Voting to ban male circumcision in San Francisco

[CNYCacher]

Historically, they did open surgery on babies without any anesthetic because of the same misconception that babies don't feel pain.

It's been quite a while since the medical community as a whole realized their error and now use anesthetic for surgeries and other painful procedures, including circumcision.

I generally look down on weasel words like "Historically".  You get to assert that something in the past is still happening today, but you get to fall back on "No, I meant in the past" if confronted about it.  Not speaking to you specifically, PTK.  Just the person who you are quoting, who was able to mislead you.

[brimic]

I guess I can blame all of my personality flaws on the emotional scarring (and don't forget physical) I suffered almost 40 years ago. Maybe I'll commit a heinous crime and find a lawyer to use the 'circumcision' defense.


The arguments for and against aren't much more than a chevy vs ford argument.

[sumpnz]

It's been quite a while since the medical community as a whole realized their error and now use anesthetic for surgeries and other painful procedures, including circumcision.

Yep.  When my son had it done they used novacain or something similar.  He was by far more upset about being cold while they did it than any pain from the procedure.  Had the room been warmer he might well have not been bothered at all.

[brimic]

Yep.  When my son had it done they used novacain or something similar.  He was by far more upset about being cold while they did it than any pain from the procedure.  Had the room been warmer he might well have not been bothered at all.

 I didn't watch when my son had his done, but nowadays they have really good anethetics.
I had a cyst taken out of my back a few years ago- they rubbed some sort of cream on it before injecting the novacaine- I never felt a thing:)  My sone had a big mole removed last year on his head that required 30-some stitches in the end, he never felt anything either during the numbing process.

[AZRedhawk44]

My wager is on this dispute being about one thing: sexual pleasure preferences by gay men.

Ditto.  Angst-ridden whinging from the San Fran passive-aggressive crowd with unresolved parental issues.

[brimic]

Ditto.  Angst-ridden whinging from the San Fran passive-aggressive crowd with unresolved parental issues

...and snoodling.

[AZRedhawk44]

...and snoodling.

Quite the variety in definition of that term, brimic.

NSFW.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snoodling

[roo_ster]

Because you said so. I see. Really, it's not possible to remove a large part of the penis and assert that there is "no impact on function".  It's just absurd to think that.

Well, we know for certain that particular populations have 100% of the men circumcised, yet have significantly higher birth rates than the population as a whole.  I think that is a good indication of fully functioning junk.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that those population beat the birth rate of the pro-ban voters by a whole lot.

My wager is on this dispute being about one thing: sexual pleasure preferences by gay men.

Ditto.  Angst-ridden whinging from the San Fran passive-aggressive crowd with unresolved parental issues.

Very likely.  Heck, IIRC, there is even a pro-chomo party in one of the euro countries.  There are some very odd occurrences when the bents concentrate and vote en bloc.

[zahc]

Well, we know for certain that particular populations have 100% of the men circumcised, yet have significantly higher birth rates than the population as a whole.

Are birth rates lower in areas that practice female genital mutilation? Are you saying that any cosmetic genital modification, no matter how painful or drastic, is ok as long as there is no impact on fertility?

[roo_ster]

Are birth rates lower in areas that practice female genital mutilation? Are you saying that any cosmetic genital modification, no matter how painful or drastic, is ok as long as there is no impact on fertility

Read the post I responded to (which I quoted) and you might find the context enlightening.

Meanwhile, you get the following:

[RaspberrySurprise]

The arguments for and against aren't much more than a chevy vs ford argument.

Yes forcibly removing a portion of another persons genitalia without their consent is obviously analogous to debates about the differences of automobiles.

Well, we know for certain that particular populations have 100% of the men circumcised, yet have significantly higher birth rates than the population as a whole.  I think that is a good indication of fully functioning junk.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that those population beat the birth rate of the pro-ban voters by a whole lot.

I have a feeling that his and your definitions of function are different.

[brimic]

Yes forcibly removing a portion of another persons genitalia without their consent is obviously analogous to debates about the differences of automobiles.

..or forcibly requiring them to eat healthy foods, or forcibly keeping them from playing in the highway...

[PTK]

..or forcibly requiring them to eat healthy foods, or forcibly keeping them from playing in the highway...

Your analogy is slightly flawed; it is akin to putting up a measure making it illegal for a parent to force a child to play in traffic.

[brimic]

Your analogy is slightly flawed; it is akin to putting up a measure making it illegal for a parent to force a child to play in traffic.

Nope. I'm saying it would be like making a law to prevent parents from forcibly not allowing their kids to play in the highway.
The bigger analogy is that the SF law would prevent parents from doing what they thought was correct to protect their kids., whether it be for health or religeious purposes.
Its funny how libertarians can in the same sentence say its a women's choice to have her child forceably aborted against his will, but a father who insists that his son be circumcised after birth is somehow breaking some sort of sacred moral code 'forcing someone else to to do something against their will.'

Complete logical disconnect.

[RaspberrySurprise]

Except a fetus is a not a child. In modern times the health protections of circumcision are tenuous at best.

As to religious reasons, at what point as a society do we say your beliefs are wrong and we are not going to allow their practice? If it's ok to chop off a part of an infant boys penis is it ok to do the equivalent to a female? Stoning for adultery? Chucking virgins into the volcano to appease the gods?

[Jamisjockey]

Parents are forced to make decisions aginast thier childrens consent everyday. 

For a young boy, circumcision leads to an easier to clean penis.  I can't get my kid to reliably wash between his toes, imagine if he had a full foreskin. 
Now, my questoin lies in the actual method of circumcision.  My boy had a ring placed on his forskin that caused it to fall off after a few days.  No scissors no pain no blood he didn't notice a thing. 



Worked just fine.


Totally necessary? Probably not. 
But again, I wonder about the methodolgy.  We won't hang convicted criminals sentanced to death because it might hurt them.  Why do we use a pair of scissors on a newborns penis? 

Not to titilate this thread...I'm fully circucised, and I have no complaints when it comes to sensation.

[MicroBalrog]

..or forcibly requiring them to eat healthy foods, or forcibly keeping them from playing in the highway...

Healthy foods are an excellent analogy.

Who decides what foods are "healthy"?

[White Horseradish]

From some of the stuff posted here, it's a wonder how people manage to populate the countries where circumcision is not traditional, what with the horrible diseases and dirt... If I ever start up a punk band I will call it "The Deadly Foreskins".

Also, I have apparently not kept up with homosexual practices as well as some people. I have never heard of snoodling. Not that I really needed to know about it.

Yes, parents make choices. Most of those choices don't involve inflicting pain on someone unable to understand what is happening and why. With regard to medical procedures, circumcision isn't exactly life-saving surgery. Nobody died from having a foreskin.  It may be beneficial(and I don't really care if it is or not),  but as far as I know there isn't any change to the supposed benefits if it's done at some later date. You know, when the owner of the body part in question can make a choice. If it isn't a big deal to a baby, it shouldn't be a big deal later, right?

[PTK]

Slight correction, baby boys have indeed died from circumcision, about 117 die in the USA each year from the procedure.

[White Horseradish]

Slight correction, baby boys have indeed died from circumcision, about 117 die in the USA each year from the procedure.

Eh. I misspoke. What I meant is that not having a circumcision won't kill you. Fixed it now.

[dogmush]

Eh. I misspoke. What I meant is that not having a circumcision won't kill you. Fixed it now

Oh for cryin out loud.  Sure it can.  It can lead to infections, which can lead to death.  Anyone want to dig up a mortality rate for infections?  Better do it for all ages, as there's no telling when that infection will kick in. (Damn nursing homes) Then cross reference it by original infection site.

There were 4.1 million live births in 2005 (the latest year I easily found numbers for).  There's a term for 117 deaths out of 2,069,174 male births. it's called statistically insignificant.

Where does this reflex Americans seem to have to legislate every damn thing come from?

Circumcision Threads = Abortion Threads that men can be emotionally invested in.

[White Horseradish]

Oh for cryin out loud.  Sure it can.  It can lead to infections, which can lead to death.  

That's a perfect example of the ridiculous hyperbole I was talking about.  It's a wonder how all those places where it's not a tradition manage to stay populated. Like, say, the heavily Catholic Spanish-speaking countries. Or the whole non-Jewish population of Europe over most of it's history.

Now, since you seem to be well-versed in statistics, just how many cases of fatal infection a year are attributed to something that lives under the foreskin? Is that number statistically significant?

[dogmush]

Perhaps my sarcasm was unclear.

Of course it's hyperbole.  My point was so is "OMG!! boys die from getting snipped!!!!"

I'm thinking that BOTH numbers are statistically insignificant.  I would contend that, outside of freak occurrences LESS likely then being hit buy lightning, Male circumcision has no real effect on long term health or happiness of the child.  Any small effect it might have is rendered immeasurable and unknown by the effects of the rest of his childhood.

So lacking any non-hysterical evidence either way why can't we just mind our own damn business?

[PTK]

Hear, hear! :)

[roo_ster]

Yes, parents make choices. Most of those choices don't involve inflicting pain on someone unable to understand what is happening and why.

Don't have kids yet, do you? 

Otherwise you would not have written that ^^^.

Most?  Maybe.  Many?  No doubt.  Likely a minimum of one per day, for even the most angelic, obedient child.  An ornery, headstrong child will likely have their parents make such a choice for them every hour or so.