San Fransisco to vote on male circumcision ban in November

[Atomic Playboy]

Shit, I better get mine scheduled for October then.

 

[ShawnD1]

typical liberal crotch minded politics. It it passes they will probably raise yet another flag dedicated to bedroom/bathroom behavior.

waaah this violates my rights to force religion on my kids!!!

(penis chopping relates to the covenant between god and abraham)

 

[edro]

I'm liberal. I don't care what happens with abortion laws, because I hate kids, and will never be in that situation. I detest doctors and parents that circumcise without a medical emergency.

If you hate kids, why do you care if they are circumcised?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If you hate kids, why do you care if they are circumcised?

Maybe he really likes penises?

 

[novasatori]

Shit, I better get mine scheduled for October then.

of anyone 17 or younger

 

[Platypus]

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with genital integrity and basic human rights. It is really sad to read all these limp-dicked, trite political jabs and the trivialization of this procedure but not surprising.

 

[ShawnD1]

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with genital integrity and basic human rights. It is really sad to read all these limp-dicked, trite political jabs and the trivialization of this procedure but not surprising.

Why would I wait until they are 18?? How dare you ask this. By then they might choose not to be religious! Then how will I ever chop penis??

 

[Theb]

It seems reasonable to let the kid decide to keep it or cut it when he's older, he's going to be the one using it after all.

 

[thegimp03]

So if this gets passed in November, who or what is there to stop mothers who are expecting from driving outside of San Francisco's city limits where this crazy ass law doesn't exist and being induced into having the baby?

If parents want their kid to be cut, I'm positive that they will find a way to have it done. I'm not for or against circumcision, but I don't think it's right for the government to be sticking their beak in on it.

 

[OCGuy]

Why would I wait until they are 18?? How dare you ask this. By then they might choose not to be religious! Then how will I ever chop penis??

Does not compute.

<--- Athiest who is happy he is cut.

 

[slayer202]

Maybe we should propose starting female circumcision and maybe people will see why it's not crazy to ban the procedure on males

 

[her209]

Yet - In this case, we have a Liberal/Progressive group of legislators trying to outlaw circumcision. IMHO, this is non~sensical since by all accounts circumcision is a far, far more benign/trivial act than abortion.

What!? Giving states more power over federal government is the central pillar of conservatism. If anything, San Franciscans are practicing conservatism. What's the saying, "Don't like it, move to another state."?

 

[Platypus]

So if this gets passed in November, who or what is there to stop mothers who are expecting from driving outside of San Francisco's city limits where this crazy ass law doesn't exist and being induced into having the baby?

If parents want their kid to be cut, I'm positive that they will find a way to have it done. I'm not for or against circumcision, but I don't think it's right for the government to be sticking their beak in on it.

Newborns cannot speak for themselves nor do they possess the understanding of the situation required to make an informed choice well into young adulthood. This decision should NOT be up to the parents, but to the person in question. It is disgusting to me that this practice happens hundreds of times a day and the other party cannot consent to it. If not the government, then who do you propose will protect a person's freedom of choice so that they can make their own decisions for their own body?

 

[OCGuy]

Maybe we should propose starting female circumcision and maybe people will see why it's not crazy to ban the procedure on males

Yes because what happens in Africa is exactly the same as male circumcision!

No.

 

[Scotteq]

What!? Giving states more power over federal government is the central pillar of conservatism. If anything, San Franciscans are practicing conservatism. What's the saying, "Don't like it, move to another state."?

< Checks the political affiliation of San Francisco's City Legislature >


404 - "Conservatives" Not Found.

 

[novasatori]

So if this gets passed in November, who or what is there to stop mothers who are expecting from driving outside of San Francisco's city limits where this crazy ass law doesn't exist and being induced into having the baby?

If parents want their kid to be cut, I'm positive that they will find a way to have it done. I'm not for or against circumcision, but I don't think it's right for the government to be sticking their beak in on it.

People can circumvent a lot of laws by moving geographic location, should we just get rid of all such laws?

 

[ShawnD1]

So if this gets passed in November, who or what is there to stop mothers who are expecting from driving outside of San Francisco's city limits where this crazy ass law doesn't exist and being induced into having the baby?

Does it matter? The important thing is that it annoys religious fundamentalists who can't stand the thought of a male making his own decision about his own penis.
If you want to chop your own penis, go for it. If you want to force that decision on someone else, go to the next town over.


You'll notice that most men who were never cut as babies have never been cut at all. Do you know why that is? When men are given the choice, they usually don't want to be cut.

 

[TechAZ]

Does it matter? The important thing is that it annoys religious fundamentalists who can't stand the thought of a male making his own decision about his own penis.
If you want to chop your own penis, go for it. If you want to force that decision on someone else, go to the next town over.


You'll notice that most men who were never cut as babies have never been cut at all. Do you know why that is? When men are given the choice, they usually don't want to be cut.

They've probably just gotten used to being shut down by women and never getting a BJ from someone under 200lbs. /shrug

Some of you have some serious weiner issues.

 

[Platypus]

When men are given the choice, they usually don't want to be cut.

And a lot of those who are cut use tired old excuses and reasons to justify what was done to them or take cheap outs like 'some of you are way too concerned with penises.' Stuff like: women like it more or wont go down on uncut guys, it looks better, it's easier to clean, never had complaints, it's sensitive enough are total bullshit and do not justify this happening without someone's consent. Personal anecdotes and rumors do not justify this. It happens at such a large scale in the US that any talk of the contrary is perceived as radical but the US is the one that is radical on this issue. It is always hard to stand up and be the opposing voice in these situations but so be it.

 

[OCGuy]

Basically it is a bunch of uncut guys trying to feel more "normal" in the US by making it illegal to be cut (which can never happen, btw).

Uncut guys in the US are the one with the penis-hangups, but they will never admit it.


Note I am qualifying this with "In the US", because I am aware that this is not how it works everywhere

 

[moshquerade]

Newborns cannot speak for themselves nor do they possess the understanding of the situation required to make an informed choice well into young adulthood. This decision should NOT be up to the parents, but to the person in question. It is disgusting to me that this practice happens hundreds of times a day and the other party cannot consent to it. If not the government, then who do you propose will protect a person's freedom of choice so that they can make their own decisions for their own body?

parents have to make decisions for their minor children all the time.
you can't let a child make all of his/her own decisions. that would be ludicrous.

parents who chose to have their children vaccinated, or circumcised, or have any surgery, are doing what they feel is right for the child. this is not done out of malice, but out of parental feelings of responsibility for procedures that they feel benefit their child.

it is much easier to circumcise a newborn versus an 18 year old man. one should not wait to vaccinate a child until it becomes an adult and can give the go ahead. some things have to be taken into the parent's hand to consent to during their child's infancy because that is when some procedures should occur.

I know you don't like my response, but those are my feelings on the issue.

I don't think parents who have their sons circumcised should be bastardized as they have done what they in their heart felt was the right thing to do. There are studies supporting circumcision and other articles that don't. It is not a surgery that should be "banned" imho. This will just force parents to take infants to hospitals outside of the banned area.

Fwiw, I ccl if a man is circumcised or not. I don't think of an uncircumcised penis any differently than a circumcised one. It's like being a blonde or being a brunette. We all have some similarities and we all have dissimilarities. Life is just like that.

 

[slayer202]

Yes because what happens in Africa is exactly the same as male circumcision!

No.

You think they feel the same way as us, or do you think the practice seems normal to them?

 

[Platypus]

parents have to make decisions for their minor children all the time.
you can't let a child make all of his/her own decisions. that would be ludicrous.

parents who chose to have their children vaccinated, or circumcised, or have any surgery, are doing what they feel is right for the child. this is not done out of malice, but out of parental feelings of responsibility for procedures that they feel benefit their child.

it is much easier to circumcise a newborn versus an 18 year old man. one should not wait to vaccinate a child until it becomes an adult and can give the go ahead. some things have to be taken into the parent's hand to consent to during their child's infancy because that is when some procedures should occur.

I know you don't like my response, but those are my feelings on the issue.

I don't think parents who have their sons circumcised should be bastardized as they have done what they in their heart felt was the right thing to do. There are studies supporting circumcision and other articles that don't. It is not a surgery that should be "banned" imho. This will just force parents to take infants to hospitals outside of the banned area.

Fwiw, I ccl if a man is circumcised or not. I don't think of an uncircumcised penis any differently than a circumcised one. It's like being a blonde or being a brunette. We all have some similarities and we all have dissimilarities. Life is just like that.

Unfortunately cutting off a piece of someone's body thus permanently altering it and protecting them by vaccination couldn't be further apart. I'm sorry that this argument is just nonsense to me. There is a huge fundamental difference between permanently altering someone's body without their consent and protecting them from known, harmful diseases. You yourself said the validity of the procedure is highly debated whereas the validity of protecting kids against measles/mumps/meningitis/etc I have yet to see a compelling argument against.

There is very real impact as a result of this surgery, it is not just cosmetic. It impacts people physically and psychologically in ways that just cannot be reasonably compared to making their bodies more resistant to illness.

 

[OCGuy]

You think they feel the same way as us, or do you think the practice seems normal to them?

Huh? What does it matter what they think? You can put the two things on paper and easily see the difference.

If you do any reading at all on the practice, and it's effects, and the reasons it is used, you would know the difference.


They also think marital-rape and honor killing are OK, so...

 

[moshquerade]

Unfortunately cutting off a piece of someone's body thus permanently altering it and protecting them by vaccination couldn't be further apart. I'm sorry that this argument is just nonsense to me. There is a huge fundamental difference between permanently altering someone's body without their consent and protecting them from known, harmful diseases. You yourself said the validity of the procedure is highly debated whereas the validity of protecting kids against measles/mumps/meningitis/etc I have yet to see a compelling argument against.

And you have failed to see a compelling argument for circumcision I suppose.
Or you just turn a deaf ear towards any claimed benefits of the surgery.