC, is a religious act, yes?

Well, if you believe in god, then you believe god made man. In which case, who are you to say god's "design" for the male form is wrong, and to deliberately change it?

Surely by circumcising, you're saying that gods design is wrong?

I do completely understand that, but I reckon if I got to the age where I realised and understood I was born with a foreskin, I'd be gutted because I like having a foreskin for many reasons; maybe if I had been forcefully circumcised, I'd want a foreskin after finding out about them. By then it'd be too late. Would you like it if anything else of yours had been removed when you were born, if removing those body parts was legal? What about if your parents had a finger of yours removed; would you be fine growing up with only 3 fingers on one hand?

As I've pointed out, I reckon (but obviously cannot say for sure) that I'd hate it if I'd been circumcised. I already despise the fact I was unwillingly christened and christening didn't even harm my body.

and maybe your parents should have consulted you if you wanted in innie or an outie.

It's no different than cutting an umbilical cord? I'm not even going to attempt to debate with someone who doesn't even understand basic anatomy, let alone a hot button issue like this.

For non-religious folks, "why not?" is not an acceptable answer. It's genital mutilation. I personally would have preferred to have it done but I'm no better off not having it done.

A question for you. Circumcision, IIRC, is a religious act, yes?

Well, if you believe in god, then you believe god made man. In which case, who are you to say god's "design" for the male form is wrong, and to deliberately change it?

Surely by circumcising, you're saying that gods design is wrong?

It would be better off asking a religious man and not me.

But as I understand it, it's a command directly from God. So yeah, maybe he failed during the brainstorming session and gave you too much skin.

Don't they also say that we were meant to be immortal as well ? But all that changed after we've been naughty a couple of times in the past. God changes stuff, you see. But still, like I said, you better be asking a religious man and not me.

"It's genital mutilation", no, under no circumstance it is genital mutilation. Female circumcision is genital mutilation, male isn't.

A question for you. Circumcision, IIRC, is a religious act, yes?

Well, if you believe in god, then you believe god made man. In which case, who are you to say god's "design" for the male form is wrong, and to deliberately change it?

Surely by circumcising, you're saying that gods design is wrong?

As inclined said, we didn't decide anything. It says right in the Torah that we need to do this. And since the Torah was dictated to Moses, word-for-word, by God, we listen. Simple as that.

It would be better off asking a religious man and not me.

But as I understand it, it's a command directly from God. So yeah, maybe he failed during the brainstorming session and gave you too much skin.

Don't they also say that we were meant to be immortal as well ? But all that changed after we've been naughty a couple of times in the past. God changes stuff, you see. But still, like I said, you better be asking a religious man and not me.

"It's genital mutilation", no, under no circumstance it is genital mutilation. Female circumcision is genital mutilation, male isn't.

no no, technically circumcision is genital mutilation because a. skin that is naturally fit for its purpose is cut-off and dismembered from the penis. That fits a perfect description for mutilation, and is put into context of the act of circumcision. The only reason why people try to claim its 'ok', is because its accepted in a traditional sense or even religiously symbolic (ambrahamic faiths = covenant with god).

Let's not blur facts here

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.

3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

It isn't an essential part, nor does losing it cripple you.

"Disfigure" is a relative term. I, and many others, think it's normal. Therefore, not disfigured.

3. Imperfect is, once again, a relative and objective term.

So thanks, but try following your own advice and stop blurring the facts.

edit: and this is all besides the fact that for all I care, we could call it "dick slicing" or "pecker reduction", and it still wouldn't matter to me. Doesn't change the validity of a single argument. Just semantics.

As inclined said, we didn't decide anything. It says right in the Torah that we need to do this. And since the Torah was dictated to Moses, word-for-word, by God, we listen. Simple as that.

I see.

Does it give a reason for it, or is it just ordered and obeyed, without question?

The short explanation is that it represents our covenant with God. If you want the long version, go read up on the story of Abraham and his son (not trying to be rude, it's just that I don't think its necessary to copy/paste or re-write an entire Biblical story in here :p)

edit: and for the record, NOTHING in the Jewish religion goes without question. We are a very curious, questioning people, and it is in fact strongly encouraged to ask questions about, and even challenge, your faith. That is how one's faith grows stronger.

no no, technically circumcision is genital mutilation because a. skin that is naturally fit for its purpose is cut-off and dismembered from the penis. That fits a perfect description for mutilation, and is put into context of the act of circumcision. The only reason why people try to claim its 'ok', is because its accepted in a traditional sense or even religiously symbolic (ambrahamic faiths = covenant with god).

Let's not blur facts here

Naturally fit ? Take a look at yours and tell me if it looks natural to you.

I'm guessing that a haircut is also "mutilation" because hair is a part of your body, is it not ? You cut it, as in, you "dismember" it.

Go google mutilation and see the images, maybe you'll get the idea of what it actually is.

Naturally fit ? Take a look at yours and tell me if it looks natural to you.

I'm guessing that a haircut is also "mutilation" because hair is a part of your body, is it not ? You cut it, as in, you "dismember" it.

Go google mutilation and see the images, maybe you'll get the idea of what it actually is.

My dick looks natural. It's even got its own little protection from dust/dirt!

They get circumcised later on in life then, which I'm guessing sucks royally. Obviously, you can't have been circumcised at 8 days if you weren't already, so it is what it is. However, doesn't mean there's any excuse to wait when you are able to do it the right way.

So you admit that it isn't actually needed when the kid is a baby?

Thank you for proving my point.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!