San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Daredevel7 said:
Not really my opinion. That was part of what Banjo was saying. I am assuming what Banjo says is true, so that I can make a point. Get my drift?
Click to expand...

That doesn't make it a fact if you assume it to be true. Which is why citations are needed to bolster your argument.
 
I'm glad to see this and would love to see even more widespread laws. I want a world wherein circumcision is seen for what it really is: male genital mutilation, and punished accordingly.

The cleanliness angle is ridiculous. If someone told you that your daughters could have cleaner vulvas if you just trimmed their labia shorter, would you do it? We call that female genital mutilation because it does not fit with our cultural norms, and because we have not been raised to see it as "normal".

The STD/HIV angle is also ridiculous. A theoretical reduction in HIV transmission is great if you live in a mud hut in a third world country. In a developed country, teach your kids to have safer sex! Talk about safer sex, and using condoms! The proposed STD-reduction from circumcision comes nowhere close to the benefits of getting regular testing and using condoms.

The "locker room" angle is insane. Most boys around the world are NOT cut and even if they were, can you seriously justify doing a surgery that can kill your child just so they'll "feel normal" if someone takes a peek at his penis in a locker room? Not to mention, these days, if anyone mentioned what another boy's penis looked like, he'd probably be mocked for looking at another boy's penis on the spot.

The religion angle is just an excuse. "I'm a christian and my religion says to cut my children!" (I've actually heard this one!)... well, the bible also says that eating shrimp or pork and women wearing pants is an abomination, so unless you're wearing cotton skirts and avoiding the stir fry, you don't have much of a leg to stand on and are just picking and choosing what to obey. In my view, unless you devoutly obey every single command in your religious text, you're just using it as a crutch to do something you would have done anyways.

About 100 kids die in the US alone per year from complications from circumcision. Why is it legal to perform a cosmetic procedure that kills children?

Those that survive can have serious complications. Various studies show up to -30%- of boys experience hemorrhaging (unusually excessive bleeding) during circumcision. Circumcision can lead to infection and even sometimes leads to amputation being necessitated.

Studies show that infants who are circumcised experience a greater pain response later in life than infants who are not circumcised. While you can harp on about how babies "don't remember it", clearly their developing brain and nervous system is altered long-term (perhaps forever) by this early act of mutilation.

Circumcision cuts off healthy tissue that belongs there. Nature put it for a reason, and it sure wasn't for people to take a scalpel to it. The tissue protects sensitive nerve endings which can become desensitized from being exposed to the outside world constantly after a circumcision. Many adult men who were cut as children resent their normal penises being disfigured and losing sexual function as a result of it. People who cite studies of sexual function and sensitivity in adult circumcision do not realize that they are speaking of apples and oranges: a newborn's brain is still quite developing and prone to change from outside input (aka, still having a high level of neuroplasticity), whereas an older adult's brain is much more set in its ways.

I'm all for any law which seeks to make it clear that there is NO medical sanction for routine circumcision, that NO major medical organization supports routine circumcision or states that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that circumcision is a dangerous and unnecessary cultural practice.
 
Aleser said:
I'm glad to see this and would love to see even more widespread laws. I want a world wherein circumcision is seen for what it really is: male genital mutilation, and punished accordingly.

The cleanliness angle is ridiculous. If someone told you that your daughters could have cleaner vulvas if you just trimmed their labia shorter, would you do it? We call that female genital mutilation because it does not fit with our cultural norms, and because we have not been raised to see it as "normal".

The STD/HIV angle is also ridiculous. A theoretical reduction in HIV transmission is great if you live in a mud hut in a third world country. In a developed country, teach your kids to have safer sex! Talk about safer sex, and using condoms! The proposed STD-reduction from circumcision comes nowhere close to the benefits of getting regular testing and using condoms.

The "locker room" angle is insane. Most boys around the world are NOT cut and even if they were, can you seriously justify doing a surgery that can kill your child just so they'll "feel normal" if someone takes a peek at his penis in a locker room? Not to mention, these days, if anyone mentioned what another boy's penis looked like, he'd probably be mocked for looking at another boy's penis on the spot.

The religion angle is just an excuse. "I'm a christian and my religion says to cut my children!" (I've actually heard this one!)... well, the bible also says that eating shrimp or pork and women wearing pants is an abomination, so unless you're wearing cotton skirts and avoiding the stir fry, you don't have much of a leg to stand on and are just picking and choosing what to obey. In my view, unless you devoutly obey every single command in your religious text, you're just using it as a crutch to do something you would have done anyways.

About 100 kids die in the US alone per year from complications from circumcision. Why is it legal to perform a cosmetic procedure that kills children?

Those that survive can have serious complications. Studies show up to -30%- of boys experience hemorrhaging (unusually excessive bleeding) during circumcision. Circumcision can lead to infection and even sometimes leads to amputation being necessitated.

Studies show that infants who are circumcised experience a greater pain response later in life than infants who are not circumcised. While you can harp on about how babies "don't remember it", clearly their developing brain and nervous system is altered long-term (perhaps forever) by this early act of mutilation.

Circumcision cuts off healthy tissue that belongs there. Nature put it for a reason, and it sure wasn't for people to take a scalpel to it. The tissue protects sensitive nerve endings which can become desensitized from being exposed to the outside world constantly after a circumcision. Many adult men who were cut as children resent their normal penises being disfigured and losing sexual function as a result of it. People who cite studies of sexual function and sensitivity in adult circumcision do not realize that they are speaking of apples and oranges: a newborn's brain is still quite developing and prone to change from outside input (aka, still having a high level of neuroplasticity), whereas an older adult's brain is much more set in its ways.

I'm all for any law which seeks to make it clear that there is NO medical sanction for routine circumcision, that NO major medical organization supports routine circumcision, and that circumcision is a dangerous and unnecessary cultural practice.
Click to expand...

Citations, please with links about the circumcision you've just stated. :wave:
 
missywinks said:
IF IF IF IF........nothing goes wrong.
Click to expand...

And if you choose to ignore research showing that infants pain responses change after circumcision, aka, their brain IS altered and does remember the act, even if it is an "uncomplicated" circumcision.
 
kokonut said:
That doesn't make it a fact if you assume it to be true. Which is why citations are needed to bolster your argument.
Click to expand...

........... Wow... you kind of attacked me blindly just because I said something that didn't "sound" like I was agreeing with you.

Listen....

I'm just looking at this from another angle. My post was more for Banjo and other pro-"Ban circumcision" people. Banjo stated that "the trend is on the decline" and "major medical associations do not recommend it". Now he believes those statements to be absolutely true. When one believes that a statement is absolutely true, there isn't much you can do about it (unless you provide a CLEAR link to dispute it, but this doesn't even work most of the time). So I was looking at it in another way, therefore I made a statement saying that if those statements were true, why not let the trend run its course? Then we don't need to make a law banning it.
 
Daredevel7 said:
........... Wow... you kind of attacked me blindly just because I said something that didn't "sound" like I was agreeing with you.

Listen....

I'm just looking at this from another angle. My post was more for Banjo and other pro-"Ban circumcision" people. Banjo stated that "the trend is on the decline" and "major medical associations do not recommend it". Now he believes those statements to be absolutely true. When one believes that a statement is absolutely true, there isn't much you can do about it (unless you provide a CLEAR link to dispute it, but this doesn't even work most of the time). So I was looking at it in another way, therefore I made a statement saying that if those statements were true, why not let the trend run its course? Then we don't need to make a law banning it.
Click to expand...

Par for the course.
 
It's been known that anesthesia reaction carries the biggest risk when it comes to minor surgical procedures on babies. The effects and risks to babies are even greater than adults. I'd say if any deaths it could be more likely attributed to anesthesia reaction (during and post-operative) than not.

Secondly, "100+ deaths a year" sounds too convenient with no annual data to show for. I'd be reluctant to accept that at face value unless more specific data can be done to show why and how these deaths occurred. Not saying it never happens because there are risks involved even in minor surgical procedures.

Data were analyzed by merging a database for every anesthetic performed with an accurate electronic record of mortality of children who had ever been a Royal Children's Hospital patient. Cases of children dying within 30 days and 24 hours of an anesthetic were identified and the patient history and anesthetic record examined. Anesthesia-related death was defined as those cases whereby a panel of 3 senior anesthesiologists all agreed that anesthesia or factors under the control of the anesthesiologist more likely than not influenced the timing of death.
Click to expand...

Postoperative Mortality in Children After 101,885 Anesthetics at a Tertiary Pediatric Hospital

Anesthesia risk for children worries FDA | Duke and the Doctor | Health Talk Radio Show about Natural Remedies


And yet I cannot ignore these studies as well.

Neonatal circumcision in the U.S. is a safe procedure; however, it is not without risk. In a study of 130,475 newborns identified in the Washington State Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (1987–1996) as circumcised during their birth hospital stay, 0.18% had a bleeding complication, 0.04% had a complication coded as “injury,” and 0.0006% had penile cellulitis diagnosed before discharge.41 In a trade-off analysis based on observed complication rates and published studies of the effect of circumcision on rates of UTIs (urinary tract infection) in the first year of life and lifetime risk of penile cancer, the investigators calculated that a complication might be expected in one out of every 476 circumcisions, that six UTIs can be prevented for every complication endured, and nearly two complications would be expected for every case of penile cancer prevented.

An analysis was conducted of 136,086 boys born in U.S. Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985 with a medical record review for indexed complications related to circumcision status during the first month of life.42 For 100,157 circumcised boys, 193 (0.19%) complications occurred. The frequencies of UTI (p<0.0001) and bacteremia (p<0.0002) were significantly higher in the uncircumcised boys than among those circumcised. In neither study were any circumcision-related deaths or losses of the glans or entire penis reported.
Click to expand...

Male Circumcision in the United States for the Prevention of HIV Infection and Other Adverse Health Outcomes: Report from a CDC Consultation
 
Were you not circumcised and something happened that caused you to feel strongly for advocating circumcision, koko?
 
Daredevel7 said:
........... Wow... you kind of attacked me blindly just because I said something that didn't "sound" like I was agreeing with you.

Listen....

I'm just looking at this from another angle. My post was more for Banjo and other pro-"Ban circumcision" people. Banjo stated that "the trend is on the decline" and "major medical associations do not recommend it". Now he believes those statements to be absolutely true. When one believes that a statement is absolutely true, there isn't much you can do about it (unless you provide a CLEAR link to dispute it, but this doesn't even work most of the time). So I was looking at it in another way, therefore I made a statement saying that if those statements were true, why not let the trend run its course? Then we don't need to make a law banning it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it was never meant to be an attack. Just that you said you assumed it was true based on what somebody said. And so I saw that as a personal opinion. I never said I disagreed. I said it would require a citation to back up such a statement that "most medical associations do not recommend it."
 
posts from hell said:
Were you not circumcised and something happened that caused you to feel strongly for advocating circumcision, koko?
Click to expand...

Sure I was but that's not the point. I look for medical facts where circumcisions have shown to have long term benefits. The downside is relatively low when they grow up.

One example of long term benefits:

Cancer of the penis

The evidence that circumcision protects against penile cancer is overwhelming. In the US, incidence of penile cancer in circumcised men is essentially zero (about one reported case every five years), but it is 2.2 per 100 000 in uncircumcised men (about 1000 cases are reported annually). On the basis of life table analysis, Kochen and McCurdy estimated that an uncircumcised …
Click to expand...
Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? -- Schoen 77 (3): 258 -- Archives of Disease in Childhood
 
kokonut said:
It's a minor procedure by removing the extra skin.
Click to expand...

WTF do you mean by extra skin, it was not put but there by mistake!! It was for health reason and there is no need to be done in 2011! A baby boy is still Jewish if he doesn't have it done!! There was no way I would had put a baby boy through unnecessary pain!! I dated guys the did not have a circumcision and there was no extra skin on their penis , the foreskin is a part of their penis!
 
Back
Top