- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 35,183
- Reaction score
- 44,144
- 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.
Or just really smart. Back in their time, circumcision was to their benefit.I think the guys who thought up the practice were probably a bit screwy themselves...
Good, now let's hope that the rest of the country follows suit.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
myths and factsMedicirc.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:
But, like, it looks waaaaay better.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.
Sounds like a plan to me.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:
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.
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.
Circumcision decision: City's proposed ban adds to debate - CNN.com
:shock:
These guys are a little screwy in the head methinks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?