Fabulous! San Francisco to Ban Circumcision?

posted at 5:03 pm on April 28, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Somewhere in the vast wastelands of the internet there must be a blog which does nothing but monitor the denizens of San Francisco, 24 x 7, to keep track of all the mind boggling things that go on there. If such a portal already exists, I’m sure they’ll be all over this story in no time at all.

San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A group opposed to male circumcision said on Tuesday they have collected more than enough signatures to qualify a proposal to ban the practice in San Francisco as a ballot measure for November elections.

But legal experts said that even if it were approved by a majority of the city’s voters, such a measure would almost certainly face a legal challenge as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion.

Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys, and is also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.

The leading proponent of a ban, Lloyd Schofield, 59, acknowledged circumcision is widely socially accepted but he said it should still be outlawed.

Lloyd clearly has a lot of free time on his hands, a point driven home in the article when he “would not discuss his current occupation but previously worked for hotels in the San Francisco Bay area.” Clearly the type of medical / religious expert we need to call in to snip this in the bud wrestle this important issue to the ground.

Restrictions of Obamacare aside, this type of proposal goes straight to the heart of nanny state concerns. Obviously the practice is important to many families, particularly – as the article notes – those of both Jewish and Muslim faith. This isn’t a decision for the government to be making at any level, and the fact that San Francisco would even consider the idea is outrageous.

Of course, it may not even make it into the law books. So why bother covering a story like this? I suppose the only good reason is to highlight Ed Driscoll’s quick take headline, which surely deserves a standing ovation:

Making a Mountain of a Mohel

You may now insert painful groans in the comment section at your leisure.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

My son’s a horny teenage guy with a cute girlfriend.
I hope that he’s being lead by his big head rather than his foreskin-less little one.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Sorry twerp, but the *ahem* “little one” is all-powerful and controls everything.

JetBoy on April 28, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Neonatal circumcision involves the amputation of the foreskin. This procedure causes tissue damage and,
therefore, is a painful procedure.

http://www.aspmn.org/pdfs/Pediatric%20Circumcision.pdf

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Really? Speaking as someone whose pee-pee is raincoat free….I can honestly say I don’t remember any removal of the London Fog…..do you?

Don’t think it’s affected my life at all actually (in either a positive or negative manner).

Odd that.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Neonatal circumcision involves the amputation of the foreskin. This procedure causes tissue damage and,
therefore, is a painful procedure.

http://www.aspmn.org/pdfs/Pediatric%20Circumcision.pdf

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM

You’re attempting to move the goalposts that you set. You claimed that circumcision causes “neurological shock” and is “extremely painful” and “causes an immense amount of pain.”

Please cite a study from an unbiased American medical authority to support these claims.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 6:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FguJqN5VQw

sharrukin on April 28, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Sorry twerp, but the *ahem* “little one” is all-powerful and controls everything.

JetBoy on April 28, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Me and my ex have warned the ‘almost adult’ that while we’re against abortion of babies-we totally support retroactive abortion of stupid teenagers who get into trouble with their girlfriends.
I think he’s got the ‘hint’.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2011 at 6:52 PM

therefore, is a painful procedure.

http://www.aspmn.org/pdfs/Pediatric%20Circumcision.pdf

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM

I will also tell you that a large crap can cause tissue damage.
And I can tell you from experience it does hurt.
Bad.
My 1yo granddaughter, for instance, was standing in the living room this last Easter pushing & taking a dump in her diaper.
She really cried till it was over.
Once I took a crap & cried til it was over.
On the tissue was some blood.
Tissue damage.
But guess what?
Tissues heal.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM

so this explains the new circumcision question on the passport application?

Circumcision gestapo? Didn’t this happen in history before?

Am4Constitution on April 28, 2011 at 6:55 PM

You’re attempting to move the goalposts that you set. You claimed that circumcision causes “neurological shock” and is “extremely painful” and “causes an immense amount of pain.”

Please cite a study from an unbiased American medical authority to support these claims.

The episode of Penn & Teller dealing with circumcision, cited the studies and did everything I wanted to do and more. It should be in one of my first comments, the two of them have citations at the end of full episodes. I’m trying to explain that sometimes what we think is silly, has a real basis to it, I’m not inclined towards a massive medical debate for which neither you nor I are properly prepared.

I set no goalposts, everyone is assuming since they think it’s normal, it’s alright, when sometimes it’s not.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Don’t cut off the tip of the penis but you can chop them up, use saline, or pollute the womb just a few days prior and whackos in Frisco are cool with the latter.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 6:58 PM

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Shots are also painful.
So are a host of other things.
That ‘paper’ you linked also says being born is painful.
Well no $hit.
Life is full of pain.
The child is not going to die from this.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Neonatal circumcision involves the amputation of the foreskin. This procedure causes tissue damage and,
therefore, is a painful procedure.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM

a PHOOEY on you… My pediatrician used a penile block to deaden any pain from the procedure… both my sons were more pissed at the board they were strapped to than any pain they felt.

This is also to remove the ‘it’s painful’ arguement… so you don’t have to deal with endless infections and ‘up-keep”!

Am4Constitution on April 28, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Does the autocensor really block the word pen-is?

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:00 PM

And the child does not remember this at all.
Psychological trauma is not happening.
Accidentally sticking the kid with a diaper pin could cause the same amount of pain.
This stuff is just ridiculous.
It’s not like female genital mutilation where the function of the tissues are altered.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 7:00 PM

you don’t have to deal with endless infections and ‘up-keep”!

Am4Constitution on April 28, 2011 at 7:00 PM

To be fair my twin sons who are in their teens and were never circumcised have had no such issues with infections. They will be far better off for it and will have much better sex lives.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Does the autocensor really block the word pen-is?

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:00 PM

For God’s Sake! Grow up and use pee-pee or wee-wee.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 7:03 PM

The episode of Penn & Teller dealing with circumcision,

Penn & Teller is not a recognized medical authority. Do you have a direct web link to a study by an unbiased medical authority?

I set no goalposts, everyone is assuming since they think it’s normal, it’s alright, when sometimes it’s not

You set the goalposts when you claimed that infant circumcision
* causes neurological shock
* is extremely painful
* causes an immense amount of pain

Can you provide medical evidence to support these claims or not?

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM

To be fair my twin sons who are in their teens and were never circumcised have had no such issues with infections. They will be far better off for it and will have much better sex lives.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Actually it varies. Some men who were circumcised as adults report improved sexual experiences. Other men who were circumcised as adults report less sexual stimulation. Still others report no change.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 7:08 PM

penis

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:08 PM

For God’s Sake! Grow up and use pee-pee or wee-wee.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Heh. You know the fact they block that word is pathetic.
I wonder if they will block : liver , heart, leg, or vagina.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Actually it varies. Some men who were circumcised as adults report improved sexual experiences. Other men who were circumcised as adults report less sexual stimulation. Still others report no change.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Men who were never circumcised have more satisfaction.I don’t think a study of adult circumcised men is worthwhile support for the argument of whether a child should have the procedure.

Some researchers believe American men are into oral sex more so than their counterparts across the world due to the need for additional “attention”. Think about it-you have part of your body that was designed to be protected and you take away that protection you will desensitize it.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:14 PM

I haven’t said I’m for the ban….

I’ve just said we should think about why they’re doing it…

This is all a nefarious plot whereby a legal precedence can be made for banning kosher hotdogs. Lloyd Schofeld owns shares in a hotdog corporation.

StubbleSpark on April 28, 2011 at 7:14 PM

For God’s Sake! Grow up and use pee-pee or wee-wee.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 7:03 PM

It won’t even let me post the word wagina even though it was used by the HA gods in a previous post.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:15 PM

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Can you cite a study saying that it does not cause pain and that the foreskin has no viable purpose putting the removal of a substantial amount of skin and tissue on par with a haircut or an ear piercing?

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM

To be clear I think the suggested law is not the government’s business.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Can you cite a study saying that it does not cause pain and that the foreskin has no viable purpose putting the removal of a substantial amount of skin and tissue on par with a haircut or an ear piercing?

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Seriously, this is a ridiculous issue.
No one can really measure ‘pain’ that accurately.
Many people have vastly different perceptions about what is painful & what is not, kids included.
I cut the nut sacks off of calves at branding.
some could care less. Some whine.
But when you let all of them up, they walk off & go to eating like nothing ever happened.
And yes there is tissue damage. And it heals.
And if you wait til the calf is older, it’s more invasive.
That’s why you do it when they’re young.
Same as docking the tails of puppies.
And please enlighten us as to what ‘substantial’ is.
Kilograms?
Grams?
It’s no pound of flesh.
The procedure is doable.
It doesn’t kill you or scar you for life.
My husband has no memories of his infantile circumcision.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Neonatal circumcision involves the amputation of the foreskin. This procedure causes tissue damage and,
therefore, is a painful procedure.
amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM

What a super loser name fitting for a super loser argument

some people should mind their own business

I wonder what happens when we suggest that sodomy should be banned in San Fran

Sonosam on April 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM

It can be upwards of 50% of the surface area of the skin of an infant child. The result is a changed function and a circumcision scar.

Calves have been selectively bred over hundreds of years to be docile. I don’t think you’d get the same response from a tiger. And we don’t need to treat ourselves like cattle do we?

I haven’t supported the ban, the links we end up with are going to be one-sided. All I’ve said is that circumcision isn’t a one-sided issue, many parents just assume it’s the right thing to do without considering the effects.

I’d happily host a happy meal summit to make up for any pains you’ve had from getting angry at me, but I don’t know if we could or would want to do that in San Fran.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 7:42 PM

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/
Can you cite a study saying that it does not cause pain and that the foreskin has no viable purpose putting the removal of a substantial amount of skin and tissue on par with a haircut or an ear piercing?
amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM

This study is posted on the website of an anti-circumcision advocacy group, clearly not an unbiased medical authority. Author Boyle, an Australian, has stated that circumcision constitutes criminal assault. Author Goldman is executive director of an anti-circumcision advocacy group. Author Svoboda is a lawyer who specializes in anti-circumcision lawsuits. None of these researchers can be considered an unbiased medical authority.

Can you cite a study saying that it does not cause pain and that the foreskin has no viable purpose putting the removal of a substantial amount of skin and tissue on par with a haircut or an ear piercing?

I do not claim that in every case circumcision never causes any pain.

If you believe that the foreskin has a viable purpose of which routine circumcision would adversely affect the lives, health, or pleasure of patients, then it’s up to you to provide evidence to support your position.

Both the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics — unbiased American medical authorities — assert the following:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Men who were never circumcised have more satisfaction.
CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Can you cite a study from an unbiased American medical authority to support your assertion that uncircumcised men have more satisfaction than circumcised men?

I don’t think a study of adult circumcised men is worthwhile support for the argument of whether a child should have the procedure.

The question raised was whether circumcision adversely affects sexual pleasure.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Actually the burden of proof lies upon the greater action that is taken. You’re supposed to prove a surgery should be done. However, any evidence I cite, will be dismissed for various reasons. Nor is the AMA or AAP an unbiased source, they would be reluctant to go against years of standard practice. The link I provided has other links, I’m not trying to change any opinions, just bring understanding to why they might want to ban it, a position that is less ridiculous then a ban on Happy Meals.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Some researchers believe American men are into oral sex more so than their counterparts across the world due to the need for additional “attention”. Think about it-you have part of your body that was designed to be protected and you take away that protection you will desensitize it.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Oh, THAT must be why all those boys kept telling me “Please, baby please, it hurts if you don’t…” back in the day…”Desensitized”??? Really???

lovingmyUSA on April 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Calves have been selectively bred over hundreds of years to be docile. I don’t think you’d get the same response from a tiger. And we don’t need to treat ourselves like cattle do we?

I haven’t supported the ban, the links we end up with are going to be one-sided. All I’ve said is that circumcision isn’t a one-sided issue, many parents just assume it’s the right thing to do without considering the effects.

I’d happily host a happy meal summit to make up for any pains you’ve had from getting angry at me, but I don’t know if we could or would want to do that in San Fran.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 7:42 PM

I understand your concern to get all the info out there.
But I’ll have you know-people are very much like cows & calves.
Don’t fool yourself.
Man is an animal.
And he is different.
But he’s also an animal & responds like one, physiologically.
And if you want to cut a tomcat, then it’s possible.
Just like the tiger.
But they get pi$$ed off more easily.
Has nothing to do with pain.
I just think your super uber sensitive remarks about this are over the top, IMHO.
This procedure is not life threatening or psychologically scarring causing the child years of mental pain, physical pain etc.
I’m sorry. But it is my opinion that this line of reasoning is a monumental waste of space.
It reminds me of people who think that pinching earthworms causes pain.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 7:54 PM

San Francisco needs to ban San Francisco.

chewmeister on April 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM

How about you ask every man you know–as a “study”–if it hurt, and how emotionally scarred they are…Doubt if you will find many any who remember…

lovingmyUSA on April 28, 2011 at 7:56 PM

CWforFreedom, We agree on the gooberment end of the argument, but as a life long “clip tip” I have no issues with sensitivity. The oral sex argument is a non-starter, it just feels good. Besides, I kinda like the sleek aerodynamic look…
It’s a personal/religious choice, then again in San Francisco, Gay marriage and abortion is a personal choice, circumcision is not. These people are truly twisted…

M-14 2go on April 28, 2011 at 7:56 PM

It reminds me of people who think that pinching earthworms causes pain.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Snort!

lovingmyUSA on April 28, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Actually the burden of proof lies upon the greater action that is taken. You’re supposed to prove a surgery should be done. However, any evidence I cite, will be dismissed for various reasons. Nor is the AMA or AAP an unbiased source, they would be reluctant to go against years of standard practice. The link I provided has other links, I’m not trying to change any opinions, just bring understanding to why they might want to ban it, a position that is less ridiculous then a ban on Happy Meals.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 7:51 PM

The burden of proof lies with the side making the positive assertion, and/or the side that seeks to change the status quo.

I don’t have to prove a procedure should be done. All I have to demonstrate is that the parents, rather than the government, should make the decision.

The AMA and the AAP are recognized medical authorities. Both groups are obviously unbiased since they advocate neither for nor against circumcision. Contrary to your assertion, both groups have already changed standard practice — when they stopped recommending routine infant circumcision. It’s rather silly of you to argue that these groups are biased.

Upon reviewing the the link you provided in greater detail, it is in fact not even a study. It is an article that cites other studies that support its conclusions without addressing other studies that provide contrary evidence.

If you cannot provide a link to a study to support your position, I understand.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 8:07 PM

I never said the government should get involved, just that the motives of the people aren’t as bad as one would assume. I wouldn’t post on Hot Air if I wanted the government in everything.

But if you like to vilify me, go ahead. If you want to have me defend an issue I’m not all too passionate about, because you’ve attacked me and I feel inclined to counter attacks that get close to personal, fine. But I’m not inclined to play that game for too long.

The fact is it’s a procedure we do without consulting our children, we don’t ask if they want to have something done that causes them temporary pain, disables certain functions of the anatomy, including lessening pleasure, that has probably been studied less then it should (do we need more studies about the harm of smoking or daily McDonald’s consumption?) and at that point in a way we’re just as good as the government, acting in the supposed best interest of our children, when we might not be. Perhaps the best stance is to let your kid decide, but the government really shouldn’t be involved in this.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Obama; I remember being circumcised

And hearing the nurses saying they thought I was a girl

Sonosam on April 28, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Conservative are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this issue. Muslim (female)circumcision is bad, but Jewish circumcision (male)is good.

Actually, they are all bad. They are all silly religious rites that no self-respecting adult should ever visit upon their offspring. A parent’s job is to protect the child. If god (nature)didn’t want men to have foreskins, he wouldn’t have put one there. Ditto, a clitoris.

People who circumcise their boys are no better than the muslims who circumcise their daughters – because it is done for the same reasons – you know – cultural tradition and all that. Is Is Tradition!! Any tradition that requires someone’s genitals to be hacked away is seriously depraved.

keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Conservative are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this issue. Muslim (female)circumcision is bad, but Jewish circumcision (male)is good.

keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Thats a facile comparison.

sharrukin on April 28, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Well, I have a son, and when I was preggers I asked around to decide about the circumcision–there was no internet in 1981, sadly. I asked all my male friends, and although I did speak to a couple of guys who weren’t and wished they were (not enough to do it as an adult, though), none of the fellas who had been circumcised as babies regretted their parents doing it. That’s what decided me, and that was back in the day where they guilted you into not doing it by telling you how painful it is. But I have known too many women whose sons were circumcised by a Mohel, and as those moms told me, those guys know how to do it. Failing that–as I used to tell my natural childbirth students back in the day–get a Jewish doc.

If you don’t want your son circumcised, don’t do it. If you’re expecting a son, you should research your options and discuss them with your pediatrician. If you decide to do it, wait 8 days for the Vitamin K to get up to where it needs to be, and use the anesthesia (demand it if you’ve got an old-fashioned doc who prides himself on not needing it). Buy some infant tylenol and a jar of vaseline to put on the head of the p enis for a few days–just not over the opening to the urethra, because they can’t pee through it at that age. He’ll do fine and so will you.

Bob's Kid on April 28, 2011 at 8:20 PM

I don’t need not stinkin study to KNOW that the reality is that if you take away the skin what is underneath will become more calloused. This is really getting stupid now.

I kinda like the sleek aerodynamic look…

Heh

It’s a personal/religious choice, then again in San Francisco, Gay marriage and abortion is a personal choice, circumcision is not. These people are truly twisted…

M-14 2go on April 28, 2011 at 7:56 PM

No doubt.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 8:21 PM

”Desensitized”??? Really???

lovingmyUSA on April 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM

I don’t need not stinkin study to KNOW that the reality is that if you take away the skin what is underneath will become more calloused. This is really getting stupid now.

Just for you dipshite.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 8:23 PM

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 8:13 PM

I’m not trying to vilify you. I am arguing your points. I presume that we are both arguing in good faith.

The motives of circumcision opponents are irrelevant to me. If you do not advocate for the prohibition of infant circumcision, then what are we arguing about?

The fact is it’s a procedure we do without consulting our children, we don’t ask if they want to have something done that causes them temporary pain, disables certain functions of the anatomy, including lessening pleasure, that has probably been studied less then it should … and at that point in a way we’re just as good as the government, acting in the supposed best interest of our children, when we might not be. Perhaps the best stance is to let your kid decide, but the government really shouldn’t be involved in this.

I have no problem with parents who, having received unbiased information, reach your conclusion and let their children decide.

I also have no problem with parents who, having received unbiased information, decide not to allow circumcision before their son turns 18.

I also have no problem with parents who, having received unbiased information, decide in favor of circumcision.

And you have failed to demonstrate that circumcision disables the genitals or reduces sexual pleasure. The current research is inconclusive:

Circumcision and sexual pleasure

Sexual effects of circumcision — this Wikipedia article includes a table of and links to over two dozen studies.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 8:25 PM

How about you ask every man you know–as a “study”–if it hurt, and how emotionally scarred they are…Doubt if you will find many any who remember…

lovingmyUSA on April 28, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Remember what? I was weeks old, no biggie, no memory, no emotional scars… The shattered ankle I had twenty years ago? Remember every second of it, perhaps a ban is in order.
To that end, let those that vote on this ban as well ban all plastic surgery, it hurts, there is tissue damage, use their argument against them.

M-14 2go on April 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM

But since you asked:

http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html

Really people the obvious is lost on you. Have the doctor cut off a few layers of the skin of your finger tip and see if you have the same feeling in it.

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Obama; I remember being circumcised
And hearing the nurses saying they thought I was a girl
Sonosam on April 28, 2011 at 8:13 PM

During a conversation I had yesterday:

aunursa: Stupid birthers claim that Obama was born abroad.
Mrs. aunursa: Obama was born a broad? Our first transgender president.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM

http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM

From the link:

Morris Sorrells of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center and colleagues created a “penile sensitivity map” by measuring the sensitivity of 19 locations on the penises of 159 male volunteers. Of the participants, 91 were circumcised as infants and none had histories of penile or sexual dysfunction.

The head researcher is a member of an anti-circumcision advocacy group — not an unbiased medical authority. Moreover, the article does not provide a link to the study itself.

The Wikipedia link I provided above cites nine studies on penile sensation. Three studies found overall worse sensation after circumcision, two studies found overall better sensation, and four studies found no difference.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 8:38 PM

You want to talk about extreme pain and neurological shock? Try ripping that piece of skin while an adult in the midst of doing the deed. It happens, you know. Takes weeks to heal, and more likely than not just tears again at some point down the road. If you’re smart you’ll get it removed at that point anyway–all the while wishing someone had done you the service of snipping those vestigial cells when you were oven-fresh and the only part of your brain that was organized enough to register such things was the stem.

Besides, our future Muslim overlords will expect things to be tidy down there. Might as well get it out of the way for Junior while he’s young (make sure to give him a head start on those Arabic and Mandarin classes, too). Not that the typical resident of San Fran won’t have much bigger worries trying to survive under Sharia, of course.

Blacklake on April 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM

KEEP YOUR DIRTY GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY WINKIE….!

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM

http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html

CWforFreedom on April 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM

The lead researcher belongs to at least two anti-circumcision advocacy groups — hardly an unbiased medical authority. And the article does not provide a link to the study.

The Wikipedia article I linked above includes nine studies on pen-ile sensation. Three studies found overall decreased sensation after circumcision, two studies found overall increased sensation, and four studies found no difference.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 8:45 PM

What if only one of us is arguing? I just wanted to bring some discussion, that went beyond the standard of penis jokes.

But since it got personal, I’ll have it as such.

My parents decided not to do it to me. Years ago, in college and high school, this ended up coming in conversations with friends. Some decided not to, one was forced not to have it (the alternative in the Soviet Union was a back alley circumcision, not a good option, very appropriate for considering the abortion aspects). If there was a consensus that emerged, almost nobody wished that their parents had done it, the only ones in favor having it were those with religious reasons for it.

One example was a friend who has since fallen into some major issues with his wife because her medication hampers her ability to lubricate, and as he would find out his cut member only makes this worse. In a more natural form, this aspect of reproduction is a function between two partners, or so the doctors have explained to them, but in the state that is, they have to use assistance in a private matter. Any sons that they have, will not be cut. Nobody left uncut, has had an infection of any sorts, including proudly mental, none of us voted for Obama. The worst thing about being uncut, was the case of a female saying she never wants a cut man again, problematic because she wasn’t to the liking of the uncut person.

I wouldn’t do it to any sons I might have. Of that social circle, none have any intention of having it done except for religious purposes, several wish that the parents hadn’t decided to do the “normal” thing and have it done.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM

If god (nature)didn’t want men to have foreskins, he wouldn’t have put one there.
keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM

I’m fascinated and perplexed when circumcision opponents appeal to God’s opinion.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM

I do them for 25 dollars American plus tips. Another unemployee worker facing a tight job market.

seven on April 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM

San Francisco to Ban Circumcision

But you can still rip an unborn child from the womb and toss it in the trash, right? Because, the government should never come between a patient and their doctor or get involved in the private and personal medical decisions of citizens.

Dollayo on April 28, 2011 at 9:08 PM

My father had an infection when he was 12, and had to have his foreskin amputated. This was in 1922, before antibiotics, and I assume before much in the way of local anesthesia. He said it was extremely painful, and insisted his sons all be circumcised at birth. All three were.

It’s clearly a mutilation of sorts. For much of the twentieth-century it was very common, perhaps less so now. If it were as drastic as ‘female circumcision’ it would clearly deserve banning. But it’s not.

MrLynn on April 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM

The Hot Air / Skynet computer system reports that this thread has produced the highest volume of jokes per comment of any this week. Everyone look under your seats. You’re all getting tickets to the Oprah Winfrey show.

Jazz Shaw on April 28, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Thanks for the tip!

skatz51 on April 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM

I’m fascinated and perplexed when circumcision opponents appeal to God’s opinion.

aunursa on April 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM

We are not appealed to your primitive desert gods. We appeal to the logical observation that nature doesn’t make body parts for nothing. The foreskin is there to protect the glans. But just as with the muslim fetish with genitals, the Jews had the same obsession. One is done to a baby, the other is done to a girl. And both are relics of archaic religious practices. And both need to be outlawed since somebody has to protect the defenseless.

If you want to chop off your genitals as an adult, do so. No problem there. But doing it to a child is sick.

keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 9:56 PM

If you want to chop off your genitals as an adult, do so. No problem there. But doing it to a child is sick.

keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Wow….really? I was circumcised as a newborn…and I certainly don’t feel sick. Nor do I think my parents were sick.

Oddly (like most men)…not only do I not remember it, but I’ve scarcely given it a thought.

Sick is a pretty strong word for a ritual that’s been performed and accepted since before the days of Christ and became the norm for newborns in the ’60′s and ’70′s.

All these centuries so many “sick” people. Glad we have you to straighten it all out.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM

I’m surprised more people here don’t support this ban. It’s the conservative position.

We oppose abortion because it’s the killing of an unborn baby without a voice.

I oppose circumcision because it’s the mutilation of a baby without a voice.

If the kid wants to be circumcised, let him make the decision for himself when he’s old enough to do so. Why should the parents get to decide to mutilate their sons?

lutherjw on April 28, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Why should the parents get to decide to mutilate their sons?

lutherjw on April 28, 2011 at 10:48 PM

You’re so right…. the Government should decide for us!

wrong board friend.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Conservative are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this issue. Muslim (female)circumcision is bad, but Jewish circumcision (male)is good.

keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM
Thats a facile comparison.

sharrukin on April 28, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Not only facile but an odious comparison. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a proponent of male circumcision, but FGM is more invasive and either removes the clitoris entirely or in some regions removes the clitoris and sews the vagina shut to ensure virginity or sews the vagina to be smaller.

The purpose is to make sex unpleasurable, painful and undesirable for a woman to control her sexuality and lessen the incentive for adultery. Conversely, sewing the vagina is to make sex more pleasurable for the male. Infection and death is a frequent result, and where the vagina is sewn can result in severe tearing or death during childbirth.

Firefly_76 on April 28, 2011 at 10:52 PM

wow. is v@gina a censored word here?

Firefly_76 on April 28, 2011 at 10:53 PM

You’re so right…. the Government should decide for us!

wrong board friend.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Nope, try reading my post. People should decide for themselves. Their parents shouldn’t decide for them.

lutherjw on April 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM

San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

They wont ban it at first. They will just move it outdoors and provide little recepticles for the excess skin.

percysunshine on April 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Nope, try reading my post. People should decide for themselves. Their parents shouldn’t decide for them.

lutherjw on April 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Read slower genius. A child’s PARENTS make the decisions for their child. NOT THE CHILD. NOT THE GOVERNMENT and NOT YOU.

Should we let the child choose what to eat? How late to stay up? what diaper we use?

Time to grow up my friend…and, tell ya what….I’ll stay out of your kids’ lives…you stay outta mine…..k?

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 11:01 PM

So if the parent’s want to get the kid a sex change, that’s alright?

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM

So if the parent’s want to get the kid a sex change, that’s alright?

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Really?

That’s all you’ve got?

Are you honestly this dumb or are you being funny?

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 11:17 PM

ick is a pretty strong word for a ritual that’s been performed and accepted since before the days of Christ and became the norm for newborns in the ’60′s and ’70′s

That’s what the muslims would say about circumcision, too. Hey, we’ve been doing it for ages, inshallah, so let’s keep doing it. There’s lots of vile things done in the name of culture and religion that go way back. Hell, slavery is still practiced in some cultures today, and they would say the same thing.

Circumcision on males and females is a religious rite that no advanced society should allow. Let the adult decide if he/she wants to be mutilated in such a way and see how many care about tradition then.

Let adults decide in the free market if they want circumcision and watch that practice disappear from the earth.

keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 11:22 PM

There’s lots of vile things done in the name of culture and religion that go way back. Hell, slavery is still practiced in some cultures today, and they would say the same thing.

keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 11:22 PM

WTF? Is it loony night tonight?

Vile?
Slavery?

Dude…get back on yer friggin’ meds!

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM

OK-how ’bout let’s look at this from a biological point of view.
Can it be agreed upon that the younger you are, the more adept your body is at healing minor injuries quickly, without lasting damage?
If you think about cellular division, it’s in its infancy stage when you are an infant.
Think of the minor injuries a body receives while young vs the amount of scar tissue amassed.
Think of older bodies now with minor tissue damage.
I’m not a Dr. Nor a physiologist nor biologist.
However, a minor injury such as we are talking about here has not been shown to leave everlasting damage to the tissues.
Nor has it been shown anywhere that it results in decreased insensitivity.
Bcs how can you measure the sexual sensitivity of an infant vs when they are an adult?
You cannot.
Pain is relative. The same stimulation in one individual will not necessarily produce the exact same perception of pain in another.
And since observations of infants for the last several thousands of years have not shown this to be extremely tragic & disfiguring in any way, unlike female mutilation, I would say this is a worthless thing to be not only talking about, but trying to regulate.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Hell, slavery is still practiced in some cultures today, and they would say the same thing.

keep the change on April 28, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Bcs minor tissue damage to the end of an infant human male’s pen!s that heals with no lasting effects is totally the same as enslaving someone.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 11:32 PM

And since observations of infants for the last several thousands of years have not shown this to be extremely tragic & disfiguring in any way, unlike female mutilation, I would say this is a worthless thing to be not only talking about, but trying to regulate.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 11:30 PM

For God’s sake, don’t bring reason, observable history or facts into the argument!

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

I’m probably the only person commenting here who as actually performed a circumcision. The mohel set it up with the clamp, but I did the cut. My son cried for about as long as it took to get a wine soaked gauze into his mouth. Then he chilled out. A day later, he cried a little bit (maybe a minute or two at most, if that) when the mohel made sure there were not adhesions.

Painful? Yeah, but I’ve raised three kids and I’d say that when they had ear infections they were in far worse pain than my son experienced due to his bris.

rokemronnie on April 28, 2011 at 11:36 PM

When my daddy was asked if he wanted my older brother circumcised, he said that if that happens he’ll castrate the doctor, never was asked again.

The varying degrees of body modification, draw the question, what makes circumcision like piercings and not female genital mutilation, castration or tattoos? It involves the removal of nerves and skin, and is incredibly difficult to reverse. What makes it so parents can decide that since children won’t remember it, if this happens before the child has the capacity to remember, it’s suddenly ok? I would prefer parents allow their child to decide, since the potential negatives outweigh our aesthetic expectations and desires.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 11:39 PM

For God’s sake, don’t bring reason, observable history or facts into the argument!

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Sorry. I forgot we have sensitive people here.

The varying degrees of body modification, draw the question, what makes circumcision like piercings and not female genital mutilation, castration or tattoos? It involves the removal of nerves and skin, and is incredibly difficult to reverse. What makes it so parents can decide that since children won’t remember it, if this happens before the child has the capacity to remember, it’s suddenly ok? I would prefer parents allow their child to decide, since the potential negatives outweigh our aesthetic expectations and desires.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Nerves do often repair themselves.
You’re making a mountain out of a grain of sand.
It’s hysteria.
It’d be real nice of you could remain focused on the reality of circumcision wounds.
Bcs they heal.
Female genital mutilation is not the same AT ALL.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 11:51 PM

I would prefer parents allow their child to decide, since the potential negatives outweigh our aesthetic expectations and desires.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 11:39 PM

And such a procedure at a more advanced age would not have the same effects.
Get real about this.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Female genital mutilation is not the same AT ALL.

Badger40 on April 28, 2011 at 11:51 PM

It is more akin to castration.

sharrukin on April 28, 2011 at 11:53 PM

What makes it so parents can decide that since children won’t remember it, if this happens before the child has the capacity to remember, it’s suddenly ok? I would prefer parents allow their child to decide, since the potential negatives outweigh our aesthetic expectations and desires.

amazingmets on April 28, 2011 at 11:39 PM

And God Bless you mets…because this is America – YOU get to make that decision for your children. And you are entitled to that opinion.

I think most guys would say ’tis much ado about nothing….personally I have a little girl so I didn’t have to make a decision.

If we’d had a boy…the wife and I would have discussed it…talked to the doctor about the pros and cons…weighed the importance of “looking like daddy” and made a decision.

For others, there are traditional and/or religious issues…and I respect that too.

Worry more about your kids…and less about mine OK?

I’ve got mine covered thank you.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 11:56 PM

It is more akin to castration.

sharrukin on April 28, 2011 at 11:53 PM

I agree. And since I castrate things, I am well aware how that affects a creature.
Makes my cats mind better as well as my horses.
And you do it when they’re young.

I’ve got mine covered thank you.

Tim_CA on April 28, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Just really another way for the state to exercise control over your child.
Like obesity.
I’ve been doing some learning on obesity & genetics (for the anatomy class I teach). My eyes have really been opened.
A lot of obesity is so controlled by genetics it isn’t even funny.
Yet some believe a child should be taken from the home bcs they’re ‘obese’.
Scary times friend.

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Obviously the practice is important to many families, particularly – as the article notes – those of both Jewish and Muslim faith

Its a practice that is also done in a lot of Christian communities too.

I didn’t know this, and I’m a Mormon myself, but circumcision is not required in the LDS Church.

Conservative Samizdat on April 29, 2011 at 2:03 AM

So, to a liberal, killing a baby in utero is o.k. b/c it is a “privacy right” found somewhere in the emenation of a “penumbra” that they can see in the constitution when they look at it cross-eyed, but the gov’t has authority to ban circumcision? Or, “killing babies = good, circumcision = bad”? got it.

Liberals, you can’t make up their deranged thinking.

Monkeytoe on April 29, 2011 at 7:43 AM

Sorry twerp, but the *ahem* “little one” is all-powerful and controls everything.

JetBoy on April 28, 2011 at 6:47 PM

For JetBoy, anyway.

Count to 10 on April 29, 2011 at 8:44 AM

Most of you aren’t old enough to remember Howdy Doody. But we remember the episode when he had his circumcision with a pencil sharpener!

SF needs another earthquake to purge some of these sick people in their government and society. Used to be a great town.

wepeople on April 29, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Yes, we should ban circumcision in children below the age of consent. We should also ban any religion that requires childhood genital mutilation.

Observation on April 29, 2011 at 11:06 AM

So I guess the Jews in SF will no longer be able to keep the Abrahamic Covenant. So now the nanny state can tell one how to practice his religion.

abcurtis on April 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2