Has this new San Francisco bill been discussed here?

[cdrumm4448]

What happens (or doesn't happen) to my son's private area is no one's concern except us (his parents). Certainly not the government's.

[tntgoodwin]

Why does the US have such high rates when American boys are circed more than anywhere in the world?

 

I think it is due to our high incarceration rate. Many men get HIV while in prison, then spread it to females when they get out. This also explains why blacks and whites don't have similar rates of HIV.

[elizabeth]

The government should stay out of its citizens pants, skirts etc.

[elizabeth]

I firmly believe that the child's right to the integrity of his / her body, which excludes the performance of not medically needed procedures with permanent effects, overrides the parents' cultural / religious / etc. adherences. Not that I think it is the end of the world if a child gets circumcised, I can think of many worse parental choices, but if speaking of principles, I am opposed to it (except for the cases where it is medically needed, of course).

DH is equally strongly pro "Tradition! Tradition!".

 

The compromise was that, if we have a male child (chas veshalom :D, for this reason exactly) and the father still insists on circumcision, we would sign statements in a presence of a third party / witness / lawyer that the mother was adamantly against the procedure for the aforementioned reasons and succumbed to the pressure of the same-sex parent as the boy for that and for cultural reasons, but that she washes her hands off it entirely, while the father accepts the full moral and legal responsibility for perfoming a non-essential medical procedure. I wanted to include that already in our prenup, but then it seemed a little overboard to me LOL.

 

Thankfully, we were blessed with three daughters and no sons, so it never really became an issue, but we are both pretty stubborn about our stances.

 

I doubt this law proposal or whatever it is would pass, anyway. Circumcisions would still be happening, only secretly and illegally. People who find it a religious duty for them would probably find that religious duty to override the civil law, because it really is a big thing, even for people who are merely traditional. And you could even argue it is unconstitutional, though again, I hold that in many cases child's rights (such as to integrity of his / her body) override religious and parental rights.

 

I know, I am a lousy Jew (in general, and I have some guilt over that); but I cannot help it, this is one of those issues I feel strongly enough about to go directly against my own tradition. I find it ethically wrong to make such a drastic, irreversible decision about another person's body if not medically needed - boys should be able to make that decision for themselves when they reach age of legal responsibility.

 

Please do not speak of yourself in derisive terms even in jest. You are an incredible human being and in my limited experience with you ,a fine person of strong moral conviction. Do as your conscience dictates.

[kewb]

Frankly, I am horrified about the ballot initiative. PSA about routine infant circumcision and what it is-sure. Making it illegal, that would mark the beginning of a bad time for the Jewish People. Banning circumcision is nothing new. It happened in ancient Greece when Antiochus came into power. It happened in ancient Rome when the Roman Empire conquered the Land of Israel. It happened in the Soviet Union. It happened in Nazi Germany. Governments banning Jews from practicing their religion and then attempting to annihilate a race of people.

[kalanamak]

 

I know, I am a lousy Jew (in general, and I have some guilt over that); but I cannot help it, this is one of those issues I feel strongly enough about to go directly against my own tradition. I find it ethically wrong to make such a drastic, irreversible decision about another person's body if not medically needed - boys should be able to make that decision for themselves when they reach age of legal responsibility.

 

One of my favorite memories was a Orthodox Jew pediatrician at a huge city hospital trying to talk a Muslim out of circ'ing his boy. After a long, calm, but impassioned debate, the Muslim dad agreed to "think about it" (i.e. find another doctor). After we (the troupe of med students) all left the room, most of us a bit pop-eyed over the scene (we were students at a Jewish school, and although I'm not Jewish it was definitely a moment I wished I'd had a movie camera), one of the OJ men in the group asked the professor if HIS kids were circ'd. He snapped "what do you think"? Of course, we didn't know WHAT to think, and the OJ student again pressed him, and he said no, they weren't. The student flushed and you could see him winding up about it, and the prof said something in Hebrew, and the wind went right out of the student, and we all trudged silently on the next case, a poor little mite with HIV and 3 thumbs.

Edited June 9, 2011 by kalanamak

[Spy Car]

Frankly, I am horrified about the ballot initiative. PSA about routine infant circumcision and what it is-sure. Making it illegal, that would mark the beginning of a bad time for the Jewish People. Banning circumcision is nothing new. It happened in ancient Greece when Antiochus came into power. It happened in ancient Rome when the Roman Empire conquered the Land of Israel. It happened in the Soviet Union. It happened in Nazi Germany. Governments banning Jews from practicing their religion and then attempting to annihilate a race of people.

 

It was recently discovered that a leader of the anti-circumcision initiative published an antisemitic comic book featuring an Aryan looking superhero named "Foreskin Man" who does battle with the villainous "Mohel Monster." A "mohel" (for those who don't know) is a Jewish ritual circumciser.

 

The revelation is causing quite a stir here in California.

 

Bill

[kalanamak]

It was recently discovered that a leader of the anti-circumcision initiative published an antisemitic comic book

 

And here I thought it was out of SF just to give everyone a chance to talk about p@nises.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Sorry but this is absolutely a matter of parental choice.

 

And that is before you get the to long held religious beliefs that, for some, accompany this procedure. So much for freedom of religion.

[SweetBean]

Frankly, I am horrified about the ballot initiative. PSA about routine infant circumcision and what it is-sure. Making it illegal, that would mark the beginning of a bad time for the Jewish People. Banning circumcision is nothing new. It happened in ancient Greece when Antiochus came into power. It happened in ancient Rome when the Roman Empire conquered the Land of Israel. It happened in the Soviet Union. It happened in Nazi Germany. Governments banning Jews from practicing their religion and then attempting to annihilate a race of people.

:iagree:

[Jen in PA]

I firmly believe that the child's right to the integrity of his / her body, which excludes the performance of not medically needed procedures with permanent effects, overrides the parents' cultural / religious / etc. adherences. Not that I think it is the end of the world if a child gets circumcised, I can think of many worse parental choices, but if speaking of principles, I am opposed to it (except for the cases where it is medically needed, of course).

DH is equally strongly pro "Tradition! Tradition!".

 

The compromise was that, if we have a male child (chas veshalom :D, for this reason exactly) and the father still insists on circumcision, we would sign statements in a presence of a third party / witness / lawyer that the mother was adamantly against the procedure for the aforementioned reasons and succumbed to the pressure of the same-sex parent as the boy for that and for cultural reasons, but that she washes her hands off it entirely, while the father accepts the full moral and legal responsibility for perfoming a non-essential medical procedure. I wanted to include that already in our prenup, but then it seemed a little overboard to me LOL.

 

Thankfully, we were blessed with three daughters and no sons, so it never really became an issue, but we are both pretty stubborn about our stances.

 

I doubt this law proposal or whatever it is would pass, anyway. Circumcisions would still be happening, only secretly and illegally. People who find it a religious duty for them would probably find that religious duty to override the civil law, because it really is a big thing, even for people who are merely traditional. And you could even argue it is unconstitutional, though again, I hold that in many cases child's rights (such as to integrity of his / her body) override religious and parental rights.

 

I know, I am a lousy Jew (in general, and I have some guilt over that); but I cannot help it, this is one of those issues I feel strongly enough about to go directly against my own tradition. I find it ethically wrong to make such a drastic, irreversible decision about another person's body if not medically needed - boys should be able to make that decision for themselves when they reach age of legal responsibility.

 

If you are a lousy Jew then I am proud to be one alongside you. :D My DS is not circ'ed. My family was not thrilled about this but things are changing, and my Jewish DS has Jewish cousins who are also uncirc'ed.

[Slartibartfast]

It was recently discovered that a leader of the anti-circumcision initiative published an antisemitic comic book featuring an Aryan looking superhero named "Foreskin Man" who does battle with the villainous "Mohel Monster." A "mohel" (for those who don't know) is a Jewish ritual circumciser.

 

The revelation is causing quite a stir here in California.

 

Bill

 

Who?

 

There are pro-circ websites that are known to be circ fetish. You cannot define an issue by the crazies

[Spy Car]

Who?

 

His name is Matthew Hess and he is the least of ne of the big anti circumcision groups.

 

There are pro-circ websites that are known to be circ fetish. You cannot define an issue by the crazies

 

I've never encounter a websites with a pro-circumcision "fetish." But I have seen plenty of anti-circ sites that are shamefully dishonest.

 

Bill

[LittleIzumi]

It was my understanding that when they were talking about legalizing a minimal form of it they were talking about a small incision to the clitoral hood only. Perhaps I was mistaken. I know that the first 3 types are horrific.

 

I read about a proposal to allow a single ceremonial pinprick of the c!itoris to satisfy cultural requirements but not even that passed.

 

FTR on the ballot initiative, I think they should have a religious exemption for those who truly feel it's a current commandment. For myself, I am quite anti-circ outside of developing countries with extreme HIV problems/dangerous sexual norms, & people have already posted most of my points, so I will bow out now :tongue_smilie:.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

Unless I missed it, no one has talked about the fact that they are allowing the MAJORITY of the GENERAL POPULATION to decide whether or not to ban something that is an integral part of being a Jew! That this is even allowed to be voted/decided by the VOTERS is an abomination!

 

This discussion shouldn't be about whether or not it's good to circumcise or not. It should be about the fact that 7,500 (edited word because I don't want my post to be deleted) thought that they had the right to decide that Jews don't get to raise their sons as Jews.

[Spy Car]

The 7,500 (edited word people) also have the presumption to tell those of us who believe circumcision is a much better option for our sons that they can/will impose their wrong-headed ideas on us.

 

No way.

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

Unless I missed it, no one has talked about the fact that they are allowing the MAJORITY of the GENERAL POPULATION to decide whether or not to ban something that is an integral part of being a Jew! That this is even allowed to be voted/decided by the VOTERS is an abomination!

 

This discussion shouldn't be about whether or not it's good to circumcise or not. It should be about the fact that 7,500 (edited word because I don't want my post to be deleted) thought that they had the right to decide that Jews don't get to raise their sons as Jews.

 

I agree, it is not constitutional.

 

The purpose of a republic is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

The 7,500 (edited word people) also have the presumption to tell those of us who believe circumcision is a much better option for our sons that they can/will impose their wrong-headed ideas on us.

 

No way.

 

Bill

 

I know, and I belong to the "pro-(circumcision)choice" group. I just feel that the assault on a Jew's integral religious right at the same time as the withdrawal of American support of Israel is more scarry and isn't being mentioned enough.

 

 

The article didn't say, did they make surgical exceptions? I know there are cases of stricture when it's necessary. Also, my ds2 was born with hyposadius, and they needed to use the foreskin as part of the corrective surgery. Would they ban that as well?

[Spy Car]

I know, and I belong to the "pro-(circumcision)choice" group. I just feel that the assault on a Jew's integral religious right at the same time as the withdrawal of American support of Israel is more scarry and isn't being mentioned enough.

 

It is a total side issue, but we (the United States) has not withdrawn our long-standing supporting for Israel. This simply is not so.

 

The article didn't say, did they make surgical exceptions? I know there are cases of stricture when it's necessary. Also, my ds2 was born with hyposadius, and they needed to use the foreskin as part of the corrective surgery. Would they ban that as well?

 

I don't know. The whole thing is absurd IMO. It will never pass in any case.

 

Bill

[LittleIzumi]

It is a total side issue, but we (the United States) has not withdrawn our long-standing supporting for Israel. This simply is not so.

 

 

 

I don't know. The whole thing is absurd IMO. It will never pass in any case.

 

Bill

 

True dat. This was attempted in MA already & busted.

[ktgrok]

Sorry but this is absolutely a matter of parental choice.

 

And that is before you get the to long held religious beliefs that, for some, accompany this procedure. So much for freedom of religion.

 

And I'm sorry, but we already support many laws that place the welfare of the child above the rights of a parent. There are laws about abuse, laws about mandatory education, laws about how old you have to be to drive, laws about child labor, etc. In all these instances society decided that the welfare of the child outweighed the sovereignty of the parent. If the majority of society ends up believing that circumcision is unneeded cosmetic surgery that causes harm, then protecting the child will outweight the rights of the parent, just as it does in other issues. Parental rights are not absolute.

 

As for the religious issue, there are limits to this as well. IF one believes that circumcision is genital mutilation without the consent of the patient than protecting the rights of the patient (the baby) would outweigh the religious rights of the parent. Again, religious rights are not absolute.

 

If I wanted to amputate my child's earlobe at a week old, and said it was for my religion, I would not be allowed to do so.

 

So really, it isn't about parent rights or religion, it is about whether or not it is a reasonable procedure to be done. That is where the lines must be drawn.

 

For people to say it is no ones business, well....I know child abuses and wife beaters that say the same thing. Obviously we DO consider the welfare of our citizens to be the government's business.

 

And even if it passed, which it won't, Jews can drive outside the city to have it done legally.

Edited June 9, 2011 by ktgrok

[ktgrok]

Also, there is nothing saying that a Jew can't get himself circumcised, once he is of age to consent. The idea isn't to ban circumcision, it is to prevent it being done on someone without their consent.

[Spy Car]

Also, there is nothing saying that a Jew can't get himself circumcised, once he is of age to consent. The idea isn't to ban circumcision, it is to prevent it being done on someone without their consent.

 

One, it is a requirement in Judaism that the circumcision be done on the eight day after being born.

 

Two, a post-natal circumcision is a minor procedure compared with an adult circumcision, and the latter eliminates the positive benefits of circumcision to boys growing up. So it is a bad move on two fronts.

 

Bill

[wapiti]

Also, there is nothing saying that a Jew can't get himself circumcised, once he is of age to consent. The idea isn't to ban circumcision, it is to prevent it being done on someone without their consent.

 

According to ds's urologist, someone of that age would need to go under general anesthesia for such a procedure, rather than having the topical stuff. Much riskier.

[ktgrok]

I know that the procedure is more invasive when someone is older, but it is also consentual.

 

Also, there are those that believe general anesthesia for the procedure, although riskier, is also more humane.

 

Again, these are the issues that must be hashed out. The parental/religious rights are not the main issue, because we as a society override those all the time if we feel the cause is great enough. The question is whether or not the cause is great enough in this case.

[LibraryLover]

"It's only a bill, and it's sittin' here on Capital Hill..."

 

There are more bills introduced and rejected than there are idiots in the world.

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Spy Car]

"It's only a bill, and it's sittin' there on Capital Hill..."

 

There are more bills introduced than there are idiots in the world.

 

 

 

 

It is not a bill, it is an initiative. Isn't this were I came in? :D

 

Bill

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I know that the procedure is more invasive when someone is older, but it is also consentual.

 

Also, there are those that believe general anesthesia for the procedure, although riskier, is also more humane.

 

Again, these are the issues that must be hashed out. The parental/religious rights are not the main issue, because we as a society override those all the time if we feel the cause is great enough. The question is whether or not the cause is great enough in this case.

 

And I have never read nor had a doctor or circumcised man tell me that this procedure is so clearly damaging that it should be a matter where the state should override the parental rights in this case. There are centuries of evidence to the contrary.

 

The problem is that those who don't want their sons circumcised aren't being forced to allow the procedure. Those who do will have obstacles thrown in their way to make it unreasonably difficult.

 

What is next? All mothers should be forced to breast feed and infant formula will be by prescription only for those children with a medical need?

[ktgrok]

And I have never read nor had a doctor or circumcised man tell me that this procedure is so clearly damaging that it should be a matter where the state should override the parental rights in this case. There are centuries of evidence to the contrary.

 

The problem is that those who don't want their sons circumcised aren't being forced to allow the procedure. Those who do will have obstacles thrown in their way to make it unreasonably difficult.

 

What is next? All mothers should be forced to breast feed and infant formula will be by prescription only for those children with a medical need?

 

There are plenty of doctors that feel that way. And plenty of circumcised men as well. It just isn't talked about in polite society. I'd be happy to provide links, or you could google doctors against circumcision.

 

And just because something has been done for hundreds of years doesn't make it right, or even ok. Which logical fallacy is that again?

[ktgrok]

And I have never read nor had a doctor or circumcised man tell me that this procedure is so clearly damaging that it should be a matter where the state should override the parental rights in this case. There are centuries of evidence to the contrary.

 

The problem is that those who don't want their sons circumcised aren't being forced to allow the procedure. Those who do will have obstacles thrown in their way to make it unreasonably difficult.

 

What is next? All mothers should be forced to breast feed and infant formula will be by prescription only for those children with a medical need?

 

Again IF (and I'm saying IF) people feel that it is harmful and/or abusive, then "making it unreasonably difficult" really isn't much of an argument. I could rephrase your statement to "Those that don't beat their wives are not being forced to beat them. Those who do beat their wives will have obstacles thrown in their way to make it unreasonably difficult." When I use those terms the argument no longer seems to make much sense. So again I say, this isn't about parental choice. No one is trying to get rid of circumcision because they want to boss other parents around. It is about whether er or not it is abusive to do to someone without their consent.

 

And to clarify, I'm NOT saying circumcision equals spousal abuse. I'm using that to show that IF IF IF circumcision is abusive, than the logic used here wouldn't hold up. Showing once again that the issue is about the majority deciding if it is abusive or not.

[Daisy]

I haven't read the replies.

 

Have any of you read this post by The Common Room?

 

http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-days-leading-up-to-nazi-germany.html

 

I found it interesting.

 

Anyway, I think this is just one more example of how incredibly stupid Californians are when it comes to the misuse of ballot measures. Some days I really can't believe I live in this state. I'm living the worse episode ever of the Twilight Zone.

 

Oh, wait. Am I agreeing with Spy Car AGAIN? LOL.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Daisy

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

There are plenty of doctors that feel that way. And plenty of circumcised men as well. It just isn't talked about in polite society. I'd be happy to provide links, or you could google doctors against circumcision.

 

And just because something has been done for hundreds of years doesn't make it right, or even ok. Which logical fallacy is that again?

 

And there are plenty of docs and men who have no problem with it.

 

That was my point-there isn't enough evidence either way to take this issue out of the parents' control.

 

I didn't say that just because something has been done for a long time makes it ok. I said that there are centuries of experience for folks to back up their opinions that this isn't a harmful procedure.

 

Unfortunately, most folks these days error on the side of the state having control of the children. I'd prefer to see folks error on the side of the parents having control of kids until a harm has absolutely and with out question been proven. In this case I don't think there is enough proof to deny parents their rights or deny folks the free practice of their religion.

 

(And by the way-it isn't freedom of religion if you say you can't practice your religion in our town-go down the road a bit first please.)

[Spy Car]

There are plenty of doctors that feel that way. And plenty of circumcised men as well. It just isn't talked about in polite society. I'd be happy to provide links, or you could google doctors against circumcision.

 

And just because something has been done for hundreds of years doesn't make it right, or even ok. Which logical fallacy is that again?

 

I've never known of a circumcised man who wishes he wasn't. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know there are a few internet zealots who claimed to be "traumatized" for life by a procedure they can't possibly remember. These people are sick and need psychological help rather than exploitation.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

 

Oh, wait. Am I agreeing with Spy Car AGAIN? LOL.

 

It is becoming a habit :D

 

Bill

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Again IF (and I'm saying IF) people feel that it is harmful and/or abusive, then "making it unreasonably difficult" really isn't much of an argument. I could rephrase your statement to "Those that don't beat their wives are not being forced to beat them. Those who do beat their wives will have obstacles thrown in their way to make it unreasonably difficult." When I use those terms the argument no longer seems to make much sense. So again I say, this isn't about parental choice. No one is trying to get rid of circumcision because they want to boss other parents around. It is about whether er or not it is abusive to do to someone without their consent.

 

And to clarify, I'm NOT saying circumcision equals spousal abuse. I'm using that to show that IF IF IF circumcision is abusive, than the logic used here wouldn't hold up. Showing once again that the issue is about the majority deciding if it is abusive or not.

 

To call circumcision a form of child abuse is about as insulting as it gets. Parents who circumcise their sons aren't abusing them. What next-arrest everyone who leaves town to have it done as soon as they cross some border when returning home? Asylum in Oregon for circumcisers?

Edited June 9, 2011 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[LittleIzumi]

I've never known of a circumcised man who wishes he wasn't. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know there are a few internet zealots who claimed to be "traumatized" for life by a procedure they can't possibly remember. These people are sick and need psychological help rather than exploitation.

 

Bill

 

Dh (cird'ed) is a bit jealous of ds (intact), and thinks his own circ'ing was possibly a bit... overdone, literally. Not like he can do anything about it at this point. What's gone is gone. (Which was sort of the point of the non-bill, I think, but without any exemptions it gets a thumbs-down even from me.)

[ktgrok]

I've never known of a circumcised man who wishes he wasn't. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know there are a few internet zealots who claimed to be "traumatized" for life by a procedure they can't possibly remember. These people are sick and need psychological help rather than exploitation.

 

Bill

 

My husband and my ex husband. That makes two. Oh, and one male friend of mine...although I only know about him because we got into a drunken conversation about it once, lol. I doubt most men talk about any insecurities they have about their penises in polite company.

 

Once they researched the procedure, and knew what was missing, they were not happy about it, and wanted to make sure their sons, if they had any, didn't lose any body parts unless absolutely necessary.

 

Also, given the proliferation of books, websites, and devices to regrow a facsimile of foreskin there must be more men than the three I know personally :)

Edited June 9, 2011 by ktgrok

[kokotg]

I've never known of a circumcised man who wishes he wasn't. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know there are a few internet zealots who claimed to be "traumatized" for life by a procedure they can't possibly remember. These people are sick and need psychological help rather than exploitation.

 

Bill

 

There's my husband. It's not a huge deal to him or anything, but he'd rather he weren't circumcised. He doesn't need psychological help; he's just done some reading and seen his sons, and would prefer that decision hadn't been taken away from him.

[ktgrok]

To call circumcision a form of child abuse is about as insulting as it gets. Parents who circumcise the sons aren't abusing them. What next-arrest everyone who leaves town to have it done as soon as they cross some border when returning home? Asylum in Oregon for circumcisers?

 

I didn't say it was abusive. I said determining that was the issue at hand.

[ktgrok]

I've never known of a circumcised man who wishes he wasn't. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know there are a few internet zealots who claimed to be "traumatized" for life by a procedure they can't possibly remember. These people are sick and need psychological help rather than exploitation.

 

Bill

 

For the men I know of it isn't about the trauma of the experience. It is about losing a sensitive organ that serves a very real function. It is also about the idea of having been forced to undergo surgery without consent, consent that they would not give now, as an adult.

[elizabeth]

To call circumcision a form of child abuse is about as insulting as it gets. Parents who circumcise the sons aren't abusing them. What next-arrest everyone who leaves town to have it done as soon as they cross some border when returning home? Asylum in Oregon for circumcisers?

 

The end is nigh. We are in complete agreement.:lol:

[ktgrok]

And there are plenty of docs and men who have no problem with it.

 

That was my point-there isn't enough evidence either way to take this issue out of the parents' control.

 

I didn't say that just because something has been done for a long time makes it ok. I said that there are centuries of experience for folks to back up their opinions that this isn't a harmful procedure.

 

Unfortunately, most folks these days error on the side of the state having control of the children. I'd prefer to see folks error on the side of the parents having control of kids until a harm has absolutely and with out question been proven. In this case I don't think there is enough proof to deny parents their rights or deny folks the free practice of their religion.

 

(And by the way-it isn't freedom of religion if you say you can't practice your religion in our town-go down the road a bit first please.)

 

And there are many that would rather outlaw non consensual surgery unless it has absolutely and without question been proven not to cause harm.

 

And we do not have total freedom of religion in this country. It has often been said that my rights end where the next fellow's nose begins. Perhaps penis instead of nose? :tongue_smilie:

[Hannah C.]

Haven't read the other replies.

 

Without a religious exemption, this is unconstitutional.

 

Even with a religious exemption, I think this bill goes into territory that the government should stay out of.

[Spy Car]

My husband and my ex husband. That makes two. Oh, and one male friend of mine...although I only know about him because we got into a drunken conversation about it once, lol. I doubt most men talk about any insecurities they have about their penises in polite company.

 

 

Since when are other men polite company? :D

 

The only men I've know who were unhappy with their state have been uncircumcised men. And getting circumcised in adulthood is not something many men are choose to do even if they aren't that happy.

 

Bill

[kokotg]

Since when are other men polite company? :D

 

The only men I've know who were unhappy with their state have been uncircumcised men. And getting circumcised in adulthood is not something many men are choose to do even if they aren't that happy.

 

Bill

 

But they have a choice. And that's the difference.

 

ETA: if there were really significant benefits to circumcision, I would expect people to be able to demonstrate that statistically with data from countries where virtually no boys are circumcised (hello Finland!). That doesn't seem to be the case.

Edited June 9, 2011 by kokotg

[ktgrok]

Since when are other men polite company? :D

 

The only men I've know who were unhappy with their state have been uncircumcised men. And getting circumcised in adulthood is not something many men are choose to do even if they aren't that happy.

 

Bill

 

I guess it depends on the men:D

 

Seriously, the men I know are not big on admitting insecurities at all, genital related or otherwise.

 

How many men have to be upset about being forced to have surgery without their consent, surgery that can never be corrected, before it becomes a "right of the child" issue instead of a "parental rights" issue I wonder?

[Lady Dove]

I believe that circumcision is a very personal choice and that the law should respect that. I was raised in a family where circumcision wasn't the norm and felt that I still wanted to have my son circumcised. Not for religious reasons, but I felt that it would be better for him hygienically. He slept through the procedure and healed rather quickly. I don't have any regrets with the procedure and if I had any more sons, I would have done the same for them. I don't think there is a wrong or right....it's a personal choice that we as parent's should have the right to make for whatever reason. I don't even think my son realizes that he is circumcised!

[ktgrok]

My last reply hit on something. I think what people against this initiative don't understand. They see this as government oversight versus parental rights. Those in favor of the initiative see it as rights of the child versus parental rights.

[Spy Car]

And there are many that would rather outlaw non consensual surgery unless it has absolutely and without question been proven not to cause harm.

 

 

A properly done humanely performed circumcision not only does no harm it brings a life-time of benefits and potential benefits.

 

Is there any procedure that is 100% risk free? No. Are there risks that are increased by not being circumcised? You bet.

 

There is protection against contraction of HIV and other STDs, better hygiene, reduced incidence of UTIs, and elimination of retraction issues (among others), and against that the downsides are few (given a competent physician to do the procedure in a humane fashion).

 

Bill

[Veritaserum]

For the men I know of it isn't about the trauma of the experience. It is about losing a sensitive organ that serves a very real function. It is also about the idea of having been forced to undergo surgery without consent, consent that they would not give now, as an adult.

 

That's my husband, too. He doesn't dwell on it. He's happy enough with what's he's got, but he wishes his parents hadn't made that decision for him. His mom wishes she didn't do it, too. She wanted to abort the procedure midway, but figured it would be better for the doctor to finish it rather than leave it half done. Her younger son is intact (dh's brother). His son is intact. All my brothers are intact. Their sons are intact. My father is intact. So are his brothers. Their sons are intact. None of them are rushing to get elective surgery for themselves or their newborn babies because being intact is preferable to them. If it weren't, though, they could choose circumcision.