SF proposes banning infant circumcision.

  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Feb 22, 2011 1:53 AM GMT
    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/116618063.html?1

    While I would like to have had a choice on the matter, and like that there is a discussion, does anyone else see the irony?

    I would lay odds that these same "civil rights advocates" would be fin with the parents slicing the boy into bit 3 month to 30 minutes earlier.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 7:00 AM GMT
    Interesting proposition. I don't think it's a bad idea. I understand, in the religious point of view, that it's like a ritual to them. But then again, what if that individual (baby) grows up out of that religious belief and didn't want their foreskin cut after all?

    I'm all for it that prop, so people can choose for themselves. I didn't get to choose whether or not I should lose mine or not. Wish I didn't get that choice stripped away from me by my parents! Though admittedly, I wouldn't know what I'd do if I was given the choice right now to redo it or keep it the way it is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2011 4:02 AM GMT
    They have been talking about this for quite a while though. That was really the only purpose of this proposal I think. Most pro-circs AND most intactivists know that this ban will probably never pass, just like it will probably never be mandated.
    The purpose of this proposal was more to get people talking about circumcision, to change minds, that's what I think. I don't think I could ever circumcise my son if I had one. Hell, I wouldn't even pierce my daughters ears if I am to have a daughter in the future.

  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Feb 24, 2011 9:47 PM GMT
    Yes it should be banned and made illegal, just like it is already for girls.
    It's simple really.
    Anyone who disagrees with it is not any different than the people that disagree with the banning of female circumcision because it's ingrained in their heads that it's normal or ok to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2011 5:42 AM GMT
    I'm so glad my parents had me cut. It's cleaner and reduces the risk of HIV infection to boot. Plus, the smell of (some) uncut dicks is enough to turn you straight!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2011 3:06 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidI'm so glad my parents had me cut. It's cleaner and reduces the risk of HIV infection to boot. Plus, the smell of (some) uncut dicks is enough to turn you straight!


    You may like it, but this is the same crap pro-circ people have been perpetuating for years in order to promote this agenda.

    The reality is, it is the only ELECTIVE surgery that is done without the patient's consent. Furthermore, what does it say about our culture that some people label their children as being "abnormal" -- when in fact it is completely normal for ALL men.

    You know what keeps a cock clean and not smelly? Soap & water! You know what reduces the risk of HIV infection much more? A condom! A hell of a lot less invasive than circumcision in both cases!

    I know it's an American thing to get cut, but considering most of the world isn't, it's really those countries who engage in it who are "unnatural".
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Feb 25, 2011 3:29 PM GMT
    I'm so glad my parents had me cut. It's cleaner and reduces the risk of HIV infection to boot.

    It doesn't reduce the risk of HIV infection in regard to men who have sex with other men:
    Circumcision may not cut HIV spread among gay menThey found that circumcised and uncircumcised men showed no difference in the risk of HIV infection over three years.

    Moreover, while having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive partner increased a man's risk of infection, there was no evidence that circumcision altered that risk.


    What about guys who aren't happy they were circumcised. So now what? See the problem it creates?
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Feb 25, 2011 3:40 PM GMT
    xanadude,

    Yeah I have no idea why it's ok to do this to boys but not girls.
    It's not about parent rights or privacy at all. The child should be protected.
    Being pro-circumcision against a child's will is about as backward thinking as being anti-gay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2011 6:19 PM GMT
    Anto saidxanadude,

    Yeah I have no idea why it's ok to do this to boys but not girls.
    It's not about parent rights or privacy at all. The child should be protected.
    Being pro-circumcision against a child's will is about as backward thinking as being anti-gay.


    Well technically female circumcision is even MORE invasive than male circumcision. At least the majority of circumcized males can still experience sexual pleasure. For women, circumcision is a clitoretomy -- the equivallent of having your penis cut off! A more accurate analogy would be labiaplasty -- essentially trimming the labia if they, um, are too droopy (think of the billowy curtains from a video to a 90's Whitney/Maria ballad). We wouldn't do it to infant girls if their is a history of lack of labial aesthetics in her family, so doing a similar procedure to boys is silly.

    I know there is also the issue of penile and cervical cancer reduction through circumcision. This is still hotly debated. Besides, we don't perfom routine mastectomies on teenaged girls who have a family history of breast cancer, or routinely remove their ovaries if there is a history of ovarian cancer, as a "health procaution" -- so why do something similar with men?