San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

[epk]

Oh, I love some of you guys. Are you seriously comparing vaccines, one of the most effective public health measures, to circumsicion, a rather archaic practice that's only done today for traditional values?

[WelshBluebird]

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.

1 - As I said (which you didn't really answer in point 4), a parent does not have the right to remove parts of the body of their kid (whatever semantics you want to use, it is still part of the kids body).

2 - When I said medical reasons, thats exactly what I mean. Specific problems some people do get.

3 - Yep, a few people did.

4 - see point 1.

If someone wants to get circumcised, then that is their decision to make. But I don't believe a parent should be able to make a decision about altering their childs body like that for no reason at all.

[WelshBluebird]

Religions change ? What ?

Most christians do not think slavery is acceptable anymore.

Many are somewhat acceptable of gay people.

Etc etc.

[tiagosilva29]

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".

This isn't a total ban on circumcision, this is a ban on circumcisions made on minors without a medical justification. While you still claim it's harmless, this is a great deal. We're not talking about droping water with vestiges of wax on the forehead of a baby or the signning of a piece of paper. Somebody is cuting on a body part of a baby, frequently with no anesthesia because many countries don't accept this as a justifiable medical event (not even performed by a doctor, most of the times), just like on the cases of those extreme body modifications. And the most significant issue is that you are completely disregarding the burden of choice that this child has. Parents should not make religious choices on behalf of their children. Children make this choices when they become mature and adults. As I said before, this isn't the signing of a paper. Either being a foreskin removal with some blood sucking or a tattoo of a simbol in their face, it is a permanent mark on something that they have not made a choice on.

[Ricky65]

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.

How about the blatant disregard and disrespect of the child's free will?

Anybody who believes in true freedom should be against forced circumcision of children. The two are incompatible.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

This isn't a total ban on circumcision, this is a ban on circumcisions made on minors without a medical justification. While you still claim it's harmless, this is a great deal. We're not talking about droping water with vestiges of wax on the forehead of a baby or the signning of a piece of paper. Somebody is cuting on a body part of a baby, frequently with no anesthesia because many countries don't accept this as a justifiable medical event (not even performed by a doctor, most of the times), just like on the cases of those extreme body modifications. And the most significant issue is that you are completely disregarding the burden of choice that this child has. Parents should not make religious choices on behalf of their children. Children make this choices when they become mature and adults. As I said before, this isn't the signing of a paper. Either being a foreskin removal with some blood sucking or a tattoo of a simbol in their face, it is a permanent mark on something that they have not made a choice on.

Tatoos and the like are a different matter, but for circumcision, I'm not aware of any disadvantage that a child may suffer from being circumcised, and I've never suffered from being circumcised. So why do you even care, or are you just "representing" circumcised people, in which case I'd rather you didn't.

[tiagosilva29]

Tatoos and the like are a different matter

No, they are not. It's the same permanent matter.

So why do you even care, or are you just "representing" circumcised people, in which case I'd rather you didn't.

Are you representing all the circumcised infants, including those that, when reaching adulthood, manifest that they would rather not have had been circumcised?

I am just lucky the religion/tradition that my parents shoved me into when infant is not into tattooing, piercing or circumsizing. It would be a bitch to wake up every day and have that souvenir of something that I am not even closely related to and that was forced upon me. Some can accept it well, others don't.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

No, they are not. It's the same permanent matter.Are you representing all the circumcised infants, including those that, when reaching adulthood, manifest that they would rather not have had been circumcised?

No, but I represent one of them, and possibly some others that all have the opinion that being circumcised makes no difference to your quality of life.

[ylcard]

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?

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

Ah, I see, so while aruging with all of you I'm lost, how is it relevant to circumcision ? The idea stayed the same, and when it changes, they'll adapt. It's absurd to let an Atheist change the ways of religious people. As absurd as religious fanatics pushing their religious crap on me (Atheists).

I'll ignore the slavery bit because honestly I'm not sure what you expect me to say about that.

Oh, I love some of you guys. Are you seriously comparing vaccines, one of the most effective public health measures, to circumsicion, a rather archaic practice that's only done today for traditional values?

People are comparing the cutting of fingers with circumcision, it seems fitting to use vaccines as an example of CONSENT. Thanks for your "opinion" but thankfully it does not actually mean you're right, you can think of it as archaic, but fact remains that you are obviously not a religious Jew, so you have no ****ing idea what circumcision actually is.

1 - As I said (which you didn't really answer in point 4), a parent does not have the right to remove parts of the body of their kid (whatever semantics you want to use, it is still part of the kids body).

2 - When I said medical reasons, thats exactly what I mean. Specific problems some people do get.

3 - Yep, a few people did.

4 - see point 1.

If someone wants to get circumcised, then that is their decision to make. But I don't believe a parent should be able to make a decision about altering their childs body like that for no reason at all.

Doesn't a parent have a right to authorize a surgery, even if the kid "doesn't want one" ? Obviously it's NOT the same thing, but in both cases a part of the body is either removed or modified, and SOMEONE has to authorize it, and since children below 18 years old can't consent to ANYTHING, it's a safe bet that the parents have. I'm not laying it out as facts, I'm not a lawyer or have any experience with kids and such, I simply follow logic and to some degree the media, be it articles, movies, TV shows and whatnot.

Feel free to correct me with laws and anything else you feel that contradicts my point here.

About the other points, I see no reason to continue discussing them :)

Most christians do not think slavery is acceptable anymore.

Many are somewhat acceptable of gay people.

Etc etc.

This is not about Christians, we're going off-topic.

This is pretty much exclusively about Judaism.

This isn't a total ban on circumcision, this is a ban on circumcisions made on minors without a medical justification. While you still claim it's harmless, this is a great deal. We're not talking about droping water with vestiges of wax on the forehead of a baby or the signning of a piece of paper. Somebody is cuting on a body part of a baby, frequently with no anesthesia because many countries don't accept this as a justifiable medical event (not even performed by a doctor, most of the times), just like on the cases of those extreme body modifications. And the most significant issue is that you are completely disregarding the burden of choice that this child has. Parents should not make religious choices on behalf of their children. Children make this choices when they become mature and adults. As I said before, this isn't the signing of a paper. Either being a foreskin removal with some blood sucking or a tattoo of a simbol in their face, it is a permanent mark on something that they have not made a choice on.

Well, yeah, I guess it is not a "total" ban, but whatever. There shouldn't BE a medical justification, much like there isn't any medical justification to do a facelift or a tattoo, unless I'm wrong, in which case follow my advice right above this piece of text and prove me wrong.

A Mohel is not allowed to use anesthesia as far as I'm aware, except for drugs that you can easily purchase in a drug store w/o a prescription. Doctors ALWAYS use anesthesia, but I'm guessing it was just worded out wrong, and you know that.

I'm not disregarding this issue, an 8 day old child has no choice in the matter of anything. Every single thing is decided by his parents, like it or not. Circumcision is not a "religious choice" because he can easily live a secular life and hell, even convert to Islam if he damn pleases to do so, if he choose to NOT be a religious person it will have ZERO effect on his life, but if he chooses to be religious, many if not all would prefer to have been already circumcised as per Jewish law, although it may seem like really lame reason, but shock-horror, it's an important part of their religion, so it's important to them. Even if you don't like it.

How about the blatant disregard and disrespect of the child's free will?

Anybody who believes in true freedom should be against forced circumcision of children. The two are incompatible.

What free will ? He's 8 days old.

Yes, true freedom is to BAN something ? Are you daft ?

[Aethec]

Some people should think "Why are we circumcising people in the first place?".

The answer is simple. Apart from extremely rare medical reasons (I don't think everyone here who says he was circumcised for medical reasons is right), circumcising boys prevented diseases when hygiene was very bad, (which *was* a valid reason, but isn't any more) and tried to prevent boys from masturbating (same old sex taboo...). Circumcising women is only done to prevent them from feeling pleasure during sex (to avoid them cheating with other men - if they don't feel anything they won't do it).

"Why not?" is not a valid answer.

[ylcard]

No one actually said "why not", though. The reason people undergo circumcision is because of religion, like you said, some may do it because of a medical necessity, but I haven't encountered such case as of yet, others do it for god knows what reason.

But the majority of all circumcisions is religious. That's a good enough reason considering the only issue at hand is the consent of the baby, which is un-needed for almost their entire childhood except for specific circumstances.

So if you want to hear why someone would want to be circumcised, chances are that that he wants to do it for religious reasons, because his God commands it.

Hah, it's funny, just had this thought, how do you know that the baby doesn't WANT to be circumcised ? Maybe he wants to but obviously he can't speak his mind. Aren't you denying his right to be circumcised by preventing his parents in organizing the whole thing ?

*haha, I realize it's a stupid and laughable but I just had this crazy thought* :p

[CyberManifest]

OMG! I gave my child a haircut! Quick someone call the police; I didn't give my child the constitutional right of freedom of religion to make a choice to cut their own hair at an older age; same with fingernails and toenails! OMG! I made a medical decision for my child that had a medical complication or a deformity! Quick someone call the police for abuse! OMG I bathed my child! Quick someone call the police for sexual abuse!

[CyberManifest]

Does the Government know what's best for me and my child? Or do I know what is best for me and my child?

[WelshBluebird]

Does the Government know what's best for me and my child? Or do I know what is best for me and my child?

Depends on the situation.

I am sure the government would be right if you thought it was best to rape your child for example.

Extreme example, but it goes to show parents are not always right.

OMG! I gave my child a haircut! Quick someone call the police; I didn't give my child the constitutional right of freedom of religion to make a choice to cut their own hair at an older age; same with fingernails and toenails! OMG! I made a medical decision for my child that had a medical complication or a deformity! Quick someone call the police for abuse! OMG I bathed my child! Quick someone call the police for sexual abuse!

1 - Hair grows back

2 - Nails grow back

3 - Stupid

4 - Even more stupid

[epk]

OMG! I gave my child a haircut! Quick someone call the police; I didn't give my child the constitutional right of freedom of religion to make a choice to cut their own hair at an older age; same with fingernails and toenails! OMG! I made a medical decision for my child that had a medical complication or a deformity! Quick someone call the police for abuse! OMG I bathed my child! Quick someone call the police for sexual abuse!

Yeah, ok. Circumsicion is just the same as a haircut. Don't you people think before you write?

[Seizure1990]

I think the main point is that circumcision is an all-around inconsequential procedure. Your penis remains a penis, and can still do everything it was meant to do. That, coupled with the fact that it is an integral and mandatory part of many people's religion, just makes banning it nonsensical to me. Even if I weren't Jewish and circumcised, pretty sure I'd feel that way. I'm against abortion as well, but I still believe the choice should be there.

Plus, less of a chance of getting it caught in your zipper. Ouch!

Call me judgmental if you want, but my personal feeling is that the people who are howling about this are just looking for bs to rebel against, because they can.

[oldaccount1]

How the hell does it cause damage.

I know women who won't sleep with circumcised guys. Seems worth it to me.

I think you'll find with just a little research that it's quite the opposite.

http://www.aboutcirc.com/feelings.htm

[WelshBluebird]

Doesn't a parent have a right to authorize a surgery, even if the kid "doesn't want one" ? Obviously it's NOT the same thing, but in both cases a part of the body is either removed or modified, and SOMEONE has to authorize it, and since children below 18 years old can't consent to ANYTHING, it's a safe bet that the parents have. I'm not laying it out as facts, I'm not a lawyer or have any experience with kids and such, I simply follow logic and to some degree the media, be it articles, movies, TV shows and whatnot.

Feel free to correct me with laws and anything else you feel that contradicts my point here.

About the other points, I see no reason to continue discussing them :)

But as you said, it is a totally different thing. You really cannot compare it at all.

Surgery has a valid purpose and obvious benefits (often lifesaving).

Circumcision does not. The only argument you can make is on religious grounds, or for certain medical issues (which are not the case most of the time).

And fair enough.

[zeta_immersion]

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

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

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.

Are you kidding me?! ... since when religion plays a role, so important that a child has no saying into?! ... since when an atheist child from a jewish family can (not?!)opt OUT of being circumcised?!

Edit 1: all this debate is based on option thus removing basis of hygiene and religion and other bull**** people come up with

Edit 2: nvm, why the hell did you snap at me, i agree with you, might not have come out the way it might have been supposed to, but aat least you layed it out well

Edit 3: the foreskin is indeed a body part that is part of the body obviously as its intended use is to protect the head

[Seizure1990]

Are you kidding me?! ... since when religion plays a role, so important that a child has no saying into?! ... since when an atheist child from a jewish family can (not?!)opt OUT of being circumcised?!

Edit 1: all this debate is based on option thus removing basis of hygiene and religion and other bull**** people come up with

Edit 2: nvm, why the hell did you snap at me, i agree with you, might not have come out the way it might have been supposed to, but aat least you layed it out well

Being circumcised doesn't make a child NOT atheist, and that's a pretty huge difference. On the other hand, being circumcised IS a huge part of Judaism. You can't compare it like that. It just doesn't work.

Religion isn't bull****, nor is it something to be ignored completely. We live in a country that prides its self on freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and a whole bunch of other related things.

As inclined has said, the argument about consent is bs. As parents, we make tons of permanent decision for our child, and I would argue that most of them are FAR more influencing then circumcision. What school we send our child to, what friends we let them associate with, even what we let them eat. All of these things have WAY more bearing on their life then that silly flap of skin. So it seems clear to me that deciding things for your child is nothing other then normal.

[iamawesomewicked]

Being circumcised doesn't make a child NOT atheist, and that's a pretty huge difference. On the other hand, being circumcised IS a huge part of Judaism. You can't compare it like that. It just doesn't work.

Religion isn't bull****, nor is it something to be ignored completely. We live in a country that prides its self on freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and a whole bunch of other related things.

No one is born religious either. So whats your point?

[Seizure1990]

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?

[WelshBluebird]

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?

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

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .]

That, coupled with the fact that it is an integral and mandatory part of many people's religion, just makes banning it nonsensical to me.

[. . .]

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.

[Calum Veteran]

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?

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.