PDA

View Full Version : "Circumcision rights" are Municipal, State or Federal issue?




moderate libertarian
07-21-2011, 09:54 PM
Is there a need to make a "federal case" out of this issue.

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?1=1&_c=zv5xuneicrdt7p&xid=zv2kzyyw3hxcsk&done=.zv4scfpisj2sdx&_credir=1311306623&_c=zv5xuneicrdt7p

Carehn
07-21-2011, 09:58 PM
I know i would have liked a say in the matter. Though i do like the look of it cut I also know i would want some say in the matter.

The question should be... Do you want to have a say in the matter of someone taking a knife to your junk, even if in the name of religion?

Golding
07-21-2011, 10:00 PM
No need for that, I think. Even though I personally believe that circumcision is a rightful choice to make as a parent, San Francisco is at least doing something right by keeping a ban local and up to voters.

moderate libertarian
07-21-2011, 10:00 PM
So you would want a say in how others anatomy looks lol
Nice.

Rael
07-21-2011, 11:22 PM
I don't think parents should be able to have their children circumcised unless it is medically necessary. Unless you also think we should allow females to be circumcised. And why not let parents have arms or legs amputated too if their religion calls for it? This is a decision only the child has a right to make.

Pericles
07-21-2011, 11:27 PM
How about it is a leave people alone or you will get shot issue?

libertyjam
07-21-2011, 11:47 PM
To the original question, none of the above.

sailingaway
07-21-2011, 11:52 PM
I would say, personal.

Vessol
07-21-2011, 11:53 PM
No one has a right to mutilate a baby's genitals.

DamianTV
07-22-2011, 01:08 AM
The Federal Government has no business with a Womans Uterus or a Mans Penis.

Keith and stuff
07-22-2011, 02:07 AM
The federal government has no Constitutional authority to punish folks for this crime, IMO, unless you are talking about in federal territory like the District of Columbia.

ProIndividual
07-22-2011, 02:30 AM
I would say circumcision is genital mutilation...however, I do not think even murder is a federal issue. The State's define muder, they decide the punishments for murder, so I'm sure they can handle a foreskin issue.

I do want to reiterate though...it's an archaic and brutal mutilation of a male child's penis. The same reasoning for still doing this procedure is used to suggest pork isn't safe to eat either. It's outdated. Pork is safe now, we have refrigeration...and foreskin is okay now, we bathe more often and live in a much less infectous environment (people don't die in droves of infection anymore). We should really learn to give up this practice, like we gave up stoning people to death for every single one of the ten commandments, stopped hanging "witches", and stopped making excuses for slavery just because the Bible seemed to favor it, both Old and New Testament.

Ps. Before you ask me "where in the Bible...", please google it first, you'll find most of your answers.

Brian4Liberty
07-28-2011, 09:24 PM
The answer is in. The Judge has decided that the local government can not make laws. Ballot measure deleted. Case closed.


Judge orders San Francisco circumcision ban off ballot

Judge Loretta M. Giorgi ordered San Francisco's director of elections to strike the measure from the city's ballot because she said that it is "expressly preempted" by the California Business and Professions Code.

Under that statute, only the state is allowed to regulate medical procedures, and "the evidence presented is overwhelmingly persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure," the ruling said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-circumcision-ban-20110729,0,290957.story

And another reason to repost this:


Here's what they do believe in: they believe in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They believe in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.

heavenlyboy34
07-28-2011, 10:27 PM
I don't think parents should be able to have their children circumcised unless it is medically necessary. Unless you also think we should allow females to be circumcised. And why not let parents have arms or legs amputated too if their religion calls for it? This is a decision only the child has a right to make.
+a zillion

heavenlyboy34
07-28-2011, 10:29 PM
I would say circumcision is genital mutilation...however, I do not think even murder is a federal issue. The State's define muder, they decide the punishments for murder, so I'm sure they can handle a foreskin issue.

I do want to reiterate though...it's an archaic and brutal mutilation of a male child's penis. The same reasoning for still doing this procedure is used to suggest pork isn't safe to eat either. It's outdated. Pork is safe now, we have refrigeration...and foreskin is okay now, we bathe more often and live in a much less infectous environment (people don't die in droves of infection anymore). We should really learn to give up this practice, like we gave up stoning people to death for every single one of the ten commandments, stopped hanging "witches", and stopped making excuses for slavery just because the Bible seemed to favor it, both Old and New Testament.

Ps. Before you ask me "where in the Bible...", please google it first, you'll find most of your answers.
qft

Zatch
07-28-2011, 10:58 PM
The hysteria over circumcision isn't based in fact. There is no consensus among the medical community that it is in any way harmful. So no it shouldn't be illegal at any level of government.

specialkornflake
07-28-2011, 11:03 PM
Infant circumcision is a violation of one's right to his body and is immoral. Basic libertarian philosophy.

Zatch
07-28-2011, 11:04 PM
Infant circumcision is a violation of one's right to his body and is immoral. Basic libertarian philosophy.

What about vaccinations?

Icymudpuppy
07-28-2011, 11:06 PM
I'm circumsized. I don't miss it. I am happy I don't have to wash it especially carefully to avoid things like jock itch, yeast infection, and a variety of sexually transmitted infections. I don't have any trouble reaching sexual climax, and my sexual partners have made no complaints about my lack of foreskin. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. except for the time I lost my virginity, I haven't had any complaints of the female being unsatisfied herself. I've even been told I'm good.

In Iraq, it wasn't a problem when I couldn't get a shower for sometimes weeks at a time. I really don't see what the big deal is for you guys. If it did become a health issue for you, you would be bitching that your parents hadn't done it when you were small enough not to remember.

I had my oldest son's tonsils removed too. They were swollen and gave him sleep apnea. Not bad enough to be a serious problem at that time but there was a risk it could get worse. It's a lot less serious of a surgery for a toddler than for a teen or adult.

Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, and the right to do what they feel will accomplish this. Like it or not, circumcision has been proven to be an effective deterrant against many genital infections, and it was a choice my parents made for my well being, and I made for my boys as well. I love my father, and know that he always makes the best decisions he can for me even though I didn't always understand his decisions at the time, I do now. Likewise I doubt my sons will hate me for it as they love me, and I love them, and they will someday understand that all decisions I make for them at this early stage are made with the best knowledge and intentions. As teens, they will probably rebel, but when they have children of their own someday, they will come around. As it usually is in families. I would guess most of you circumcision haters are in your teens or early twenties and have no children of your own, and are still rebelling against your parents.

specialkornflake
07-28-2011, 11:12 PM
What about vaccinations?

Removing a body part for debatedly limited medical benefit versus a vaccination are different. Do we remove appendixes and tonsils because of the chance of future problems?

kah13176
07-28-2011, 11:17 PM
If foreskin was detrimental to our survival, then evolution wouldn't have favored it. Yet, evolution did favor it. Therefore, the benefits of having it outweigh the risks.

Circumcision is an infringement upon property rights. It's funny how so many libertarians defend property rights until it comes to their own property-infringing religion. Fucking hypocrisy if you ask me.



Also, watch what happens when you mention female circumcision in many circles. Under the statist lens, I really don't see the big deal. After all, if females were circumcised, they'd be too young to remember. Plus, it reduces their sexual pleasure so they're less likely to have as much sex, reducing the risk of STD transmission. I mean, gee, I don't see anything wrong.

heavenlyboy34
07-28-2011, 11:20 PM
I'm circumsized. I don't miss it. I am happy I don't have to wash it especially carefully to avoid things like jock itch, yeast infection, and a variety of sexually transmitted infections. I don't have any trouble reaching sexual climax, and my sexual partners have made no complaints about my lack of foreskin. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. except for the time I lost my virginity, I haven't had any complaints of the female being unsatisfied herself. I've even been told I'm good.

In Iraq, it wasn't a problem when I couldn't get a shower for sometimes weeks at a time. I really don't see what the big deal is for you guys. If it did become a health issue for you, you would be bitching that your parents hadn't done it when you were small enough not to remember.

I had my oldest son's tonsils removed too. They were swollen and gave him sleep apnea. Not bad enough to be a serious problem at that time but there was a risk it could get worse. It's a lot less serious of a surgery for a toddler than for a teen or adult.

Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, and the right to do what they feel will accomplish this. Like it or not, circumcision has been proven to be an effective deterrant against many genital infections, and it was a choice my parents made for my well being, and I made for my boys as well. I love my father, and know that he always makes the best decisions he can for me even though I didn't always understand his decisions at the time, I do now. Likewise I doubt my sons will hate me for it as they love me, and I love them, and they will someday understand that all decisions I make for them at this early stage are made with the best knowledge and intentions. As teens, they will probably rebel, but when they have children of their own someday, they will come around. As it usually is in families. I would guess most of you circumcision haters are in your teens or early twenties and have no children of your own, and are still rebelling against your parents.
A lot of mythology there^^. Circumcision has never been proven to prevent STDs or anything else(though that myth still survives for some reason). See this Mothering Magazine (http://www.nocirc.org/2008-07_Mothering-Fauntleroy.pdf) article. There is no medical justification for circumcision. As an uncut person myself, I can tell you that if you have problems with itching, it is because of poor hygene. If you take daily showers, it is not an issue. The smegma even has a biological purpose.
"Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD [co-author of Say No to Circumcision] underscored its importance when he commented, 'The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma.'" ("Where Is My Foreskin? The Case Against Circumcision," by Paul M. Fleiss, MD, Mothering, Winter 1997)

If you believe in individual rights, you cannot justify circumcising an infant who cannot consent any more than you can justify cutting off his eyelids.

specialkornflake
07-28-2011, 11:26 PM
I'm circumsized. I don't miss it. I am happy I don't have to wash it especially carefully to avoid things like jock itch, yeast infection, and a variety of sexually transmitted infections. I don't have any trouble reaching sexual climax, and my sexual partners have made no complaints about my lack of foreskin. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. except for the time I lost my virginity, I haven't had any complaints of the female being unsatisfied herself. I've even been told I'm good.

In Iraq, it wasn't a problem when I couldn't get a shower for sometimes weeks at a time. I really don't see what the big deal is for you guys. If it did become a health issue for you, you would be bitching that your parents hadn't done it when you were small enough not to remember.


I'm glad it's worked for you, maybe we'd have a smaller military if circumcision was mandatory as an adult!


I had my oldest son's tonsils removed too. They were swollen and gave him sleep apnea. Not bad enough to be a serious problem at that time but there was a risk it could get worse. It's a lot less serious of a surgery for a toddler than for a teen or adult.


This is different because they were causing a medical problem that not everyone has.



Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, and the right to do what they feel will accomplish this. Like it or not, circumcision has been proven to be an effective deterrant against many genital infections, and it was a choice my parents made for my well being, and I made for my boys as well. I love my father, and know that he always makes the best decisions he can for me even though I didn't always understand his decisions at the time, I do now. Likewise I doubt my sons will hate me for it as they love me, and I love them, and they will someday understand that all decisions I make for them at this early stage are made with the best knowledge and intentions. As teens, they will probably rebel, but when they have children of their own someday, they will come around. As it usually is in families. I would guess most of you circumcision haters are in your teens or early twenties and have no children of your own, and are still rebelling against your parents.

What matters most is that parents parent in the best manner possible, not necessarily what they think is right without doing the research first.

Brian4Liberty
07-29-2011, 10:03 AM
Back to the subject of the OP:

"Circumcision rights" are Municipal, State or Federal issue?

How many local laws could be overturned by activist Judges on the grounds that it is the State's responsibility? And likewise, how many State laws can be overturned by saying that it is the Federal government's responsibility? Is this related to the battle over Arizona's "immigration" law?


Judge orders San Francisco circumcision ban off ballot

Judge Loretta M. Giorgi ordered San Francisco's director of elections to strike the measure from the city's ballot because she said that it is "expressly preempted" by the California Business and Professions Code.

Under that statute, only the state is allowed to regulate medical procedures, and "the evidence presented is overwhelmingly persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure," the ruling said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-circumcision-ban-20110729,0,290957.story

Brian4Liberty
07-29-2011, 10:17 PM
A lot of mythology there^^.

Agree. No scientific proof for any benefits.

Agorism
07-29-2011, 10:34 PM
Well the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal government and States both.

So there can be some issues that neither can regulate.

moderate libertarian
07-29-2011, 10:44 PM
This was just a light hearted post, did not think Bill of Rights would be invoked :)

heavenlyboy34
07-29-2011, 10:54 PM
This was just a light hearted post, did not think Bill of Rights would be invoked :)
For future reference, this topic tends to spark rather heated debate. Tread lightly when bringing it up. ;)

nobody's_hero
07-30-2011, 05:25 AM
I'm circumsized. I don't miss it. I am happy I don't have to wash it especially carefully to avoid things like jock itch, yeast infection, and a variety of sexually transmitted infections. I don't have any trouble reaching sexual climax, and my sexual partners have made no complaints about my lack of foreskin. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. except for the time I lost my virginity, I haven't had any complaints of the female being unsatisfied herself. I've even been told I'm good.

In Iraq, it wasn't a problem when I couldn't get a shower for sometimes weeks at a time. I really don't see what the big deal is for you guys. If it did become a health issue for you, you would be bitching that your parents hadn't done it when you were small enough not to remember.

I had my oldest son's tonsils removed too. They were swollen and gave him sleep apnea. Not bad enough to be a serious problem at that time but there was a risk it could get worse. It's a lot less serious of a surgery for a toddler than for a teen or adult.

Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, and the right to do what they feel will accomplish this. Like it or not, circumcision has been proven to be an effective deterrant against many genital infections, and it was a choice my parents made for my well being, and I made for my boys as well. I love my father, and know that he always makes the best decisions he can for me even though I didn't always understand his decisions at the time, I do now. Likewise I doubt my sons will hate me for it as they love me, and I love them, and they will someday understand that all decisions I make for them at this early stage are made with the best knowledge and intentions. As teens, they will probably rebel, but when they have children of their own someday, they will come around. As it usually is in families. I would guess most of you circumcision haters are in your teens or early twenties and have no children of your own, and are still rebelling against your parents.

I'm giving you +rep for that—but fair warning, you're about to get flamed 'cause I said something similar a while back.

========

I'm not too familiar with California's state constitution, but it does seem kind of odd that a state government has stepped in and stated that cities cannot make laws (tens of thousands of city ordinances could now be invalidated by this decision). San Fran also banned happy meals, 'for health reasons,' so for consistency the state would have to go after those ordinances, too.

Should it go to Federal courts? No. The federal courts have no jurisdiction to interpret state law, although it doesn't stop people from trying to take every issue to the SCOTUS.

libertyjam
07-30-2011, 05:35 AM
I'm circumsized. I don't miss it. I am happy I don't have to wash it especially carefully to avoid things like jock itch, yeast infection, and a variety of sexually transmitted infections. I don't have any trouble reaching sexual climax, and my sexual partners have made no complaints about my lack of foreskin. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. except for the time I lost my virginity, I haven't had any complaints of the female being unsatisfied herself. I've even been told I'm good.

In Iraq, it wasn't a problem when I couldn't get a shower for sometimes weeks at a time. I really don't see what the big deal is for you guys. If it did become a health issue for you, you would be bitching that your parents hadn't done it when you were small enough not to remember.

I had my oldest son's tonsils removed too. They were swollen and gave him sleep apnea. Not bad enough to be a serious problem at that time but there was a risk it could get worse. It's a lot less serious of a surgery for a toddler than for a teen or adult.

Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, and the right to do what they feel will accomplish this. Like it or not, circumcision has been proven to be an effective deterrant against many genital infections, and it was a choice my parents made for my well being, and I made for my boys as well. I love my father, and know that he always makes the best decisions he can for me even though I didn't always understand his decisions at the time, I do now. Likewise I doubt my sons will hate me for it as they love me, and I love them, and they will someday understand that all decisions I make for them at this early stage are made with the best knowledge and intentions. As teens, they will probably rebel, but when they have children of their own someday, they will come around. As it usually is in families. I would guess most of you circumcision haters are in your teens or early twenties and have no children of your own, and are still rebelling against your parents.

I agree, +rep for that too.

LibertyEagle
07-30-2011, 05:39 AM
I'm circumsized. I don't miss it. I am happy I don't have to wash it especially carefully to avoid things like jock itch, yeast infection, and a variety of sexually transmitted infections. I don't have any trouble reaching sexual climax, and my sexual partners have made no complaints about my lack of foreskin. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. except for the time I lost my virginity, I haven't had any complaints of the female being unsatisfied herself. I've even been told I'm good.

In Iraq, it wasn't a problem when I couldn't get a shower for sometimes weeks at a time. I really don't see what the big deal is for you guys. If it did become a health issue for you, you would be bitching that your parents hadn't done it when you were small enough not to remember.

I had my oldest son's tonsils removed too. They were swollen and gave him sleep apnea. Not bad enough to be a serious problem at that time but there was a risk it could get worse. It's a lot less serious of a surgery for a toddler than for a teen or adult.

Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, and the right to do what they feel will accomplish this. Like it or not, circumcision has been proven to be an effective deterrant against many genital infections, and it was a choice my parents made for my well being, and I made for my boys as well. I love my father, and know that he always makes the best decisions he can for me even though I didn't always understand his decisions at the time, I do now. Likewise I doubt my sons will hate me for it as they love me, and I love them, and they will someday understand that all decisions I make for them at this early stage are made with the best knowledge and intentions. As teens, they will probably rebel, but when they have children of their own someday, they will come around. As it usually is in families. I would guess most of you circumcision haters are in your teens or early twenties and have no children of your own, and are still rebelling against your parents.

Well-said. +rep

jmdrake
07-30-2011, 05:52 AM
Removing a body part for debatedly limited medical benefit versus a vaccination are different. Do we remove appendixes and tonsils because of the chance of future problems?

It's debatable if vaccinations have a limited medical benefit just like its debatable if circumcision has a limited medical benefit. And no I will NOT be drawn into this stupid debate again. I've posted information on both countless times and anyone who doesn't believe me can look it up for themselves. Those who are against circumcision will illogically claim that the same WHO which says vaccines are a benefit and circumcision is a benefit is lying about the circumcision and telling the truth about vaccination.

And lastly, this is NOT an issue we should get wrapped up in. Nor is it a libertarian issue despite how passionately some libertarians feel about it. Really, some folks here want to get rid of local, state and federal government but then resurrect a supreme federal state for the sole purpose of arresting parents who swat their child on the bottom or remove their foreskin, when these same libertarians (some) are okay with the parent murdering that same child if it doesn't get out of the womb fast enough? Really? And folks wonder why libertarians lose elections.

jmdrake
07-30-2011, 05:54 AM
I'm circumsized. I don't miss it. I am happy I don't have to wash it especially carefully to avoid things like jock itch, yeast infection, and a variety of sexually transmitted infections. I don't have any trouble reaching sexual climax, and my sexual partners have made no complaints about my lack of foreskin. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. except for the time I lost my virginity, I haven't had any complaints of the female being unsatisfied herself. I've even been told I'm good.

In Iraq, it wasn't a problem when I couldn't get a shower for sometimes weeks at a time. I really don't see what the big deal is for you guys. If it did become a health issue for you, you would be bitching that your parents hadn't done it when you were small enough not to remember.

I had my oldest son's tonsils removed too. They were swollen and gave him sleep apnea. Not bad enough to be a serious problem at that time but there was a risk it could get worse. It's a lot less serious of a surgery for a toddler than for a teen or adult.

Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, and the right to do what they feel will accomplish this. Like it or not, circumcision has been proven to be an effective deterrant against many genital infections, and it was a choice my parents made for my well being, and I made for my boys as well. I love my father, and know that he always makes the best decisions he can for me even though I didn't always understand his decisions at the time, I do now. Likewise I doubt my sons will hate me for it as they love me, and I love them, and they will someday understand that all decisions I make for them at this early stage are made with the best knowledge and intentions. As teens, they will probably rebel, but when they have children of their own someday, they will come around. As it usually is in families. I would guess most of you circumcision haters are in your teens or early twenties and have no children of your own, and are still rebelling against your parents.

+rep. This is the best answer I've seen in a circumcision thread yet.

jmdrake
07-30-2011, 06:03 AM
What matters most is that parents parent in the best manner possible, not necessarily what they think is right without doing the research first.

That's what Stalin thought. Sorry but that's the most anti-liberty statement I've ever heard. So the state should be able to take away the right to homeschool just because some bureaucrat thinks they aren't being "socialized" enough? If a parent has a well and uses state toothpaste, should the state be able to force them to flouridate their water? And be honest. You do not simply want parents to do "research". You want them to come to your conclusion. Any parent who researches the issue will find peer reviewed studies that claim it is a medical benefit and might choose the choice you don't want them to make. If you're against circumcision them calmly and rationally present your evidence to as many people as will listen. But as soon as you start talking about taking away parental rights based on your "research", you turn off people that might otherwise listen, namely me.

nobody's_hero
07-30-2011, 06:07 AM
That's what Stalin thought. Sorry but that's the most anti-liberty statement I've ever heard. So the state should be able to take away the right to homeschool just because some bureaucrat thinks they aren't being "socialized" enough? If a parent has a well and uses state toothpaste, should the state be able to force them to flouridate their water? And be honest. You do not simply want parents to do "research". You want them to come to your conclusion. Any parent who researches the issue will find peer reviewed studies that claim it is a medical benefit and might choose the choice you don't want them to make. If you're against circumcision them calmly and rationally present your evidence to as many people as will listen. But as soon as you start talking about taking away parental rights based on your "research", you turn off people that might otherwise listen, namely me.

And you get +rep as well.

LibForestPaul
07-30-2011, 06:26 AM
The answer is in. The Judge has decided that the local government can not make laws. Ballot measure deleted. Case closed.
And another reason to repost this:

What is the correct course of action if San Francisco's director of elections believes The Judge has no authority to decide (up to the people) or believes that this course of action would be violating the citizens of California, who reside in San Francisco, one of their guaranteed or natural right?

libertyjam
07-30-2011, 07:28 AM
Municipalities are subservient to state laws and statutes, and hence to state judiciary. If the director of elections were to ignore the state ruling, he could be found in contempt and subject to punishments that judge deemed fitting. To buck it legally, he has to appeal.

nobody's_hero
07-30-2011, 08:22 AM
Municipalities are subservient to state laws and statutes, and hence to state judiciary. If the director of elections were to ignore the state ruling, he could be found in contempt and subject to punishments that judge deemed fitting. To buck it legally, he has to appeal.

What concerns me, even though I am opposed to this ban, is that the scope of jurisdiction should not be broadened to expand to statewide (much less, nationwide) consideration. Give someone the power to take, and they can give. Give someone the power to give, and they can take. Give them NO power, and they can do neither.

This is the same argument I would apply to municipal bans on firearm ownership. I am a strong advocate for the 2nd amendment, but I believe stupidity should be localized as much as possible when referring to government action. I am loathe to grant the widespread governments power to interpret or over-ride the laws of localities.

The federal government, at one time, did not have the power to even hear cases of murder.

The U.S. courts do not understand their role, as evident here by their 'education' (indoctrination) web pages:

http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/FederalCourtBasics/CourtStructure/UnderstandingFederalAndStateCourts.aspx

Clearly, the Feds have expanded far beyond hearing constitutionally allowable cases—Piracy, Treason, Counterfeiting, and Slavery (Judge Napolitano limits its authority to these four). I would add that stealing mail is probably on that list as well, but nothing else.

moostraks
07-30-2011, 08:24 AM
"Circumcision rights" are a family issue. Children are either property of the state or the responsibility of the parents...

brandon
07-30-2011, 08:24 AM
Well in our current form of government, States are supposed to regulate violent crime so I would say it's an issue at the state level. Whether or not that's the best way to handle it, I don't know.

nobody's_hero
07-30-2011, 08:32 AM
Well in our current form of government, States are supposed to regulate violent crime so I would say it's an issue at the state level. Whether or not that's the best way to handle it, I don't know.

Like I previously stated, I'm not familiar with California's constitution, so perhaps I have already poked my nose into this matter too much. Murder is, to my knowledge, handled at a state level by every state. There are certain lesser issues that are handled by municipal and county government law (ordinances), and circumcisions (or non-circumcisions) seem to me to be one of those lesser issues.

moostraks
07-30-2011, 08:34 AM
Well in our current form of government, States are supposed to regulate violent crime so I would say it's an issue at the state level. Whether or not that's the best way to handle it, I don't know.

:rolleyes: Parents are as screwed on this issue as many others. The village always thinks they can parent better and yet there is no consensus on what the perfect way to do such is, so each side reserves the right to punish the parent for disagreeing with their viewpoint.

tropicangela
07-30-2011, 11:24 AM
I'm circumsized. I don't miss it. I am happy I don't have to wash it especially carefully to avoid things like jock itch, yeast infection, and a variety of sexually transmitted infections. I don't have any trouble reaching sexual climax, and my sexual partners have made no complaints about my lack of foreskin. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. except for the time I lost my virginity, I haven't had any complaints of the female being unsatisfied herself. I've even been told I'm good.

In Iraq, it wasn't a problem when I couldn't get a shower for sometimes weeks at a time. I really don't see what the big deal is for you guys. If it did become a health issue for you, you would be bitching that your parents hadn't done it when you were small enough not to remember.

I had my oldest son's tonsils removed too. They were swollen and gave him sleep apnea. Not bad enough to be a serious problem at that time but there was a risk it could get worse. It's a lot less serious of a surgery for a toddler than for a teen or adult.

Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, and the right to do what they feel will accomplish this. Like it or not, circumcision has been proven to be an effective deterrant against many genital infections, and it was a choice my parents made for my well being, and I made for my boys as well. I love my father, and know that he always makes the best decisions he can for me even though I didn't always understand his decisions at the time, I do now. Likewise I doubt my sons will hate me for it as they love me, and I love them, and they will someday understand that all decisions I make for them at this early stage are made with the best knowledge and intentions. As teens, they will probably rebel, but when they have children of their own someday, they will come around. As it usually is in families. I would guess most of you circumcision haters are in your teens or early twenties and have no children of your own, and are still rebelling against your parents.

Do you know of others in Iraq who had problems with their foreskin if they hadn't showered? Could they clean it well with a baby wipe or something?

My 4 yr old had swollen tonsils and was having sleep apnea. I pushed for allergy testing and found out that multiple allergies (food and air) have been causing him to swell.

nbhadja
07-30-2011, 11:32 AM
Circumcision should be illegal for the parents to decide for the kid.

If the man wants to do it when he is 18 then fine, but the parents should not have the right to chop off his foreskin just like they should not have the right to chop off his ear lobes.

tropicangela
07-30-2011, 11:38 AM
How about piercing babies' ears?

Icymudpuppy
07-30-2011, 11:41 AM
Do you know of others in Iraq who had problems with their foreskin if they hadn't showered? Could they clean it well with a baby wipe or something?.


You're assuming babywipes were readily available. We didn't even have toilet paper. We had a limited supply of bottled water, and the tiny little tissue packs that come in MREs. I was at a remote border outpost on the highway between the Turkish border and Mosul. All our Kurdish augmentees were circumsized for very practical reasons of hygeine in a dry climate with limited facilities. They washed by scrubbing themselves with dry sand.

We did have several men who developed cases of fungal infection (jock itch) in their groin. Of 109 men in the company, 61 men developed the infection. 48 of those had foreskins. Only 13 circumsized men got infected. Of the 61 with infection, 12 were severe enough to warrant evacuation (skin peeling off in chunks leaving bleeding sores) All of those were uncircumsized.

Not a scientific study, but enough for me.


My 4 yr old had swollen tonsils and was having sleep apnea. I pushed for allergy testing and found out that multiple allergies (food and air) have been causing him to swell.

I can't keep my kid locked inside a filtered air building all day. He likes to be outside. Tonsil and Adenoid removal was easier. Now, the cherry blossoms don't bother him anymore.

tropicangela
07-30-2011, 11:46 AM
No, not assuming. Only asking because you are experienced. The possibility of my boys going to a sandy desert in battle someday caused me pause when considering circumcision.

I can't keep mine in a filtered building either, and I've noticed that since there were 11+ allergens (including dust mites) that avoiding most of the offending foods has really helped. It is not easy by any stretch, agreed.

Brian4Liberty
07-30-2011, 11:48 AM
What is the correct course of action if San Francisco's director of elections believes The Judge has no authority to decide (up to the people) or believes that this course of action would be violating the citizens of California, who reside in San Francisco, one of their guaranteed or natural right?


Municipalities are subservient to state laws and statutes, and hence to state judiciary. If the director of elections were to ignore the state ruling, he could be found in contempt and subject to punishments that judge deemed fitting. To buck it legally, he has to appeal.

The director might be happy with the decision. The backers of the initiative might fight it in court.

nbhadja
07-30-2011, 11:51 AM
How about piercing babies' ears?

Idk about piercing, but at least piercing is not cutting off an entire body part..it's just a small hole and it can fill in by itself over time.

Brian4Liberty
07-30-2011, 11:51 AM
I'm not too familiar with California's state constitution, but it does seem kind of odd that a state government has stepped in and stated that cities cannot make laws (tens of thousands of city ordinances could now be invalidated by this decision). San Fran also banned happy meals, 'for health reasons,' so for consistency the state would have to go after those ordinances, too.


Great point. That Happy Meal ban would also qualify. What a slippery slope they have gone down. No doubt just about any municipal law could be nullified using this logic.

Brian4Liberty
07-30-2011, 11:53 AM
How about piercing babies' ears?

Opposed. Wait at least until the person is old enough to request (or not) a piercing.

tropicangela
07-30-2011, 11:59 AM
Idk about piercing, but at least piercing is not cutting off an entire body part..it's just a small hole and it can fill in by itself over time.

Some parents do or have a religious nick done to cause bleeding without removing the entire foreskin.

nbhadja
07-30-2011, 12:03 PM
Some parents do or have a religious nick done to cause bleeding without removing the entire foreskin.

I heard about that, but in most cases the foreskin is removed in circumcision, which is far different than a piercing.

tropicangela
07-30-2011, 12:13 PM
What's amazing about this debate to me, is that many who support a woman's choice to abort her baby would be adamantly against circumcising her baby. I can't wrap my head around what they think the difference is. That if a baby is inside a woman, the baby has no rights. Once the baby comes outside of her body, the baby has rights?

Icymudpuppy
07-30-2011, 12:19 PM
I guess I haven't answered the question posed in the thread title:

Q: Municipal/State/Federal

A: None of the above. FAMILY ISSUE!

specialkornflake
07-30-2011, 12:27 PM
It's debatable if vaccinations have a limited medical benefit just like its debatable if circumcision has a limited medical benefit. And no I will NOT be drawn into this stupid debate again. I've posted information on both countless times and anyone who doesn't believe me can look it up for themselves. Those who are against circumcision will illogically claim that the same WHO which says vaccines are a benefit and circumcision is a benefit is lying about the circumcision and telling the truth about vaccination.

And lastly, this is NOT an issue we should get wrapped up in. Nor is it a libertarian issue despite how passionately some libertarians feel about it. Really, some folks here want to get rid of local, state and federal government but then resurrect a supreme federal state for the sole purpose of arresting parents who swat their child on the bottom or remove their foreskin, when these same libertarians (some) are okay with the parent murdering that same child if it doesn't get out of the womb fast enough? Really? And folks wonder why libertarians lose elections.

You're right, I could argue vaccines either way, but I'm leaning towards the basic science of vaccines being sound. But I still believe the two to be largely different as one involves external body part removal and the other doesn't. (Although they do bring up some of the same discussion points) I agree this isn't the most important issue. As a libertarian almost every issue is a libertarian issue. I wasn't promoting that the government 'solve' the problem, I was identifying infant circumcision as immoral.


That's what Stalin thought. Sorry but that's the most anti-liberty statement I've ever heard. So the state should be able to take away the right to homeschool just because some bureaucrat thinks they aren't being "socialized" enough? If a parent has a well and uses state toothpaste, should the state be able to force them to flouridate their water? And be honest. You do not simply want parents to do "research". You want them to come to your conclusion. Any parent who researches the issue will find peer reviewed studies that claim it is a medical benefit and might choose the choice you don't want them to make. If you're against circumcision them calmly and rationally present your evidence to as many people as will listen. But as soon as you start talking about taking away parental rights based on your "research", you turn off people that might otherwise listen, namely me.

I was surprised by this post because it interpreted my statement far from my intention. I didn't mention government at all. It is a fact that some methods and actions in parenting are better and worse than others, same is true for any responsibility. Spanking is a good example. Some people believe that an innate parenting ability gives them all the correct answers. My primary intention was to state that, no, it takes research on parenting to become a better parent. The science of parenting is advancing and in some ways I do believe it is important that people reach the same conclusions, in other areas of parenting it isn't as important.

tropicangela
07-30-2011, 12:41 PM
You're right, I could argue vaccines either way, but I'm leaning towards the basic science of vaccines being sound. But I still believe the two to be largely different as one involves external body part removal and the other doesn't. (Although they do bring up some of the same discussion points) I agree this isn't the most important issue. As a libertarian almost every issue is a libertarian issue. I wasn't promoting that the government 'solve' the problem, I was identifying infant circumcision as immoral.


The science showing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness?

heavenlyboy34
07-30-2011, 12:55 PM
Some parents do or have a religious nick done to cause bleeding without removing the entire foreskin.
This is called "brit shalom". It's the most reasonable middle ground on the issue for people who insist on mutilating their sons' genitals, it seems.

heavenlyboy34
07-30-2011, 12:56 PM
Circumcision should be illegal for the parents to decide for the kid.

If the man wants to do it when he is 18 then fine, but the parents should not have the right to chop off his foreskin just like they should not have the right to chop off his ear lobes.
ftw.

Brian4Liberty
07-30-2011, 12:59 PM
What's amazing about this debate to me, is that many who support a woman's choice to abort her baby would be adamantly against circumcising her baby. I can't wrap my head around what they think the difference is. That if a baby is inside a woman, the baby has no rights. Once the baby comes outside of her body, the baby has rights?

Somewhat similar to the old stereotype on abortion/death penalty.

Pro-death penalty and Anti-abortion (rights).
or
Anti-death penalty and Pro-abortion (rights).

I add "rights" because almost all people in the US would prefer that other options be used before abortion.

specialkornflake
07-30-2011, 01:10 PM
The science showing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness?

Yes, not referring to any of the additives or different types of vaccines, just the general science. i.e. exposing your body to a weakened form of a disease to build immunity

libertybrewcity
07-30-2011, 02:34 PM
how about individual rights?

moderate libertarian
07-30-2011, 02:39 PM
For future reference, this topic tends to spark rather heated debate. Tread lightly when bringing it up. ;)

Yea I see circumcision news has aroused an interesting discussion on rights which is still pretty educational. Hopefully most people have thick skin and will handle it as adults.

wannaberocker
07-30-2011, 03:11 PM
THe question is really not "do you have a right". The question is "DO parents have a right to raise there child in the religious practices they choose? Or Can the state decide which religious practices they are allowed to practice and which ones they arnt.

LibForestPaul
07-30-2011, 05:32 PM
What's amazing about this debate to me, is that many who support a woman's choice to abort her baby would be adamantly against circumcising her baby. I can't wrap my head around what they think the difference is. That if a baby is inside a woman, the baby has no rights. Once the baby comes outside of her body, the baby has rights?

somewhat correct. If it is not a baby, than it has no rights. So it is not that a baby inside a women has no rights, it is that it is not considered a "human" with natural rights until it has undergone n number of weeks of gestation. From what I know, 1st trimester = not human, 2nd trimester = ???, 3rd trimester =human (very little leeway at this point)

LibForestPaul
07-30-2011, 05:41 PM
Lets consider other less known child modifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck_ring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_plate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding

Are these legal, in SF? Should they be legal, in SF?

BFranklin
07-30-2011, 05:46 PM
Circumcision is a barbaric practice that serves no purpose. Males are born a certain way and why remove a very sensitive part of the body? There's no point, and it lowers sexual pleasure.

Icymudpuppy
07-30-2011, 07:13 PM
Circumcision is a barbaric practice that serves no purpose. Males are born a certain way and why remove a very sensitive part of the body? There's no point, and it lowers sexual pleasure.

Prove it lowers sexual pleasure. You can't. That is an entirely subjective measurement and unproveable by current scientific practices. I however, can prove with modern scientific method that it can prevent susceptibility to genital skin infections in cases where the ability to wash with soap and water is unavailable.

nobody's_hero
07-30-2011, 07:39 PM
Lets consider other less known child modifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck_ring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_plate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding

Are these legal, in SF? Should they be legal, in SF?

Meh, cultural relativity.

You're talking about customs that are popular in various regions of the world and wanting to know if they should be legal/illegal in San Francisco.

Some 3/4 of males in America are circumcised, and they don't see the big deal. Passing a law is not going to make them see that it is a big deal (as advocates of the ban suggest). It will only cause resentment among the targeted populations and unenforceable government controls (If the "wars on drugs and terror" are rediculous, what does that make a "war on circumcision"?)

I wouldn't go over to Asia and force a law change to abolish neck rings in communities where 75% of the people have them. Likewise, I'd appreciate people not forcing circumcision bans on societies where 75% of the males are circumcised.

Besides, circumcisions are already on the decline in recent years. Why get government involved now?

Pericles
07-30-2011, 07:54 PM
THe question is really not "do you have a right". The question is "DO parents have a right to raise there child in the religious practices they choose? Or Can the state decide which religious practices they are allowed to practice and which ones they arnt.

Thread winner and +rep

Brian4Liberty
07-30-2011, 11:34 PM
THe question is really not "do you have a right". The question is "DO parents have a right to raise there child in the religious practices they choose? Or Can the state decide which religious practices they are allowed to practice and which ones they arnt.

Just to play devil's advocate, what if there are Satanic religions where human sacrifice is required. All OK?

BFranklin
07-31-2011, 09:34 AM
...

BFranklin
07-31-2011, 09:35 AM
...

BFranklin
07-31-2011, 09:36 AM
Prove it lowers sexual pleasure. You can't. That is an entirely subjective measurement and unproveable by current scientific practices. I however, can prove with modern scientific method that it can prevent susceptibility to genital skin infections in cases where the ability to wash with soap and water is unavailable.



Prove it? I will by saying I had more sensitivity and more pleasure when I was intact. How's that?

If people don't have access to soap and water to clean themselves they have bigger problems. Don't give me that, this isn't the 1500's. There is no need for circumcision anymore. Doctors and hospitals make a ton of money off this BARBARIC ANCIENT PROCEDURE.

Icymudpuppy
07-31-2011, 10:29 AM
Prove it? I will by saying I had more sensitivity and more pleasure when I was intact. How's that?

Really? When did you get done? I will expect a detailed description of the pain you felt during the procedure, as well as how it affected your sex life before and after. I want to know how many partners you had before your procedure and after your procedure. How many partners had sex with you both before the procedure and had sex with you after the procedure? Of those, how many had never given birth both before and after the procedure? How many had practiced vaginal muscle exercises before and after the procedure? How long did it take for you to reach climax before the procedure and after the procedure?

I have already given my example of a situation in modern times where adequate hygeine was not available. It can and does happen. If we have a major economic collapse, expect it to happen here in the USA. For those living in places like Las Vegas where water is hard to come by without modern infrastructure, expect having a foreskin to become a problem in the event of severe social unrest.

In places that have water, but which that water is severely unclean, such as New York, expect there also to be problems.

Invi
07-31-2011, 10:41 AM
Besides, circumcisions are already on the decline in recent years. Why get government involved now?

This. Remember how "Prohibition doesn't work?"
Education usually does.

I am 100% against body modification on children who can not consent, unless it is to correct a real and currently present threat. Those situations seem to be rather rare.

My cousin is Jewish. He said something about cicumcision entering the son into a covenant with God and the Jewish people.
Well, what if he doesn't want to be Jewish when he is old enough to make that choice?
It doesn't matter, he said. Once a Jew always a Jew. Note that every reference to Jew here is religion-only.
I told him it could matter to the son, one day. He might care.
I haven't heard back.

I understand that this is supposed to be some kind of sacrifice for God.. But how is it a sacrifice if you don't remember it and are not the one making that choice? Seems silly to me.

I do understand that because of his faith, he sees no problems here. I don't understand how it can be seen as anything other than barbaric, but obviously he does not see it that way.
So it's not like everyone who has this done to their sons is a sadist, as one of my friends recently accused. My mother had it done to my brothers for the supposed health benefits and so they wouldn't get picked on in the locker room. She took into consideration that if they chose to do it as adults, they wouldn't be numbed for the procedure. Not sure if that is still the case. The thought horrified her. She would never do anything to purposefully hurt her babies. She thought it would be in their best interest, and she even apologized in the event that they do not like it. That wouldn't fix it if that were the case obviously, but at least she cares.

I honestly think this is too controversial for government involvement. Educate people. Maybe someday it will be only certain religions that do this. Maybe some day, they won't do that anymore.

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 11:05 AM
Really? When did you get done? I will expect a detailed description of the pain you felt during the procedure, as well as how it affected your sex life before and after. I want to know how many partners you had before your procedure and after your procedure. How many partners had sex with you both before the procedure and had sex with you after the procedure? Of those, how many had never given birth both before and after the procedure? How many had practiced vaginal muscle exercises before and after the procedure? How long did it take for you to reach climax before the procedure and after the procedure?

I have already given my example of a situation in modern times where adequate hygeine was not available. It can and does happen. If we have a major economic collapse, expect it to happen here in the USA. For those living in places like Las Vegas where water is hard to come by without modern infrastructure, expect having a foreskin to become a problem in the event of severe social unrest.

In places that have water, but which that water is severely unclean, such as New York, expect there also to be problems.
hmm...people have been handling the hygiene problem for thousands of years before routine infant circumcision. Why do you think there will be a sudden change?

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 11:10 AM
This. Remember how "Prohibition doesn't work?"
Education usually does.

I am 100% against body modification on children who can not consent, unless it is to correct a real and currently present threat. Those situations seem to be rather rare.

My cousin is Jewish. He said something about cicumcision entering the son into a covenant with God and the Jewish people.
Well, what if he doesn't want to be Jewish when he is old enough to make that choice?
It doesn't matter, he said. Once a Jew always a Jew. Note that every reference to Jew here is religion-only.
I told him it could matter to the son, one day. He might care.
I haven't heard back.

I understand that this is supposed to be some kind of sacrifice for God.. But how is it a sacrifice if you don't remember it and are not the one making that choice? Seems silly to me.

I do understand that because of his faith, he sees no problems here. I don't understand how it can be seen as anything other than barbaric, but obviously he does not see it that way.
So it's not like everyone who has this done to their sons is a sadist, as one of my friends recently accused. My mother had it done to my brothers for the supposed health benefits and so they wouldn't get picked on in the locker room. She took into consideration that if they chose to do it as adults, they wouldn't be numbed for the procedure. Not sure if that is still the case. The thought horrified her. She would never do anything to purposefully hurt her babies. She thought it would be in their best interest, and she even apologized in the event that they do not like it. That wouldn't fix it if that were the case obviously, but at least she cares.

I honestly think this is too controversial for government involvement. Educate people. Maybe someday it will be only certain religions that do this. Maybe some day, they won't do that anymore.
Interesting. Should laws against clitoridectomy/female genital mutilation be repealed for the same reason?

Icymudpuppy
07-31-2011, 11:29 AM
hmm...people have been handling the hygiene problem for thousands of years before routine infant circumcision. Why do you think there will be a sudden change?

Child mortality and Male impotency were much higher before modern hygeine among christian populations than Jews too. I wonder why that was?

Invi
07-31-2011, 12:01 PM
Interesting. Should laws against clitoridectomy/female genital mutilation be repealed for the same reason?
To be completely honest, I am not sure. I could say yes, simply for the sake of consistancy, but I do not know.
I am not aware of any large cultural presence in our country that advocates that procedure, but I may well be ignorant of it. I would venture to say that it being illegal probably does not keep it from happening.

I do get your point, though.
I dislike government involvement in most things. This is a very personal issue for a lot of people. If nothing else, the federal government should not be involved.

Pericles
07-31-2011, 12:34 PM
hmm...people have been handling the hygiene problem for thousands of years before routine infant circumcision. Why do you think there will be a sudden change?

Back in the ancient days of World War II, the US Army had to take over 150,000 uncircumcised troops off the line for medical evacuation (non battle loss). It seems that when it goes bad, it goes bad fast.

That wartime experience is why the procedure became so widespread for the "baby boomers" and the "naturalism" movement that got started in the late 1960s to early 1970s counterculture went the other way.

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 12:37 PM
Child mortality and Male impotency were much higher before modern hygeine among christian populations than Jews too. I wonder why that was?

It had nothing to do with circumcision, I can tell you that much. Even among populations that practiced full circumcision (such as Egyptians) lived very short lives in most cases because of generally unsanitary lives-food, water, etc. There is no causal relationship between uncircumcised populations and high impotency or disease.

The way ancient jews practiced circumcision was not like the modern way. They typically only removed a tab of skin, not the whole foreskin (though some did remove the whole foreskin for varying religious reasons rather than hygiene). It wouldn't make sense to remove the entire foreskin back then. They didn't have the tools to properly and safely remove that much skin. Plus, smegma isn't and never has been "unsanitary". You wouldn't be here without it.
"The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma." Thomas J. Ritter, MD
It's smelly, but is water soluble. You don't even need soap to get rid of it. As far as impotency rates, I've never seen any proof of it being higher prior to RIC. Got some? Europeans seem to have been pretty potent prior to the introduction of circumcision into their culture. Even here in this country, circumcision wasn't very common at all until the 20th century-even before modern sanitation techniques. Yet, the population grew quite regularly in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The famous Maimonides, the Medieval Rabbi wrote in his book "The Guide To The Perplexed":
Part III, Chapter 49, Page 609:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.
Page 611:

This class of commandments also includes the prohibition against mutilating the sexual organs of all the males of animals, which is based on the principle of righteous statutes and judgments, I mean the principle of keeping the mean in all matters; sexual intercourse should neither be excessively indulged, as we have mentioned, nor wholly abolished. Did He not command and say: Be fruitful and multiply? Accordingly this organ is weakened by means of circumcision, but not extirpated through excision. What is natural is left according to nature, but measures are taken against excess. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off is forbidden to marry a woman of Israel, for such cohabitation would be perverted and aimless. Such a marriage would likewise be a stumbling block for the woman and for him who seeks her out. This is very clear.

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 12:47 PM
Back in the ancient days of World War II, the US Army had to take over 150,000 uncircumcised troops off the line for medical evacuation (non battle loss). It seems that when it goes bad, it goes bad fast.

That wartime experience is why the procedure became so widespread for the "baby boomers" and the "naturalism" movement that got started in the late 1960s to early 1970s counterculture went the other way.

And how many weren't taken off the line? ;) Besides, correlation is not causation. 150,000 is only a fraction of the total troops that fought in that war. Add in the uncircumcised European troops, and that fraction becomes even smaller. In the wars prior to the 20th century(even more "ancient"), this wasn't a problem.

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 12:52 PM
To be completely honest, I am not sure. I could say yes, simply for the sake of consistancy, but I do not know.
I am not aware of any large cultural presence in our country that advocates that procedure, but I may well be ignorant of it. I would venture to say that it being illegal probably does not keep it from happening.

I do get your point, though.
I dislike government involvement in most things. This is a very personal issue for a lot of people. If nothing else, the federal government should not be involved.I would agree. Keep it local, and State level at the highest.

Inflation
07-31-2011, 01:02 PM
If the cities and States can't/won't protect the rights of the newly born, then the Federal Gov't is the fallback enforcer.

At present the FBI should be helping coordinate State efforts to indict the Circumcision Industry on RICO charges, and for conspiracy to commit acts of terror on infants based on gender status (a federally protected suspect class under Equal Protection).

Pericles
07-31-2011, 02:28 PM
And how many weren't taken off the line? ;) Besides, correlation is not causation. 150,000 is only a fraction of the total troops that fought in that war. Add in the uncircumcised European troops, and that fraction becomes even smaller. In the wars prior to the 20th century(even more "ancient"), this wasn't a problem.

"Medical Department, United States Army, Surgery in World War II, Urology" published in 1987

pp. 145-146, general discussion at end of chapter.
"During the 1942-1945 interval, 13,522 patients with a diagnosis of condyloma acuminatum were hospitalized. Armed forces urological historians should be impressed with the fact that the redundant prepuce again can be pronounced guilty as a consistent contributor to the etiology and high incidence of this disease. Hospital admissions for paraphimosis, phimosis, balanitis, and condyloma acuminatum during the 1942-1945 period totaled 146,793. Had these patients been circumcised before induction this total would probably have been close to zero."


When you are out somewhere where you are lucky to get a shower once a month (whether you need one or not), and a great day is where you have the time, water availability, and can be reasonably sure you won't get shot in the next 15 minutes, you can pour a canteen full of water over you, the tolerance for vanity over practical things that make your life better is very low.

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 03:28 PM
"Medical Department, United States Army, Surgery in World War II, Urology" published in 1987

pp. 145-146, general discussion at end of chapter.
"During the 1942-1945 interval, 13,522 patients with a diagnosis of condyloma acuminatum were hospitalized. Armed forces urological historians should be impressed with the fact that the redundant prepuce again can be pronounced guilty as a consistent contributor to the etiology and high incidence of this disease. Hospital admissions for paraphimosis, phimosis, balanitis, and condyloma acuminatum during the 1942-1945 period totaled 146,793. Had these patients been circumcised before induction this total would probably have been close to zero."


When you are out somewhere where you are lucky to get a shower once a month (whether you need one or not), and a great day is where you have the time, water availability, and can be reasonably sure you won't get shot in the next 15 minutes, you can pour a canteen full of water over you, the tolerance for vanity over practical things that make your life better is very low.


This still doesn't account for the thousands of troops from other countries (Russia, Germany, etc) who (from the information provided) didn't have the same problem. Perhaps the problem was in something the US troops did or ate. (diet plays a big role in a number of infections) As I said before, correlation is not causation.

Plus, the number of US troops alone in WWII is estimated to be 16 million. 146,793 out of 16,000,000 (not including soldier from other countries, of course) isn't a huge statistic and certainly doesn't bolster your case.

Icymudpuppy
07-31-2011, 03:33 PM
This still doesn't account for the thousands of troops from other countries (Russia, Germany, etc)

The German Army would've killed anyone who was circumcized as they would have been immediately called a Jew, Untermenshcen. Sent to a concentration camp at best. Thus, they would not have kept such data.

As for the Russians, we all know how free Stalin was regarding the dissemination of scientific study within his regime. IF such data were even kept, I doubt it would have been shared.

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 03:39 PM
The German Army would've killed anyone who was circumcized as they would have been immediately called a Jew, Untermenshcen. Sent to a concentration camp at best. Thus, they would not have kept such data.

As for the Russians, we all know how free Stalin was regarding the dissemination of scientific study within his regime. IF such data were even kept, I doubt it would have been shared.

A little shaky, but say that's true. What about all the other axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers) and allied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II) forces? France, Poland, UK, Australia, Canada, etc? Also, what about all the other earlier wars in US/Western European history? RIC didn't exist till the early 20th century, so why weren't the aforementioned medical problems fixed earlier if there is a provable causation?

Peace&Freedom
07-31-2011, 03:46 PM
If the cities and States can't/won't protect the rights of the newly born, then the Federal Gov't is the fallback enforcer.

At present the FBI should be helping coordinate State efforts to indict the Circumcision Industry on RICO charges, and for conspiracy to commit acts of terror on infants based on gender status (a federally protected suspect class under Equal Protection).

Good grief, there is no "fallback enforcer" clause in the Constitution. There shouldn't even BE an FBI to terrorize parents over farcical 'gender crimes.' The Equal Protection clause protects individual rights, not groups. There is no 'Circumcision industry,' just a lot of doctors who are performing a standard procedure on new born males, one of many that parents approve of and coordinate. Shall we prosecute parents and doctors next for cutting the embilical cord?

Icymudpuppy
07-31-2011, 04:05 PM
At least we have scientific studies that back up our statements about the advantages of circumcision in limited hygeine environments.

We can't expect every country to have been as concerned with such things, or to have had the cross section of soldiers both with and without circumcisions necessary to cull sufficient data.

You guys bring up lack of sensation which you can't prove with any scientific study, and the benefits of smegma which I also haven't seen any evidence of. The foreskin is much like the Appendix, Tonsils, Wisdom teeth. It may have had some beneficial purpose at some point in our evolutionary history, but I fail to see that it incurs any advantage, and in certain circumstances it confers a disadvantage. The biggest problem with the foreskin that I can tell is that it confers a disadvantage when victims are least able to do anything about it. ie: when they are stranded in remote places with no modern conveniences.

Some human populations have already stopped having wisdom teeth. The appendix continues to shrink, and perhaps someday the foreskin will also be lost in the annals of evolution as an unneccessary and potentially hazardous trait. Given that the hazards are very small, it may be that it will only become lost by homogenous populations of desert dwellers such as North Africans, Middle easterners, Mongolians, and the like and be a regional trait much like skin coloration. However, since Islamic peoples mostly inhabit such areas, and routinely practice circumcision as a religious rite, it is unlikely that natural absence of foreskin will have any chance to compete in the population until such practices cease. Thus, despite evolutionary disadvantage, the foreskin will remain long past its value because of surgical technique. Similarly, the presence of Wisdom teeth will continue long past its evolutionary detriment because of surgical technique.

Ultimately, modern surgery prevents physical evolution.

However, knowing that I am a throwback, (on wisdom teeth and appendix and foreskin and tonsils) yet wanting my genes to continue well into the advance of the species, I intend to increase the survivability of my offspring in inclement circumstances so that we can continue to reproduce long into the future of the species. Perhaps by then, the foreskin will be a lost trait altogether, and having one will be recessive enough that a father with one will not necessarily produce offspring with one, in which case the procedure will no longer be necessary.

I did marry a female who never grew any wisdom teeth, and perhaps my children or grandchildren will advance early out of that unimportant trait and the procedure of surgical removal of that set of teeth in the event of abcess will no longer be necessary in my family tree. I was lucky in that my primitive jaw is actually large enough to accomodate the 8th set of teeth with only minor crowding.

Given what I've seen in Iraq, I honestly don't know why anyone would want a foreskin. That shit is nasty when it gets an infection.

BFranklin
07-31-2011, 05:41 PM
Really? When did you get done? I will expect a detailed description of the pain you felt during the procedure, as well as how it affected your sex life before and after. I want to know how many partners you had before your procedure and after your procedure. How many partners had sex with you both before the procedure and had sex with you after the procedure? Of those, how many had never given birth both before and after the procedure? How many had practiced vaginal muscle exercises before and after the procedure? How long did it take for you to reach climax before the procedure and after the procedure?

I have already given my example of a situation in modern times where adequate hygeine was not available. It can and does happen. If we have a major economic collapse, expect it to happen here in the USA. For those living in places like Las Vegas where water is hard to come by without modern infrastructure, expect having a foreskin to become a problem in the event of severe social unrest.

In places that have water, but which that water is severely unclean, such as New York, expect there also to be problems.


LOL...I'm just gonna say this. "I would have liked to die the exact way I was born". How about that.

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 06:01 PM
At least we have scientific studies that back up our statements about the advantages of circumcision in limited hygeine environments.

We can't expect every country to have been as concerned with such things, or to have had the cross section of soldiers both with and without circumcisions necessary to cull sufficient data.

You guys bring up lack of sensation which you can't prove with any scientific study, and the benefits of smegma which I also haven't seen any evidence of. The foreskin is much like the Appendix, Tonsils, Wisdom teeth. It may have had some beneficial purpose at some point in our evolutionary history, but I fail to see that it incurs any advantage, and in certain circumstances it confers a disadvantage. The biggest problem with the foreskin that I can tell is that it confers a disadvantage when victims are least able to do anything about it. ie: when they are stranded in remote places with no modern conveniences.

Some human populations have already stopped having wisdom teeth. The appendix continues to shrink, and perhaps someday the foreskin will also be lost in the annals of evolution as an unneccessary and potentially hazardous trait. Given that the hazards are very small, it may be that it will only become lost by homogenous populations of desert dwellers such as North Africans, Middle easterners, Mongolians, and the like and be a regional trait much like skin coloration. However, since Islamic peoples mostly inhabit such areas, and routinely practice circumcision as a religious rite, it is unlikely that natural absence of foreskin will have any chance to compete in the population until such practices cease. Thus, despite evolutionary disadvantage, the foreskin will remain long past its value because of surgical technique. Similarly, the presence of Wisdom teeth will continue long past its evolutionary detriment because of surgical technique.

Ultimately, modern surgery prevents physical evolution.

However, knowing that I am a throwback, (on wisdom teeth and appendix and foreskin and tonsils) yet wanting my genes to continue well into the advance of the species, I intend to increase the survivability of my offspring in inclement circumstances so that we can continue to reproduce long into the future of the species. Perhaps by then, the foreskin will be a lost trait altogether, and having one will be recessive enough that a father with one will not necessarily produce offspring with one, in which case the procedure will no longer be necessary.

I did marry a female who never grew any wisdom teeth, and perhaps my children or grandchildren will advance early out of that unimportant trait and the procedure of surgical removal of that set of teeth in the event of abcess will no longer be necessary in my family tree. I was lucky in that my primitive jaw is actually large enough to accomodate the 8th set of teeth with only minor crowding.

Given what I've seen in Iraq, I honestly don't know why anyone would want a foreskin. That shit is nasty when it gets an infection.

I quoted thusly "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma." Thomas J. Ritter, MD. If that's not enough, you'll find that not a single credible medical organization in the world recommends circumcision to prevent disease. Here's a scholarly article for you from the journal "Sexology": How Smegma Serves The Penis (http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/)

If you need more, I'll dig it up for you.

The reason people like their foreskins is because they work-just as nature intended. A lot of body parts get nasty when they're infected, but that's not a reason to amputate them. :rolleyes: Hey, did you know that if you amputate your arms, you'll never break them? Everyone, off with your arms! It's for your health! ;)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :)

Icymudpuppy
07-31-2011, 06:05 PM
I quoted thusly "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma." Thomas J. Ritter, MD. If that's not enough, you'll find that not a single credible medical organization in the world recommends circumcision to prevent disease. Here's a scholarly article for you from the journal "Sexology": How Smegma Serves The Penis (http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/)

If you need more, I'll dig it up for you.

Yes, I see, it is quite necessary for rape or if your woman is otherwise not aroused.

Might I suggest a little romance and foreplay if you're having lubrication issues?

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 06:12 PM
Yes, I see, it is quite necessary for rape or if your woman is otherwise not aroused.

Might I suggest a little romance and foreplay if you're having lubrication issues?

Yes, it's there to make us rapists. :rolleyes: Please tell me you weren't being serious with that nonsense? (The foreskin is a sex organ in itself, and most cultures' women find it stimulating and desirable. "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." Moses ben Maimon, Guide of the perplexed, Part III, Chapter 49 ) Anyways, I prefer doing it the natural way. ;)

Icymudpuppy
07-31-2011, 06:17 PM
Yes, it's there to make us rapists. :rolleyes: Please tell me you weren't being serious with that nonsense? Anyways, I prefer doing it the natural way. ;)

Whatever floats your boat. I see where wild animals who end up essentially raping the females after running off or killing the rival males need to provide lubrication of their own. I see how that is a viable strategy for men who get their women by war plunder. I'm sure having a foreskin was absolutely essential to the mongolians spreading their seed around Europe.

Also, I see where if you are just a boorish or ugly man who has no ability to arouse your mate, you may need that too.

Nevertheless, I've never needed to provide my own lubrication. Indeed, the ladies have always provided for me. Try nibbling on their ears. They love that.

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2011, 06:19 PM
Whatever floats your boat. I see where wild animals who end up essentially raping the females after running off or killing the rival males need to provide lubrication of their own. I see how that is a viable strategy for men who get their women by war plunder. I'm sure having a foreskin was absolutely essential to the mongolians spreading their seed around Europe.

Also, I see where if you are just a boorish or ugly man who has no ability to arouse your mate, you may need that too.

Nevertheless, I've never needed to provide my own lubrication. Indeed, the ladies have always provided for me. Try nibbling on their ears. They love that.

lol...tell that BS to European women (really, just about any women besides the Americans). ;) Guys with foreskins everywhere are getting along just fine. :cool: I don't know where you could have come up with this nonsense-perhaps a locker room in high school? All the accounts from females I've heard or read who've experienced both relate that uncirc'ed guys are gentler and don't have to thrust so hard. Plus, I've been told that circ'ed guys feel like a broomstick. lol

jmdrake
08-02-2011, 05:28 AM
I'm giving you +rep for that—but fair warning, you're about to get flamed 'cause I said something similar a while back.

========

I'm not too familiar with California's state constitution, but it does seem kind of odd that a state government has stepped in and stated that cities cannot make laws (tens of thousands of city ordinances could now be invalidated by this decision). San Fran also banned happy meals, 'for health reasons,' so for consistency the state would have to go after those ordinances, too.

Should it go to Federal courts? No. The federal courts have no jurisdiction to interpret state law, although it doesn't stop people from trying to take every issue to the SCOTUS.

+rep for understanding constitutional law! I just took the bar (hopefully I passed). Here's a common bar question.

Q. The state supreme court of X rules that Y law violates the first amendment of the U.S. constitution as well as clause Z of state X's constitution. How will the supreme court most likely deal with this case?

A. Refuse to hear it because it was decided on independent state grounds.

I'm certain I got those questions right. Hopefully that was enough to pass. ;)

jmdrake
08-02-2011, 05:35 AM
You're right, I could argue vaccines either way, but I'm leaning towards the basic science of vaccines being sound. But I still believe the two to be largely different as one involves external body part removal and the other doesn't. (Although they do bring up some of the same discussion points) I agree this isn't the most important issue. As a libertarian almost every issue is a libertarian issue. I wasn't promoting that the government 'solve' the problem, I was identifying infant circumcision as immoral.



I was surprised by this post because it interpreted my statement far from my intention. I didn't mention government at all. It is a fact that some methods and actions in parenting are better and worse than others, same is true for any responsibility. Spanking is a good example. Some people believe that an innate parenting ability gives them all the correct answers. My primary intention was to state that, no, it takes research on parenting to become a better parent. The science of parenting is advancing and in some ways I do believe it is important that people reach the same conclusions, in other areas of parenting it isn't as important.

Okay. Cool. But the context of the entire thread is about a city law (state actor) that was taking away parental rights. I fully agree that parents should research and find the best way to raise their kids. They also need to be open to the fact that their "research" might be wrong and that sometimes a bad answer is better than no answer. Let's go back to spanking for a minute. I knew a mother once who had a horrid child. This child was so bad that I saw him kick an adult in front of her and she did nothing. Her child was in the 5th grade and couldn't read words like "dog" or "cat". This mother told me one day that she had gotten into a fight with another mother in the projects because she was mad that this other mother was spanking her own child. Now I don't think spanking is the best way to discipline or even the only way, but it's better than what this mother was doing. And as bad as her child was she had no reason to even advise another parent about discipline, let alone physically intervene.