BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 11 - 09:27 PM

Babies are subjected to many things by adults.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:55 PM

Hmmmm... I shouldn't, but I will.

I was cut. Standard procedure fifty years ago. And I was cut again at 24 years old. The EDUCATED doctor said it was the ONLY way to cure the papyloma which I contracted from "her". Now, that cut was deep and it was nasty and it did nothing to help the genital warts. So, as far as the docs saying that getting cut as a baby is helpful medically... what a load of horseshit! If a problem arises and getting cut is the way to go, fine. But if it ain't... I would certainly enjoy having all that foreskin now (not that... ahhh... nevermind).

Now... that AIDS thing may have some merit but even that is up in the air until more research is done.

As far as it being a religious rite or a religious right, fine. Freedom requires that people have the right to be stunned as me arse. There ain't no way a law is gonna overcome religious stupidity although advances are being made.

BTW... at 24, my "roomy" who was about my age had strictures lasered in his dick (his gal was into ROUGH sex) and I would walk, well, hobble, around the ward chatting up the nurses. They would playfully "play along" as they thought it quite comical when the Limpmen were so brave, given the fact that a hardon was excruciatingly painful... the bitches!

Sorry if that is sharing too much. But, it's a human experience. I don't mind sharing my dick.... experiences.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:28 PM

I know, I know.

just leave it at that.

now .... on to another issue of great importance.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:26 PM

SIGH!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:07 PM

There are benefits to circumcision ... look them up .... regardless I really don't think there is a law required against cutting .... it's a decision that should be left to the parents.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 06:59 PM

Interesting that most who oppose circumcision here are female. If anyone bothers to read my link above you will see that Dr. Somerville cites examples of support for her position that has come from Muslim and Jewish women.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 19 May 11 - 06:47 PM

If circumcision were introduced today in some modern religious cult, they would ban it outright, full stop, as child abuse.

All little boys and all little girls have the right not to be dispossessed of parts of their body that they were born with.
There is no case or cause for the religiously or culturally motivated mutilation or permanent irreversible physical marking of young children, in a supposed civilised society.
We should not be sacrificing our children (or their foreskins or indeed be offering them up in any way) to any group's supposed God these days.
The ways in which so many parents love their children pisses me off.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 05:59 PM

Does he tend to flutter his eye a lot?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 19 May 11 - 05:47 PM

My uncle was born with one eyelid. When he was circumcised they grafted that skin over his eye. He's fine now; just a little cockeyed!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:32 PM

"descriminating facts" ???

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:28 PM

I recall that article from the 80's .... anymore descriminating facts regarding circumcision around ??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:19 PM

An excerpt from an article by Dr. Margaret Somerville, who I had the pleasure of being associated with in a research project back in the eighties. She has a degree in law as well as a medical degree and is the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal.

"The medical facts about infant male circumcision have changed as a result of medical research. We now know that infant male circumcision is harmful in itself and has harmful consequences. Circumcision removes healthy, functioning, erogenous tissue that serves important protective, sensory and sexual purposes. The surgery also involves risks of further damage-ranging from minor to serious damage to the penis or even its loss or death. In one recent American case a baby died from the general anesthetic he was given in order to deal with the complications that had resulted from his circumcision. Some physicians who continue to support routine-that is, non-therapeutic-circumcision argue that its potential medical benefits-which research shows do exist-justify carrying it out on infants. But these potential benefits do not outweigh its harms when the procedure is not medically necessary, which in the vast majority of cases it is not. Moreover, when we look to the nature of the medical benefits cited as a justification for infant circumcision, such as a reduced rate of urinary infections, we can see that medical problems can be avoided or, if they occur, treated in far less traumatic and invasive ways than circumcision."

If you're interested the entire article, which is a chapter in the book The Ethical Canary:Science, Society, and the Human Spirit, it can be found HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 04:05 PM

More males have probably caused more damage to their wonkers by getting it caught in a zipper ... I think they should outlaw zippers on male trousers and have them replaced with buttons.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 19 May 11 - 03:20 PM

The documentary I watched (some years ago) said that in fact there ARE some cases of infection and deformity. One little boy had to have his penis amputated due to infection. And it just isn't necessary. You cannot compare it to tattooing, piercing etc of consenting adults. They can do whatever they like to themselves, but what choice does a baby have? The reason I included FGM is because that too is done for religious and cultural reasons. In the UK it is of course illegal, but eg Somalian girls are spirited away from school and reappear weeks later, having been cut by an 'auntie'. In Africa, local justice is taking steps to eradicate these practices, with quite a lot of success, but circumcision is universally accepted, and I feel it should be reserved only for medical reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 03:08 PM

The proponents of the law have a different opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:57 PM

this law pertains to the circumcision of male children .... it's a practice that has been going on for many years especially amongst the Jewish faith .... One may cringe at the thought ... but actual harm, I think not. I don't know of anyone who has been harmed during circumcision or of any after effects.

Probabbly more cases of harm can be found in regards to inoculating children.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:38 PM

There are laws against harming children, that is the issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: pdq
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:24 PM

Children are the responsibility of parents.

If parents think the child should be given a flue shot, the kid will get a flue shot. Neither the goverment nor the tyranny of the majority has the right to interfere.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:17 PM

The issue here, pdq, is consent. Circumcision of an infant is a non-consensual act of mutilation. No one is suggesting making any of the acts you describe illegal for those who are able to give their consent.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: pdq
Date: 19 May 11 - 02:02 PM

If you carry the concept of body mutillation to an extreme, tatoos, pierced noses, belly button gems, circumcision, "nose jobs", hair transplants and even very conventional earrings qualify.

The story here is not whether these things are good or bad. The important concept is that of freedom. We are allowed to do what we want without tyranny from the government or even from the majority of voters. Debating the merits of circumcision derails the real issue.

Yes, in San Francisco, a law like this might just pass. If it does, it will eventually be thrown out as un-Constitutional, but at a huge waste of time and taxpayer's money in court costs.

As Justice Brandies said, the essential message in our Bill of Rights is that people "have the right to be left alone".

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 May 11 - 01:58 PM

Are US posters saying that female genital mutilation (as described above, clitorectomy and worse) is lawful in the USA? Surely that cannot be so.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 May 11 - 01:56 PM

If the ban gets passed in San Francisco, there's gonna be a lot more Jewish and Muslim ceremonies performed in Oakland.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 19 May 11 - 01:32 PM

Quite agree Sandy. It's mutilation of a defenceless child, often performed without anaesthetic. The pain must be appalling. I watched a documentary of a Jewish circumcision, and the tiny baby screamed in agony, it was terible. But even with anaesthesia, it's unecessary and barbaric. I refuse to call 'female circumcision' by that name, as it's actually removal of the clitoris and labia, and includes infibulation (sewing up what's left to achieve a tiny aperture). It's Female Genital Mutilation. My African husband's sisters all underwent this atrocity at the age of eight or so. Their screams were heard all over the enclave, and the pain they endured for days was severe. Infection in both sexes can occur, and also deformity of the remaining genitalia. Even in USA. So yes, it should be totally banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 19 May 11 - 12:15 PM

If circumcision of male children is permitted for religious reasons does it violate the rights of a child who may have no desire to adhere to his parents religion when he reaches the age of consent? Do not some factions of some religions practice female circumcision (an abhorrent violation of a child)? Is there a case of sexual discrimination for allowing one and not the other? My own feeling is that it should not be done before a child has the wisdom to make the decision for himself, except for legitimate medical necessity, and certainly not to a newborn infant!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 11 - 11:51 AM

I'll bet 37¢ that it fails on election day.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:31 AM

You could argue that the practice of circumcision violates the fourth amendment rights of the practicee, PDQ. I think the law is a bad idea, but what part of the Consittution are you actually invoking here? Any in particular?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: pdq
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:28 AM

Speaking of pdq, I was going to say something like "this is the most un-Constitutional law I have ever heard of", but then I reconsidered.

A law is either Constitutional or it is not.

There is no part of the US Constitution that allows any government entity to tell the citizens what to buy or what to do in our daily lives.

People always bring up mandatory car insurance, but that applies only to cars driven on publically-owned roads. If you never drive off your ranch, you need no drivers lisence and no insurance. In fact, a 14 year old can drive a farm truck if his parents don't say no.

This is another example of Lefties who think they gain the power to tell other people what to do at the ballot box. If they want a new government program, I am in favor of one that distributes free copies of the US Constitution. The clowns who wrote this ballot measure have either not read it or simply do not respect the rights of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:23 AM

"Boy, talk about intruding in private lives!!"

So, non consensual mutilation of children is an intrusion in private lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:15 AM

Well, Muslims and Jews are against it and promise a lawsuit based upon religious discrimination if it passes. Boy, talk about intruding in private lives!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 11 - 10:01 AM

I think the 7,700 voters that signed the petition are more than welcome NOT to circumcise their children. But I find it hard to believe that this law would be passed. If it did I'm sure it would be struck down by a higher court PDQ.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: GUEST,John MacKenzie
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:43 AM

Cutting of their noses to spite their faces?

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 May 11 - 08:23 AM

I was under the impression that it was fairly often done for medical/hygenic reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 May 11 - 05:10 AM

One of the odder combinations of signboards I've seen was in Kadikoy, which is as near as you get to Turkey's San Francisco. One board was for a campaign opposing circumcision. The one next to it was for the shop upstairs - a body piercing parlour.

Subject: RE: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: michaelr
Date: 19 May 11 - 01:04 AM

Circumcisiom is a barbaric practice that has no place in modern life. That said, banning it by law is indeed an intolerable intrusion on civil rights.

Subject: BS: Cutting It Off In San Francisco?
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 May 11 - 11:31 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter.

But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.

Elections officials confirmed Wednesday the initiative had qualified for the ballot with more than 7,700 valid signatures from city residents. Initiatives must have at least 7,168 names to qualify.

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.