SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

SF Circumcision Ban To Appear On November Ballot

http://www.ktvu.com/news/27941438/detail.html

25546340_240X135.jpg

Living in the Bay Area, I've been following this closely. This fight comes down to atheists vs. religious people. Its just another progressive push to use the government to tell you how you have to believe, and how you have to raise your children.

The argument that it is "genital mutilation" is a shallow one. Male circumcision doesn't effect the ability of the person so circumcised to have sex, to feel sexual pleasure, to use the restroom, or anything else. It simply changes the appearance of the tip of the organ itself. Whether you like that appearance is up to you. But just because you think an uncircumcised penis is either "more natural" or "more appealing" is pure opinion that shouldn't be foisted on others who believe otherwise. Some people view a circumcised penis as much more appealing. The fact that neither side can be proven, and no real hard facts can be used against it, "mutilation" is a misnomer. Indeed there are several statistical studies that show male circumcision is an overall medically beneficial act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

On the other hand, it is a hard fact that circumcision is a central tenet of Jewish belief. So much so that adult males who convert to Judaism still have to be circumcised if they weren't before. Islam seems to be a toss up with some leaders saying it is obligatory and some saying it isn't. For those Muslims who do view it as obligatory, and for all of Judaism, this law directly attacks their religious beliefs.
 
I suggest you learn what that passage actually means in its historical context. Jews who later converted to Christianity gave up the physical circumcision in favor of figurative "spiritual" circumcision, as Paul talks about.

They were never commanded NOT to circumcise, just told they were no longer commanded TO circumcise.
 
That's a good question. If you accept the premise of God creating a perfect couple and giving them virtual immortality through the tree of life, then mundane things like bacteria didn't matter. After being kicked out the garden that's a different story. But then circumcision isn't mentioned until thousands of years later with Abraham. Also note that God didn't ask all of His followers to be circumcised, but only the descendants of Abraham. Remember that Moses didn't initially circumcise his boys when he was living among the Midianites, yet his father-in-law Jethro was a priest of Yaweh.

And remember what almost happened to Moses' family when he didn't circumcise his boy child. Exodus 4:18-26. Moses almost lost his life because he was lazy about circumcision.
 
They were never commanded NOT to circumcise, just told they were no longer commanded TO circumcise.

Kinda-sorta.

"Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?" Galatians 3:3
"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Galatians 5:2
 
Smegma for everybody!

So, killing infants is okay but trimming them isn't?

Are they going to ban 'emergency' sex changes on infants too?
 
Last edited:
And remember what almost happened to Moses' family when he didn't circumcise his boy child. Exodus 4:18-26. Moses almost lost his life because he was lazy about circumcision.
The Old Covenant doesn't apply to gentiles, and the practice is questioned and/or denounced by many modern Jews and other Semites.
 
Just keep in mind that in order to defend circumcision, you must also defend cutting into or removing any other body part too. I don't see a difference. There is no medical reason to circumcise, and there is no medical reason to remove the tip of the pinky, but both involve the removal of healthy tissue that there is no reason to remove, for cosmetic purposes, like they are "designer babies".

Family liberty means giving the child his own choice when he is ready. You are arguing against a government ban, but I am not arguing for one. I am only arguing for the child's liberty.

A government ban on circumcision would be no different than a government ban on rape or assault, which we already have. It's perfectly consistent with having a limited government that only exists to protect individuals and their liberty. It would be not an infringement on liberty, quite the contrary.
 
Look for a nice black market in california to sprout up. Now circumcision specialists in california can retire early.
 
Freedom of choice means being able to chose whether you are circumcised. That is not possible if that choice was taken away from you by your parents. Parents circumcising their children is anti-freedom of choice -- it takes the choice away from the individual. The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done to infants who are unable to consent when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

Kids don't like immunization/shots either. Hell my siblings are terrified of shots, and would prefer they not take them, but we make them anyway. I am neither against nor for circumcision. Sometimes it is necessary to respect a parents choice, and allow them to do has they see fit. This falls within the domain of the parents judgement, and if you feel strongly against circumcision, then I suggest you try to change their minds through education.
 
I was specifically referring to the objectivist/atheist position that "low preference guy" was referencing and pointing out that inconsistency. That said, comparing circumcision to castration is a little ridiculous to me. Maybe not to you or to others, but it is to me. My sexual feeling is just fine thank you very much. And I can't tell you what it felt like before that because I was too young. It's over the top analogies like "it's castration" which hurts the anti-circumcision camp in my opinion. Anyway, they are doing studies now on adult circumcision and HIV, so maybe we can get some actual hard data on that.

Maybe they should actually do a study on how many heterosexual people who have never shot up drugs or had a blood transfusion have ever actually contracted HIV from heterosexual sex. And then maybe we should rethink whether it's worth cutting off the foreskin and half ruining the penis for the sake of preventing this. It's comparable to say never going outside ever and living your whole life indoors because if you don't you might get hit by lightning.

Kids don't like immunization/shots either. Hell my siblings are terrified of shots, and would prefer they not take them, but we make them anyway. I am neither against nor for circumcision. Sometimes it is necessary to respect a parents choice, and allow them to do has they see fit. This falls within the domain of the parents judgement, and if you feel strongly against circumcision, then I suggest you try to change their minds through education.

The problem with that is that your foreskin doesn't just grow back once you turn 18. You have to live your whole life with this because of this sacred 'parent's choice'.
 
Last edited:
Look for a nice black market in california to sprout up. Now circumcision specialists in california can retire early.

I've heard that there's also a black market for child porn and snuff films so going by your logic we better legalize pedophilia and murder.
 
The argument that it is "genital mutilation" is a shallow one. Male circumcision doesn't effect the ability of the person so circumcised to have sex, to feel sexual pleasure

Yes it very much does, and in fact that's the point. Here are quotes from doctors stating as such and advocating for it in the years before circumcision was a widespread practice in America:

“I refer to masturbation as one of the effects of a long prepuce; not that this vice is entirely absent in those who have undergone circumcision, though I never saw an instance in a Jewish child of very tender years, except as the result of association with children whose covered glans have naturally impelled them to the habit.” [M. J. Moses, The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Theraputic Measure, NY Medical Journal, vol.14 (1871): pp.368-374.]

“A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases.” [John Harvey Kellog, creator of the Corn Flake, Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295.]

“Measures more radical than circumcision would, if public opinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to patients of both sexes.” [Jonathan Hutchinson, On Circumcision as Preventative of Masturbation, Archives of Surgery, vol. 2 (1891): pp. 267-268.] Note that he is actually suggesting that castration would be good!

“Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vise practiced among boys. I performed an orificial operation, consisting of circumcision… He needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures.” [N. Bergman, Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision, Journal of Orificial Surgery, vol. 7 (1898): pp.249-251.]

“Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantage which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It [the foreskin] may increase the pleasure of intercourse and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful.” [Editor, Medical News. Our London Letter. Medical World,(1900).vol.77:pp.707-8] (Note that by “sexual control,” he means having less sex, not control by the man of his sexual response during sex.)

“It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that exquisitely sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein.” [E. Harding Freeland, Circumcision as a Preventative of Syphilis and Other Disorders, The Lancet, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900): pp.1869-1871.]

“Another advantage of circumcision… is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing… This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extreamly sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision … lessens the sensitiveness of the organ… It therefore lies with the physician, the family adviser in affairs of hygiene and medical, to urge its acceptance.” [Ernest G. Mark, Circumcision, American Practitioner and News, vol. 31 (1901): p. 231.]

“Circumcision not only reduces the irritability of the child’s penis, but also the so-called passion of which so many married men are so extreamly proud, to the detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage improved if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision.” [L.W. Wuesthoff, MD. Benefits of Circumcision. Medical World, (1915) Vol.33. p.434.]

And there's been modern research done that proves that circumcision substantially reduces sexual pleasure:

“The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce [ridged band, removed in all circumcisions] is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.“ [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847]

http://www.moralogous.com/2012/04/29/the-purpose-of-circumcision-is-to-ruin-male-sexuality/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top