San Francisco moves to ban circumcision

A vagina is all covered. Yet your stick your circumcised penis into it. It's a perfect place for festering and a breeding ground for viruses if you take yourself seriously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No kidding, so are other orifices.

The point is to lessen the incidence. Imop, mass circumcision does that as opposed to NO ONE being circumcised. Think long term effects of no one being circumcised and do you see higher incidences of diseases\complications? That is the question.

Although, in general, I am 50\50 on this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you admit you have a scar now, all be it 'inconsequential'?

I didn't say that. I said if they'd cut it of on a whim I'd have hated them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, women should insist their partner wear a condom if the guy is new to them, and once they are a couple, and it's not some random, drunken coupling, I would expect hygiene to not be an issue.

Appearance is a stupid claim to make. It's a penis. As it's supposed to look. I think you have some issues with the appearance of yours and you protest too much.

 

No I'm implying that bans rarely work. Its my opinion that all such a ban would achieve is back alley circumcisions in unsafe conditions and infected children in hospitals.

 

so you are implying we should allow for female circumcisions because otherwise some aunt will do it in the backroom in unsafe conditions?

 

Yup, you got it. If people must circumcise, I would prefer they do it under sterile hygienic conditions supervised by a registered medical practitioner. Rather than with a razor or a piece of glass without anesthesia in a back room under supervision by some elder with no medical qualifications

Just so you know, I agree that circumcision should not be performed on infants and should involve the consent of the subject, but to explain my position let me say that I am anti-abortion, but I fully support the right of women to seek abortion under medical supervision rather than with coat hangers in back rooms.

 

While I am aware that this was once not considered "normal", my wife and I shared child rearing between us, so I got to help potty train our son. The most cost - effective manner to do this is to show by example. Use your imagination.

When he learned how to swim, we began going to family swim at the local schools. We shower before and after swimming in the pools for the standard reasons of health and hygene. He is now 18, we still go swimming and we still take a shower before and after for the same reasons.

I hope that this helps you to understand how other families live and learn.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So what if a parent asks for a lobotomy? is that also fine. Because it is better that a medical practitioner does it than granny sticks a knitting needle up the eye-ball?

Convenience and hygiene aren't substitutes for morals. There is a reason why we disapprove of female circumcision. It is the same reason why most western nations disapprove of torture. Or murder. Or physical abuse.

Shall we install special rooms where people can murder subjects under controlled conditions? Because otherwise they would do it anyway?

 

Indeed. After all Moniz received the Nobel prize for the process!

Yes, I think euthanasia should be performed under medical supervision as well.

 

Well l doubt anyone remembers being potty trained so that's a non issue.

Arthur

 

?

I do, and I am 60 now.

Don't know what that has to do with it though. We went swimming this last summer just like every summer, despite that he has now started university. Never did feel hard done by either, just grateful for a thoughtful and considerate dad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

um..it is san fransico..back alley circumcisions wouldn't be an issue..its only the city trying to ban it..a person would just go to the next city to get it done..

the moral of all these discussions..wash your pee pee...

 

Wow, this hygiene argument sounds really strange. It sounds like circumcised men don't have to wash themselves that thoroughly because they're circumcised.

 

An individual should be free to get it done to themselves anywhere they please.

That isn't the issue, it's taking children who cannot consent to get it done. Simply, I think _all_ circumcisions should be licensed, and a certificate issued by the actioner. If the kid later decides when they are an adult they didn't want it doing to them, they get to sue the fuck out of their parents and the asshole that cut them.

 

lol..that assumes yur parents got money...

i am circumcised and have not had ANY issue with me being such..i have had women tell me that they preferred circumcised men over uncircumcised men..

 

:bravo: amen to that!

So in SF, I can abort a child, but I couldn't circumcise a child. right?

 

What is strange about that? You can abort a fetus but once its born you get life if you kill it so that's a completely irrelivent argument

 

Seems like a gross misuse of tax dollars in my opinion. Is this really what government officials are paid to waste time with in California, and then wonder why they have budget problems? While they're at it why not outlaw the cutting of the umbilical cord, since you're not sure whether or not the child would like to play with it a while before it falls off. Let's get real people, there are many other problems that this time and money could be spent on - crime probably being the biggest in this particular locale. This was probably started by some special interest group and the problem is that lawmakers are too afraid of losing votes to tell someone "You are not the center of attention" to these assholes that make it into their thirties but were never told that by their parents. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Man I love being a turtl...." ehem I mean "I'll never move to California."

 

Yes! It's the child who has to live with the repercussions so let them make the choice. Age 16 as someone already suggested.