Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: 280plus on November 12, 2010, 03:30:59 PM
-
Pardon me while I roll my eyes,,, ;/
:lol:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/11/11/circumcision-ban-may-end-up-on-san-francisco-ballot/
-
Sorry, but I don't see this a "common sense" at all.
There are many arguments both pro & con - some that are based on science and others based on religion/faith. Trying to legislate the latter creates a state of affairs that I find intolerable, regardless of how/where you position yourself on the former.
Consider the proponent's stance: "Schofield, who believes religious traditions should change." If he wants to create a new/different religious tradition let him feel free to do so. But in the mean time keep his paws off the traditions of others. (It's the classical position of the leftist-liberal -- what I want for myself must be imposed on everybody else as well.)
stay safe.
-
Skidmark I think your sarcasm detector is broken. :P
-
First they came for the Happy Meals, then they came for the penis. The penis is evil.
-
all wee wee'd up.
reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTVjab2cHgk
-
Skidmark I think your sarcasm detector is broken. :P
Apparently it missed it's last scheduled calibration... =)
-
Sounds like a good law to me. I would oppose a law like this at the Federal level of course, but this sounds like a good law to me. I don't understand why 1. male genital mutilation is still legal and 2. why the medical profession will perform it even if it is legal.
As for the religious arguments, the way I see it, tough beans. There are plenty of cultures and religions that are into mutilating baby girls, but as far as I know female genital mutilation is illegal regardless of any religious justifications. I don't see why male genital mutilation should be held to a different standard.
-
I'm not sure if the comments after the article are sad, amusing or both, but after all it is San Francisco. [popcorn]
-
I don't see why male genital mutilation [sic] should be held to a different standard.
Brackets mine.
Boys and girls are different, especially down there. Your mommy will tell you about it someday.
-
Removing extra folds of skin is mutilation? Under that same standard, face lifts will be outlawed next.
-
I too see both sides of the issue, and am for one VERY GLAD I had all daughters so I didn't have to make the choice.
I had it done as a newborn, simply because it was common practice in the early 70's.
Those who say male circumcision by a trained professional in clean sterile conditions is the same as female circumcision done on the ground with a dirty knife against a screaming struggling girl who's much more fully grown are putting up a big strawman argument. ;/
- It does collect crud. And there are conditions where a man can run into problems where the foreskin does get stuck in or out.
- OTOH, modern plumbing/hygiene means it does not collect crud any more.
- You're born that way, so it's the "right" design.
- Taking it off, for convenience, or tradition does not harm anything.
Back and forth... I do see both sides. Stalemate in my mind.
Not to insult anyone, but I'd be rather revolted to be "whole" like that now. Done looks "human" to me, undone looks third-world or like an animals, although I FULLY realize that's just my bias from what I'm used to.
IMO, the encroaching nanny-state issues of banning it are WAY more harmful than allowing it. That's what settles it for me.
-
Under that same standard, face lifts will be outlawed next.
Given some of the horrid looking face jobs I've seen I'd vote for that. :lol:
-
I'm a Jew. that would be religious persecution, interfering with my religoius beliefs. Interesting that the same people who would ban circumcision, are ok with abortions...
-
I too see both sides of the issue, and am for one VERY GLAD I had all daughters so I didn't have to make the choice.
Me too. I know I would not have had a son circumcised and that would have pissed off my Jewish parents more than just about anything else in my litany of sins.
Allegedly, uncut is less likely to cause irritation to a man's sexual partner. I would be interested in some unbiased research on this, but this is an area where it's just about impossible to find a lack of bias, and such a study would probably be impossible to design. Guess I could always do some research on my own... :angel:
Wuluf: The first I heard of the anti-circ movement was an article in the Jerusalem Post, about a movement to ban it in Israel. Needless to say, they haven't made much headway.
-
Yet more idiocy, it's none of their damn business.
If parents feel it's right, so be it. Likewise if they feel the other way.
-
Though it galls me to us this a analogy, if a woman has a right to privacy with regards to murdering her unborn baby, then outlawing circumcision should fall under the same right to privacy.
Whether you support the practice of circumcision or not, this is simply an attack on Judeo/Christian traditions. If the city could ban the practice of Christianity, they would.
-
- Taking it off, for convenience, or tradition does not harm anything.
You make it sound like cutting hair or something. They don't "take it off". They forcibly separate the foreskin from the glans (which would ordinarily not separate until later in life, protecting the glans during childhood) and then they slice off all the functional parts of the foreskin along with an arbitrary amount of penile skin, leaving the mobility and appearance of the future man's penis decided by the whim's of the mutilating doctor. Thus leaving an open wound and unprotected mucous membrane festering in feces and urine-filled diapers (because it's cleaner). I guess this bloody business doesn't fall into your definition of "harm". The victim is left with a hobbled approximation to a natural penis with no foreskin structures, millions of missing nerves, ugly varicose veins that have been clamped off by the amputation, and a dried out, unprotected, calloused glans. With so many nerves gone, and the mucous membrane of the glans scarified, it's a wonder it works at all. How many premature ejaculation and ED problems are caused by the fact that circumcised men are missing most of the actual nerves that ordinarily control arousal and orgasm?
Removing extra folds of skin is mutilation? Under that same standard, face lifts will be outlawed next.
People undergo facelifts voluntarily. I don't see any reason why voluntary circumcision should be illegal either. I only object to removing functioning genital parts from innocent children, who will be forced to go their whole lives with their penis hobbled because of their parents' primitive traditions.
Back and forth... I do see both sides.
There is only one sensible side. Let the person choose for himself if he wishes to modify his body, if for some reason he is not satisfied with the way it came from the factory. These arguments always revolve around the merits of circumcision, which are irrelevant IMO. I'm not interested in the debate of whether circumcision is actually better or not, because it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to forcibly perform genital modification surgery on children.
If parents feel it's right, so be it. Likewise if they feel the other way.
I'm wondering if you apply this algorithm logically. Should I be able to cut off my child's outer ears? Nose? Some people pierce their baby's ears when they are still too young to walk. The whole area of parental freedom vs. children's human rights is kind of grey. I lean toward less government--government is evil of its own--except in cases where human rights are being violated.
if a woman has a right to privacy with regards to murdering her unborn baby, then outlawing circumcision should fall under the same right to privacy.
I agree completely, which is why I--consistently--think that both abortion and genital mutilation should be illegal...with some exceptions. I consider being anti-genital mutilation to be perfectly aligned with being anti-abortion. In both cases, it's innocents whose inherent human rights are being violated against their ability to protect themselves, and those that perpetuate harm against them should be punished and persecuted.
this is simply an attack on Judeo/Christian traditions.
Jewish, or Muslim, maybe. Don't see what it has to do with Christianity. FWIW, I'm not a Jew or Muslim, and if my children want to convert, they can lop their on dangly bits off.
-
I'm a Jew. that would be religious persecution, interfering with my religoius beliefs.
So is banning marijuana or other drugs used in religious practices, yet the feds have no trouble doing that.
It's mutiliation. So what if it's not as serious a form of mutilation as others, and so what if it's based in ancient tradition? Do the effects or motivations of the mutilation really matter? It's not the parents with those beliefs who have to live with it, but the son.
How can anyone justify mutilating or tattooing of infants by parents based on their beliefs shortly after birth, when they have no reason to believe that the child will even share the parents' beliefs by the time the child becomes an adult?
Interesting that the same people who would ban circumcision, are ok with abortions...
Not interesting at all. Those are completely different issues. Abortion is tolerable because before birth the wishes of the unborn child don't exist and the health and life of the unborn child is not separable from the health and wishes of the mother. Circumcision or any other non-lethal mutilation, before or after birth, is not tolerable because once born infants have human rights, and have their own path to follow in life, that path should be as much as possible free from influence by parents' traditions and dogmas. Once children become adults, they are free to believe anything they want, but if their parents have mutilated or marked them, that is undue influence that represents the parents' beliefs, and not necessarily the beliefs of the children-turned-adults.
Male circumcision is on the way out in the U.S., and it's been eschewed in Europe for longer. If parents want to circumcise their precious, they should move to the middle east where the cultures put up with that crap. And stay there.
This San Fran law is the right thing to do.
-
In female "circumcision" they don't unshroud the clitoris, they Remove it! BIG difference and it can't be claimed to be to done for the sake of cleanliness either. It is done to take the "fun" out of sex Period.
-
My Spidey Sense is telling me that this thread is at the corner of KeepitOpen Road and Locksville Street. Choose your turn wisely.
-
In female "circumcision" they don't unshroud the clitoris, they Remove it! BIG difference and it can't be claimed to be to done for the sake of cleanliness either. It is done to take the "fun" out of sex Period.
Modern circumcision was invented for exactly the same reason. All the cleanliness arguments were cooked up later.
It was started in the US basically by Dr. Kellog who supposedly did it to curb masturbation, and candidly admitted that his goal was to remove as much of the penis as possible and still leave the male able to procreate. He did not restrict his activities to males; he used to recommend dripping carbolic acid on infant girls' clitoris to burn away its sensitivity. Luckily his female mutilations never caught on, unfortunately the male version did.
HYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90
LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS
- Dan Bollinger
Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.
-
There are all kinds of FGM, ranging from less severe (only removing the hood) to even more severe... removing the clitoris and labia and sewing up the entire area leaving only one small hole. The wikipedia FGM article has more background.
If females had historically been the dominant sex in major cultures, and if operation of the penis weren't strictly required for reproduction, I have little doubt the more extreme forms of FGM would be inflicted on males instead.
The claim that there's a medical need for male circumcision is nonsense. Hygiene? If a girl can keep herself clean, an uncircumcised boy can too. If there are individual problems with foreskin in specific instances those can be addressed medically, but in what alternate universe is cutting the foreskin off completely a reasonable solution for phimosis? That's clearly excessive and unnecessary in 99%+ of cases. Those are not reasonable excuses for circumcision proponents to use to justify their mutilation practices.
-
Those are completely different issues.
Of course they are; abortion actually kills children. Intentionally. Usually girls, isn't it?
Anyhow, I guess we should outlaw ear piercings for minors, too.
If females had historically been the dominant sex in major cultures, and if operation of the penis weren't strictly required for reproduction, I have little doubt the more extreme forms of FGM would be inflicted on males instead.
Yawn. Some of those male-dominated "major cultures" practiced castration.
-
Unreal. Just un-**expletive deleted** real.
-
too funny!
one day before hes born i can have a medical procedure done to kill him one day later its all changed. not sure which is funnier schofield or his fanbois
-
First they came for the Happy Meals, then they came for the penis. The penis is evil.
So it is written, so it shall be.
-
Those who say male circumcision by a trained professional in clean sterile conditions is the same as female circumcision done on the ground with a dirty knife against a screaming struggling girl who's much more fully grown are putting up a big strawman argument. rolleyes
Trained professional? You mean, like a mohel?
You should look up what is it that mohels do during circumcision.
-
Anyhow, I guess we should outlaw ear piercings for minors, too.
Ear piercings for minors are legal?
-
I can see you guys take your penises pretty seriously. =D
-
"Then I dreamed that one day there was nothing but milk for them, and the jailor said as he put down the pipkin:
'Our relations with the cow are not delicate - as you can easily see if you imagine eating any of her other secretions.'
Now John had been in the pit a shorter time than any of the others: and at these words something seemed to snap in his head and he gave a great sigh and suddenly spoke out in a loud, clear voice:
'Thank heaven! Now at last I know that you are talking nonsense.....You are trying to pretend that unlike things are like. You are trying to make us think that milk is the same sort of thing as sweat or dung.'
'And pray, what difference is there except by custom?'
'Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?' 'Milk does feed calves and dung does not.'"
C.S. Lewis The Pilgrim's Regress Book III, Chapter VIII
-
You make it sound like cutting hair or something. They don't "take it off". They forcibly separate the foreskin from the glans (which would ordinarily not separate until later in life, protecting the glans during childhood) and then they slice off all the functional parts of the foreskin along with an arbitrary amount of penile skin, leaving the mobility and appearance of the future man's penis decided by the whim's of the mutilating doctor. Thus leaving an open wound and unprotected mucous membrane festering in feces and urine-filled diapers (because it's cleaner). I guess this bloody business doesn't fall into your definition of "harm". The victim is left with a hobbled approximation to a natural penis with no foreskin structures, millions of missing nerves, ugly varicose veins that have been clamped off by the amputation, and a dried out, unprotected, calloused glans. With so many nerves gone, and the mucous membrane of the glans scarified, it's a wonder it works at all. How many premature ejaculation and ED problems are caused by the fact that circumcised men are missing most of the actual nerves that ordinarily control arousal and orgasm?
I look down at mine and this is what I think, (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fart.penny-arcade.com%2Fphotos%2F1087535149_PNScU-L.jpg&hash=1acc0323344d4fd1b1882d3684e9644bdab6cb78)
Nothing like what you seem to be trying to make it.
And lolz at Penny Arcade having the perfect picture today, XD
-
It's a fine line, but personally? I don't have a particular problem with disallowing optional forced surgeries on minors.
-
Tyme wrote:
This San Fran law is the right thing to do.
If parents want to make this decision, it has always been their right. I'm worried that so many are ok with turning that power over to the state.
-
It's a fine line, but personally? I don't have a particular problem with disallowing optional forced surgeries on minors.
My only problem is the government doing so. Each and every item we concede to government is something further we give to the government something to use against us. How do you think we are in this current mess? One small "reasonable" concession at a time. Think of it as taking ammo out of your CCW piece and handing it to your worst enemy. Now, sometimes there is a valid reason to do so. But do so too much and you're really screwed. Even if it's a minor and trivial thing, the bar for allowing any government to ban anything should be set insanely high and be as difficult as we can make it. On principle and common sense grounds alone.
I'm neutral on the matter. But until otherwise proven, I'm against any government ban unless proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that it is warranted.
-
I guess it all depends on where you want to draw the line on .gov intrusion. Whereas I tend to agree with the anti-mutilation faction and wonder what sex might have been like with the extra danglies, for both myself AND my partner, I question whether the .gov should be involved in passing mandates to control it. What comes next, back alley circumcisions? :O
-
Tyme wrote:
If parents want to make this decision, it has always been their right. I'm worried that so many are ok with turning that power over to the state.
Do you believe that the child is the property of his parents?
-
Do you believe that the child is the property of his parents?
Well, OTOH having had that decision made for me as an infant, if my parents hadn't done it, with most everyone of my generation in my area being circumcised, I'd be pretty pissed once I was old enough to understand the difference they didn't have it done. And the bigger differences of debating whether or not to get it done as a teen/or an adult.
And we did get our daughters ears pierced at 6 months. We were uncertain on the decision for awhile, I admit. Doing it that early is sometimes associated with trashier/lower socio-economic strata, but with two sets of twin girls to deal with, we wanted a semi permanent way of being absolutely sure we never switched them, for reasons of food and medicine etc.
Tattooing seemed extreme, and "permanent" marker on the bottom of the foot isn't quite as permanent as one might think.
Being handed to the girls at the jewelry store bothered them the most, in all honesty, they never noticed the piercing. (shrug)
And once they were old enough to know that they had them, they've been enamored ever since.
-
You mean you got one twin's ears pierced, as a fail-safe way of knowing which was which?
-
Aren't piercings only semi-permanent?
I thought they would close up if left without jewelry for a while ???
-
And we did get our daughters ears pierced at 6 months. We were uncertain on the decision for awhile, I admit. Doing it that early is sometimes associated with trashier/lower socio-economic strata, but with two sets of twin girls to deal with, we wanted a semi permanent way of being absolutely sure we never switched them, for reasons of food and medicine etc.
Epic. Win.
-
Aren't piercings only semi-permanent?
I thought they would close up if left without jewelry for a while ???
I stopped wearing an earring in my late 20's. Last year during "shock your co-worker's day" (one of my personal holidays), I took the dangly earring out of a co-worker's ear during a staff meeting and stuck it in mine. Went in just fine.
-
You mean you got one twin's ears pierced, as a fail-safe way of knowing which was which?
Yep, and it helped kept Mrs. Dual and I out of jail for assult and battery.
"Oh TWINS! IDENTICAL?" No.. they're fraternal girls...
"Ohhhh IDENTICAL! How CUUUUUTE! A BOY AND A GIRL!" ;/ (Common sense FAIL, genetics FAIL. One set is not identical FAIL. Listening FAIL.)
About the hundredfold time, we were ready to throttle people.
Now imagine the onslaught of stupid attempting to traverse in public with two sets of twins.
Once, when the younger set were just newborns, and the older set were barely over a year, we had the older girls in grocery carts, and the newborns in chest-carriers. One elderly woman was fawning over the one year olds, and we were tolerating her, because she'd managed to use all the visual clues, (both wearing girl clothes) and correctly identified their gender, and managed to figure out they were fraternal even (sororal, technically)
Then she had to ruin the moment. One of the newborn girls in our carriers sneezed.
The woman SHRIEKED.
She had thought the younger babies in our carriers were DOLLS we were carrying around for the one year olds. :facepalm:
-
MicroBalrog wrote:
Do you believe that the child is the property of his parents?
I believe it is best that parents make decisions for their own children. Do you believe the state is better informed or equipped to make these decisions?
Freedom is messy.
-
The law is anti-freedom. Period.
It's really easy to restrict people from doing things we don't like, isn't it?
-
It's really easy to restrict people from doing things we don't like, isn't it?
Nice spin you got going there. The neonatal circumcision situation is more "restricting people from seriously harming others who do not have the ability to defend themselves" which is completely in line with most moral systems and liberal/libertarian political philosophies, in which people have inalienable rights and one of the roles of the government is to protect those.
I agree that government should never restrict people from doing what they like to themselves or to consenting others.
-
So is this the only elective surgery that parents should not be restricted from having performed on their children? Where should the line be drawn?
-
Nice spin you got going there. The neonatal circumcision situation is more "restricting people from seriously harming others who do not have the ability to defend themselves" which is completely in line with most moral systems and liberal/libertarian political philosophies, in which people have inalienable rights and one of the roles of the government is to protect those.
I agree that government should never restrict people from doing what they like to themselves or to consenting others.
So parents should not be allowed to make decisions for their children?
-
Yes, they should be able to make decisions for their children.
I think that parents should be able to make decisions for their children, as long as those decisions don't involve things like branding them, killing them, blinding them, starving them, abusing them, cutting off parts of their genitals, etc. and it's not some radical leftism to think that these things should be illegal.
Is it "making decisions for their children" to tattoo them, bind their feet as the Chinese used to do, castrate them so they have a higher voice as has been done in the past, etc? Should all those things be perfectly legal decisions that parents should be able to make? If footbinding were still in practice, would you argue for its legality because "the parents have a right to make decisions for their children"?
I happen to feel that neonatal circumcision, which serves no purpose but to satisfy the primitive traditions of the parents, and permanently scars and hobbles the child, should be in the category of things that it's not acceptable to do to your children. As has been said before, there's plenty of places in the world where that kind of thing flys, but I'm not a moral relativist and I don't think we need to allow it here. I would oppose any such federal law, but CA's law is in the right direction. I can't believe I just said that, but I call them like I see them.
-
http://www.aaatattoodirectory.com/tattoo_regulations.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_tattooing_in_the_United_States
Tattooing laws seem to be split between forbidding tattoos on minors and requiring parental consent. Implicit in the law is that the minor (likely an adolescent) wants the tattoo. Can you imagine the political and legal outcry if a parent forcibly tattooed a child? Why is circumcision different?
If parents want to make this decision, it has always been their right. I'm worried that so many are ok with turning that power over to the state.
I agree. If parents want to beat their children or lock them in the basement with nothing except water and bread, or sexually abuse their children because their religion says it's appropriate, or cut off their children's fingers, or blind them with lye, that should be allowed, too. Let's get the State completely out of the business of ensuring some normality of life for children, and let parents visit on their own children all manner of barbaric rituals.
-
how many kids you raised? so far?
-
Aren't piercings only semi-permanent?
I thought they would close up if left without jewelry for a while ???
Depends on how they are pierced and how well they have healed. My first two--earlobes--were with a 14 gauge needle. Those are not closing up anytime soon, although I've gone for over a year at a time without wearing jewelry. My second two--ear cartilage, both in the same ear--with done with a gun and were tiny. They never healed properly and healed as soon as I left the jewelry out.
Needle piercings tend to heal better, but tiny ones sometimes still close up.
-
When I was a kid, doctors would pretty routinely suggest that parents have their kid's tonsils removed, even if the kid didn't have tonsillitis at the time. The reasoning was that removing them early wasn't as big a deal, and it was a precautionary measure.
Were my parents wrong to have my tonsils removed?
-
Were my parents wrong to have my tonsils removed?
Probably. These surgical fads come and go. At one point it was tonsils, at another it was the appendix. Many years ago in Europe spleen removal was common. All with "good reason" - tonsils and appendixes get inflamed, spleen dives you that funny feeling in your side if you run too fast. And then they figure out that these bits aren't quite as useless as was originally thought and start hacking them off only if you actually get sick.
You don't find hacking bits of your body off because they may possibly develop a problem at some point somewhat ridiculous and barbaric?
-
...the bar for allowing any government to ban anything should be set insanely high and be as difficult as we can make it. On principle and common sense grounds alone.
Minimum height ought to be, "You, Joe Q Citizen, are ready and willing to kill, with your own hands or maybe a knife, someone who is doing this so as to prevent it."
Like I wrote, minimum height. We have puh-lenty of sociopaths who'd say, "Where's the knife and who do I get to kill?"
I believe it is best that parents make decisions for their own children. Do you believe the state is better informed or equipped to make these decisions?
Freedom is messy.
Yes it is. And every day we see some are not up to the task.
-
Probably. These surgical fads come and go. At one point it was tonsils, at another it was the appendix....
You don't find hacking bits of your body off because they may possibly develop a problem at some point somewhat ridiculous and barbaric?
Come again? So the medical community has differing opinions and changing ideas about what surgeries are helpful and which are better left undone. And cutting things off is automatically barbaric? Please explain.
I guess we should outlaw any cutting or clamping of umbilical cords, too, right?
-
You don't find hacking bits of your body off because they may possibly develop a problem at some point somewhat ridiculous and barbaric?
No more so in the example mentioned than having thousands of needle pricks done on my body to inject inks, or dozens of holes cut to insert jewelry (or bones, or whatever).
-
Come again? So the medical community has differing opinions and changing ideas about what surgeries are helpful and which are better left undone.
The medical community used to think that pumping tobacco smoke up a rectum of a drowning victim was helpful. Now they know better. So it is with these automatic surgeries.
And cutting things off is automatically barbaric? Please explain.
Cutting healthy bits off without a good reason is barbaric. Notice I said "may possibly develop a problem at some point", not " having a problem that requires fixing" Should all men past a certain age be castrated on the off chance they develop testicular cancer? Wanna hack your hand off on the off chance you cut yourself and get an infection?
"Parents feel it should be cut off" does not strike me as being a good reason. At various times and places parents thought cutting off some boy bits was indicated in order to make a future politician or an opera singer, or to ensure eternal salvation. In some places today parents think cutting off some girly bits is indicated to make a better wife.
Where and how do you draw the line?
I guess we should outlaw any cutting or clamping of umbilical cords, too, right?
Umbilical cords fall off on their own. Foreskins do not. See the difference?
In general terms I have no problem with circumcision so long as it is something a person chooses for himself. If you like it, go get it. I do think the cleanliness argument for it is moronic - even if you are hung like a horse it isn't that big of an area to clean. Water and soap do miracles.
-
No more so in the example mentioned than having thousands of needle pricks done on my body to inject inks, or dozens of holes cut to insert jewelry (or bones, or whatever).
Right. Notice that you said my body. You should be able to do whatever you want to yourself no matter how silly or weird it is. That said, we are not talking about you doing something to yourself. We are talking about having something done to you without your consent.
Would you be OK with parents tattooing a newborn or with having those big plastic plugs put into the kid's earlobes?
-
The medical community used to think that pumping tobacco smoke up a rectum of a drowning victim was helpful. Now they know better. So it is with these automatic surgeries.
And don't some in the medical community now feel that circumcision may reduce the chances of, what was it, cervical cancer? Others point out the risks of the procedure. Or is that just a fad, as well?
Umbilical cords fall off on their own. Foreskins do not. See the difference?
Very much so. Messing with the umbilical cord is obviously an unnecessary procedure; a fad that may be dangerous. But that foreskin won't cut itself off.
Cutting healthy bits off without a good reason is barbaric. Notice I said "may possibly develop a problem at some point", not " having a problem that requires fixing" Should all men past a certain age be castrated on the off chance they develop testicular cancer? Wanna hack your hand off on the off chance you cut yourself and get an infection?
"Parents feel it should be cut off" does not strike me as being a good reason. At various times and places parents thought cutting off some boy bits was indicated in order to make a future politician or an opera singer, or to ensure eternal salvation. In some places today parents think cutting off some girly bits is indicated to make a better wife.
Where and how do you draw the line?
And you thought I had a bad comparison? You compare the testes with the foreskin, and you're giving medical advice? ???
-
MicroBalrog wrote:
I believe it is best that parents make decisions for their own children. Do you believe the state is better informed or equipped to make these decisions?
Freedom is messy.
I do not believe that the parents are there to own the child.
The child is a separate entity, with his own rights. The parents are at best custodians/guardians of these rights.
The parents' control of their child's life is - should be! - in all civilized jurisdictions, regulated to some extent.
Do you think it should be legal for a parent to subject the child to any kind of medical procedure he feels is good for the child, even against his will? How about plastic surgery?
People have discussed tattoos in this context. And I believe this is relevant to your interests. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8440540.stm)
-
And don't some in the medical community now feel that circumcision may reduce the chances of, what was it, cervical cancer? Others point out the risks of the procedure. Or is that just a fad, as well?
Very well might be.
And you thought I had a bad comparison?
Yes, you did.
You compare the testes with the foreskin, and you're giving medical advice? ???
I did not and I am not. You must be thinking of someone else, or misreading what I wrote.
How about you actually answer some of the questions I asked?
-
Do you think it should be legal for a parent to subject the child to any kind of medical procedure he feels is good for the child, even against his will? How about plastic surgery?
I believe we can differentiate between medical procedures that are beneficial, or at least low-risk, and those that are not. There is no reason to force ourselves to forget the difference between circumcision, FGM and tattoos. A free nation need not be a willfully ignorant or thoughtless nation. Being free doesn't mean that we ignore our traditions or our culture. It doesn't mean that our government must see everything through some hyper-rationalist lens that discards anything it can't understand.
Now if tattoos were mandated by religious beliefs, maybe that should be legal. If they are just there for the parents' aesthetic tastes, not so much.
As for cosmetic surgery, how about dental braces? I guess Susie needs to be of age before she can get her teeth straightened?
-
How about you actually answer some of the questions I asked?
I did. I'm under no obligation to answer each point to your satisfaction. Take what you can get.
How about you explain your misleading comparisons between castration and circumcision? Again, you object to the comparison between cutting off the umbilical cord and cutting off the foreskin, and then immediately try to compare the foreskin with the testicles. It's laughable, but it's also dishonest.
And I think you may have missed the point of my first response, which is; what if the objections to circumcision are just a passing fad? Will you then damn those who acted in accordance with such?
-
Would you be OK with parents tattooing a newborn or with having those big plastic plugs put into the kid's earlobes?
thats still ok in sanfransico
-
I believe we can differentiate between medical procedures that are beneficial, or at least low-risk, and those that are not. There is no reason to force ourselves to forget the difference between circumcision, FGM and tattoos. A free nation need not be a willfully ignorant or thoughtless nation. Being free doesn't mean that we ignore our traditions or our culture. It doesn't mean that our government must see everything through some hyper-rationalist lens that discards anything it can't understand.
Now if tattoos were mandated by religious beliefs, maybe that should be legal. If they are just there for the parents' aesthetic tastes, not so much.
As for cosmetic surgery, how about dental braces? I guess Susie needs to be of age before she can get her teeth straightened?
So what you mean is that there's no outright right for parents to inflict what they want on children's bodies. That there should be laws deciding what is legal and what is not, based on, quote, "our traditions and our culture." I agree with you.
I do not mean in my argument that male circumcision necessarily should be banned. I am not of a set mind on that issue. All that I mean is that there's no specific, God-given, inherent right to choose whatever medical procedure you want for your child. There is a place for the State in this relationship because the child is a separate entity, with rights of his own.
As a libertarian, I believe a person owns their own body and it should be their legal right to have whatever medical procedures they want to have, as long as they can pay for them or get someone to perform them of their own free will. But this isn't the case here.
As you've said, all medical procedures are not made equal. In my view, this is the exact room for local legilsatures - like the SF one - to intervene. No inhuman oppression has taken place.
-
Yes, local govt. should have more latitude to act than national/state govt. But the whole point of federalism is that those of us in St. Louis, MO and San Marcos, TX are going to disagree with SF's laws. Which is what we're doing.
-
Well said, Micro.
-
So what you mean is that there's no outright right for parents to inflict what they want on children's bodies.
Actually, that isn't quite what I said. Circumcision is not female genital mutilation. Nor is it castration or any other disgusting practice. It is a normal and non-scary procedure, even if it seems rather incomprehensible to some.
To equate circumcision to mutilation is to dwell in ignorance, as if it were not a custom we've been living with for thousands of years. There is no need for this.
-
There appear to be both medical and religious/ideological issues here.
Medical:
Both sides have concerns about the medical implications of circumcising or not. On the one side, circumcisions could be altogether banned. On the other extreme, they could be legally required. In the middle, parents could be allowed to make the decision, as they have been doing for some time now. Just as they make most other medical decisions for their children. This seems to be working out pretty well so far, doesn't it?
Religious/Ideological:
On one side, some religious systems require circumcision of their male children. On the other side, some ideologies would ban circumcision for everyone else. Again, parents have been deciding this, just as they make other religious and ideological decisions for their children. This system also works.
Why change any of that?
-
Actually, that isn't quite what I said. Circumcision is not female genital mutilation. Nor is it castration or any other disgusting practice. It is a normal and non-scary procedure, even if it seems rather incomprehensible to some.
Tatooing is also a non-scary procedure that has been around a long time. Is that something parents should be able to choose?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fventnorblog.com%2Fcopy_images%2Fskull-face-tattoo.jpg&hash=6f54ce2ed628060d08125a3e5239b4e46c755a21)
There appear to be both medical and religious/ideological issues here.
Medical:
Both sides have concerns about the medical implications of circumcising or not. On the one side, circumcisions could be altogether banned. On the other extreme, they could be legally required. In the middle, parents could be allowed to make the decision, as they have been doing for some time now. Just as they make most other medical decisions for their children. This seems to be working out pretty well so far, doesn't it?
Religious/Ideological:
On one side, some religious systems require circumcision of their male children. On the other side, some ideologies would ban circumcision for everyone else. Again, parents have been deciding this, just as they make other religious and ideological decisions for their children. This system also works.
Why change any of that?
What is wrong with allowing the actual owner of the foreskin to choose? Nobody said all circumcisions should be banned - we are talking circumcisions without consent.
-
Tatooing is also a non-scary procedure that has been around a long time. Is that something parents should be able to choose?
Extreme tattoo and circumcision does not equate. Nor does it when trying to compare it to female mutilation. Is there a medical reason for said tattoo? Is there a religious reason?
-
Extreme tattoo and circumcision does not equate.
Why not?
Is there a medical reason for said tattoo?
The circumcisions we are discussing have no medical reason. We are not treating phimosis, just continuing a tribal tradition.
Is there a religious reason?
Suppose there is. What of it? Is that a good enough reason? Is religion a good enough reason for other things?
Here is another example of a tribal tradition. Is this better?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ralphmag.org%2FBG%2Fmaori-face-tie373x385.gif&hash=aecce107820f9c6633d8dcbe5a95958822b2a452)
-
Question: why do Christians circumcise, despite Paul's remarks on the subject?
-
normal and non-scary procedure
Well, it may be "normal" (as in common) but definitely it is scary even if you or I don't specifically remember it.
Let's strap you down to a table and start cutting off pieces without anesthesia and see how non-scary it is... =|
As to whether the state should interfere, well I am undecided as I am pretty much an anarchist :lol:
-
parents can now chose to have kids tatooed the sf folks don't wanna outlaw that
-
Well, it may be "normal" (as in common) but definitely it is scary even if you or I don't specifically remember it.
Let's strap you down to a table and start cutting off pieces without anesthesia and see how non-scary it is... =|
As to whether the state should interfere, well I am undecided as I am pretty much an anarchist :lol:
been to a bris?
its not that scary comparitively
-
A traditional bris is actually fairly scary. Not sure which one you attended.
MicrolivesinacountryfullofJewsBalrog
-
A traditional bris is actually fairly scary. Not sure which one you attended.
MicrolivesinacountryfullofJewsBalrog
Well, if your parents were dumb enough to hire Rabbi "Shakes" Greenberg, well...
-
Tatooing is also a non-scary procedure that has been around a long time. Is that something parents should be able to choose?
What is wrong with allowing the actual owner of the foreskin to choose? Nobody said all circumcisions should be banned - we are talking circumcisions without consent.
What is wrong with allowing the actual owner of the arm to choose whether to get vaccinated or not? Nobody said all vaccinations should be banned- we are talking about vaccinations without consent.
I mean, have you seen how children WAIL when they get vaccinations? You can tell they are not doing this by choice. What about their rights? What about their wants?
-
Well, if your parents were dumb enough to hire Rabbi "Shakes" Greenberg, well...
A traditional bris involves the mohel removing excess blood from the wound directly with his mouth. That not creepy enough for you?
-
What is wrong with allowing the actual owner of the arm to choose whether to get vaccinated or not? Nobody said all vaccinations should be banned- we are talking about vaccinations without consent.
I mean, have you seen how children WAIL when they get vaccinations? You can tell they are not doing this by choice. What about their rights? What about their wants?
An interesting strawman. But a strawman.
In these cases, shouldn't it be the place of legislators to judge these things by a case-by-case basis?
[no, I don't remember anybody wailing during my vaccinations]
-
Question: why do Christians circumcise, despite Paul's remarks on the subject?
Do they? I think the situation is more "Mainstream Americans, many of whom happen to be Christians, circumcise their children in the medical quackery tradition". Christians in the UK or elsewhere in the world don't circumcise, and I don't think that the Christians who circumcise do it for religious reasons.
-
An interesting strawman. But a strawman.
In these cases, shouldn't it be the place of legislators to judge these things by a case-by-case basis?
[no, I don't remember anybody wailing during my vaccinations]
Honestly, I don't argue about a localities right to make rules different from other localities. I'm a firm believer in federalism.
In this case, I argue that they are stupid. Circumcision is a medical procedure for which there are costs, benefits, and risks. Many people think it's barbaric and dangerous, and the other side believes it is beneficial and worth the slight risks.
Vaccinations are medical procedures for which there are costs, benefits, and risks. Many people believe it is a scam and a conspiracy, the other side thinks they are beneficial far beyond the risks. Should the vaccination/autism people take over a locality and outlaw vaccinations for children, would you agree with that? I'd posit they have the right, but are stupid to do so. (And would avoid that locality accordingly.) Much the same as this case in San Francisco.
-
Honestly, I don't argue about a localities right to make rules different from other localities. I'm a firm believer in federalism.
In this case, I argue that they are stupid. Circumcision is a medical procedure for which there are costs, benefits, and risks. Many people think it's barbaric and dangerous, and the other side believes it is beneficial and worth the slight risks.
Vaccinations are medical procedures for which there are costs, benefits, and risks. Many people believe it is a scam and a conspiracy, the other side thinks they are beneficial far beyond the risks. Should the vaccination/autism people take over a locality and outlaw vaccinations for children, would you agree with that? I'd posit they have the right, but are stupid to do so. (And would avoid that locality accordingly.) Much the same as this case in San Francisco.
See, the supposed benefits of circumcision don't come into effect until the subject is sexually active, which at least theoretically means they are at the age of consent. There is no downside to waiting. Vaccinations are of immediate benefit and you are on much more solid ground with the reality of those benefits. Oh, and which vaccinations leave permanent marks?
-
Circumcision is a medical procedure for which there are costs, benefits, and risks.
It is a medical procedure but rarely a medically-motivated procedure. Costs, benefits, and risks are not weighed. Tradition is the deciding factor.
In contrast, vaccinations have a well established medical purpose. Vaccinating your kids not only reduce their risk of disease, but also helps teachers and other kids your kids are near all day in school, and those kids' and teachers' vaccinations reduce the risk for your kids. Children are routinely in closer proximity, and are generally less hygienic, than adults. There is no alternative to mandatory vaccination to take advantage of herd immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity). Smallpox was eradicated not with microscopic bombs, but rather through intense vaccination efforts. What happens when people decide based on ignorance that immunizations are unnecessary? One infected person (or animal carrier) introduced into a population with insufficient immunization can cause unnecessarily large outbreaks, and are more difficult for public health agencies to contain once they get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles#The_Americas
Legitimate medical reasons for circumcision should be handled on an as-needed basis. It isn't very difficult to distinguish rare instances of medically-recommended circumcision from routine circumcision: "Oh look, it's a boy... get the knife!" The issues of penile cancer and easier HIV transmission need not be addressed at birth; they can both wait until adolescence. You won't get prostate cancer if you have that removed, so perhaps we should do that at birth, too? Baloney.
Parents make religious and ideological decisions for their children? Some parents turn their children into little robots, and more try, and that's unfortunate, and not easily dealt with because of the difficulty of determining what decisions are necessary for the welfare of children and which decisions are excessively restrictive or attempts to instill propaganda. However, the issue of physical mutilation is quite clear, and in that realm it is easy to distinguish what's (medically) necessary from what amounts to culturally-motivated branding of infants who can't possibly understand the culture which seeks to brand them.
Is there serious physical harm? Not in most cases. Neither would there be serious harm by tattooing infants, giving them 12 ear piercings and a grommet in each ear. I doubt most people would appreciate being stuck with ears topologically indistinguishable from doughnuts just because their parents thought it looked cute, or because their parents thought it was necessary for metaphysical reasons.
We cannot know what traditions a child will believe in when he or she reaches adulthood. Routine circumcision, tattoos, piercing, and surgical implants for children are not acceptable if our goal is to raise children who think for themselves, who may, and should, choose freely what to believe in and what cultures to identify with when they're adults. Sadly, too many parents agree that children should be financially and socially independent from their parents, yet become distraught if children exhibit spiritual or even philosophical independence.
-
There is no downside to waiting.
thats not true according to the adults i know who have been circumsized to a man they would have rather had it done as an infant. it was fairly traumatic to them as adults. primarily in a psychological way.
how many of you who have objections to circumcision have boy kids? unsnipped ones?
-
There is no downside to waiting.
thats not true according to the adults i know who have been circumsized to a man they would have rather had it done as an infant. it was fairly traumatic to them as adults. primarily in a psychological way.
So just because you were too young to remember and understand it was less traumatic? Or it's OK to traumatize so long as parents think it's a good idea? That does not make any sense.
how many of you who have objections to circumcision have boy kids? unsnipped ones?
I have two. What's your point?
-
- OTOH, modern plumbing/hygiene means it does not collect crud any more.
Maybe.
"Acquired phimosis" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis
http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Phimosis_Treatment_a574.html
-
So just because you were too young to remember and understand it was less traumatic? Or it's OK to traumatize so long as parents think it's a good idea? That does not make any sense.
yea that which you don't remember is less traumatic
thats amongst the reasons they let addicted new borns kick cold turkey right away. compared to being born everything else is a day at the beach
the adults i knew who were circumcised all wish it had been done "back then"
you made a choice as a parent regarding your kids why would you deny the right to chose to another parent? or is it just some choice is good?
-
http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm
nice neutral piece
-
A rabbi with shaky hands? Could be worse.
Video (http://www.hulu.com/watch/2323/saturday-night-live-royal-deluxe-ii)
-
There is no downside to waiting.
thats not true according to the adults i know who have been circumsized to a man they would have rather had it done as an infant. it was fairly traumatic to them as adults. primarily in a psychological way.
Hindsight is a wonderful gift. You're suggesting parents should act based on precognitive knowledge of what their child will want as an adult?
-
you made a choice as a parent regarding your kids
I chose to let them choose for themselves. Should they decide to have a circumcision I would not stop them.
why would you deny the right to chose to another parent? or is it just some choice is good?
Why would you allow that choice to be denied to children? Choice made for yourself is good. Choice made for another is bad. Outside of a small number of medically necessary cases this particular choice is essentially parental whim and tribal tradition. See the picture of another tribal tradition I posted before. Would marking my kid's face like that be a choice I should be making? You know, because poking him with needles when he is younger will be forgotten.
-
in the real world parents make a host of decisions for their kids. life altering ones. its part of the job description. like the man sang "if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice" i would not presume to tell a parent that he be required to circumcise nor would i deem it right to say they can't make that choice for their kids. key words here their kids. anarchy and liberty have some funny wiggles and twists eh depending on the issue and whose ox is being gored. some folks like the nanny state when its dictates fit their own world view
-
in the real world parents make a host of decisions for their kids. life altering ones. its part of the job description. like the man sang "if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice" i would not presume to tell a parent that he be required to circumcise nor would i deem it right to say they can't make that choice for their kids.
I asked before and I will ask again: where do you draw the line and why? Why are some tribal traditions OK, and others are not?
-
thats not true according to the adults i know who have been circumsized to a man they would have rather had it done as an infant. it was fairly traumatic to them as adults. primarily in a psychological way.
My sympathy to any guy who requires genital surgery. It ain't a fun time. Guys who decide that they think a modified dick looks better? Man up. Cosmetic surgery, like other surgery, hurts, but I have a lot less sympathy for someone who chose it.
I don't see how cosmetically altering a baby boy's penis is ok because "if he wants to do it later, it will hurt.". Um. Tough. During each of my pregnancies, several friends who had been circumcised, in most cases because their parents were practicing Jews, asked me to consider not doing it.
It was prett persuasive when several friends said "My parents removed part of my penis and I wish they hadn't". Way more persuasive than the converse. No matter how much it sucks to have this cosmetic procedure done as an adult, I have a hard time seeing how it sucks as much as having had it done and wishing it hadn't been.
-
Or it's OK to traumatize so long as parents think it's a good idea?
Who's being traumatized?
-
Good grief!....I leave for just one weekend....and I come back to find four pages about PENISES!!! :facepalm:
Be glad I'm not a mod....otherwise, I'd do a month-long ban for any APS member with a penis....and this board would get pretty dull with just Bridgewalker, Liz, and the lurking Homeland Security drones..... :P
-
Who's being traumatized?
the adults i know who have been circumsized
it was fairly traumatic to them as adults.
-
I think it is safe to say that, no matter which way you slice it, the penis is evil.
-
I think it is safe to say that, no matter which way you slice it, the penis is evil.
IMHO, you just won the Innernetz...... =D
-
I think it is safe to say that, no matter which way you slice it, the penis is evil.
Lesionnaires Unite! (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=26914.0)
-
Choice made for yourself is good. Choice made for another is bad.
Hogwash. It is in the job description as a parent. Parents make life-changing choices all the time for their kids.
I see CSD got here before I did, but I'll paste & emphasize a bit:
in the real world parents make a host of decisions for their kids. life altering ones. its part of the job description. like the man sang "if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice" i would not presume to tell a parent that he be required to circumcise nor would i deem it right to say they can't make that choice for their kids. key words here their kids. anarchy and liberty have some funny wiggles and twists eh depending on the issue and whose ox is being gored. some folks like the nanny state when its dictates fit their own world view
The latter bit is true, in spades.
As far as the facial tattoos posted before and the "Where would you draw the line?" I'd suspect the tats in the linked photos were done by adults and not pertinent. The question, in that context, is asinine as it hasn't even occurred yet that anyone can document. You want to ban monster facial tattoos for babies when it is only a weak hypothetical, not yet a reality. Why not legislate the proper use of time machines or perpetual motion machines. Hey, if we're not going to let reality stop our governmental ban stick, lets get cracking!
-
Hogwash. It is in the job description as a parent. Parents make life-changing choices all the time for their kids.
Are any and all life changing choices OK?
As far as the facial tattoos posted before and the "Where would you draw the line?" I'd suspect the tats in the linked photos were done by adults and not pertinent. The question, in that context, is asinine as it hasn't even occurred yet that anyone can document. You want to ban monster facial tattoos for babies when it is only a weak hypothetical, not yet a reality. Why not legislate the proper use of time machines or perpetual motion machines. Hey, if we're not going to let reality stop our governmental ban stick, lets get cracking!
OK. Where do you draw the line?
I came up with this example because I wanted to avoid the whole FGM thing. However, it looks like you don't want to do that. Fine.
Why is cutting boy bits acceptable and cutting girl bits mutilation? Both are tribal traditions. Both are done with no medical necessity. Provided we are not talking about removing the clitoris, but just the hood, or maybe the labia, is that OK? Where is the difference? Is this a realistic enough example for you?
-
Reason.com's blog mentioned this example of Frisco Fruiiness in a post titled "The Most Unkindest Cut of All":
http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/12/glenn-becks-ridiculous-misread#comments
The first 9 comments are epic. Epic.
-
Here's another down in the mix:
Colonel Dietrich|11.12.10 @ 6:12PM|#
I must admit that I am uncomfortable with this...Jewish Ritual.
-
My sympathy to any guy who requires genital surgery. It ain't a fun time. Guys who decide that they think a modified dick looks better? Man up. Cosmetic surgery, like other surgery, hurts, but I have a lot less sympathy for someone who chose it.
I don't see how cosmetically altering a baby boy's penis is ok because "if he wants to do it later, it will hurt.". Um. Tough. During each of my pregnancies, several friends who had been circumcised, in most cases because their parents were practicing Jews, asked me to consider not doing it.
It was prett persuasive when several friends said "My parents removed part of my penis and I wish they hadn't". Way more persuasive than the converse. No matter how much it sucks to have this cosmetic procedure done as an adult, I have a hard time seeing how it sucks as much as having had it done and wishing it hadn't been.
none of the guys did it for cosmetic reasons
or this guy
http://www.circinfo.net/men_circumcised_as_adults_tell_it_as_it_is.html
http://www.circinfo.com/an_account.html
-
Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on Today at 17:58:52
the adults i know who have been circumsized
Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on Today at 17:58:52
it was fairly traumatic to them as adults.
you accidentally left out the part where i said primarily psychologically guys are funny about sharp things round there
this is kinda like religious discussions. no one is trying to take away your making choices for your kids why would you take away another parents right to chose? for their kids?
-
People here have scoffed at the comparison between male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation, insisting that the two are completely different. But, where the comparison holds is in the fact that where FGM is practiced, the arguments for and against are basically identical to MGM. People will insist that it's cleaner, that it prevents disease, that women prefer it, that the men prefer it, that the women are happy that it was done to them, and that it's some kind of deviation to be natural and unmodified. They will also, with a straight face and apparently believing themselves, insist that sexual function is not impeded, just like those that say the same about MGM, despite the pile of skin and nerves in the trashcan, and the scarred and altered results. It's all the same, just with the genders switched. The motivations are exactly the same...desire to control and mutilate the helpless to satisfy some kind of bizarre reptillian-brain urges in the empowered adults, along with a coping mechanism of their own mutilation and a desire to continue the practice so that part of the population isn't handicapped compared to the other.
According to a joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement, the use of the word "mutilation" reinforces the idea that this practice is a violation of the human right..They state that, at the community level, however, the term can be problematic...parents resent the suggestion that they are "mutilating" their daughters.
wikipedia
Two studies have reported that FGC is associated with decreased risk of HIV.[50][51]
"AIDS and women's health care in developing countries". Trop Geogr Med 44 (3): 284–5.
Lightfoot-Klein (1989) studied circumcised and infibulated females in Sudan, stating, "Contrary to expectations, nearly 90% of all women interviewed said that they experienced orgasm (climax) or had at various periods of their marriage experienced it. Frequency ranged from always to rarely." Lightfoot-Klein stated that the quality of orgasm varied from intense and prolonged, to weak or difficult to achieve.
In fact, among certain communities, especially Mary Githuma's Meru and Nyamato's Kisii, even educated men prefer to marry circumcised women...
A recent study carried out by FPAK among the Meru found out that most of the parents, and indeed their daughters, opt for FGM just to toe the line.
"We must respect our tradition. The girl must be taught how to take care of herself hygienically,"
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/36/193.html
Dr. Ahmadu, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago...has argued that the critics of the procedure exaggerate the medical dangers, misunderstand the effect on sexual pleasure, and mistakenly view the removal of parts of the clitoris as a practice that oppresses women.
"For the National Assembly to legislate on female circumcision is to criminalise our custom", writes Nowa Omoigui.
What is removed is the prepuce - a small piece of the sheath that extends from the clitoris. That sheath has no sexual function.
there is absolutely no evidence that maternal and child mortality in Nigeria is increased because of properly performed [female] circumcision
Who advised the World Health Organization to coin the phrase "[female genital] mutilation"? Whoever did was cynically manipulating language. We "mutilate" the umbilical cord by cutting it off at birth and arbitrarily deciding how long the navel should be. We "mutilate" our bodies with ear rings, tongue rings, tatoos, nose jobs etc... We "keep" biologically excretory products like nails and hair - and use them for beautification - and do so differently, I might add, depending on the cultural environment. Some western women (in the US) begin to shave their leg hair at age 10. Has anyone else in the world attacked them for mutilating what God put there for a reason? We use traditional marks for medicinal and symbolic purposes.... Why is that not 'mutilation' of the skin? Why not ban it?
Note how similar his arguments are to the ones used right here by those who refuse to accept that male circumcision is worth of the word 'mutilation'.
Nowa Omoigui is a medical doctor in South Carolina, USA.
Federal law prohibiting FGM was enacted in 1996. Seventeen states enacted similar laws between 1994 and 2006. Although I oppose federal legislation in areas like this, I feel that it is high time for MGM to be treated the same way; that's why I support the CA law and would support any other law manning mutilation of children.
-
The motivations are exactly the same...desire to control and mutilate the helpless to satisfy some kind of bizarre reptillian-brain urges in the empowered adults, along with a coping mechanism of their own mutilation and a desire to continue the practice so that part of the population isn't handicapped compared to the other
lol thats funny i don't care who you are! you didn't read the guys stories did ya? [popcorn]
-
none of the guys did it for cosmetic reasons
Hence the first line of my post.
I find your argument that "guys are funny about sharp things" and therefore should have pieces of their genitals removed in infancy spurious. Perhaps guys are "funny about sharp things" in the genital area because a piece of it was cut off way back when in pre-verbal memory?
-
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/senkul1/
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
-
I find your argument that "guys are funny about sharp things" and therefore should have pieces of their genitals removed in infancy spurious. Perhaps guys are "funny about sharp things" in the genital area because a piece of it was cut off way back when in pre-verbal memory?
i was referencing the trauma the adults felt was psychological and due to not liking sharp things near the family jewels
i was referring to the guys who never got snipped so what imaginary memories are you referring to?
-
i was referencing the trauma the adults felt was psychological and due to not liking sharp things near the family jewels
The trauma infants feel doesn't matter, because infants aren't really people and besides, they are small and can't do anything about it anyway.
-
do share with us your experiences with infant trauma.i've seen a lil its quite different from adults. thats a real advantage with a host of medical procedures
-
i was referencing the trauma the adults felt was psychological and due to not liking sharp things near the family jewels
i was referring to the guys who never got snipped so what imaginary memories are you referring to?
First, your use of the word "guys" did not appear to be modified by "who had circumcision performed in adulthood." Perhaps I missed that?
Second, Your general use of the word "guys" seemed to reference a general cultural standard that seems to be pervasive. If the majority of men in a culture are irrationally touchy about sharp objects in the crotch area, perhaps this is derived from the fact that male children typically have their genitals mutilated as neonates?
Third, these guys you reference ought to get over it. If I get breast cancer and have to have a boob removed, damn straight I will be traumatized. Nonetheless, I'm quite glad to have it now. Ditto any other disease-vulnerable body part. I don't know anyone who really enjoys genital surgery, yet about half the mothers I know have experienced genital trauma and reparative procedures. Somehow we survive it. "We're squeamish" is pretty sorry reason for choosing to inflict elective genital surgery on infants.
As for infant trauma, very little is known. Most of the "facts" are pure invention and there is not a whole lot of real research.
-
why would you take away another parents right to chose? for their kids?
Why do you want to take away the kids' right to choose for themselves?
none of the guys did it for cosmetic reasons
or this guy
http://www.circinfo.net/men_circumcised_as_adults_tell_it_as_it_is.html
Most people in that link are either of the "I thought it looks better/I like it this way" variety, which are, indeed, cosmetic reasons. They had the opportunity to choose, they chose, good for them. We are talking about the choice being made for you.
A few guys there are of the "I had a problem" kind. That is really not relevant to what we are talking about either.
And finally there are the ones that found it hard to stay clean. All I can say there is "yuck".
-
Why do you want to take away the kids' right to choose for themselves?
because they are kids. its just the earliest form of the jackboot on their throat. they get to tell their therapist about it later if need be.
-
Why do you want to take away the kids' right to choose for themselves?
because they are kids. its just the earliest form of the jackboot on their throat. they get to tell their therapist about it later if need be.
My parents thought different. Perhaps that is why I have never needed a therapist.
-
If the majority of men in a culture are irrationally touchy about sharp objects in the crotch area,
I don't know, being touchy about sharp objects in the sensistive areas of my body seems rational to me.
-
For the record I'm pretty much touchy about sharp instruments near any part of my body not just "there". ;)
I guess circumcision considered by some as preventative. Past experience has taught that things can happen and it's much less traumatic to do it at childbirth than to have to suffer through the procedure as an adult. For one thing the wound is much smaller and probably heals quicker without the whole pesky erection thing going on. Because from what I hear the erection part is the most painful of the whole thing and the guy I talked to said he had a little can of spray freeze stuff to uh, nip said erection(s) in the bud.
Who's to say the tribal ritual didn't develop from the tribe's experience with the same issues of infection so that the ritual served the function of encouraging the procedure? In many cases it symbolized the male coming of age. I'll never forget the 16' stone phallus a friend of mine found in a field right here in CT. Anatomically perfect down to the veins. Circumcised.
I'll also never forget the day he handed it to one of the older ladies at a dig. She grabs it by the head, cradles it in both hands, looks at it and says , "Oh." Then a split second later she realizes what it is and says "OHHH!!" The lulz were epic. =D
-
http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/143092.html
Anybody remember this being brought up on this forum?
-
do share with us your experiences with infant trauma.i've seen a lil its quite different from adults. thats a real advantage with a host of medical procedures
Well, just look at how weird I turned out ... =D
-
Well, just look at how weird I turned out ... =D
touche!
-
Why do you want to take away the kids' right to choose for themselves?
because they are kids. its just the earliest form of the jackboot on their throat. they get to tell their therapist about it later if need be.
Finally, we have the origins of this fellow (on the left):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA
-
Who's to say the tribal ritual didn't develop from the tribe's experience with the same issues of infection so that the ritual served the function of encouraging the procedure?
How about a different approach: defund routine infant circumcision. It damned well shouldn't be covered by Medicaid, and it shouldn't be standard in private insurance either. Make people pay extra for it, and fewer people will think it's worth it.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2234965184&topic=15502
@cs&d
That list at your second url would be similar for FGM, as Zahc laid out. The MO of both forms of branding seems to be "mutiliate infants as much as possible while preserving basic sexual function". With IVF, the "basic sexual function" goalposts could be moved so far that prostate removal could be justified as well. Circumcision boils down to being a personal choice and preference, and that's simply not something a parent can decide on behalf of a child unless there's some unusual pressing medical risk.
-
Perhaps guys are "funny about sharp things" in the genital area because a piece of it was cut off way back when in pre-verbal memory?
I can tell you I am darned "funny" about it, and I have NO prior experience therewith.
Comparisons between circumcision, FGM and facial tattoos illustrate the futility of attempting to achieve a culture-neutral, hyper-rationalist, uber-secularist state. Culture and religion are a part of a nation and must (will, should) inform its politics and laws. Attempts to get around this are like attempts to cut reason off from its philosophical or religious suppositions. It results in nihilism.
-
So basically you want the U.S. laws relating to infant mutilation/branding to be monocultural?
-
Yes; since I'm not a moral relativist that believes that certain things are moral for certain cultures, I believe there are things that are universally immoral; I believe that there are things that are unambiguously human rights volations, and having a monoculture of defending said human rights is ok with me. I also think that US laws should be a monoculture with regards to legality of firearms, freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, regardless of cultural factors.
Besides, it's a state law. Not a federal law. I would oppose such a federal law.
-
Comparisons between circumcision, FGM and facial tattoos illustrate the futility of attempting to achieve a culture-neutral, hyper-rationalist, uber-secularist state. Culture and religion are a part of a nation and must (will, should) inform its politics and laws. Attempts to get around this are like attempts to cut reason off from its philosophical or religious suppositions. It results in nihilism.
This is true. But San Fran has a different culture from, say, Random City, Missouri.
Let me repeat: I do not [like Zahc, tyme, and some other posters] believe that there is a universal, hard line on what procedures it should be legal for parents to have done to their children. The children do not have - because they're children - a universal right to be free from medical procedures, but neither do the parents have an unlimited right to choose them. This is a good thing. The state can legalize some procedures if it thinks they are 'good' (like vaccinations) or ban others if they think they are 'bad' (like female circumcision, where even the non-crippling forms are prohibited). This is done through the process called 'democracy' and is left best to localities.
My philosophy tells me you should be free to do whatever you want unless you harm another human being. A child is another human being. It is not the undivided property of its guardian. THe question is not whether parents have 'rights' per se but how to best safeguard the rights of all individuals. Sometimes letting the parents choose is best. Sometimes the state must intervene.
-
oopsy. wrong thread... =D
-
Besides, it's a state law. Not a federal law. I would oppose such a federal law.
What the difference if it is the state imposing a law or the federal government, besides the number of people it affects?
Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 14, 2010, 01:58:52 PM
the adults i know who have been circumsized
Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 14, 2010, 01:58:52 PM
it was fairly traumatic to them as adults.
You mean adults who had it done as an adult and not after birth?
-
What the difference if it is the state imposing a law or the federal government, besides the number of people it affects?
Defined, limited powers, and the Tenth Amendment.
-
So basically you want the U.S. laws relating to infant mutilation/branding to be monocultural?
FAIL. I don't know about you, but I don't base my political opinions on my own personal desires.
-
What the difference if it is the state imposing a law or the federal government, besides the number of people it affects?
You mean adults who had it done as an adult and not after birth?
yea in their 40's and 50's
-
It is a very painful recovery as an adult. The prevailing wisdom has always been it COULD give you trouble later in life and if it does you'll be in a world of hurt so why not get it done at birth and prevent all that.
I'm tossed myself betweeen, "Gee, I wonder what it would have been like to be unsnipped and hmmm, maybe it was a good thing they did." Neither of which I will ever know. ;)