What's new
By:

No more circumcision in SF?

I am uncertain why people think circumcision is necessary. It it cutting off a healthy piece of anatomy for no reason. They do not take out your appendix pre-emptively, and the ******** at least serves some purpose whereas the appendix does not.

There are billions of people worldwide who are not circumcised. This is largely an American phenomenon (and Jewish of course) to simply out of hand circumcise all boy babies. There is simply no valid reason for it. At all. So stop it.

[/soapbox]
 
Giant-anteater-4059.jpg


Oh, ladies.....
 
LogGrad98 said:
I am uncertain why people think circumcision is necessary. It it cutting off a healthy piece of anatomy for no reason. They do not take out your appendix pre-emptively, and the ******** at least serves some purpose whereas the appendix does not.

There are billions of people worldwide who are not circumcised. This is largely an American phenomenon (and Jewish of course) to simply out of hand circumcise all boy babies. There is simply no valid reason for it. At all. So stop it.

[/soapbox]
Click to expand...

These are all good points. Do you oppose it to the extent that you feel it should be declared an illegal and punishable offense?

I don't feel strongly for or against circumcision itself, but I think spending the time money to outlaw it and enforce accordingly is just silly. The risk associated with it is negligible, and compared to the trauma of the actual birth, a circumcision is probably a cakewalk for the infant.

I think California has bigger problems it could spend the time and money on. On the other hand, my assumption is this dies on the ballot, if it even gets there.
 
Parents should hold the choice on this. To try and make it illegal is idiotic to say the least. I don't think the example of removing the appendix as preventitive care holds water. An infant circumcision is not nearly as invasive or intricate as appendix removal would be. That's an apples-to-oranges argument.
 
jazzman12 said:
Parents should hold the choice on this. To try and make it illegal is idiotic to say the least. I don't think the example of removing the appendix as preventitive care holds water. An infant circumcision is not nearly as invasive or intricate as appendix removal would be. That's an apples-to-oranges argument.
Click to expand...

Just because it is external does not mean it is without risk. Also, appendix removal is outpatient surgery, is done arthroscopically now, and has basically no side effects outside of the possibility of infection, which is also present in circumcision. So compare it to tonsils then if you would like another comparison that is less invasive. Point is there is almost never any medical reason for a circumcision.

I don't know about it being the parent's choice. I have mixed feelings about this. If there is no medical need then why should it be viewed as anything besides mutilation just because it is not "invasive". Should the parent's be allowed to choose to physically alter any other part of their baby's anatomy for no reason? If I don't like my kid's ears, should I be allowed to have them cut off or maybe just modified so they look better to me? After all they are not really necessary, the hearing part is internal. Should it be the parent's choice to bifurcate the kid's tongue so he can be the snake-man like that cool guy on TV?

Also, I don't know about the other parents here but in my case the decision for my first son came to me in the form of :

Nurse: "Mr. Grad, I know you and your wife just went through 30 hours of labor and an emergency c-section, but you need to sign this so we can circumcise your son."
Me: "Huh, what? Are you the nurse?"
Nurse: "Yes. You need to sign this if you want us to proceed with the circumcision."
Me: "Sign what? Oh ok I guess."

And don't think there are no adverse outcomes in circumcision. I can tell you 2 stories that would probably change your mind on the whole thing (well it did mine) and one of them is very close to me personally. Let's just say we ended up really regretting the decision to circumcise our younger son. The other case almost ended with a child losing his, uh, member. It was bad. With risks like that and literally no reward, why have it even as an option?

***

You know, I knew I was not in favor of it, and would tell people not to do it, but I honestly did not know I felt that strongly about it until I started writing about it here. I guess I am very much against the practice and would support a law making it just as illegal as any other mutilation for reasons other than medical necessity.
 
Interestingly, member cancer virtually never occurs in circumcised men.
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
Back to the topic, I see circumcision as the approximate equivalent of pierced ears on baby girls. Small, real chance of harm; no actual benefit; basically cosmetic. I see no reason for it to be done without good cause, but I see no reason to make it illegal.

Does the law have a religious exception? If not, Muslims and Jews will offer very vocal opposition. If so, it doesn't really prevent anything anyhow.
Click to expand...

Co-sign.

Even if the law does not have a religious exemption explicitly, it may very well have one in application. And I honestly doubt this will fly on the ballot.
 
One Brow said:
Back to the topic, I see circumcision as the approximate equivalent of pierced ears on baby girls. Small, real chance of harm; no actual benefit; basically cosmetic. I see no reason for it to be done without good cause, but I see no reason to make it illegal.
Click to expand...

No real benefit?

Which do you prefer for oral sex?
45% a circumcised man
11% a natural man
42% no difference
1% don't know
Click to expand...

That right there is as good a reason as any to snip the tip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top