San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision


 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm Circumcised and my wife and I had our son Circumcised shortly after he was born as well. It was a decision based on religion and sanitation mostly. IMHO I see it no different than the procedure to cut the umbilical cord. This "banning" would be a violation of Religious Constitutional Rights! As for a previous comment; I've never met a woman that wouldn't have sex with a person that was circumcised. Every female I've had intercourse with actually told me they preferred someone circumcised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I've been circumcised.

You know what I find common in this kind of debate? The only people that care about circumcision are the people that haven't been circumcised. I was circumcised for medical reasons when I was a baby (according to my parents at least, I'm not Jewish... I don't think :unsure:). I don't know exactly why, I don't much care either, since I much prefer to imagine that the salami was too big for the skin, so they had to unwrap it.

In my life, I've never met (online or in the real world) someone that was circumcised who actually gave a ****. If the foreskin had to come off, then so be it, I think I speak for the vast majority of my comrades when I say we really don't care. I've not suffered any disadvantage at all throughout my life, sexually or otherwise, aside from the fact that my girlfriend is rather intrigued about the "why" part, although this has its own perks. It's never hurt me that I remember. I've not been socially excluded, or had anyone laugh at it.

Ironically the only people that actually seem to suffer from circumcision is the people who get it done later in life. I knew a guy at university who had to get it done medically after it tightened up for whatever reason, and he walked around like John Wayne for about 2 weeks. But even then, he's not had a problem after the initial pain. He actually told me that I was fortunate for having had it done at a young age since, consent or no consent, I don't remember the pain if there was any.

I find it funny that people actually care about getting circumcision banned. Generally though it's annoying though since the people campaigning for it to be banned are mostly hilariously uninformed and have no "experience" to speak of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Circumcised and my wife and I had our son Circumcised shortly after he was born as well. It was a decision based on religion and sanitation mostly. IMHO I see it no different than the procedure to cut the umbilical cord. This "banning" would be a violation of Religious Constitutional Rights! As for a previous comment; I've never met a woman that wouldn't have sex with a person that was circumcised. Every female I've had intercourse with actually told me they preferred someone circumcised.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But if your child decided he was Athiest, does he not have the right to not be circumsised as part of the 'Religious Consitution'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But if your child decided he was Athiest, does he not have the right to not be circumsised as part of the 'Religious Consitution'?

Being uncircumcised is a serious issue for the religious. On the other hand, being circumcised doesn't make you religious. There are plenty of atheists who are also cut. In this case, it ISN'T a two-way street, and the logic doesn't apply both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't fairy tales, and you aren't any more real. Go on and prove otherwise. :)

If your argument is going to rest upon the assertion that there is no God, then I am afraid you are using some terribly flawed logic, on multiple levels.

Edit: Who said it has anything to do with being better? Don't make stuff up.

This too. I keep saying it, but maybe I'm trying to be too flowery about it. Everyone who has a problem with it seems to be uncircumcised. Really funny, actually.

And using a religious text to prove god exists is terribly flawed logic, on multiple levels as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But if your child decided he was Athiest, does he not have the right to not be circumsised as part of the 'Religious Consitution'?

Some decisions we exclude to children, like drinking or smoking of legal age, or owning a hand weapon. A child is too immature to make decisions like these. They are not mature enough to know the harms drinking or smoking can have on them. This is the same to me on a religious level, children are not mature enough to know what religion to pick if any at all. And biblically "As for me and MY HOUSEHOLD we will serve the lord." And by the way, I have since become agnostic and I still am glad I was circumcised and that my son was as well. Also, this is like asking does a child not have the right to be taught a different language growing up? Well, as a parent I chose for my son and I taught him english. Or it's like doesn't a child have a right to curse and be disrespectful according to freedom of speech? Well, not as long as I'm raising him he does not; my child will be disciplined. And with the same assertion it could be said that children have the right to bare arms because they are allowed to constitutionally, this is ridiculously absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And using a religious text to prove god exists is terribly flawed logic, on multiple levels as well.

I'm not trying to prove anything, actually. ;) I just believe, and that is good enough for me. So once again, if this is going to be your argument...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being uncircumcised is a serious issue for the religious. On the other hand, being circumcised doesn't make you religious. There are plenty of atheists who are also cut. In this case, it ISN'T a two-way street, and the logic doesn't apply both ways.

I do wholeheartedly agree with this fellow's views, I must say. I am not Jewish, nor am I circumcised. But I do know what he's talking about.

It's a matter of religious freedom. Circumcision is not in any noteworthy way harmful, and the good things it brings to people of that faith in terms of their sense of belonging are important. Indeed I think they are essential, from what I have read.

As strongly as I feel about this issue, I feel against the French ban on Muslim women who would opt to cover themselves in the light of their interpretations of their religion. 'Fraternity, liberty, equality'... come on, my French comrades! I'd like to think no such ban could happen in Britain or America. Actually I don't think it could, but what's up with the French there? They would seem to love liberty as much as anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of atheists who are also cut.
And these atheits who are cut, chose to do it when they became adults. And the ones that did not had the oportunity to chose it in adulthood are going to have to deal with it whether they like it or not, wheter it was a good choice or not. There is no doctor here that recomends circumcisions.

Maybe we already clean our junk pretty well? :shifty:

It's customary in the Iberian culture to pierce the baby girls' ears and plug them earrings almost right out of the bat as it's customary in other cultures to tattoo their children with certain patterns.

At most, the only things my children will have to deal with is the name that I and my partner chose for them (which they can change in adulthood anyways) and the amount of culture, non-ambiguous moral compass and protection I'll provide them. My children will have time to decide what they want to do with their body when they are adults. If they want to tattoo, pierce, cut, smoke, shoot or if they want to become religious, all later on... it's their burden of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is no reason for parents to make that decision. If someone wants to become circumsized, they can get it done in the future
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As strongly as I feel about this issue, I feel against the French ban on Muslim women who would opt to cover themselves in the light of their interpretations of their religion. 'Fraternity, liberty, equality'... come on, my French comrades! I'd like to think no such ban could happen in Britain or America. Actually I don't think it could, but what's up with the French there? They would seem to love liberty as much as anyone.

Same issue, really. The women who wear that do it because they were brainwashed into thinking being sexual objects is normal - here, the parents who circumcise their children were brainwashed into thinking it's a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this is a mostly 'gay' male thing, wanting a law about circumcision ... :unsure:

Do go on - I'm puzzled as to the relevancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people in support of circumcisition are probably Jewish and have been indoctrinated by their religious beliefs. Those people arguing that it's against their relgious rights have a deeply flawed argument.

What about the human rights of their newborn son? They force their newborn to have, what many consider to be a mutilation of their penis. Where did the newborn child have an input? Forcing this on them is a form of child abuse.

I don't have an issue with people getting circumcised later in life out of their own volition, good luck to them. But relgious zealots who justify it on some book written aeons ago by some unknown dude are clearly incapable of rational thought.

What kind of God would dislike somebody because they haven't had their foreskin removed? Do you realise how stupid and unhinged that sounds?

I'm sure I've rattled a few cages here and I expect many Jews to dismiss it but if you do, it only proves that you're blinkered by your religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I disagree with you I'm automatically wrong? I can say the same about people who think that its mutilation, I guess they haven't seen a penis in their lifetime. Weirdos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I've been circumcised.

You know what I find common in this kind of debate? The only people that care about circumcision are the people that haven't been circumcised. I was circumcised for medical reasons when I was a baby (according to my parents at least, I'm not Jewish... I don't think :unsure:). I don't know exactly why, I don't much care either, since I much prefer to imagine that the salami was too big for the skin, so they had to unwrap it.

In my life, I've never met (online or in the real world) someone that was circumcised who actually gave a ****. If the foreskin had to come off, then so be it, I think I speak for the vast majority of my comrades when I say we really don't care. I've not suffered any disadvantage at all throughout my life, sexually or otherwise, aside from the fact that my girlfriend is rather intrigued about the "why" part, although this has its own perks. It's never hurt me that I remember. I've not been socially excluded, or had anyone laugh at it.

Ironically the only people that actually seem to suffer from circumcision is the people who get it done later in life. I knew a guy at university who had to get it done medically after it tightened up for whatever reason, and he walked around like John Wayne for about 2 weeks. But even then, he's not had a problem after the initial pain. He actually told me that I was fortunate for having had it done at a young age since, consent or no consent, I don't remember the pain if there was any.

I find it funny that people actually care about getting circumcision banned. Generally though it's annoying though since the people campaigning for it to be banned are mostly hilariously uninformed and have no "experience" to speak of.

All I see in this thread is a people who were never circumcised bitching. Is there anyone who was circumcised and unhappy with it? I know I am ok with it and all the people who I know was circumcised is ok with it. Why don't these SF'ers gets at least 100 signature from unhappy circumcised persons before trying to create a issue where there is none.

I'm going to repost these quotes because people seem to have ignored them, and I consider them to be very important points. But hey, when you're stood up there on your soapboxes, I guess it's harder to hear/read the opinions of the people who actually matter.

I actually find it quite hilarious that this whole debate is run by people whose opinions on this particular subject don't actually count. Unless you've been circumcised, you have no qualifications to participate in this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been a very interesting debate thus far dulled only by both sides of the debate getting a little worked up. Truth is you cannot take this right away from a parent as no significant harm is done by the procedure and it is a basic fundemental religious practice for some, now the blatant disregard and disrespect for religious beliefs that has been demonstrated many times in this thread makes this point somewhat futile here but it does not take away from its legitimacy.

To elaborate on a point made earlier, that not performing circumcision at an early age can cause more damage in a society where the norm is to be circumcised at an early age, one could cause a child to feel out of place and not normal among friends that all have been. As said child grows in this environment he will wonder why such an integral part of the religion was ignored and as such will more than likely get it done anyway only now he will actually remember that pain and is a significantly more complicated procedure because he is older.

The fact of the matter is my parents DID give me the choice to be circumcised and no form of religious indoctrination was imposed on me at all during my adolescent life and yet I willingly chose to have it done because in my society that is completely normal. The problem here is that people in support of this ban seem to forget that there are differing lifestyles in the world and what seems abhorrent and disgusting to you will be deemed perfectly normal to another. Which of you is correct? Neither.

The world does not have one singular correct way of living. Everybody has their own interpretation of the world and the whole thing about it is irreversible is moot, the entire time in which you raise an infant you are constantly choosing and shaping their future in almost every aspect of their lives, it is infact your role to do so and in this process you will be instilling near irreversible morals, teachings and principles all of which have a much greater impact than a bit skin being removed.

One final thing I feel I need to mention is that Callum really does not deserve the hostility he is receiving here, he has continued to respectfully reiterate a point that you all seem to miss, the point that any form of non consential physical alteration to an infant is wrong and while it is understood that this is mainly a religious practice he does not believe freedom of practicing religion should enable parents to be able to alter an infants body permanently. That's not a hard point to understand. Do I agree? No but honestly I would cherish a debate with someone like Callum. So take it easy, you can understand a point and still disagree with it (Y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/s or /trolling ?

lol

resident anti religion lunatic, heya :)

come on, you can't simply call someone a 'lunatic' because its vested again your religious beliefs' based on'miss conceptions' based on mythical rationale, not factually or scientifically relevant. The older generations would argue that it was done for 'cleanliness' as means to a rationale argument, which is moot. My parents knew this, and thus did not circumcise me. This feels good, because they respected me enough to understand that this socially/religiously enforced practice wasn't 'normal'. Separation of state and church, this is one of those again, to be blunt/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to repost these quotes because people seem to have ignored them, and I consider them to be very important points. But hey, when you're stood up there on your soapboxes, I guess it's harder to hear/read the opinions of the people who actually matter.

I actually find it quite hilarious that this whole debate is run by people whose opinions on this particular subject don't actually count. Unless you've been circumcised, you have no qualifications to participate in this debate.

I haven't but I live in Israel, I think that automatically gives me the qualification to participate in this debate :p

@- Kaboose -,

I didn't call him lunatic, I implied that he's the resident "anti religion lunatic", big difference. But I'll bite.

I can't be because of any religious issues because I'm not religious, I'm an Atheist.

Are your parents Jewish ? If so, then they're not religious enough, and it's perfectly fine, I'm not saying every Jewish man has to undergo a circumcision.

If your parents are Muslim then it doesn't even matter because from what I understand it's not even a religious practice for them, just something they picked up somewhere and it got carried through the generations, unlike Judaism.

Either way they didn't "respect" you or anythign like that, they simply didn't want to have you circumcised, perhaps because it MEANS NOTHING TO THEM ?

People make it out to be bigger than it actually is, this guy rambling about separation of church from state, jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're trying to create a law to criminalize something that is totally optional? Absolute smacktardery.

I'd hardly say it optional when its your parents who make the decision for you (often on religious grounds you may not agree with).

Now, for medical reasons, its a different story.

To those who are saying its "cleaner", do you think people can't clean themselves :blink:

At the end of the day, the foreskin is a natural part of the body. As far as I am aware, we don't remove other body parts for no reason at all.

To those who say its the parents right to choose what they do with their child, or to those who are saying its fine because its for religion / society, would you be ok with chopping off your kids finger for no reason other than those? No? Thought not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're trying to create a law to criminalize something that is totally optional? Absolute smacktardery.

it is not optional as the kid is not asked whether he wants to be circumcised or not - it is the parents decision to do it

I am not even sure you can make it illegal or ban it ... on what grounds? genitalia mutilation?! invasion of body rights?! Geneva convention?!!!!!!!! (kidding)

Edit: On a side not, I do not agree with circumcision at all, there is no need for it either from a medical/religious or otherwise BUT, if you are 18 and want to do it, I will not stop you, BUT if you are 1mo old and your parents decide you need your pee wii cut off then I would say don't do it, let the kid decide later on

though this argument about circumcision is a bit flawed since your parent choose the name for you, so, yeah, another tangent topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not optional as the kid is not asked whether he wants to be circumcised or not - it is the parents decision to do it

I am not even sure you can make it illegal or ban it ... on what grounds? genitalia mutilation?! invasion of body rights?! Geneva convention?!!!!!!!! (kidding)

Edit: On a side not, I do not agree with circumcision at all, there is no need for it either from a medical/religious or otherwise BUT, if you are 18 and want to do it, I will not stop you, BUT if you are 1mo old and your parents decide you need your pee wii cut off then I would say don't do it, let the kid decide later on

though this argument about circumcision is a bit flawed since your parent choose the name for you, so, yeah, another tangent topic

What the bloody **** ? Yes THERE IS NEED FOR IT RELIGOUSLY.

I'm starting to get really angry with the ignorance shown in this thread.

I'd hardly say it optional when its your parents who make the decision for you (often on religious grounds you may not agree with).

Now, for medical reasons, its a different story.

To those who are saying its "cleaner", do you think people can't clean themselves :blink:

At the end of the day, the foreskin is a natural part of the body. As far as I am aware, we don't remove other body parts for no reason at all.

To those who say its the parents right to choose what they do with their child, or to those who are saying its fine because its for religion / society, would you be ok with chopping off your kids finger for no reason other than those? No? Thought not.

You're repeating the points that were brought up earlier and I'll happily address them:

1. This is the only issue here, the "consent", and I don't see it as something that important to warrant a total ban on circumcision. Like I said before, parents make the child's decisions until he's 18/21 years old, this is NOT a big deal, "consent wise".

2. I don't think that there are medical reasons to undergo such procedure, unless it's something very specific.

3. Did someone actually said that it's cleaner ? Meh.. Oh well. You can safely ignore them.

4. Don't confuse "part of the body" and "body part", it's not the same thing. I can't stress how ridiculous that comparison is. It's not even remotely the same as removing the foreskin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the bloody **** ? Yes THERE IS NEED FOR IT RELIGOUSLY.

Religions change, interprerations on what is acceptable or not changes.

Should I quote a few "acceptable rules" from the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible or shall we skip that part?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religions change, interprerations on what is acceptable or not changes.

Should I quote a few "acceptable rules" from the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible or shall we skip that part?

Religions change ? What ?

I am truly confused by your post.

The Old Testament IS the Hebrew Bible.

**** me silly..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religions change ? What ?

Indeed, religions change and the interprations on the "rules" of these religions also change to mirror those of the modern society.

Since you wanted to go there; how's that slavery working out for you?

The Old Testament IS the Hebrew Bible.

Added it merely to point it our for people who might not know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.