What do you think of Circumcision ban?

Are you for or against the proposed circumcision ban that might take effect in San Francisco, California in November 2012?

Here are some question I asked myself, that's why I need your comments...

- Is it because it is painful and babies are not old enough to explain their pain?

- Because you feel less pleasures in sex activities when you're circumcised?

- Because it cost a lot of money to the state health care and should not be free anymore?

(Canada started charging in the '80s and less parents circumcised their kid because of the cost)

- When you're 18+ years old you are more aware of what your body needs?

- Should not be banned because it decrease risk of sexual diseases and easier to clean?

- Jewish and Muslims should still get their circumcision free because of their religion?

- Why all this debate if there was no problem before?

- Should other States/ Will other states will do the same as California?

15 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I am all for the ban, because we have protected little girls from genital cutting and the constitution says we can't protect only one gender. I think it's actually illegal now to cut boys for this reason (but nobody has argues this in court yet)

    - Is it because it is painful and babies are not old enough to explain their pain?

    Not just the pain, it's a permanent change to their body for no reason. You shouldn't be allowed to circumcise a child (male or female) for the same reason you can't tattoo a child.

    - Because you feel less pleasures in sex activities when you're circumcised?

    Again, if an 18+ guy wants to get it done, let him. Just don't do it to people who can't consent.

    - Because it cost a lot of money to the state health care and should not be free anymore?

    (Canada started charging in the '80s and less parents circumcised their kid because of the cost)

    That's the least of the problems.

    - When you're 18+ years old you are more aware of what your body needs?

    When you are 18+ you are a legal adult and can do anything you want to your body.

    - Should not be banned because it decrease risk of sexual diseases and easier to clean?

    No medical group in the world recommends circumcision for medical reasons. Not a single one. Not even Israel!

    - Jewish and Muslims should still get their circumcision free because of their religion?

    Since religion isn't given a pass when relating to little girls, I see no reason to allow it for boys.

    - Why all this debate if there was no problem before?

    There was a problem, but American society sometimes takes a long time to notice a problem and fix it.

    - Should other States/ Will other states will do the same as California?

    Yes.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    "Is it because it is painful and babies are not old enough to explain their pain?"

    I think the pain factor is certainly one reason to ban circumcision, though there are plenty of more important reasons. Circumcision on a baby is always going to hurt. The only anaesthetics that are effective enough to block out the pain from this surgery are too risky to give a newborn. So as a result, they're given pretty mild stuff.

    "Because you feel less pleasures in sex activities when you're circumcised?"

    Can't answer first hand, but I imagine so.

    "Because it cost a lot of money to the state health care and should not be free anymore?

    (Canada started charging in the '80s and less parents circumcised their kid because of the cost)"

    I don't think that's an especially good reason. You don't have to ban something to stop the state from paying it. Circumcision isn't banned in the UK, but the government doesn't pay for it. (Except in very rare cases.)

    Banning and funding are separate issues.

    "When you're 18+ years old you are more aware of what your body needs?"

    I think this is the key issue. Circumcision is not being banned in San Francisco. It's unnecessary circumcisions of people too young to decide for themselves that's up for the vote.

    "Should not be banned because it decrease risk of sexual diseases and easier to clean?"

    But it really doesn't. The US has the highest circumcision rate in the Western world, but also one of the highest HIV transmission rates, and a pretty bad sexual health record.

    "Jewish and Muslims should still get their circumcision free because of their religion?"

    There are no religious exemptions proposed for the ban. Nor should there be, in my opinion.

    People claim that to not have an exemption for Jewish boys would be anti-Semitic. But I say the opposite. To pass a law that protects everybody except Jews - now *that* would be anti-Semitic.

    Besides which, infants tend not to have very strong religious views.

    "Why all this debate if there was no problem before?"

    What makes you think there was no problem before?

    "Should other States/ Will other states will do the same as California?"

    I'd like to see the entire world ban unnecessary surgery (not just circumcisions; any non-therapeutic surgery) on children.

  • Beery
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    I think it's great that San Francisco is recognizing the fact that a baby is a person and has a right to be protected from parents who want to abuse and mutilate him.

    In answer to your list of questions:

    - It is painful, but that's not the reason for the ban.

    - It's true that circumcision does reduce sensitivity and makes sex harmful and less pleasurable.

    - It does indeed cost the state money, but that's not a reason for the ban - after all, the state could simply refuse to cover circumcision costs.

    - The ban stops at 18 because when you're 18 years old you are an adult and can make decisions for yourself.

    - The ideas that circumcision decreases the risk of infection and makes the penis easier to clean are myths: circumcision INCREASES infection rates and makes the penis HARDER to clean.

    - The ban criminalizes Jewish and Muslim circumcisions for the same reason we don't allow Diabolists to sacrifice virgins.

    - There's a debate because for some unknown reason, people didn't realize there's always been a problem with this disgusting sexual abuse.

    - I certainly hope other states criminalize circumcision. The abuse has gone on way too long.

  • 5 years ago

    If you wish to learn the actual life self safety then you definitely need this system https://tr.im/btICr , the Patriot Self Defense program.

    That very distinctive self-defense deal include everything required, all the essential mental techniques and action measures that you must know and get before it' also late in order to understand a potential assailant, prepare yourself to survive a surprise strike while reducing anxious and crazy attempts on your daily life in seconds. The Patriot Self Defense is the best on line plan for defense.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    The truth is, the primary issue here is whether or not parents should be doing elective, irreversible, surgeries on their children.

    The argument for the circumcision of children is pretty thin, unless your basis is religious. There are statistic health benefits to being circumcised, but none that wouldn't be just as available if you circumcised as an adult.

    You can pretty rationally take either side of this debate.

  • Judy M
    Lv 4
    9 years ago

    Why do people think that by cutting bits off the genitals of a baby they are doing god's will?

    It is a bizzare form child abuse.

    Let the babies decide when they are old enough.

    About one percent of those circumcised every year develop complications and need to have further removals of flesh.

    What do you say to these folk?

  • 9 years ago

    I think it violates the constitution by forbidding the practice of the religions you mention. There isn't a right to a free circumcision, but there's a right to practice Judaism or Islam.

    As for the rest, there is debate because there are two sides to the issue, because it's a new cause, and because it's fun to talk about penises and sex. There's clearly brief pain inflicted. It's obviously unnecessary surgery if you don't have religious reasons. There are undeniable medical benefits, some feel there are hygienic or esthetic benefits, while others point to the rare complications or feel that sex is more pleasurable with a foreskin. Circumcision has been a standard practice in the U.S. for decades and yet never was in Europe, so people on both sides of the ocean can say, "we do it this way and it works fine for us". So it's easy to argue either way. And I agree with the answer above that some are drawn to the debate because of anti-Semitism, but I think many are also drawn in with perfectly good intentions.

  • 9 years ago

    The ban is obviously and purposely motivated by he worst kind of antisemitism seen in America since the German Bund movement pre-WW2. It will of course drive Jews and Muslims from the city if enacted. The proponent has put out a comic book that depicts the Jews as Evil much like the NAZI proganda campagn in Germany before they started sezing the Jew's property, then imprisoning them, then murdering them wholesale. The propsed ban itself is Unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment. But the insideous nature of the proposal is far more deadly than its implementation. The law would be struck down if passed, but the prejudice and hatred that spawned it remains.

  • 9 years ago

    I think it is an offense against the Freedom of Religion.

    Circumcision performed on billions of men by a competent people has been practiced for thousands of years without excessive pain and with no medical or physical or psychological or emotional or spiritual damage to the person.

    Since there is no physical or moral reason to prohibit male circumcision then I can only speculate that those who are endeavoring to prohibit this practice (in places like San Francisco) are doing so in order to interfere with those religions that require male circumcision by law or by custom and thereby attacking their (and everyone else's) Freedom of Religion.

    God also said to Abraham: "On your part, you and your descendants after you must keep my covenant throughout the ages. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you that you must keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the mark of the covenant between you and me. Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised, ... Thus my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting pact. (Genesis 17:9-13)

    WWJD? What would Jesus do? Jesus was circumcised when he was 8 days old.

    Male circumcision is required by Judaism and Islam. It is customary among the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, and also some other African churches.

    With love in Christ.

  • Connor
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    I'm all for it. I mean I think it's disgusting people actually have to be told this is wrong for them to know that.

    We need to protect the rights and freedom of children since obviously their parents won't.

    -Connor

    Source(s): Pre Med and I was mutilated at birth. I'm also a Libertarian those people who think this is a radical left wing move.... they should educate themselves then shove it.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.