Dang - I was hoping this would set a precedent so they could ban baby girls with pierced ears.

I do believe crewnecks are more sanitary and would hate to have it done at 18!

Too bad they're not the only ones trying to impose their values on everybody.

Haha... I've said this before to the people who wish to ban circumcisions...

GET OFF MY DICK!

Go worry about something else.

You could also use that phrase with the TSA...

Leeman - Much like soiling a diaper - I would rather have this out of the way while I am too young to remember.

The loonyie left in SF is where common sense goes to die. Too bad its not limited to just SF...

Tell it to the American Academy of Urology: 50,000 cases of penile cancer, all in UN-circumcised males, except for 6 cases.

Maybe these judges will get around to slapping down these anti-abortion bills while they're at it.

Wow, a very, very intelligent judge. They DO exist!

Hmmm, pierced ears which can heal with no scarring once earrings are removed vs. permenant removal of an important part of a male's genitals. Can't really compare.

Really, I mean Really?

And SF wonders why the rest of us think that they are out of touch. How about tackling something more worthwhile. Like balancing the cities budget?

Too bad the same thing wasn't done with proposition 8!

Circumcision has very little to do with health and much to do with religion. There is no statistical difference in the rate of penile cancer between cultures that habitually circumcise and those that don't. Moreover, not only is penile cancer one of the rarest cancers of all, but the majority of studies done that show a higher rate of cancer among those who are not circumcised are considered flawed by cancer researchers (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/). The biggest links to penile cancer? The relatively rare condition of phimosis, or the inability to retract the foreskin over the head of the penis (women also have clitoral phimosis, but nobody seems to be arguing for circumcising all females, are they?) and smoking, which alone is linked to a 4.5 fold increase in the risk to getting penile cancer. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825185). Neither of these factors should constitute wholesale circumcision. The reality is that folks circumcise their boys for either religious reasons are for the long disproved idea that it will decrease the boy's desire to masturbate (a reason promoted during the Victorian era).

Circumcision is similar to when your tonsils were removed when you were 10 if you needed it or not. Circumcision is similar to when women were put on hormones if you needed them or not. All these procedures make more money for doctors, hospitals and drug companies.

Circumcision became the norm after WW11 in this country.
Europe does not have this procedure, as their norm. During WW11 they could tell who was Jewish or not, in Europe, by seeing if a boy was circumcised. It is just an unnecessary procedure not needed in this country.It comes down to the fact of what is in vogue.

So this is a story about "the cut" getting cut.

I am cut and I am glad I am. My son and grandsons are too.

The Rabbi gets to keep the tips. He makes wallets out of them. If you rub the wallet it turns into a suitcase.

Circumcision became the norm after WW11 in this country.

flag waver - I thought that we had fought only two world wars. When did we fight the other nine?

Where is the evidence that this proposition would have been approved???

I am cut and I am glad I am.

Because you don't know any different, do you?

Would be interesting to hear from a male who did get circumcised later in life.

Butterfly,,, sounds by your infantile comments that you may have had a cision, and not a pleasant one, sorry about that?

I guess my only comment to this ridiculous story is that S.F. is front and center again for the perversion's award story of the week. I thought "Hate" Ashbury had closed down long time ago,,,, at least they still have a judge with some sense of wisdom.

People against circumcision have actually decided to throw science out the window and replaced it with a hypothetical thought process that doesn't medically apply. The funny thing is many of those same people frown on those who don't use science to explain climate change and thus don't 'believe' in global warming.

You know, stupidity has never been above hypocrisy.

Yeah... I'm not happy that I had a circumcision forced on my as an infant in order to be compliant with a religion that, as an adult, I DO NOT PRACTICE!

I guess my only comment to this ridiculous story is that S.F. is front and center again for the perversion's award story of the week.

Wait, so the people trying to end infant penis mutilation are perverts? What color is the sky in your world?

Well... We're talking about the BuyBull cult. No logic need apply. After all, this is the same book that says it's okay to sell your children into slavery and to stone them to death for being non-virginal or for back-talking the priest. The BuyBull also features talking snakes, talking donkeys, and talking bushes.

So OF COURSE it has to be correct about circumcision, right?

Just let people raise their kids they way they want to. What a simple idea.

Stay out of my bedroom and stay out of my son's and grandson's pants.

Rushman & Butterfly,,,,the "Buybull", as you call it, makes no mandate on circumcision...for sure you're not capable to site the passage(s) that would claim it a requirement, and, even if it did,,,, so what???

However, the Koran does stipulate stoning as a form of punishment for women who are the VICTIMS of rape... but, then either of u who live in a self indulging mystical, utopia on "The Bay" having an enlightened state of mind, makes you the final arbiter. yes?

Well, so much for any extra "tips' waitresses , car hops and golf caddies could have been getting.

Giorgi had an oral argument on circumcision. That says it all for SF. lol

This is pretty simple stay the hell out of my life and my families DO what you want for yours...

I want my kids to have circumcisions Me NOT YOU I will make that decision.

My son had his done a day after birth and it completely healed in 2 weeks and his penis looks awesome instead of looking like an elephants trunk 8)

It's the parents choice why is it always California has to mess with individual freedoms.

I live in Cali but I tell this state is completely off it's rocker 8)

Only in San Francisco can you go down to your neighborhood abortion clinic with no questions asked yet the people want to ban male circumcision.

Conflict of philosophy there? lol...

R Johnson:

Rushman & Butterfly,,,,the "Buybull", as you call it, makes no mandate on circumcision...for sure you're not capable to site the passage(s) that would claim it a requirement, and, even if it did,,,, so what???

You can't say that it -doesn't- and then say that it -might- and "so what".

That pretty much invalidates everything you have to say as you're showing ignorance right off the bat.

If you're going to debate something, at least come prepared.

I want to bind my daughter's feet, amputate my grandson's left arm (because of course, it would prevent him from being left handed and in cahoots with the devil), and blind my cousin! Stay away from ME and MY freedoms, considering all of these things pertain directly to me and relate to my beliefs in irrational and unproven parables! If I believe it, it must be true and right, regardless of how it affects others!

I want to bind my daughter's feet, amputate my grandson's left arm (because of course, it would prevent him from being left handed and in cahoots with the devil), and blind my cousin! Stay away from ME and MY freedoms, considering all of these things pertain directly to me and relate to my beliefs in irrational and unproven parables! If I believe it, it must be true and right, regardless of how it affects others!

If you can prove that doing those things has a direct health benefit to your children, then I'd say you would have a case.

But you can't, so therefore, your analogy fails outright.

j70141 in Colorado:

I doubt any "Jew-hating idiot" had anything to do with placing the measure on the ballot. Perhaps, there are people who had been traumatized by circumcision and wanted to save others from it, from their perspective.

As circumcision is not a required surgery in California, parents can instruct their doctor not to do it. Like cosmetic surgery whose value is in the eyes of the beholder, circumcision serves no real medical purpose. It's an elective surgery.

Observer- please PROVE a health benefit. There's plenty of conflicting evidence on both sides, as clearly shown by world-wide medical associations either being neutral or against the cultural practice. Because there's conflicting evidence and not conclusive proof on either side, it should be a choice of the individual, NOT the "property owner."

It's not that the practice should never be done, clearly there is a medical necessity exception and it can be done later in life, but the choice is the fundamental freedom of the individual, not the authoritarian parent. The religious beliefs of the parent do not automatically pass to the individual child, who will eventually be able to form an opinion on the cultural practice and make an informed decision...one way or another. The point is the beliefs of the parent should NOT be forced on the child, especially when it results in body mutilation.

If you can prove that doing those things has a direct health benefit to your children, then I'd say you would have a case.

If you can prove that male circumcision has a direct health benefit, you still don't have a case, unless that benefit serves to somehow save the infant's life. Preventing a UTI is no reason to cut off a part of a newborn's penis; that's what hygiene is for.

Please show proof that circumcision has medical benefits.

I am soooo happy that there is at least ONE judge in San Francisco that has common sense.

I want him to be the new Chief District Judge.

Karen, What common sense is required for routine infant penis cutting?

Do you have a fetish for a sculpted penis?

Every single time this issue of circumcision comes up in the media, the NV is bombarded with the painfully ignorant soundbites by people who somehow still falsely believe that circumcision has "medical" benefits.

CIRCUMCISION IS MUTILATION!! Period.

There are NO legitimate studies that show a significant health benefit to getting the foreskin violently cut off. I DARE anyone to try to counter my argument by citing studies that are statistically relevant and void of conflicts of interest. You can't, because they do not exist.

I'm a doctor, I have looked into this issue extensively, and I have yet to find anything that warrants this barbaric practice on our children.

As for religion, well, we can srgue this all day but to no avail. IMHO, God created us perfectly the first time around, and for all of you who insist on quoting the Bible, yes, the OLD TESTAMENT (also known as the Torah- The Jewish Testament) advocates for the practice in the likeness of Abraham. The NEW TESTAMENT does NOT condone this practice, and Jesus essentially stated it was not necessary. (I'm sure this will result in numerous inflammatory responses, so please try your best!)

I have two young boys, and they are not circumcised. IF, and it's a big IF, in the future they have a REAL meduical condition that warrants the removal of their foreskin, then it will be considered in the context of necessity.

Until then, it is time to do away with this barbaric practice once and for all.

Oh, and by the way, for all you moms and dads who think Junior would be best benefitted by "looking like Dad".....please tell me, how many times will Junior actually see your penis and wish he could be just "like you"? And does it really matter???

Curtonthebeach

Would be interesting to hear from a male who did get circumcised later in life.

Obviously I'm not a male, but my college boyfriend, a Filipino, had his done at 13 as a rite of passage, like all his friends. And yes, this was done in the Philippines before he moved to the US. Being curious, I asked him about it. He said it was really wasn't that painful, and it was sore for a couple of days afterwards. I do not recall if there was local anaesthetic involved, but I'm thinking that there wasn't. Quite obviously, it was a cultural thing, and he was fine with it. The only part he had a problem with was his dad was a doctor and his mom was a nurse, so they did it and he felt that was embarrassing.

I have no feeling either way, just had the anecdote to share.

Here is a benefit - HOT CHICKS will not have sex with a guy who has not been circumcised. Talk about GROSS.

I'd say, the ladies should get a vote on this. Ask us what we would prefer.

BS! Mozzie and Karen- Does that mean I that as a male I can and should be able to dictate that women receive breast enlargements because I "prefer" you to have large breasts???

And does your "vote" include any of the negative consequences of circumcision, or did that escape your idiotic thought process??

Do any of the idiots on this thread have enven the basic understanding of what happens when the top 2/3rds of the foreskin (and sex nerve endings) are removed?? Apparently not, or you wouldn't be posting such offensive, blatantly moronic postings.

Get a clue, everyone. Or heck, go watch some videos of male newborns getting circumsized. You might change your mind.......

It is funny how 'Party of Reason' basically just proved my entire post above. Thanks for vindicating me, 'Party of Reason'

Party Of Logic and Reason

I think you should do the things you want to do in 1.37. Go for it if it makes you happy.

I would reject these overbearing idiots intrusion into private family matters the same way I would reject claims that uncircumcised penises are more susceptible to cancer, while true; this is not the issue here. It is no ones business except the parents whether or not they opt for circumcision for their child.

Circumcision is both a cultural and religious practice, the latter of which is the real target of these people as they could really care less about the child.

Common sense dictates that if you believe in circumcision do it, if you don’t believe in it don’t do it. How difficult is that to understand?

Why aren't these same morons saying that infants should have the right of whether or not they want to be immunized? After all, there are competing theories that they cause have rates of autism (even though they are roundly rejected by the medical community). Maybe infants should have the choice of whether or not they breast feed. Think about it, knowing you had your mother's breast in your mouth could be traumatic later in life.

Because immunization has a direct medical benefit and doesn't require mutilation of the most sensitive part of the male anatomy.

Stop bringing up straw man arguments!

Butterfly - easy solution...google scholar, pubmed. real, credible sources. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/277/13/1052.short

excerpt:

Results. —We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. However, uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices. This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors.

Conclusions. —The National Health and Social Life Survey evidence indicates a slight benefit of circumcision but a negligible association with most outcomes. These findings inform existing debates on the utility of circumcision. The considerable impact of circumcision status on sexual practice represents a new finding that should further enrich such discussion. Our results support the view that physicians and parents be informed of the potential benefits and risks before circumcising newborns.

So no, this is not hurting anyone, there is no mutilation or desensitization, if anything, circumcision shows slight benefits (better than no benefits, yes?) and increases sexual function! I don't know about you, but I enjoy having slightly better benefits and more sexual function....besides it's up to the parents, not up to you.

BS! Mozzie and Karen- Does that mean I that as a male I can and should be able to dictate that women receive breast enlargements because I "prefer" you to have large breasts???

No. And you still won't get a hot chick with an uncircumcised member.

What a lot of people are failing to see is that the purpose of this bill was to get a judge to overturn it. I judge just said that the government has no right to regulate or ban an optional medical procedure AND that a child under the age of 18 does not get a choice in the matter of an optional medical procedure. Therefore: the government does not have the right to regulate or ban abortions and it is not a violation of the aborted fetus' rights because until they are 18 they don't have any. Some pro choice lawyer needs to jump on this

Karen- Now you're officially trolling. Grow up.

Karen- Now you're officially trolling. Grow up.

Psychologists say that people who comment about others are really commenting about themselves.

So the person who wrote this is the TROLLING person whatever that means.

And I suggest that this person follow his own advice since that is how HE FEELS ABOUT HIMSELF.

Two things in response to this story:

1. It's ridiculous that a circumcision ban even made it on the ballot to begin with.

2. One-word argument in favor of circumcision: smegma.

Karen, And you still won't get a hot chick with an uncircumcised member.

AMEN, Sister!

I have two friends who were cut in their 30's. BOTH of them tell me they were glad they had it done. They tell me that their sex is better and one of them tells me sex is less painful for him because the foreskin didn't bind and pinch any more.

The other fellow woke up in the hospital with a big red bow on his pecker that the nurses had put on it for him. Both of these guys are straight.

Mine's cut and I am glad I didn't have to wait to have it done later because both told me recovery was no fun---especially at night (if you know what I mean).

grump - I heard it is always better to do when boys are babies.

To all you people who have posted that male circumcision is similar to female circumcision you are wrong. Male circumcision is the cutting of skin. Specifically the foreskin. It’s skin, not an organ. Female circumcision aka female cutting or female genital mutilation is the removal of the clitoris which is an organ and sometimes includes removal of the labia minor. Then the labia major are sewn together so there is a very small hole for urine and menstrual flow. This is quite different than the removal of a male’s foreskin. Please don’t compare the two as they are two different practices. The female clitoris is equivalent to the male penis.

I think it's funny when people say "let me raise my kids the way I want" and "it's up to the parents" etc etc.....does that mean that if the parents feel like a good beatin' will help Junior straighten up his act, that it's ok? Sometimes parents DON'T know best. Case in point: mutilating a newborn just because you want him to look like daddy. Ummm...how often will Junior be seeing your penis, Dad? Of course guys who've been circumcised are going to say that they're glad they were....they don't want to feel like freaks. Maybe parents need to step back a little bit, and really think about what this is about. It's not about freedom. It's about taking a knife to a newborn infant who has had no choice in the matter of whether or not he wants part of his penis cut off. You're cutting your baby, for no reasonable medical purpose. What kind of monster are you?

Oh and by the way, Karen in Los Angeles, your personal preference is up to you. But don't say hot chicks won't sleep with uncircumcised men. That's an absolutely retarded thing to say, and a total generalization with absolutely no proof to back it up. And before you go making assumptions, I'm not ugly at all and my fiance is uncircumcised (and the first uncircumcised guy I ever slept with) and it is AWESOME.

Excuse me Mrs. Know it All,

I notice you didn't include yourself in the hot chicks category but indeed my statement was backed up by Mozzie - 6.

Hot chicks don't do men that aren't circumcised.

I really don't consider an agreement by someone on Newsvine to be "backing" anything up. I have no idea what Mozzie looks like, or you. You could be normal looking, or you could be totally fugly. I'm betting your not as good looking as you think you are. In fact, put up a picture of yourself. Let's all have a good look.

"Hotness" is totally subjective. I didn't include myself in the "hot" category, because it's a matter of opinion. Which any idiot knows. I could say I'm hot, and a lot of guys might agree with me. Some wouldn't.

Hot chicks will do uncircumcised men and love every second of it.

xan, so you tell the doctor you don't want your kids circumcised, really simple.

STOP TRYING TO THROW GOVERNMENT , NANNY STATE INTERFERENCE INTO PEOPLES PERSONAL LIVES.

it's so freaking annoying to see these so-called conservatives b!tch and moan about "nanny state interference with their freedoms" and turn right around and demand "nanny state interference" with the things that they decide they don't like.

Karen in Los Angeles wrote "Here is a benefit - HOT CHICKS will not have sex with a guy who has not been circumcised. Talk about GROSS."

You make a case for an adult decision. Adult men and women are free to circumcise themselves at will.

No one believes you because the US is the only Western nation that has a mass-scale infant circumcision program. You are saying that there are no hot chicks in other countries as well as some US chicks refusing sex with men from other countries.

If I could give every man in America his foreskin back, I would. Yeah, it is that much better. I may not be "hot" any more, but I know what feels good. Stop mutilating our little boys! Their wives will thank you some day!

Karen in Los Angeles wrote "grump - I heard it is always better to do when boys are babies."

Only because infants are unable to resist anything done to them. What do you think about the death benefit? Male circumcision in the US is as deadly to infant boys as SIDS.

Every year in the US 100,000 neonatal (< one month old) boy infants die.

117 neonatal boys die from circumcision

115 neonatal boys die from SIDS

44 neonatal boys die from suffocation

8 neonatal boys die in auto accidents

This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes.

DV, it feels better? So I assume you had your foreskin reattached? After all, you are making a comparative statement, so you must have a basis for comparison.

No, I'm a woman, and I've had it both ways. Gotta love those European men!

ChiCity wrote "DV, it feels better? So I assume you had your foreskin reattached?"

No. Unfortunatly, DV did not have a choice as his genitals were forcibly cut. This would be similar to someone strapping your down and cutting off your clitoral hood, either as an adult or infant. Should you be upset about having that done to you?

Your reading comprehension skills area obviosuly lacking... He said, "it feels that much better". This would indicate that he is uncut.

LOL ChiCity! I am a WOMAN! I did say that "it feels that much better". FOR THE WOMAN! It means, that I have been able to make a comparative analysis, having slept with both circumcised and intact men. I would always choose a man who is intact because it feels much, much better FOR ME! I can't speak for the men. Although, I do have a guy friend who had to have his foreskin removed later in life. He said he grieves for it, because now sex is almost not worth having any more. That says a lot about the quality of intercourse with or without a foreskin for the man as well. It's true that our circumcised babies don't know any different, but wouldn't you want them to have the more awesome experience? I would, which is why, even though I married someone who is circumcised (which speaks VOLUMES for his character, IMHO), my sons are not.

I don't care one way or the other, I have what I have.

I just don't want the government forcing the decision on me, its not their place to do so.

Iseeconfusedpeople wrote "I just don't want the government forcing the decision on me"

Your not choosing for yourself. You're choosing for another person - a child.

This article mentions foreskin snipping. Circumcision is much more than that : it is peeling of genital skin from genital flesh with zero or inadequate anesthesia. The foreskin is then crushed and held in a clamp for several minutes before it is cut. An infant then urinates and defecates on an open wound for about a week. No adult would suffer this for questionable and potential benefits. Why should a child.?

The article also does not mention the 117 deaths of neonatal (<1 month) deaths from circumcision in the US every year. Nor is there any mention of partial or full penile amputation, disfiguration and risk of infection.

doesn't matter, it's not for the government to decide. we have too many "nanny state" government regulations telling people what they cn and can't do and how to do it because "they are just looking out for us". it's a load of bollux.

if you want to convince the medical establishment not to perform circumcisions routinely, that's fine with me, tell your doctor that you don't want your kid circumcised. I'm good with that. really it should only be necessary for religious purposes and in the occasional health .

BUT PASSING ANOTHER STUPID LAW IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!

It's also a fundamental part of the Jewish religion, therefore clearly protected under the First Amendment. Whoever proposed this was an idiot.

I agree, C Smith...

Who is "their"?

SF is full of whackos. There is something on the ballot to ban pet stores as well.

Catchick74 wrote "Circumcision helps prevent infection "

What infection is that? No medical association recommends routine infant circumcision.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP):

"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys."
Canadian Pediatrics Society

“the RACP does not recommend that routine circumcision in infancy be performed.”
Royal Australasian College of Physicians

“There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."
Royal Dutch Medical
Association

C Smith wrote "It's also a fundamental part of the Jewish religion, therefore clearly protected under the First Amendment."

The 1996 federal ban on girl-only genital cutting obviously doesn't protect boys. Should the 1st Amendment protection of religious expression allow for parents to cut their children for religious reasons without a medical justification?

Where in the world have you read evidence that circumcision prevents infections?

Catchick- Have you ever seen a circumcision? Most babies are not given any type of anesthesia, but then have a part of their body forcibly removed, while being held down. It does heal, as most wounds on a young child would, but there can be some major complications from it. Most notably: infection, blood loss, over cutting of foreskin, leaving a very tight skin on the penis, and in rare cases, death. Is this really worth doing to little boys purely so they can look like dad or to meet some misguided and archaic religious law?

Here is a novel Idea...

IF you do not approve of getting snipped.. Then do not have your son snipped.

C. Smith

It's also a fundamental part of the Jewish religion, therefore clearly protected under the First Amendment. Whoever proposed this was an idiot.

I'm not surprised, they have abortion which is against the Jewish and Christian religion. Thou Shall not Kill.

We should not be surprised. This is the looney tunes city that outlawed happy meals at McDonalds because their utterly enlightened, infinitely more intelligent board of supervisors thinks they, rather than a parent, should be the ones dictating what your child or mine eat.

It would seem that the onus of being human is that you have to spend a good portion of your life fighting the cretins from trying to impose their lame brain ideas on the general populace because they can't stand to allow others to think for themselves.

Everyone seemed to be jumping on the practice of breast ironing in Cameroon as barbaric and should be banned, how is circumcision of an unwilling child not in the same league if not worse?

Well, you can sleep better knowing that even in San Francisco you can legally torture an infant, S2C. But only if it's male.

Actually, there is no medical evidence of that whatsoever. That is why the American Pediatric Association changed its position from recommending it to neutral.

It's also a fundamental part of the Jewish religion, therefore clearly protected under the First Amendment.

'What about the Child's rights under the constitution? Does a parent have the right to force a religion on a child? Or do you all see children as "property", to whom you can do as you please?

Girls suffer from UTI's on a much, much, much higher level than boys, and we aren't cutting girls apart to prevent infections. We don't cut off a finger if it gets infected. We take antibiotics.

Yeah, because that totally appreciated procedure is something I'd want to have performed as an adult so I can remember and cherish it the rest of my life. Keep looking for things to protest over and force onto others, you wannabe hippies.

catchick - let's take YOUR reasoning one step further - removing the entire penis at birth would not only cut down on infections, but it would completely eliminate the chance of penile cancer. Where does one draw the line with mutilation procedures on infants?

Gay bath houses are a bigger problem...We need a bigger filter Barney ok Herb.

Satanism calls for ritual human sacrifice, but that is NOT protected under the 1st Amendment.

Child abuse is also not protected under the 1st Amendment. Circumcision is child abuse, pure and simple.

More to the point: Can any adult male on this forum SERIOUSLY tell me that they would voluntarily submit to having the skin on their penis sliced off? (I didn't think so!) Doing it to an infant boy is just savage.

It's illegal to kill a chicken in the name of religion, but it's legal to sculpt a child's penis in a painful procedure.

That's only because, in this country, Christian bigots have seen too many cheap horror movies and think that Santeros have the ability to create zombies when they are, in fact, simply priests of a non-Christian faith.

Butterfly,,,Do you object to castration for repeat sex offenders as a part of their enhanced punishment? I would guess you do not?

Seriously, I think you are a bit paranoid on the pain issue, albeit there is pain. But get real, My brother was cut at the age of twelve, and it was not the most pleasant experience, but he's glad he had it done....

Straw man argument.

Repeat sex offenders have broken the law.

A newborn infant boy has done NOTHING WRONG that he deserves to be so brutally punished.

But it's very educational to know that Christians think of infant boys in the same context as repeat sex offenders.

@butterfly

So what do you think about gelding a horse to make it calmer?

Or are they religious horses. Oh, that's right, it is the Jewish religion that does this as a ritual.

Get the facts straight before you condemn a whole religion. It would be like the rest of the Country banning SF because of the gays. Same logic and just as dumb.

At Butterfly...

A clever argument to defend your position, and I agree, the boy did nothing to bring about the cutting,,

The medical procedure is done either for Medical reasons, or for Religious reasons,,, leave it at that! It's your choice, as it IS yours to abort your next child,,,, even at full term. I'm sure you'd have no quarrel with the pain that may be associated with that procedure, after all, it's just a fetus. right?

Please, be intellectually honest with you rebuts!

Johnson wrote "The medical procedure is done either for Medical reasons, or for Religious reasons"

There are no medical reasons for the procedure as it is routine and thus not a treatment for anything. No honest doctor approaches parents and tells them that a boy has a problem as the boy was born with normal genitalia.

The primary reason for circumcision today in the US is appearance. American women think that the normal male penis is ugly and in need of cosmetic surgery immediately after birth.

Vincent..I do not buy your argument for one second...and, especially if you are a practicing gay... no offence need be taken...

Comeo, Vincent, It is a simple "pain" issue with you, right? Expound on the late term Partial Birth Abortion right available to all ... No pain there?

hmm circumcision is a personal matter between the father and mother for their son it's up to them not YOU.

stay the F out of people's business and everything should be fine.

American parents have a fetish for a dried, calloused pink penis head and no amount of education is stopping it. The general American philosophy is : men are dirty, stupid and useless. A penis is dirty. Cut it.

Some American women like a cut penis but refuse to have a similar procedure that will improve the odor and appearance of their own genitals.

Perhaps circumcised men should be asking their female partners to have a matching circumcision : removal of clitoral hood and part of all of labia minora.

Vincent Vincent Vincent....what is it w/ you & your apparently virulent hatred of females? Every single post of yours that I've seen finds a way to denigrate women. I'm going to start marking your comments as "inflammatory" as they are all designed to insult women in some way.

scar_tissue, do you not realize that the driving force behind circumcision today is the modern American woman's distaste for the appearance of a normal penis?

You're free to censor comments instead of author rebuttals, likely because you're unable to do the latter.

R Johnson wrote "Vincent..I do not buy your argument for one second...and, especially if you are a practicing gay"

I'm a married and obviously heterosexual father of a son and daughter. I'd like to know it is legal to cut a male infant's penile foreskin but not a female infant's clitoral foreskin.

Vincent, your logic is flawed. Cite your evidence for the research, qualitative or quantitative that supports your statement regarding the preference for a circumcised penis and the results have to be statistically significant.

You are still using faulty logic. Now it is the if, then fallacy.

scar_tissue:

I doubt Vincent is a misogynist. His choice of argument is merely to draw into contrast the different attitude if similar surgical procedures were performed on female infants. At times, Vincent does trivialized women's preference for circumcision. But in his passion to persuade, his rhetoric can be offensive to sensitive hear.

He is using logical fallacies to support his statements. The debate isn't about the IF/Then or the two wrongs making an act right...and he attempts to use both of those arguments to support his point. His rhetoric is not on point, not that is or is not offensive..,it is not on point.(who cares if he mis-states aspects about human anatomy really since it just debases his argument...he goes for shock value at times so that will always offend some).

Perhaps circumcised men should be asking their female partners to have a matching circumcision : removal of clitoral hood and part of all of labia minora.

This is sick.

Vincent

You said

There are no medical reasons for the procedure as it is routine and thus not a treatment for anything.

As stated, this is incorrect.

amusedrn, what conditions does routine (non-therapeutic) infant penis circumcision treat?

amusedrn wrote "Cite your evidence for the research, qualitative or quantitative that supports your statement regarding the preference for a circumcised penis"

Why don't you cite the medical benefits of circumcision? No Western medical association recommends routine circumcision. Why do you defend the painful non-therapeutic ritual of infant penis sculpting? Do you have a fetish for a pink penis head?

karen in Los Angeles wrote "This is sick" in response "Perhaps circumcised men should be asking their female partners to have a matching circumcision : removal of clitoral hood and part of all of labia minora."

So, you don't think that "it's sick" for women to demand sculpted male genitals? As a circumcised man, I have heard many comments from my female sexual partners how they prefer the appearance of a circumcised penis and how glad they were that I was not natural, intact or uncircumcised.

All of that time, I put up with female uncircumcised genitals as well as 7 of 28 days of menstrual blood flowing over me, white infectious discharge with the aroma of gorgonzola cheese, all sorts of female fluids while I wore a condom.

A common justification for male-only circumcision in the US is "Son's penis should look like Dad's penis". Of course, that was not the reason used in the 1960's when 90% of US infant boys were cut while their fathers were normal and intact.

So, I'm wondering, why don't women "look" like circunmcised men? Could the clitoris look better without a hood? how about trimmed labia minora? African and Muslim men with this experience say yes. Perhaps the US should try female cosmetic surgery for apperance and improved hygiene.

How about a comedic skit on female circumcision on Sienfeld?

Elaine : Have you ever seen one? [uncircumcised clitoris]
Jerry : Boring. It's like a bride with a veil. All look the same
Kramer (vibrating hair) : I was down there once and wanted to call the Bat phone.
George : It should look like my shiny head !
George's Dad : Just a little clippety-clip of the lippety lips. I'll say no more.

Vincent D - Your effort to change minds on the topic is not working for me.

Comparing the procedure to female circumcision is laughable to me.

As I mentioned above, hot chicks normally are grossed out by uncircumcised men.

I think there might be a market for non-circumcised males in porn though.

@ kiki... Yes, I have seen. My son was circumcised at birth. It is cleaner and it does prevent infection. The foreskin is a barrier from air, creating a breeding ground for bacteria from urine and semen. Nothing wrong with either of those and urine is sterile if the person is healthy, but not when it is allowed to fester under some skin. Excuse my language, but ever hear the phrase "cheesed!ck"?

Karen- Absolutely ridiculous argument. You have no support for your sexist views other than to say that an uncircumsized penis is "GROSS"?? Where do you get off making any claim that obnoxious?? And you really believe you have a point?? Grow up and get a clue.

Anyone with a decent sense of intellect would understand that there are absolutely NO medical reasons to recommend routine circumcision. Go ahead, search the research out there, you will be dissapointed.

And it entirely valid to extrapolate the comparisons between male and female circumcision (also called infibulation). If we do not mutilate our females at birth, then why is it okay to do so to our boys??

Amusedrn- First of all, if you can't be bothered to learn to debate a specific isue appropriately, then please stay off the NV!!! Your posts are meaningless drivel, meant to argue other posters with idiotic non-sequitur and straw man arguments. If you don't understand what I'm saying, then get off the NV and go do some reading. Vincent was referring to female infibulation, which, if you really are a nurse, you ought to know about. It's no great secret, and the practice continues to this day in certain African countries. It's horrific, disgusting, and thank God it's banned in America. Now, if only we could afford our young boys the same respect.....

And despite the entire lack of medical necessity of circumcision, despite the risks of surgery (which are numerous), what about the long-term effects on our boys and subsequently our society?? What about the emotional and sub-concious effects of routine circumcision?? A simple Google search and you will find numerous references to the latent effects of circ'ing and the emotional toll on boys well into adulthood.

All for what? So that little Junior can "look like Daddy", or so that dangerous, sociopathic sexist women like Karen in LA can have their whimsical fetishes satiated??

Circumcision is mutilation, period. If your religion supports the practice, then fine, let that be your barbaric decision. Otherwise, you are doing your sons a huge disservice by allowing them to be cut.

CatChick- "Cheesedick"???? Ummm, ever heard of "soap and water"?? I could be wrong, but I'm quite sure some useful routine hygiene practices, like WASHING, are immensely successful.

Indy, just do us all a favor and never leave San Francisco. Mutilation, long term effects... What a joke.

That's it, ChiCity?? That's all you got???

The only retort you could muster is to attack me personally with idiotic drivel??? Wow, you having a slow day today, ChiCity? Didn't get your second cup o' joe this morning??

You have any substance you'd like to debate, or are you simply satisfied with your mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging knee-jerk responses?? Hmmm?

Furthermore, I don't live in SF. Circumcision IS mutilation, you just have been ignorantly misinformed your entire life on the matter, and there are long-term effects with circ'ing, though I doubt the medical community will want that stuff public since these things usually come back to bite them eventually........

indy,

what kind of doctor are you? Do you have an MD?

here's a bunch of evidence on the benefits of circumcision:

Male circumcision in the United States for the prevention of HIV infection and other adverse health outcomes: report from a CDC consultation.
Smith DK, Taylor A, Kilmarx PH, Sullivan P, Warner L, Kamb M, Bock N, Kohmescher B, Mastro TD.

Source

National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE, MS E-45, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. Dsmith1@cdc.gov

Erratum in

• Public Health Rep. 2010 Jul-Aug;125(4):517.

Male circumcision for the prevention of acquisition and transmission of sexually transmitted infections: the case for neonatal circumcision.
Tobian AA, Gray RH, Quinn TC.

Source

Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.

Abstract

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) male circumcision policy states that while there are potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision, the data are insufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Since 2005, however, 3 randomized trials have evaluated male circumcision for prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The trials found that circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus acquisition by 53% to 60%, herpes simplex virus type 2 acquisition by 28% to 34%, and human papillomavirus prevalence by 32% to 35% in men. Among female partners of circumcised men, bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40%, and Trichomonas vaginalis infection was reduced by 48%. Genital ulcer disease was also reduced among males and their female partners. These findings are also supported by observational studies conducted in the United States. The AAP policy has a major impact on neonatal circumcision in the United States. This review evaluates the recent data that support revision of the AAP policy to fully reflect the evidence of long-term health benefits of male circumcision.

Now, don't come back and tell me its not routinely recommended. I know that--and I don't support its routine implementation because there are far safer and cheaper ways to prevent STDs. But to OUTLAW it? That's ridiculous

Indy, not even worth the time, as this doesn't rise to the level of something worthy of debate. Plus, my hands hurt from dragging my knuckles on the floor. If you have kids, I bet they are the coolest kids in the class.

Indy Patriot

I am still trying to get over cheesed**k.

IT'S GROSS.

Eric- Thank you for responding.

First of all, you ask me which kind of doctor I am. Despite the fact that this is non-sequitur, I will not shy away from my credentials. I am a chiropractor in private practice. And while I'm sure many people will automatically point the finger at me and pronounce that my views are moot because I do not have an "RD" (for "Real Doctor") after my name, let me assure you my education is on par with medicine, as well as my ability to ascertain and consider the research on this matter. SO, let me ask you...does the specific credentials matter in this situation? Does the fact that my expertise extends largely to musculoskeletal conditions somehow negate my opinions on the matter? Answer this question truthfully, and you might see that the initial question was moot.

As for your response, congrats on finding SOME research to show benefits of circumcision. Now, let me pick apart the abstract.....

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) male circumcision policy states that while there are potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision"....

So, despite the AAP's viewpoint that they do not fully support routine circ'ing, this very study can only lay claim to POTENTIAL benefits? In other words, the data is not concrete in favor of circumcision? Hmm.

..."the data are insufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."...

So, this one phrase clearly shows that depsite the study itself, there was not enough concrete evidence to suggest circumcision. I'm surprised you actually used this article. But nonetheless....

..."Since 2005, however, 3 randomized trials have evaluated male circumcision for prevention of sexually transmitted infections."...

Just three? Which trials? What were the sizes of the trials? Were they statistically relevant? Any conflicts of interest? I have a lot of sincere questions.

..."The trials found that circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus acquisition by 53% to 60%, herpes simplex virus type 2 acquisition by 28% to 34%, and human papillomavirus prevalence by 32% to 35% in men. Among female partners of circumcised men, bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40%, and Trichomonas vaginalis infection was reduced by 48%. Genital ulcer disease was also reduced among males and their female partners."...

Well, this is promising, but we have a problem here. When looking at research studies, one must always take everything into consideration. Just because there is a statistical decrease in percentages, they often are not numerically relevant. In other words, a study might show that a certain treatment reduces the risk iof something by half, for example. But, if the actual numbers only reduced the PREVALENCE of this particular disease from 2% to 1% globally, then saying the treatment reduces the disease by half is almost moot. This actually was the finding some years ago with the study on African males who had been circ'ed vs. uncirc'ed. I believe your abstract may be alluding to this very study. The problem was that even though the circumcisions reduced male rates of HIV acquisition, the overall rates of HIV were quite low in the study to begin with. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like 2.5% down to 1.5%, or thereabouts. See my point? One can twist statistics to mean anything.

..."These findings are also supported by observational studies conducted in the United States."...

Funny, because why is it that for over one hundred years the chiropractic profession has had its case study/observational sudies overlooked by medicine, but the allopathic community can get away with it? I realize we are not debating chiropractic research, but how is this significant for the MD's when it is not for DC's? Anyhow.....

..."The AAP policy has a major impact on neonatal circumcision in the United States. This review evaluates the recent data that support revision of the AAP policy to fully reflect the evidence of long-term health benefits of male circumcision."...

So, this paper is suggesting that the AAP return to a pro-circ position based upon statistically insignificant studies? Not only is this implausible, but it also refuses to acknowledge the ethical and societal aspects at play.

SO, again, thanks for at least making a genuine debate. Please feel free to bash my post now!

Karen in Los Angeles wrote "As I mentioned above, hot chicks normally are grossed out by uncircumcised men."

Perhaps in Los Angeles. That would mean you would be turning down every European man because his penis head looks a little different when not erect.

And, after wading thru all the pointless, self-aggrandising commentary above... I come to only one conclusion... If the city of SF were to drop into the Pacific tomorrow, it wouldn't be too soon...

But, it was fun for u all, while it lasted...and, thanks for the levity.

indy,

credentials are moot, I agree. I just saw you mentioned in an earlier post that you were a doctor, and wanted to know if you were a physician out of curiosity. Also, I think that people who spend time reading research articles tend to be more familiar with research than lay people

As for your intial comments about routine circumcision, i'll copy and paste my last statement...it was tucked away at the end and you may have missed it..

Now, don't come back and tell me its not routinely recommended. I know that--and I don't support its routine implementation because there are far safer and cheaper ways to prevent STDs. But to OUTLAW it? That's ridiculous

Meaning that there is insufficient evidence to support its clinical benefits to recommend EVERYONE get it...sure, acknowledged...but thats a far cry from being outlawed, right?

as for your points on relative risk reduction vs absolute risk reduction, I agree. You need to look at statistics carefully. But to throw them all away in fell swoop abandons evidence based medicine, which is probably not good

If you prefer, I can present the data in a different form. From a cochrane meta-analysis of the 3 trials, the NNT, or number needed to treat, was 26 per 1000 men over 2 years. Meaning that routine circumcision will prevent 1 case of HIV for every 50 men you cut. Since there are about 50,000 NEW cases of HIV every YEAR just in the US, you can prevent 500-1000 of those annually. Not too shabby.

And the results ARE statistically significant (p value less than 0.05), but just equivocal--as in some studies failed to show a benefit. But the studies that did show a benefit showed one in a statistically signficant fashion

And again, remember, Im not arguing that circumcision SHOULD or NEEDS to be done, just that its far from harmful, and maybe beneficial

Vincent D,

There are plenty of gorgeous, beefy, buff men in California that I do not need to find any European men for fun.

I like California boys but I now know that San Franciscan men are not for me.

Vincent, I posted three conditions it is used for in one of my posts. Read it and learn. I don't have time to restate these things or teach you about them. Not my job...I posted it once. Find it.

As to the research information posted- what that is saying is there is not enough scientifically supported evidence from large, well designed reproducible clinical studies to supply information to enable an endorsement of the removal of the foreskin. It is an individual process so a control group would be hard to maintain in terms of the dependent variables, to the degree needed for statistical analysis. It isn't like giving thousands of people with a specific condition a certain medication at different or even the same dose, while not doing the same to a control group from the sample. So just because there is not an endorsement at this time, it does not mean, there is no evidence of efficacy. It just doesn't meet the standards required for that agency to issue recommendations or formulate a guideline to do so. If you learn anything about research in these types of things, you come to understand that. The absence of the research based on evidence does not mean there is an absence of efficacy...just the required level of proof (very high for these organizations because there is high standard for ethics- these things are not made lightly).

Besides, Vincent, you continue to use logical fallacies to make your points which is not effective debate technique- basically an error in reasoning. Look those up if you need to but they are critical to debate.

amusedrn, so, we're in agreement : circumcision risks exceeds potential benefits.

There roughly 700,000 (33% circ rate in 2009 for ~2 million boy births) infant dick cuttings every year the US. Complications include at least one death (some estimates are 100 deaths), dozens of penile injuries. The complications are listed on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and range from 1-10% depending on the classification of severity.

If there are benefits, would you please compare them quantitatively to the risks and complications of the surgery? As in, how does a parent decide if circumcision benefits exceed the risk? The AAP says that the risks exceed the benefits.

Also, please explain why it is ethical to cut a healthy infant penis before there is a condition that needs treatment.

vincent

There are not "hundreds" of deaths from circs. Why would you have to estimate a number. Would seem to be pretty easy to measure directly. If someone is telling you an "estimate" number, they probably have an agenda and are lying to you

The aap does NOT say the risks exceed the benefits. Show me that in writing

Why is it ethical to do prophylactic treatment? Sure, we should stop vaccines, then, right?

Not saying circ ranks up there with vaccines, but surely you've heard of preventative medicine--just showing you that your logic is faulty

ban circumcision, brought to you by the same pack of self-righteous idiots that want to ban pet stores

No Vincent we are not "in agreement"

amusedrn, so, we're in agreement : circumcision risks exceeds potential benefits.

No. Nowhere did I say that the risk exceeds potential benefits. The explanation above states there is not enough statistically significant evidence at this time to support a general guideline to endorse this procedure. That is not a support of what would be the null hypothesis of your problem statement if you posed this as a research question. It can simply be that there have not been enough studies where there was a conclusive outcome due to the individual nature and the PREDICTIVE nature of the issues you are claiming are effective (NO ONE CAN PREDICT WHAT ANY ONE SPECIFIC MALE WOULD EXPERIENCE FOR SEXUAL SATISFACTION AND RESPONSE BECAUSE YOU CAN PUT ON AND TAKE OFF THE FORESKIN...think of it like a condom...you can do a with/without analysis so there can be evidence that can be meausured.

Again,your inability to use logic is getting in your way since you see that as proof of your claim that the risk is greater. Absence of evidence to support or to negate something does NOT confer that there is a positive correlation between two events ie. doing the circumcision to increased risk from infection. In fact, the statement you cite says the opposite, THAT THERE IS AN INCREASED BENEFIT FOR THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF LIFE THAT MALE CIRCUMCISION REDUCES THE INCIDENCE OF UTIs. It then says this BENEFIT must be weighed against the risk for infection from the procedure which is not stated as being either greater OR lesser than the risk of UTI, merely that the one be weighed against the other.

You do not understand how medical research is done or interpreted and applied.

You need courses in the following: statistics-graduate level, reading comprehension, debate, logic, epidemiology(graduate level), research theory and the research process (graduate level), multiple medical courses, in order to understand the complexity of the risk/benefit ratio that goes into making the decisions of this nature since there is an absence of

I cannot possibly teach you that here...

1. not my responsibility

2. you display a deficit of reading comprehension and logical thinking so it is an effort in futility- you have yet to master the pre-requisite skills and knowledge base

3. you display a desire to support one side when to determine risk, biases must be set aside. You do not demonstrate the ability to do this.

I get paid quite a bit actually, to teach people about these type of issues and since you won't even read about fallacious logic in order to improve your debate skills use valid and basic debate (you HAVE to stop trying to cloud the issues though I realize these makes you THINK you are being effective in debate...it is not...merely that you are biased, without supportive evidence for proof of your position based on the merits of your position.)

I decline to try to educate you on how medical risk/benefit ratios are calculated or how medical research is conducted. Not unless you want to fork over the cost of about a year in graduate school maybe two based on the amount of remediation you will need.

Got timed out on my edit

The following should be:

since there is an absence of

a generalized risk/benefit ratio as you might find for say, the benefit of wearing a condom to reduce the risk of infection to STDs. THAT can and has been measured. What you are claiming has not been and you again, can not use the ABSENCE OF PROOF AS POSITIVE PROOF OF THE SOMETHING.

As to your last question, see your own quote regarding UTIs.

Vincent,

You said:

Why don't you cite the medical benefits of circumcision? No Western medical association recommends routine circumcision. Why do you defend the painful non-therapeutic ritual of infant penis sculpting? Do you have a fetish for a pink penis head?

Attacking me is is what is known as the "personal attack fallacy" ...attacking the person who is opposed to your position RATHER than staying on point about the issue.

In other words, it shows you are not 'WINNING'...to misquote Charlie Sheen...another who has no ability to use logic.

Let this whole affair be a marvelous illustration to us all. Observe just how easy it is for some well meaning, or perhaps not so well meaning, group of folks to appear out of nowhere and get a proposal on a ballot. This is a proposal that limits one's choices about how to live one's life, how to raise one's children and how to be.

Every homosexual man and woman should have been in opposition to this circumcision ban being on the ballot. Why? Because the same kind of freedom limiting hogwash could be applied to the gay community by some well meaning, or perhaps not so well meaning group of people influential enough to get this measure to the elections office's doorstep. Every cause the gay community has ever undertaken could be attacked just as easily using this kind of tactic. If you are a gay person and you supported this measure, you are a hypocrite of the first and most disgusting order.

Should you be a normal, straight individual supporting a ban on circumcision, the same thoughts apply. How easy would it be to get a measure on the ballot placing the control of the school board in the hands of creationists, atheists, or perhaps some odd religious group? Or, maybe, some measure on the ballot to control alcohol in your community or to control the kind of decorations in your yard or the kind of arts your community will support.

All I am asking you to do is observe just how easily this measure came to be and understand just how precious our individual choices about how we are living our lives are to each and every one of us.

amusedrn,

Im very impressed by your arguments, logic, and mastery of evidence based medicine. I wouldn't mind taking a class from you!

bravo!

Why thank you eric? I had amazing professors in these areas. Plus, it is a "passion" of mine...favorite sayings of mine- "there so much to learn and so little time"...AND "oh where to begin"

And to defend Vincent (shesh...who would have thought I would say that!), he is really a product of our culture- one that is rife with the use of logical fallacies to persuade the populace and one that demonstrates very little comprehension of medical knowledge, scientific reasoning, and statistical interpretation.

Vincent,

Now, back to your impaired logic. The following

All of that time, I put up with female uncircumcised genitals as well as 7 of 28 days of menstrual blood flowing over me, white infectious discharge with the aroma of gorgonzola cheese, all sorts of female fluids while I wore a condom.

Irrelevant to the discussion...IT IS NOT ABOUT MALES (ESPECIALLY YOU), TOLERATING FEMALE DISCHARGES AND MENSTRUAL FLOW WHILE THEY (OR YOU ) WEAR A CONDOM. You are arguing a point not involved in the ban. It isn't about female genitalia or discharges or male tolerance of such.

amused, thanks for the above review on stats. Some folks just don't realize the effort that the medical community makes to determine what is and what is not significant/significant. It really is a science in and of itself that shows up in almost every field of study. I am happy someone took the time to type out what you typed out. My field of study was not medicine but grad school stats made so much sense to me and showed me how to cut through the fluff to get to the truth of a matter. Thanks again.

I did not actually intend to comment right behind you. That was happenstance, but I am glad I did. I commented, hit post comment and looked up and there you were.

grump

lol...my appreciation for you commment and btw,I love how you just cut through all the bs and say things so straight to the point, with such common sense as well as logic... ;D

You are always a "giver of good advice" (yes, <hanging head> you were right about feeding trolls...some are voracious! Am trying to become "reformed". I actually started to ask myself why bother with trying to show Vincent his illogic...he is persistent in that.). So double thanks.

:D

PS. Did you ever find the right hotdogs?

Goodness, I must have needed more coffee

forgot the word "NOT" in the following phrase

"YOU CAN PUT ON AND TAKE OFF THE FORESKIN"

Should have been

YOU CANNOT PUT ON AND TAKE OFF THE FORESKIN

Logical but I ain't perfect. ;)

amused, Thanks. No hot dogs yet. I have to look around some more.

Vincent has taken as position and he will not change it. He uses the most basic of argumentative tactics to "win". Usually, other folks just shrug and move along making people like Vincent think he has somehow "won". Not so, they are only disgusted and realize they are talking with a mind that is already made up. In real life, someone would have punched him in the nose.

He sure threw some ick and gak out there, didn't he? I wonder what was the purpose of that? Poor fellow. It was sort of like vomiting on someone when you disagree with them, I guess.

I agree completely grump, about how some will say anything, no matter how illogical and off point to win! It is amusing sometimes (hence my name) but scary at others! I think I shall probably get "tired" of these types of "debates" soon, though, and become part of the crowd that just lets people who refuse to see ...well, actually, yes that is it...they refuse to see!

I hope to see you on other vines grump...take care.

Do they actually have people who get paid to troll? Someone mentioned that on another topic vine...got me thinking.

amused, the mysterious "they"? I think that is highly unlikely. There are more than enough fools out there to fill the nearly limitless troll void.

Some politicians do, however, hire staff to get their word out on the vines.

Regarding people who refuse to see---amused, it has taken you your whole lifetime to get to where you are now. You see the world the way you do because of all your years of thought and experience. Others have their own worlds, too. Getting them to understand and see yours is, well, what can I say? Some folks are open and want to learn more from people who seem to understand the world well. Others are locked into their own gullible little boxes of misery. For example, Vincent seems most miserable. Can you or I do anything about that? I doubt it. On the other hand, Eric is an open minded fellow looking for some answers. Fairly simple isn't it?

Sage advice again, grump...and by the way, I think that must be a misnomer...poking gentle fun at yourself, perhaps? ;)

The mysterious "they"...yes, I forgot about that LOL

Like this " There are more than enough fools out there to fill the nearly limitless troll void."

Nice phrase....limitless troll void. :D

Well, if they but open their eyes and TRY to see another perspective, they might...that is all any of us can do...since we can never truly live another's experiences (there we go with existentialism again ;D)

Yes, he does...angry and unhappy or just determined to be a devil's advocate

Karen in Los Angeles wrote "Comparing the procedure to female circumcision is laughable to me."

Common forms of female circumcision include a ceremonial pin-prick of the clitoral hood to draw blood as well as removal of only the female foreskin or clitoral hood. Both of those are less severe or equally-severe as removal of the male foreskin.

The "laughable" part to you is the idea that female genitals are cut at all while you are a vocal proponent of cutting male infant genitals.

amusedrn wrote "

Is it odd to you that men describe the hygiene of female genitalia?

All of that time, I put up with female uncircumcised genitals as well as 7 of 28 days of menstrual blood flowing over me, white infectious discharge with the aroma of gorgonzola cheese, all sorts of female fluids while I wore a condom.

Irrelevant to the discussion..."

That is completely relevant to the discussion as the two reasons that Americans circumcise boys but not girls are 1) supposed improvement in hygiene and 2) appearance

Some American women express a very strong preference for a cut penis , sometimes to the point of refusing a male for his natural penis, but refuse to have a similar procedure that will improve the odor and appearance of her own genitals.

eric wrote "here's a bunch of evidence on the benefits of circumcision:"

Eric, all of the potential benefits are for adults. You're making a case for voluntary adult circumcision. This entire debate is about forced infant circumcision.

Psychologists say that people who comment about others are really commenting about themselves.

I wish Karen would take her own damned advice...

maggie, I have no problem with any attempts to convince the medical establishment to end routine circumcisions. my complaint is that we don't need ANOTHER STUPID LAW to force the issue.

we have too many stupid laws on the books already, telling you what you can and can't do and how to do it, we are becoming a ridiculously regulated and restricted society with these idiot laws being passed by every clown that insists "something has to be done" and demanding that the nanny state force their beliefs on everyone else. it is happening all over the country, we are all losing our rights and freedoms because people on the far right and the far left are demanding that everyone conform to what they deem to be "acceptable"

Ok then if that's the case, why can't people from various cultures have their daughters circumcised?

Female circumcision is currently illegal.

People need to learn to apply complementary non-gender based logic.

Most say it's ok to circumcise a boy; well because it's a boy; they are supposed to be tough. Mutilating an innocents gentials whether male or female is wrong mostly due to the fact the person being altered does not have a choice. Now if once they are old they choose to become circumcised then I'm ok with that.

Boys are not circumcised because they are tough.... One reason is for religious views... another is for sanitary reasons to prevent infections in the fold of the foreskin. Female circumcision prevents the female from ever having feeling or orgasms... now thats just plain mean. I'm pretty sure every guy who has ever had a circumcision can still have an orgasm. But hey I could be wrong.

women have yeast infections all their lives but somehow female circumcision is not endorsed for them by the medical community (I don't mean clitoris removal educate yourself). could it be that circumcision was made a societal institution in the 19th century to prevent male masturbation and to curb male sexuality in general and they just won't stop doing it, kind of like mercury fillings in your teeth? Yes

yeah banning liposuction for children seems like a good idea also

I didn't say they had their clitoris removed did I. They still can lose ALL feeling. Having a female circumcision would not stop yeast infections... Educate yourself. Noone said anything about lipo suction for children. Wow you just like to make a whole bunch of stuff up to try to put credit to your points. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

They still can lose ALL feeling.

ugh, no, they don't. I've read accounts of women who have had a clitoral foreskin removal procedure claiming it helped them achieve orgasm easier, similar accounts have come from adult men, other adult men want to kill themselves after allowing a doctor to circumcise them against their better judgement. not everyone's experiences are the same, a good reason to stop trying a one procedure fits all policy on non-consenting patients, children. actually you said banning circumcision would be like banning liposuction. I'm pretty sure the measure in San Francisco is to protect children so you are in fact the one who brought liposuction of children into the conversation

Philip munroe ~~ FYI, women who are circumcised, indeed do have their clitoris removed (especially in other counties). Another form of circumcision of women, is to surgically have the 'hood' of the clitoris removed (to increase sexual pleasure), which in turncan leave the woman in a perpetual state of pain, discomfort, and can be painfully overstimulated (which is not pleasant) etc. Young males who are circumcised are not effected in this way, UNLESS the one doing the circumcising is not skilled. If that be the case, then there have been many cases reported, where the head of the penis is accidentally cut off, as well as other injuries. This happens more times than not.

As far as I'm concerned, circumcision should be a personal matter, and should not be 'standard proceedure'. One size fits all, should not apply.

LOL philip you go ahead and twist it however you want. The point WAS how can the government put a ban on something someone wants to do to their OWN body?! Not that liposuction should be banned on kids...Now twist that one.. go ahead. do it. I agree with Lorene. If you don't want your children circumcised then don't do it. but don't tell me what to do.

The government SHOULDN'T ban what you can do to your own body. But they should be able to ban what you can do to someone else's body. Especially someone who is an infant and cannot speak for himself. Jewish circumcision is a religious ceremony and a covenant with God, fine, but it is also performed by a Rabbi, not a pediatrician who has sworn to "first, do no harm". Have you ever seen a botched circumcision? It isn't pretty, and it's totally unnecessary. Let the child decide what to do with his own body when he is old enough to understand what is being done. I won't argue against religion, but I have a huge problem with the medical community routinely performing this unnecessary surgery. Every surgery carries risks. And it is unethical to perform cosmetic surgery on someone without his consent.

MindieKNows wrote " It's like saying you are going to ban liposuction."

No. It's like banning tattoos, branding and general mutilation for which California penal code bans ALL of those for minors under the age of 18. Why is the penis the only part of the body that doesn't get any legal protection?

Philip munroe ~~ FYI, women who are circumcised, indeed do have their clitoris removed

No there are different gradations to the "procedure" for your information dolt

The point WAS how can the government put a ban on something someone wants to do to their OWN body?

If that is your stance then you should have no problem banning this procedure being performed on children in particular INFANTS as they cannot consent to this being performed on THEIR OWN BODY

I know! How crazy! Preventing parents from chopping off a part of their infants' sexual anatomy would be totally un-American.

When my daughter was born I had her ears chopped off. With skin cancer rates rising, I'm sure she will thank me when she gets older. Besides, she won't ever have to deal with cold ears, ears that flop uncomfortably in high winds, or nicknames like "dumbo".

We did her a favor and she will thank us for it...as soon as she recovers from the trauma of slicing those little things off without anesthesia. My doctor said that's how ears have been chopped off for centuries so it must be a good thing.

Ah yes, the God-given right to torture an infant...

If you don't want your children circumcised then don't do it. but don't tell me what to do.

I want to put a giant bone spike through my infant's nose for "religious reasons." You better not have a problem with it.

It is absolutely sexist to say that it's okay to cut the genitals of male babies but not okay to cut the genitals of female babies.

I agree with you Mindieknows! What a joke our country is becoming.

Circumcision is barbaric and it will end in the US.

This is one of those issues that people will catch people on the "wrong" side of history...like gay marriage, constitutional amendments against flag burning, segregation, interracial marriage, etc. Seems like it may take a while, but the fact that ballot measures are being introduced to make the practice illegal except when medically necessary is the proverbial writing on the wall.

Circumcision as it is practiced on infants is a harmful procedure performed under the guise of "religion" and purported "medical benefits", for which there are none - except for the rare few for which it is a genuine necessity.

Circumcision damages the penis in ways circumcised males will never know.

If you doubt me, ask men who were circumcised for medical reasons as adults...and see how happy they are to have lost the most sensitive and functional areas of their penis.

If it's so great then we ought to let boys decide for themselves if they want to chop off their foreskin when they turn 18. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think any males would be stupid enough to actually want to do that???

This is such a ridiculous issue...shows what ingrained behavior, religious dogma, and/or "tradition" does to people. Maybe a bit of Stockholm syndrome? Circumcised men so afraid of knowing what they've lost that they instinctively reject attempts to prevent it from happening to others?

Uncircumcised men get all the girls, didnt'cha know?!?

Of course, the loons in SF love to nibble on those foreskins...Just more for them to munch on...

women have yeast infections all their lives but somehow female circumcision is not endorsed for them by the medical community

philip munroe - the ignorance of people who post on these forums as though they are experts never ceases to amaze me, and you are a prime example. You need to do a little research and learn some basics before posting.

First, female yeast infections occur in the vagina and are totally unrelatedto the clitoris or whether a female has been circumcised. Suggesting that female circumcision will eliminate vaginal yeast infections is about the same as suggesting that male circumcision will eliminate tonsillitis in males.

Second, females do not have yeast infections all their lives. I've been on this planet for almost 62 years and have had a total of two yeast infections, one of which occurred after taking a series of four different antibiotics to fight infection from a cat bite on my wrist. Antibiotics kill the natural flora in our bodies that tend to protect us from yeast and other infections, hence the vaginal yeast infection that resulted from the antibiotics administered to fight infection from the cat bite. In other words, I might never have had the second yeast infection if there had been no need to take antibiotics to fight the cat bite infection.

Third, if you took the time to research the topic before posting your inane comments, you would have found that "the term female circumcision in whatever form it is practiced is not at all analogous to male circumcision" (Cook, Rebecca J.; Bernard M. Dickens, Mahmoud F. Fathalla (2003). Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics, and law. Oxford University Press. p. 262. ISBN 0199241333). In other words, "the term female circumcision" implies a fallacious analogy to non-mutilating male circumcision, in which the foreskin is cut off from the tip of the penis without damaging the organ itself" (Toubia, N (1995). "Female Genital Mutilation". In Peters, J; Wolper, A. Women's Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives. New York: Routledge. p. 226. ISBN 0415909953). For your edification, fallacious means misleading or false. In other words, a fallacious analogy is a false analogy.

Abe Lincoln once said that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or post) and remove all doubt. Learn a little human anatomy and learn correct terminology before posting inane comments about which you know nothing.

MindieKnows... what?! How can you compare liposuction or any other procedure which you decide about by yourself when you're an adult to a circumcision that is being decided about by your ill advised parents, without your consent?! How would you like to have your parents consent to a liposuction performed on you after you were born because somebody said you look too chubby for a newborn? How did you even come up with this comparison?!

One can argue about this or that infection into eternity, but the argument to allow (or ban) circumcision is clearly valid regardless of the sex of the person to whom it is being done to. That's a pure and simple fact; all this other stuff attempting to justify it in one case (or upon one child) and not the other is simply rationalization.

Legalize Marijuana, since it interferes with everyone's rights to smoke weed.

Illegalize Circumcism, even if it interferes with people's religious rights.

You liberals crack me up!

Boys are not circumcised because they are tough.... One reason is for religious views... another is for sanitary reasons to prevent infections in the fold of the foreskin. Female circumcision prevents the female from ever having feeling or orgasms... now thats just plain mean. I'm pretty sure every guy who has ever had a circumcision can still have an orgasm. But hey I could be wrong.

If it's the type where the female genitals are deliberately mutilated to prevent them from having any pleasure, then yes, no orgasms. Removal of the clitoral hood is akin to the removal of foreskin. It makes the clitoris more sensitive to stimulation (as it does to the head of the circumsised penis), thereby producing more intense orgasms. It can, however, backfire & make the clitoris so sensitive that it becomes painful. That's why it isn't done to girls. Circumsising boys certainly does not have them walking around w/ a painful penis for the rest of their lives. And foreskin removal certainly makes fellatio easier & more pleasant....tough to *deep throat* w/ all that extra foreskin flopping around.

FYI, women who are circumcised, indeed do have their clitoris removed (especially in other counties). Another form of circumcision of women, is to surgically have the 'hood' of the clitoris removed (to increase sexual pleasure), which in turncan leave the woman in a perpetual state of pain, discomfort, and can be painfully overstimulated (which is not pleasant) etc. Young males who are circumcised are not effected in this way

Yeah, what I just said, TYVM.

If you don't want your children circumcised then don't do it. but don't tell me what to do.

Exactly. *Nannying* medical or religious procedures (as a circumcision can be either; I've never dated a Jewish male but I've also never seen an uncircumsised penis amongst the Catholic, Protestant, agnostic, or atheist crowds) is absurd. It comes down to choice. No one is forcing routine circumcisions upon infant males b/c a parent has to sign a consent form for it to be done. Just say no & don't sign it. *Problem* solved for you.

It is absolutely sexist to say that it's okay to cut the genitals of male babies but not okay to cut the genitals of female babies.

It is not. See above.

"the term female circumcision in whatever form it is practiced is not at all analogous to male circumcision" (Cook, Rebecca J.; Bernard M. Dickens, Mahmoud F. Fathalla (2003). Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics, and law. Oxford University Press. p. 262. ISBN 0199241333). In other words, "the term female circumcision" implies a fallacious analogy to non-mutilating male circumcision, in which the foreskin is cut off from the tip of the penis without damaging the organ itself" (Toubia, N (1995). "Female Genital Mutilation". In Peters, J; Wolper, A. Women's Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives. New York: Routledge. p. 226. ISBN 0415909953). For your edification, fallacious means misleading or false. In other words, a fallacious analogy is a false analogy.

Look....references. Get smarter here.

Mindie,

Your argument seems to have two points, and both of those points actually work against you when thought about fully.

A - Banning circumcision limits people's religious freedom. Wrong. Actually, it increases the child's religious freedom. Freedom of religion should not include the freedom to perform irreparable surgery on your children because of your religious preference. The child may well choose not to adhere to your religion upon adulthood - but, they will still never be able to retrieve the part of their penis that was cut off due to an outdated religious precept (akin to stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath - I bet a lot of Jews - though not all - do that on a regular basis). Oh, and circumcision is not an Islamic mandate. It is never mentioned in the Quran and is more of a cultural custom like the hijab.

B. Trying to restrict what people can or can't do to their bodies is a bad idea. Correct. I totally agree. However, it is okay to restrict what people can or can't do to other people's bodies. No one should have the right to cut off a piece of another person's body (unless it is a medical emergency) without the consent of that other person. The thing is, the child cannot give consent. If a young adult male wants to be circumcised then they have all the right in the world to do so. They can also have their ears removed if it suits them.

The real reason that most people circumcise their children is that we all have a tendency to do whatever the people around us do. It is "normal." But, many atrocious acts through the ages have been justified as a "normal" part of life. Slavery, public execution, bear baiting, torture, spousal abuse. All of these things were once justified because they were normal. Luckily, we have the ability to rationally judge and work for change in the norms of our world.

There are also different gradations of male circumcision : low cut, medium cut, high cut. Removal of a portion of the foreskin was the ancient way because tools to cut more foreskin without damaging the penis were not available. Also, blood loss in an infant is critical because the loss of one of twelve ounces of infant blood will kill it.

American hospital circumcision removes ALL of the foreskin. This wasn't possible until the 1950's with higher precision machining techniques.

joshua fitch wrote "A - Banning circumcision limits people's religious freedom. Wrong. Actually, it increases the child's religious freedom. "

Good point. With the high rate of Jewish intermarriage and the replacement of God-worshipping Jews with secular Jews, there is little reason to cut an infant penis to form a male-only covenant with God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

Sexual effects of circumcision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The sexual effects of circumcision are the subject of some debate. Studies have been conducted to investigate whether circumcision has any effect on sexual drive, erectile function, premature and delayed ejaculation, sexual satisfaction, sexual sensation and penile sensitivity. Studies have also assessed whether circumcision affects masturbation or other sexual practices, and whether a heterosexual woman's experience of sex is affected by her partner's circumcision status.

Those reviewing the literature have reached differing conclusions. The American Academy of Pediatrics points to a survey (self-report) finding circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, but also noted anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males.^[1] In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."^[2]

Thanks, Alex. I'm sure the effects of removing the smegma-collecting clitoral hood would also have little effect on female sensation. Is that a reason to cut off all of the clitoral hoods of female infants?

Vincent Denali Do you know why so many people hate reciprocity??

Yes, thank you Alex. More people need to recognize that circumcision is a barbaric practice that actually negatively affects men into adulthood. Let me also add-

Circumcision in the US results in the removal of approx 2/3rds of the sexual nerve endings within the foreskin. The foreskin is heavily supplied with these nerve endings, but losing 2/3rds is a huge portion of that innervation!!! Of course, for all the men, including myself, who have been circ'ed since birth wouldn't necessarily know the difference, but ask men who had this prodecdure performed in adulthood, and they will great complaints about the matter.

Circumcision also causes a drying up of the glans (the "head") of the penis. This is called cornification of the mucosal tissues. This drying up also limits the sensitivity of the glans during sexual intimacy. In addition, drying up the glans also has the effect of inhibiting the secretions of the Tyson's glands, which are the organs that produce the smegma, and are located (in an intact male) at the base of the glans near the distal attachment site of the foreskin. The smegma is used to actually inhibit microbial infection in the penis. This is similar to the vaginal secretions in women, commonly referred to as the "self-cleaning oven" process! The same thing in males. But, like females, if you do not keep the organs clean, they can and will develop infections likewise. Hygiene goes a long ways!!!

I hope this info helps...there is way too much ignorance being flouted by society, as evidenced on this forum today!!!

Indy, how are those long term effects coming along? I think you should look to other places for your issues than your parents decision to have you cut.

Yeah, first you attack me personally in the #2 thread, now you're attacking my parents for making an uninformed decision, similar to the countless millions of men my age who's parents were not informed correctly either.

Would you like to know that they were not given a choice? There was no informed consent explaining the risks/benefits. The obstetrician came in and simply told them it "was time" to have me circumsized. No discussion, no questions asked. And unfortunately, my parents were none the wiser, to no fault of their own. Does this explain countless millions of other men's circumstances? Quite likely.

Now, ChiCity, you and I often agree with one another politically on NV. I KNOW you can write reasonable, intelligent responses. So why the drivel? Having an off day?

Not really, I just can't believe that anyone would support the banning of this procedure under the auspice of trauma, lack of consent, etc. I apologize for attacking, I just find it ridiculous. So, I will bow out, and can agree to disagree.

How about a ban due to the risk of death for a surgery that isn't treating anything?

Every year in the US 100,000 neonatal (< one month old) boy infants die.
117 neonatal boys die from circumcision
115 neonatal boys die from SIDS
44 neonatal boys die from suffocation
8 neonatal boys die in auto accidents

This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes.

Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths
JournalThymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies
PublisherMen's Studies Press
IssueVolume 4, Number 1 / Spring 2010

Vincent, you must be someone that pretends to study the effects of child circumcision as an excuse to look at little boys private parts. Either way, stop cutting and pasting the same garbage over and over.

ChiCity, not at all. Rather, I'm against cutting the genitals of children, particularly of my own children. Are you against learning about the risks of circumcision so that you feel better about cutting infant genitals? That is creepier than anything.

This is a parental lobby.

Educate yourself. That is a totally ignorant statement...troll or just ignorant.

Next time write your own comments. lol

Patriott, this is not the Alzheimer's page; there's no need to repeat what others said so soon.

It always amazes me that the "Right to Control You Body" lobby wants me to subsidize Planned Parenthood, so I can pay the bill for what you do with your body. Grow Up! BTW- An article printed today describes how scientists just can't seem to replicate "Life's spark". All that genetic research and it still remains elusive. Must be because Frankenstein isn't the answer.

Again, comparing apples to pears..

Abortion end a life, getting snipped... not anywhere close.

Who are you speaking to Blue? If it is me I'm not asking anyone to pay for anything for me. I'm just saying if a parent wants to have their boy circumcised than it should be their decision.

He changed it a little, abortion for circumsition. He makes a good point too. People who support the ban on circumsitions are probably the same people who stand up for the murdering of unborn children. Thats right I said MURDER. If you punch a pregnant woman in the belly and the baby dies you are a murderer, But if you abort an unborn child for no reason other than you don't want to take responsibility for your actions its OK. I would say its kinda funny but its really not.

Blue I'm pro-choice and I don't believe taxpayers should fund abortion but this article is about circumcision, something completely different.

nwrob he is saying people who OPPOSE the ban on circumcision probably also oppose abortions being banned.... I oppose the ban on circumcision but I don't believe in abortions, but wouldnt tell someone else they can't do it.... Don't hate me people just my opinion! I also don't want to pay for someone else to have one!

They'll commit domestic terrorism and literally murder doctors over a woman's right to have a medical procedure on her SELF, but will fight tooth and nail for her right to torture her infant minutes after it's born. Man, religion is weird...

Toasty: I agree with you. When did "Family Values" come to mean "defending - tooth an nail - the obscenely cruel and barbaric practice of slicing the skin off a baby boy's penis?

Probably the same time when "family values" came to mean "domestic terrorism." Strangely, those weren't values in MY family...

OK I've personally witnessed the procedure on my son. Its not cruel. You people are out of your minds.

Hey toasty how is a medical procedure that takes a human life only a procedure on the woman.

Jeremy said the best.

Which Texan are you referring to?

Why are you so in favor of infant penis sculpting? Why not leave the baby boy's parts as they were when he was born?

Frank, don't forget the California Dream Act. I used to think it would be fun to live there, forget that #$%.

ban DiHydrogen Monoxide Now!

http: // DHMO dot org

stupid thing still won't let me post links after three months

Don't forget that SF is also making it illegal to use criminal history as a means of employment screening.

how dare parents or doctors think it their right to start subtracting body parts from healthy newborn children, particularly from their genitals

Because the parents are the legal guardians and charged with the child's welfare. Legally a child is not considered to be of the age of reason until 13 in most states. In your case, philip, the age should probably be raised somewhat.

I'm not sure braces and circumcision are comparable. Let's face it, barring religious reasons for circumcision, the majority of Americans who perpetrate this unecessary procedure (which removes 1/3 of the skin area of the penis) on their newborn baby boys do it for COSMETIC purposes. They want "Johnny" to look like daddy. Uncircumcised penises look "funny, ugly, _____" fill in the blank. You can claim it's more sanitary but the American Pediatric Association disagrees, and no longer recommends it....... because it isn't medically necesssary.

Rick in the Forest wrote "The fact they would even attempt to put something such as this on a ballot is proof positive of the nanny-state mindset that has become emblematic of San Francisco."

No. It is merely 15 years later than the 1996 federal ban on girl-only genital cutting.

"How dare they even consider involving themselves in a matter that is the sole purview of parents and the child's physician?"

In California, parents may not tattoo, brand or generally mutilate their children *except* for penis sculpting. Think about it.

No US medical association recommends routine infant circumcision and no physician will provide a medical justification for a routine circumcision as it is not a treatment for anything. Why does this procedure exist?

Well, perhaps there should be the consideration of WHY this practice was begun in the first place...I mean back when it became part of the religious practices...cleanliness was much harder to achieve...there STDs were not known of so it could have been THOUGHT circumcision was a preventative measure for diseases not even yet identified...I mean I have read of some customs of certain religions were adopted for more practical reasons than we would ever imaging yet that have become part of the norm.

It is kind of like the story about why the woman always cuts the ends of the roast before putting in the pan. When she is asked she says it is because that is what her mother did every time. When her mother is asked, she says that is what HER mother did. When the grandmother of the first woman is asked...she says it is because she didn't have a big enough pan.

Still I am not saying that they should ban it (And I think it IS getting carried away to put it on a ballot). Just it seems like it is going to be difficult to enforce. It doesn't even have to be done in a physician's office or a clinic obviously so what are we going to do to enforce it? Check every little boy's penis at regular intervals? What about those who move from other places it isn't banned? You can't even get people to take their children in for routine exams in some cases...how are they going to enforce it?

Seems like somebody went a bit overboard to me and didn't think of HOW they were going to do this IF they did get it passed.

amusedrn wrote "Well, perhaps there should be the consideration of WHY this practice was begun in the first place...I mean back when it became part of the religious practices. cleanliness was much harder to achieve"

No. Christian-Judeo religions want to control male sexuality. The purpose of circumcision, male or female, is to weaken the sexual response of the genitals as much as possible without affecting reproductive function.

As for cleanliness, there is an even bigger reason to trim female genitals.

Because the parents are the legal guardians and charged with the child's welfare

well genius removing half the skin of the penis making a man permanently uncomfortable (if you were cut at birth you have zero clue) and maligning or removing the male g-spot (frenulum) should be considered against the welfare of the child

Vincent...you are missing the historical context of the religious ritual. There are many, many things done as tradition based on the perceptions of the day in which they were formed, depending on whom they affected and who had the power or interest to control what was done to affect a change. In this situation, think about who sees their genitals more readily, a male or a female? A herpes lesion or syphilis chancre is a lot more apparent to the male and it may have been thought to be linked to some of the conditions mentioned below. Who made the religious laws back then? Males.

Plus, it would have been the response to difficulties such as balanoposthitis phimosis and paraphimosis so could easily have begun based on hygienic rationales...don't forget women were often thought to be unclean anyway.

And your comparison of the hood over the head of the penis to the labia minora is anatomically incorrect. That would merely be the clitorial hood, which may be removed at times, to enhance sexual stimulation as it is thought to do for removal of the foreskin.

As to the reason for not removing the clitorial hood, first your logic is built on the "two wrongs make it right fallacy"..ie- so why NOT trim the female genitals if cleanliness is important if you are going to circumsize males for the same reason?- a two wrongs argument

(Besides, it is easier to clean female genitalia in all areas compared to area under the foreskin).

Argue your point about the merits or demerits of male circumcision alone. It is not a "If we do this to males, why don't we do it to females?" situation at the heart of the debate.

And your comparison of the hood over the head of the penis to the labia minora is anatomically incorrect. That would merely be the clitorial hood, which may be removed at times, to enhance sexual stimulation

And is quite illegal to perform on an infant girl.

amusedrn wrote "Vincent...you are missing the historical context of the religious ritual. "

No, I didn't. The religious context was to suppress sex. That was the same reason that drove circumcision in the US : circumcision was supposed to cure masturbation and a host of other illnesses such as epilepsy and blindess.

"cleanliness was much harder to achieve."

Surgical procedures were also more lethal.

"And your comparison of the hood over the head of the penis to the labia minora is anatomically incorrect."

Anatomical comparison is nearly useless. Lopping off a clitoris does little to affect female fertility. Lopping off a penis prevents natural reproduction.

Labia minora are external genitalia that can be lopped off without reducing reproductive function in women and their absence or reduction would improve the appearance and cleanliness of female genitalia. Are those reasons good enough to cut them off?

Vincent,

They didn't want to suppress sex for men, they saw themselves as strong, virile and superior and sex was a great part of it. They only wanted to suppress sex for women. They were definitely not trying to suppress the sexual urges of men, their urges were encouraged. After all, why were men allowed to have multiple wives? To spread their "seed" to the far corners of the world, or as far as possible. The custom of male circumcision was created by men to control disease (they had sex with as many women as possible, including prostitutes), not women. It had nothing to do with the sexual suppression of men! Female circumcision was about suppressing the sexual urges of women.

Yes, they did want to suppress sex for men. What religion doesn't place restrictions on men? From the 10 commandments, though shall not covet thy neighbor's wife? Note the sexual specificity in that commandment.

Women were not circumcised in a covenant with God because women were not considered worthy of a covenant with God.

Circumcision, male or female, is about weakening the sexual response of the genitals as much as possible without severely affecting reproduction.

Today in the US, circumcision is driven primarily by women that think that male genitals are dirty but female genitals are not.

"The custom of male circumcision was created by men to control disease"

Nonsense. In that age, disease and infection were not understood. Circumcision never controlled disease and is a complete flop in the US for STD control as the US has a higher HIV rate than comparable Western nations and similar infection rates for all other STDs.

"Female circumcision was about suppressing the sexual urges of women"

The most common types of female circumcision (removal of clitoral hood and labia minora) are about improving female hygiene (reducing odor) and genital appearance.

Vincent you have no medical background if you think the labia minora are the equivalent to the foreskin.

Additionally,you are using a logical fallacy to make your point. It means your argument is invalid. Read about the use of logic for debate.

Vincent,

No patriarchal religion wants to put sexual restrictions on men. They are all about the supposed superiority of men, the sole rights of men and the sexual enslavement of women. Ancient Judaism was no different.

amusedrn wrote "Vincent you have no medical background if you think the labia minora are the equivalent to the foreskin."

I don't think they're equivalent. Rather, I think that the removal of the labia minora is equally if not more benign than removal of the penile foreskin. But I do think it is nearly meaningless to compare female and male anatomy. Removal of the penis renders a man effectively sterile. Removal of the clitoris impedes reproduction in no way.

If you think it is meaningless to compare the two...it is the foundation of your argument in several of your posts...As to the labia minora removal being more benign than penile foreskin removal you are incorrect. There are medical reasons for the removal of foreskin (see the three conditions listed in one of my posts). You will not find similar reasons for the removal of the labia minora. As to the clitorial hood being removed (addressing one of your points even if it is part of your use of the If/Then logical fallacy), there is a risk that there will be too much sensation if such is done and the female will experience pain. That is not commonly so for the circumsized male penis.

Anatomy and logic should be on your agenda for things to study based on the strength of your arguments here.

amusedrn, You know very well that for the last forty years, the primary reasons for male circumcision in the US have been 1) appearance 2) odor reduction AKA hygiene. The same reasons are used to justify female circumcision in Africa.

Despite your self-asserted supremacy in logic, you fail to understand that circumcision exists to weaken the sexual response of the organs as much as possible without severely impeding reproduction. Thus, female genitals can be cut more than male genitals. Your bias towards male-only genital cutting is obvious.

Yes, there are rare medical conditions for removing either the male and female foreskin. Howevever, you are here to defend routine and non-therapeutic removal of only the male foreskin. No doctor will provide a medical reason for removal healthy genital skin *BEFORE* a problem.

Vincent,

Now, you are resorting to personal attack of the person, not the argument on valid grounds. You can say what you will about me, but you repeatedly use logical fallacies and attempt to shock with, at times, crude and dramatic language and analogies (most of which are lacking in the essential connection between the unlike things).

Please quote some science then?

The US is the most circumcised Western nation with the highest HIV infection rate.

I know, what sort of pinko commie hippie would want to outlaw mutilating and torturing an infant?

"Family Values" = "Torturing Baby Boys". Blech.

Is there anything from the religious right that doesn't involve death, pain, shame, mutilation, blood, and hate?

Uh... How is this a "right". It's the baby boy who is getting his penis sliced up without his consent. That doesn't sound like freedom to me!

Parents have rights; until a child can make decisions for themselves, their parents are responsible for making decisions for them.

Uh... How is this a "right". It's the baby boy who is getting his penis sliced up without his consent. That doesn't sound like freedom to me!

Goo-goo-ga-ga is not *consent*. Babies neither talk nor have the ability to sign their names to a piece of paper. This is why they have parents to make decisions for them. Circumcisions, like any other medical procedure done on a minor, has to have a signed form of parental consent. Children are not adults & do not enjoy the same *freedoms* adults do....until they reach *the age of reason* & are considered adults themselves.

Most ppl have zero memory of anything that happened to them b4 the age of 4 or 5. That would incl any pain suffered from any operations etc. EZ to say let them decide when they turn 18. They'll remember it then....ouch. I'd be real pissed at my parents for not having it done when I was one day old.

I got one word in favor of circumcision: smegma.

'Nuff said.

lovemyplanet,

Children have rights too. In time we will look back with shame on the time when parents tortured their young boys because they wanted to be like everyone else around them. Do you know why and when circumcision became popular in the USA? That's right, it was not always routine. And it didn't become so until late nineteenth/early twentieth century nut job right wing moralizing ideologues like Mr. Kellog convinced that nation that the best way to save our young ones from sin and insanity was to cut off the most sensitive parts of their penises. You see, we have become the only western nation to routinely circumcise our male babies because we are afraid of masturbation.

Clever humor. How about a comedic skit on female
circumcision?

Elaine : Have you ever seen one? [uncircumcised clitoris]
Jerry : Boring. It's like a bride with a veil. All look the same
Kramer (vibrating hair) : I was down there once and wanted to call the Bat phone.
George : It should look like my shiny head !
George's Dad : Just a little clippety-clip of the lippety lips. I'll say no more.

that should be reason enough for a sane person to advise against doing this cosmetic barbaric act to children

This cosmetic barbaric act was done to me as a child and somehow I'm still perfectly happy with my wee-wee. And I'm happy it was done to me as an infant. So don't go and push your view of barbarism on me, thanks.

and guys who don't have it done as an infant then have it done later in life are supposed to not get an erection so as to not 'rip' the stiches... yikes!!!!

When given a choice, men do not circumcise. Only in the rare case of a real medical problem do men circumcise, and that is the case for therapeutic surgery in general.

Stephen-3584703 wrote "This cosmetic barbaric act was done to me as a child and somehow I'm still perfectly happy with my wee-wee."

Perhaps when you are older (35+)and find penile sensitivity reduced such that using condoms is a nuisance or you need Viagra, you will think otherwise.

Stephen doesn't know what perfectly happy is pure and simple. He's saying he's perfectly happy to settle for what he has because he has no choice and he resents that anyone should point out to him that that choice was taken from him, no man wants to face this gross exercise of power that was performed over them while they were too vulnerable to do anything about it

Amen!

Yeah... cuz wanting to save baby boys from being mutilated in Bronze Age BuyBull Blood Rites is just so evil.

Do you religious types ever actually THINK?!

Well if circumcision is mutilation, I don't wanna be right!

Looking forward to having my future sons "mutilated"!!

How about cutting your own penis with a knife and telling us how it feels.

"then I would have had to undergo circumcision as an adult"

Why would you have a circumcision as an adult? In all other nations in which cirumcision is rare, men do not elect circumcision. Why force it on an infant?

Your are correct. You know zero about females body and functions. I suggest you shut up until you do some research. You come across as an ignorant man.

female bodies and their function, so relevant to routine genital mutilation of males isn't it

lol...quite funny actually.

that is removal of the clitoris which some people call circumcision. the real equivalent to male circumcision is the removal of the clitoral foreskin, a practice that was not unheard of in the US 100 years ago

" The female anatomy removed during female circumcision is akin to removing the entire head of the male penis. "

The female analog to male circumcision is the removal of the female foreskin or clitoral hood. So, why is that female circumcision illegal? Shouldn't parents have a choice in this matter? Why is the choice of genital cutting allowed for boys but not for girls?

Vincent: Boys and girls have different genitals. There is no established medical benefit for female circumcision, whereas, we have plenty of data proving that male circumcision does indeed confer numerous health benefits.

This is what the American Academy of Pediatrics had to say:

There is a biologically plausible explanation for the relationship between an intact foreskin and an increased association of UTI during infancy. Increased periurethral bacterial colonization may be a risk factor for UTI.⁶⁹ During the first 6 months of life, there are more uropathogenic organisms around the urethral meatus of uncircumcised male infants than around that of circumcised male infants, but this colonization decreases in both groups after the first 6 months.⁶⁵ In addition, it was demonstrated in an experimental preparation that uropathogenic bacterial adhered to and readily colonized the mucosal surface of the foreskin, but did not adhere to the keratinized skin surface of the foreskin.⁷⁰

Further, that:

the mucous surface of the uncircumcised penis allows for viral attachment to lymphoid cells at or near the surface of the mucous membrane, as well as an increased likelihood of minor abrasions resulting in increased HIV access to target tissues. However, behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors in the acquisition of HIV infection than circumcision status.

I agree with that last sentence. Wearing a condom is extremely important if you're serious about protecting yourself. In addition to that, those who are circumcised are at lesser risk compared to their uncircumcised counterparts in case the condom fails/if the kid forgets to put on a condom.

-------------------And now for an emotional, clearly biased non-argument--------

The sight of an uncircumcised penis makes me want to puke. I find it extremely displeasing, aesthetically. I cannot imagine these buffoons in San Francisco think they can tell me what to do with my son's foreskin. By exaggerating the *alleged* harm of circumcision (which can be carried out by qualified medical professionals with anesthesia, so much so that many infants do not even cry during the procedure), and completely ignoring the numerous medical benefits, these guys have demonstrated that they're not worth taking seriously. A*sholes.

Source:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

Baldman:

The solution to solving sinus infections is not to cut off one's nose; nor is the solution to prevent UTIs the removal of an infant boy's foreskin. I get painful hangnails on a regular basis. Should I cut off my fingers at the first knuckle? Good regular hygiene will prevent most of these sorts of problems.

I am sorry you find a part of normal human anatomy so displeasing to look at. Perhaps you should worry about your own body and leave choices about other peoples' bodies to them. Yes, that includes your own son. You do not own his body, and the choice to have a part of his penis removed should either be a clear and present medical necessity, or a decision he makes as an adult.

I love the false analogies you're making here.

The foreskin is not a necessary part of the penis. Its removal does not in any way diminish the function of the penis, compared to the effect of cutting off one's nose or fingers. My sex life is great, and I appreciate that my parents did away with the foreskin and its mucous membranes that are so hospitable to viral attachment. If I choose to confer the same benefits to my son who is not old enough to make that decision for himself, you don' t have the right to legislate what I cannot do.

"Perhaps you should worry about your own body and leave choices about other peoples' bodies to them."

Yea? Perhaps you shouldn't give your son polio vaccines and wait for him to be *old* enough to decide whether or not he wants polio vaccines? Who knows, he may grow up to be one of those naive anti-vaccine folks and wish his parents never gave him the vaccine that probably saved him from adult paralysis.

The foreskin is not a necessary part of the penis. Its removal does not in any way diminish the function of the penis

Another myth perpetuated by those in favor of male infant genital mutilation.

According to a study by Sorrells et al. (2007), the five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf)

The male foreskin is a functional part of the penis, sexual and otherwise. In 1999, Cold and Taylor stated: "The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function." (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/) Boyle et al. state that "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males." (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/). The foreskin is not an analogue to the appendix which is useless and vestigial. In fact, why don't we perform appendectomies on all infants immediately following birth, to remove the small chance they have of contracting appendicitis at some point in their lives? Surely this is a cause you can get behind - appendicitis has a high mortality rate whereas UTIs are usually only painful.

Perhaps you shouldn't give your son polio vaccines and wait for him to be *old* enough to decide whether or not he wants polio vaccines?

1) Vaccines do not permanently damage, mutilate or remove a part of the body.

2) Vaccines protect against fatal diseases. (If you're going to bring up HPV and its related cancer risks, don't - I have one word for you: condoms.)

so rushman, you give the option of whether or not the parents want it done or not. simple.

freedom of choice, remember the concept?

Why should parents have the option to mutilate their infant's penis?

baldman wrote "we have plenty of data proving that male circumcision does indeed confer numerous health benefits."

You read the American Academy of Pediatrics information. Even they do not recommend routine infant circumcision because the immediate risks of the procedure are greater than the potential benefits.

There is not a single US that recommends routine infant circumcision. If they do not recommend a procedure because the benefits are inadequate, that's a sign that it shouldn't be done.

Vincent wrote:

You read the American Academy of Pediatrics information. Even they do not recommend routine infant circumcision because the immediate risks of the procedure are greater than the potential benefits."

Immediate risks huh? This is what the American Academy of Pediatrics had to say about those "immediate risks" you're talking about:

The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.³² Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%.^33,34 Most of the complications that do occur are minor.³⁵ The most frequent complication, bleeding, is seen in ~0.1% of circumcisions.³⁵ It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence.³³

While you are correct that they do not expressly recommend it, the reason they cite is that the medical benefits are not *sufficient* to recommend it, and that it is not *essential* to the child's well being. It's true: If you're male, you can live a long, fulfilling life with an uncircumcised penis, just like you can with a circumcised penis. Don't put words into their mouths about the severity of complications though, and let the Parents decide whether they want their sons to have those minor, inessential benefits of circumcision.

Baldman wrote "The sight of an uncircumcised penis makes me want to puke. I find it extremely displeasing, aesthetically. "

Appearance is the real reason. We see you're fishing for medical reasons to feed your fetish for a sculpted penis. Too bad you ordered a cosmetic surgery for your son to satiate your fetish. Quite creepy and very unmanly.

Here's a video of circumcision :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617

You guys are spending entirely too much brain power worrying about the pluses and minuses of this operation.

...and Vincent, if you think I'm going to watch your video on the subject, you are sadly mistook.

Baldman wrote "Immediate risks huh? This is what the American Academy of Pediatrics had to say about those "immediate risks" you're talking about:"

Precisely. The complications are listed. So, where are the benefits you talk about? Are you able to show that the benefits exceed the risks? The AAP says that the risks outweigh the potential benefits. What do you know that they do not?

"The complications are listed. So, where are the benefits you talk about? Are you able to show that the benefits exceed the risks?"

Well you see, all I can do is list the benefits, which I have done to exhaustion above. I can't make you read them.

" The AAP says that the risks outweigh the potential benefits. What do you know that they do not?"

They don't say that. What they do say is that the complications are minor. Did you actually read the stuff I posted above?

You're just wasting my time aren't you? Hah, ok, you got me. F*ck off.

the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males

Circumcised males, having never known this alleged increase in sexual sensation, therefore do not know what they're allegedly *missing*.

If the sounds, faces, & gasping for breath after a male orgasm experienced by a circumcised male is enough to go by, they're stimulated quite sufficiently.

Baldman, are you able to compare them to the complications? I get the sense that you do not understand them, but you are fishing for reasons why you cut the dicks of your sons.

Answer this : how does a reduction in female->male HIV transmission affect an American male's chances of contracting HIV when the three primary HIV transmission paths are

1) anal reception of HIV-infected sperm

2) intravenous reception of HIV-infected blood

3) vaginal reception of HIV-infected semen

The American public knows little about HIV transmission, so it's not a surprise for you to think you are protected by circumcision.

"What they do say is that the complications are minor"

They say that the risks (complications) outweigh the potential benefits and thus do not recommend circumcision.

Sorry, bud. You sculpted the dicks of your sons for no reason other than your obsession with penile appearance. Will you be spending a lot of time looking at their penises?

You didn't really just try to use that argument, did you scar_tissue? If we cut out a newborn's tongue, it will grow up without a sense of taste and presumably not know what it is missing. Oh, excuse me, "allegedly" missing.

Nowhere was it claimed that a circumsized male is unable to experience orgasm. The conclusion was an "inevitable reduction in sexual sensation." Just because you think you (or your partner) are being stimulated "quite sufficiently" does not justify the mutilation of a newborn's penis. My post that you quoted was intended to show that the foreskin is a functional organ.

Baldman, ok. I'll back off your case. The American public opinion is formed primarily by media headlines. Though you should have done at least a little bit of reading on circumcision before ordering a surgery for your sons.

Johns Hopkins University staff concludes that condoms/sexual practices are the main factors HIV transmission. They conclude that circumcision makes no difference in HIV transmission, even in Africa.

LEVELS AND SPREAD OF HIV SEROPREVALENCE AND ASSOCIATED
FACTORS (2009)

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
p.109 states that in 18 African countries and India, 10 showed more and 8 showed less HIV infection among circumcised men.

The African studies involve sex education for circumcision volunteers. Then, they are compared to uncircumcised men without a similar sex education.

Sub-Saharan Africans also have sexual practices which involve the use of drying agents added to the vagina that causes tears in the vagina and penis that increase the chances of HIV infection in male->female and female->male.

Here is the top result of a Google search :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sex

"Health risks

The practice has been linked to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS infection in Sub-Saharan Africa"

LOL!!! You are going to catch yourself saying that for the next week Dan!

If you think about, strapping an infant down and cutting his penis with zero or inadequate analgesia does resemble a method of torture. Would an adult do this without pain medication?