• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Intactivists' to city: Ban circumcision

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,277
Reaction score
32,992
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
(CNN) -- In the California city that banned Happy Meal toys,outlawed sitting on sidewalks during daylight hours and fined residents for not sorting garbage into recycling, compost and trash, Lloyd Schofield wants to add a new law to the books in San Francisco: A ban on all male circumcisions.

Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal. Circumcisions even for religious reasons would not be allowed. At this point, Schofield's proposal is an idea that would have to clear several hurdles to be considered.

Schofield and like-minded advocates who call themselves "intactivists" seek to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco.

The circumcision debate has passionate advocates on each side.

In some families, it's a cultural or religious tradition, or parents want sons to look like their fathers. Other parents decry it as mutilation. Medical evidence has shown mixed risks and benefits. Apart from the San Francisco proposal, circumcisions are under scientific scrutiny.

While widespread in the United States, circumcision rates could be falling, according to recent surveys. About 65 percent of American male infants born in hospitals were circumcised in 1999, according to latest data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While nationally the circumcision rate has remained steady, the most dramatic decline occurred in the West, where it fell from 64 percent in 1974 to 37 percent in 1999. Earlier this year, there were unconfirmed estimates that the circumcision rate had fallen to fewer than half for boys born in U.S. hospitals, The New York Times reported last summer, citing a federal report at the International AIDS Conference.

Circumcision decision: City's proposed ban adds to debate - CNN.com

:shock:

These guys are a little screwy in the head methinks.
 

DarkWizard12

Conservative Independent
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,120
Reaction score
2,258
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the guys who thought up the practice were probably a bit screwy themselves...
Or just really smart. Back in their time, circumcision was to their benefit.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Good, now let's hope that the rest of the country follows suit.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,277
Reaction score
32,992
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Good, now let's hope that the rest of the country follows suit.
Why?

What's wrong with circumcision?

I wouldn't have it any other way. TMI perhaps but from a personal standpoint it works for me and I see no reason to ban it.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It's not really the parents' business to decide which parts of their child's body to lop off, without any actual justification.

I think that the perfect combination of "painful, unecessary, potentially dangerous, and not the child's choice" is great grounds for banning an ancient and ridiculous practice.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,277
Reaction score
32,992
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's not really the parents' business to decide which parts of their child's body to lop off, without any actual justification.

I think that the perfect combination of "painful, unecessary, potentially dangerous, and not the child's choice" is great grounds for banning an ancient and ridiculous practice.
It has many health benefits.

I can understand your point to a certain extent. And the risk of infection or mistakes is a problem in some places so fair point.

I just feel that, personally, I'm glad it was done and I wouldn't have it any other way.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It has many health benefits.

I can understand your point to a certain extent. And the risk of infection or mistakes is a problem in some places so fair point.

I just feel that, personally, I'm glad it was done and I wouldn't have it any other way.
You could just wash your dick and get the same effect. I've noticed that uncut Euros don't run around with constant crotch rot.

I'm yet to be presented with an actual benefit of the procedure that you can't obtain from practicing basic hygeine.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
It has many health benefits.

I can understand your point to a certain extent. And the risk of infection or mistakes is a problem in some places so fair point.

I just feel that, personally, I'm glad it was done and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I knew a guy who had to have it done in his 20's. He said it was horrible. He was cussing his mom for not having it done when he was a baby.
I also know women, myself included, who are turned off by an uncircumcised penis.
There's also a whole list of medical benifits to it.
Gawd, I'm glad I don't live in CA. Now I know there is no limit to the intrusion they are willing to put on people.
 

DarkWizard12

Conservative Independent
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,120
Reaction score
2,258
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
this wont happen. there are too many jews in san francisco to allow this to pass.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,277
Reaction score
32,992
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You could just wash your dick and get the same effect. I've noticed that uncut Euros don't run around with constant crotch rot.

I'm yet to be presented with an actual benefit of the procedure that you can't obtain from practicing basic hygeine.
(also less likely to contract an STD)

Look man. At the end of the day, this comes down to personal preference and tradition.

Are there people that perhaps grow up and wish they hadn't had it done... sure.

I'm not one of those people and prefer it this way.

On the other side of the coin, it's a traditional thing. Right or wrong, it really does little harm unless of course we refer back to the risks involved with the procedure itself.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
You could just wash your dick and get the same effect. I've noticed that uncut Euros don't run around with constant crotch rot.

I'm yet to be presented with an actual benefit of the procedure that you can't obtain from practicing basic hygeine.
Medicirc.org: Circumcision Information Site - A Lifetime of Medicial Benefits

I see law suits in the future if the right to choose or not choose circumcision is taken away.
How about the antis just educate people on what they feel is the benefits of not doing it? No, SF wants to police your food and now your private parts. :roll:
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,412
Reaction score
4,815
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Wow, how totally ridiculous. Male circumcision is not harmful, has negligible side effects, can potentially prevent a whole bunch of problems later on, is definitely more hygienic and cut looks waaaaaay better than uncut. I really don't see any single valid reason to criminalize the procedure. Why don't they just invest in an information campaign if they feel so strongly about it and let people decide what is best for their offspring?
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
There are actually ZERO medical benefits of circumcision. A foreskin can be slightly more vulnerable to the transmission of STDs. Of course, that weakness is negated by wearing a condom. Otherwise, the only difference produced by circumcision is reduced sensation. The purpose of circumcision, even in biblical times, was to make sex less enjoyable. It was seen as sacrificing earthly pleasure to show greater devotion to god. In modern times, it was made popular in the 19th century by a desire to stop young boys from masturbating.

Banning the permanent mutilation of babies seems like a pretty positive step to me. We also need to make sure accurate information is given to the public, to stop this barbaric practice.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There are actually ZERO medical benefits of circumcision. A foreskin can be slightly more vulnerable to the transmission of STDs. Of course, that weakness is negated by wearing a condom. Otherwise, the only difference produced by circumcision is reduced sensation. The purpose of circumcision, even in biblical times, was to make sex less enjoyable. It was seen as sacrificing earthly pleasure to show greater devotion to god. In modern times, it was made popular in the 19th century by a desire to stop young boys from masturbating.

Banning the permanent mutilation of babies seems like a pretty positive step to me. We also need to make sure accurate information is given to the public, to stop this barbaric practice.
But, like, it looks waaaaay better.

Someone should address the creepiness of wanting parents to shape their infant's penises to suit your sexual tastes.
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have no problem with male circumcision. I wouldn't hesitate to have my sons circumcised and I have observed my brothers get theirs done. Doesn't seem a big deal and see no reason to ban it :shrug:
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,412
Reaction score
4,815
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
What are they going to ban next? Ear-piercing on newborn baby girls? I mean I totally remember the excruciating pain of having it done at a few hours old. I should sue my parents, or the state for letting this torture happen to me, or someone... there has to be someone I can sue. Oh, wait, I know! I'll just fly to SF and get them to ban it for me. And then face the lynching by the latino community. :lol:
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What are they going to ban next? Ear-piercing on newborn baby girls? I mean I totally remember the excruciating pain of having it done at a few hours old. I should sue my parents, or the state for letting this torture happen to me, or someone... there has to be someone I can sue. Oh, wait, I know! I'll just fly to SF and get them to ban it for me. And then face the lynching by the latino community. :lol:
Sounds like a plan to me.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
myths and facts

I have Google, too.

What is this "right to choose," exactly? Choose for whom?
Choice for a parent of course. Libs want the right to choose whether or not to kill an unborn baby, but a parent doesn't have the choice to circumcise or not? Where's the child's choice when it comes to abortion? Neither the baby destined for an abortion or the baby destined for circumcision is capable of making the choice.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,158
Reaction score
32,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
myths and facts

I have Google, too.

What is this "right to choose," exactly? Choose for whom?
I didn't get a choice.

Choice for a parent of course. Libs want the right to choose whether or not to kill an unborn baby, but a parent doesn't have the choice to circumcise or not? Where's the child's choice when it comes to abortion? Neither the baby destined for an abortion or the baby destined for circumcision is capable of making the choice.
If you don't see a fetus as a human being, it's not a contradictory view.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Choice for a parent of course. Libs want the right to choose whether or not to kill an unborn baby, but a parent doesn't have the choice to circumcise or not? Where's the child's choice when it comes to abortion? Neither the baby destined for an abortion or the baby destined for circumcision is capable of making the choice.
what does circumcision have to do with abortion OR liberals, barb?
 
Top Bottom