SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

[Yieu]

I tell you what. I'll let people on the other side of the U.S. use democracy to place a government ban on circumcision 'for the children', and we'll see whose government grows out of control the quickest. Deal?

Georgians, for the most part, have traditionally held the belief that a child's health is a family concern. Californians, tending to be more liberal on average than the typical Georgian, can't remember the last time government didn't intervene in a parent's affairs.

It's not 'for the children' -- it's for the rights of the individual. Yes, the child's health is a family concern -- which is why the family should not harm the child through circumcision or through cutting off the tip of their pinky either.

 

[aravoth]

At some point you'll have to realize that government can NOT enforce Liberty.

 

[ghengis86]

I understand that you are attached to circumcision and perhaps that may be because you don't want to think anything is "wrong" with you by being circumcised. I am not trying to tell you there is something wrong with you, though.

I firmly believe that what I have been saying on this subject is the position of liberty, and non-consenting routine infant circumcision violates the child's right to their body, their life, their liberty, and more.

I've got an ant eater, for what it's worth.

And I don't deny your conviction. It's your willingness tonimpose that belief on others through the state that is troublesome.

 

[Yieu]

I wonder what would happen if people put as much effort into an educational campaign to change a behavior instead of an appeal to the state to force someone to what they thought was right? Which would be mire in line with liberty?

In another thread on circumcision, I advocated an educational campaign over a government ban because I prefer to have less laws, but I suppose you wouldn't need a special law to ban circumcision -- isn't mutilation and general harm to the child already illegal? But parents waking up to how much they are taking away from their child through circumcision, through an educational campaign, is the most ideal way in my mind because the less laws the better, in general.

 

[low preference guy]

At some point you'll have to realize that government can NOT enforce Liberty.

yeah. that's why rapists and killers should be left alone

 

[ghengis86]

I'm talking about THIS. Right now. Why do you keep bringing up vaccines?

Because it's all the same: what can a parent have done to their child? And who defines it?

 

[Yieu]

And urinary tract infections can cause sepsis and death. Since both outcomes suck, depending on whether you are circumcised or uncircumcised, what is getting the government involved going to solve, exactly?

Circumcised babies get infections too, so it sucks twice as much because it not only has no medical benefit, but also does harm aside from the harm of removing the most sensitive part of the male body. And I'm not arguing for a government ban.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html#infection

 

[ghengis86]

In another thread on circumcision, I advocated an educational campaign over a government ban because I prefer to have less laws, but I suppose you wouldn't need a special law to ban circumcision -- isn't mutilation and general harm to the child already illegal? But parents waking up to how much they are taking away from their child through circumcision, through an educational campaign, is the most ideal way in my mind because the less laws the better, in general.

Thank you for the clarification.

Would removing the skin between digits of a child born with webbed hands and feet be mutilation and harmful? (I actually knew a kid growing up who was born with this, and went through numerous surgeries to have the skin removed).

 

[Yieu]

Define harm. This is the essence of the argument.

If you don't see how removing healthy, natural nerves and skin, which do serve important biological functions to protect the genital organ as well as being the most sensitive part of the body is harm, then I don't know how to explain it to you.

I have already defined how it harms in many ways. It is cosmetic surgery that is unnecessary and provides no medical benefit but has risks of complications, removes the most sensitive nerves... oh, I'll just link the Lost List, it lists everything that you lose from circumcision.

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

I've got an ant eater, for what it's worth.

And I don't deny your conviction. It's your willingness tonimpose that belief on others through the state that is troublesome.

I have stated multiple times that I do not want to use the state.

Thank you for the clarification.

Would removing the skin between digits of a child born with webbed hands and feet be mutilation and harmful? (I actually knew a kid growing up who was born with this, and went through numerous surgeries to have the skin removed).

Only if humans naturally had that feature. And they don't. The foreskin is not a deformity.

 

[Golding]

I believe he was saying that to show how ridiculous it is to cut off healthy functional nerves and skin to potentially, maybe, reduce the chances of risks of STDs which can be prevented by lifestyle choices (though those studies have been debunked, so there is no medical benefit).

It is not the same as removing an entire limb, or eyes. It is more like singeing the skin of the fingertips so that they feel less sensation, or partially removing the eyelids (the glans is supposed to be covered just like the eye is supposed to be covered). It is a violation of the child's right to life, liberty, and happiness to remove this vital part of their body, so it cannot be a parental choice. It is not a parental choice to do harm to your child or to remove their liberty by force.

Honestly, I haven't seen very much literature in the way of "debunking" the disparity of HIV and HPV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised populations. But truth be told, I haven't really come across anyone who actually has used that as a reasoning for circumcision when the question is actually asked. More often than not, it tends to come down to personal preference.

Removing the eyelids of a patient leaves the eyes prone to drying out and becoming damaged. The foreskin, frankly, is not something that can honestly be called "vital", and thus its removal doesn't exactly fall under your description as a theft of liberty. I've seen children who undergo surgery to remove extra fingers that they were born with. Is it a denial of liberty that the parents made the decision for the child before he was old enough to make it himself?

Further muddying this issue in my view is that circumcision has legitimate therapeutic value as the treatment for existing disease (ie: Balanitis). Shall circumcision be banned for such patients?

You have your view of circumcision, that it's "genital mutilation". I totally respect your view, and would not push for the government to legislate against your beliefs.

 

[nobody's_hero]

It's not 'for the children' -- it's for the rights of the individual. Yes, the child's health is a family concern -- which is why the family should not harm the child through circumcision or through cutting off the tip of their pinky either.

And exactly what health concern would be addressed by 'cutting of the tip of a pinky'?

Would it reduce the risk of UTI's? I can see it now, "parent refuses to amputate child's pinky, septicemia and kidney failure ensues." Really, you're going WAAAY overboard with your analogies here.

 

[nobody's_hero]

At some point you'll have to realize that government can NOT enforce Liberty.

Thread winner.

 

[CrissyNY]

But once the genital mutilation is done on an non consenting minor, it can never be undone.

At least if the male waits until he is 18 he has the liberty to make the choice between the surgery and the natural.

 

[Yieu]

At some point you'll have to realize that government can NOT enforce Liberty.

Correct, only the People can wake up to liberty. And it is my sincere hope that people do wake up do liberty by allowing their child to have Their liberty.

But until people do that, children will continue to be stripped of their liberty by their own parents.

Aren't we supposed to be the champions of liberty and voluntarism? If we are, then in order to be such and be consistent we must support allowing our children to have the liberty to their own body, and for the child to voluntarily make their own choice when they are of age to consent to it.

But once the genital mutilation is done on an non consenting minor, it can never be undone.

At least if the male waits until he is 18 he has the liberty to make the choice between the surgery and the natural.

+1

 

[Agorism]

And how do you know that circumcision reduces UTI's. Mind you one study may not be conclusive and interpreting and determining the validity of the studies mostly just causes confusion unless you're getting the information from a committee whose job it is to look at the data.

 

[ghengis86]

Just curious: has any male ever had sex with his foreskin attached, had it removed, and then had sex without it? Not saying people born blind don't know the difference, but just musing...

 

[Yieu]

And exactly what health concern would be addressed by 'cutting of the tip of a pinky'?

Would it reduce the risk of UTI's? I can see it now, "parent refuses to amputate child's pinky, septicemia and kidney failure ensues." Really, you're going WAAAY overboard with your analogies here.

But there are no medical benefits to circumcision. So I don't understand your argument.

If you can cut off the foreskin for no medical reason, then you can justify cutting anything off.

A more accurate analogy though, would be singeing the pads of the child's fingertips so that he can never feel touch as sensitively as someone without singed fingertips -- because circumcision DOES reduce sensation.

 

[nobody's_hero]

In another thread on circumcision, I advocated an educational campaign over a government ban because I prefer to have less laws, but I suppose you wouldn't need a special law to ban circumcision -- isn't mutilation and general harm to the child already illegal? But parents waking up to how much they are taking away from their child through circumcision, through an educational campaign, is the most ideal way in my mind because the less laws the better, in general.

Indeed, I would support this.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I found this site http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ good to see Jews that also realize the lies about circumcision.

 

[Yieu]

Just curious: has any male ever had sex with his foreskin attached, had it removed, and then had sex without it? Not saying people born blind don't know the difference, but just musing...

Yes, but I forget the link to the source. He described sex while he was whole/intact as a 10, then afterwards as a 3, then he restored the skin by stretching it and it said it was about a 7. I think those were the figures. But this is only hearsay without the link to the source, I wish I still had the link. There is a study being conducted, I am not sure if it is completed yet, that was testing the sensitivity of circumcised vs. intact males using controlled stimuli. Finding that study might help here.