Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
darkmoonlady

S.F Circumcision ban vs. Religious Freedom

167 posts in this topic

The command came from the true God. So it must be good.

Just like killing people who collect sticks on the wrong day.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son was circumcised. We did this not because of some ideology or religion. We did it because, as a nurse, I saw elderly man who could no longer care for themselves properly, while we were never taught how an uncircumcized male should be cared for. This led to rashes, bad yeast infections and bad bedsores.

It also helps to stop the transmission of specific diseases, for him and his lovers.

We decided this for our son because some day, he is going to be old and perhaps unable to properly care for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, how do you know it doesn't cause harm? How do you know you're not missing out on some sensitivity? Fact is you ddon't. You were circumcised when you were a baby (as were many around you) so you have no idea what was lost from you, you all just accept it.

From my understanding, comparative studies show no loss of function or sensitivity. An epidermiologist might be able to give a definitive answer, based on a comparison of nerve endings .

My point was that, personally, any more sensitivity would have been a disadvantage throughout my life. And of course I can only speak, particulary on that, for my self.

Unless one is circumcised as a functioning adult, one can never persoanlly compare the two conditions.

Of course sexual function is, in general, only one easpect of the issue, and for many men a comparatively minor one. The health aspect is at least as important, if looked at dispassionately. It is in this area that significant evidences appear in favour of circumcision. Not just for men but for their female sexual partners. Although those evidences may not compel everyone to the same pov, igoring them would be foolish.

Again, circumcision is not a religious issue at all. It has always been a health issue, albeit one which has beome engrained in a variety of religious beliefs and rituals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son was circumcised. We did this not because of some ideology or religion. We did it because, as a nurse, I saw elderly man who could no longer care for themselves properly, while we were never taught how an uncircumcized male should be cared for. This led to rashes, bad yeast infections and bad bedsores.

It also helps to stop the transmission of specific diseases, for him and his lovers.

We decided this for our son because some day, he is going to be old and perhaps unable to properly care for himself.

I think that is a poor argument, an old man who couldn't take care of himself completely not just his foreskin is not reason enough for an infant to have his foreskin removed. That is like saying if I get old and unable to care and clean for myself and end up with a yeast infection I should have my girl parts sewn up. It's an extreme reaction (surgery) to someone's inability to wash properly? You state that you were never taught how an uncircumcized male should be cared for so therefore you had your sons cut? As a nurse you could have easily FOUND the information couldn't you? Just seems like ignorance of how to do something medical isn't a reason to have your sons foreskin removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little lost here, nothing new for me, but is this thread about the pros and cons of circumcision, or the City of San Francisco's right to ban it? At any level, a governments primary job is to do what is best for the people. So, I ask, how is this ban beneficial to the people of San Francisco? I see no benefit to the public here. Doesn't the city have more important things affecting it's citizens than the foreskin of it's male residents? This sounds more like someones personal crusade than an issue affecting the citizenry of this city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let me just state this:

Some Muslims wanted to legalize the ritual pricking of the clitoris for newborns. All they would do is prick it with a needle to draw blood. But this was denied. What about religious freedom? This type of female circumcision removes nothing. All it is really is drawing a drop of blood, but everyone is against it.

Also, there are many types of female circumcision.

1) Removing the clitoral hood only. The clitoris is left alone. This is anatomically analogous to male circumcision.

2) Removal of the clitoris and labia.

3) Sewing up the vaginal lips.

4) All other types not specified above.

Type 1 is the most common. It's usually done in Egypt to infants. I see no reason why type 1 female circ. should be illegal why male circ. is legal. They do the same amount of damage, and supposedly have the same heath benefits, since smegma can collect under the clitoral hood, and it's a good place for bacteria to hang out. But instead of cutting our girls, we teach them to use soap. Why do we cut our boys instead of telling them to use soap, also?

I'm against circumcising anyone who isn't of age and consenting. This isn't about religious freedom. A Jewish man can consent to be circumcised as an adult. As an adult, he can even be given pain medication. Infants are rarely given adequate pain medication because it's dangerous to put a young child on much for pain. But why should that choice be made for another human being? What about his rights to his own body, to not have his parents have his body modified for their own religious reasons?

Haven't you heard of men who resent being cut, and restore their foreskins? I've spoken to several in my activism. They get some sensitivity back, but all the nerve endings are gone. Once they're cut, they're cut for life. At least an adult can actually choose.

Sorry for the long rant. This is something I am very passionate about. Girls are protected from even a prick that removes no tissue at all, and doesn't even modify any body parts. Boys aren't protected from having a very vital organ removed that contains thousands of nerve endings and even serves to protect the glans from dust and other pollutants. It should boil down to whose body it is.

Also...how does this ban benefit people of San Fran? It benefits every male infant since he won't be having healthy organs cut off.

Edited by clockworkgirl21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I not only understand the points many of you have made about the reasons for not performing circumcision and I support them, however, I do not agree that this is something that the government has any business getting involved in, sorry. What's next, breast implants? San Francisco like all cities has real problems that affect every one of it's residents, public safety issues like police and fire, jails and traffic, public health issues like hospitals and clinics and issued involving the spiraling budgets affecting ALL California cities. And no government has the right to interfere in religious rights. This will end up in court where the city will spend millions and it will get overturned. A waste of taxpayer dollars spent on political grandstanding, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/10/

It seems the Evangelical community is throwing its weight behind opposition to the ban on circumcision based on the Abrahamic root of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Calling it a religious debate seems to me to be shifting it away from the human rights issues. Female genital mutilations are considered a human rights violation based on gender, so why not circumcision? I could understand invoking religious freedom if it were adults who were making this decision however, tradition seems to me to be a weak excuse. The bible also calls for stoning people and treatment of women like property, so how is that an acceptable or valid reason to continue circumcision. For the record I'm against it for infants, if someeone wants it after the age of consent then go for it. What do you think?

Regardless of the 'church' reasons, the body generates a chemical under the foreskin of the penis that is known to produce cervical cancer in the female as well as other diseases, why the Hebrew community circumcised during the BC period.

Edited by Lightofthesun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Regardless of the 'church' reasons, the body generates a chemical under the foreskin of the penis that is known to produce cervical cancer in the female as well as other diseases, why the Hebrew community circumcised during the BC period.

Most cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV not "a chemical", so not sure where you are getting your information. Sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted by men who are either circumcized or uncircumcized when a condom isn't used.

Mayo Clinic on Cervical Cancer

Edited by darkmoonlady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV not "a chemical", so not sure where you are getting your information. Sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted by men who are either circumcized or uncircumcized when a condom isn't used.

Mayo Clinic on Cervical Cancer

Read this

http://www.circinfo.net/cervical_cancer_in_female_partners_of_uncircumcised_men.html

I appreciate it is at odds with this

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/04/male-circumcision-cervical-cancer.html

But the peaceful parenting site has a strong, understandable, but emotional, agenda which makes its slant on statistics untrustworthy, to me. The professional body of doctors in Australia, The AMA, still sees many good reasons why male children should be circumcised. It stops short of recommending wholesale male infant circumcision as was practiced in the last century, when i was born, but it recommends parents make up their own minds on medical grounds. Emotional response is not a medical ground. Infection rates, and even the incidence of cervical cancer in women, is a medical statistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is a poor argument, an old man who couldn't take care of himself completely not just his foreskin is not reason enough for an infant to have his foreskin removed. That is like saying if I get old and unable to care and clean for myself and end up with a yeast infection I should have my girl parts sewn up. It's an extreme reaction (surgery) to someone's inability to wash properly? You state that you were never taught how an uncircumcized male should be cared for so therefore you had your sons cut? As a nurse you could have easily FOUND the information couldn't you? Just seems like ignorance of how to do something medical isn't a reason to have your sons foreskin removed.

I honor that you think. However it is the best argument for circumcision, Health. Your logical is not linear on sewing up a girl's parts. But if that is what you want to do, thru your logical tangent, who am I to stop you.

If a person is not able to wash themselves properly while uncircumscized, who is going to do it for them?

Yes, I asked a Dr. how to do it because no one, no school would address the issue. But I am one person in many who cared for that man. It doesn't take any time at all for an infection like to set in in a hospital environment. The effect of someone cleaning up an uncircumscized, health-challenged male while not really knowing the implications for doing it wrong can be a serious issue. If the tissue is not retracted following cleaning, then swelling will set in, the tissue will balloon with retained fluid. This is easy resolved via surgery. Is that what you are wishing for your child at the end of his life, that he have surgery because his care-taker did not take care of his private parts properly, and the medical schools are not teaching people how to care for a uncircumscized male on a daily basis?

I feel no guilt that my son doesn't have all the skin he was born with. Out of concern for the health of him and his lovers, we choose to have it removed. The event was as male ritualized as I could make it. His doctor was male, and his father stood by while it was done, probably saying things that likened it to a Rites Of Passage event,knowing my spouse.

I have no emotional heat about this issue, while you obviously do. I am happy with my decision, as is my spouse. My son still doesn't know there was a choice.

FYI, the Dr. didn't take all my son's skin, so some remains, a small amount. The Dr. made a mistake, and we forgave. It took diligent care while he was a baby to keep that area clean. But I have no complaints. Am happy.

This topic is not emotionally super-charged for me. Don't expect any additional response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The truth is, there's lots we don't know, because nobody has talked about it until recently. How many circumcised men have problems with the scar? How many intact (uncircumcised) men have problems with hygiene or cleanliness? How many men who were circumcised as an infant, resent it? How many intact men wish it had been done to them as an infant? How many women have a preference one way or the other. Most of all, should it be legal to cut off a part of another person's body without their permission?

*snip*

Edited by Saru
Please do not link to offsite surveys, thank you.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certainly a medical issue, a health issue,

http://medicalxpress...obiome-hiv.html

Circumcision alters penis microbiome, could explain HIV protection April 16, 2013 in HIV & AIDS Circumcision drastically alters the microbiome of the penis, changes that could explain why circumcision offers protection against HIV and other viral infections. In a study to be published on April 16 in mBio, the online open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology, researchers studied the effects of adult male circumcision on the types of bacteria that live under the foreskin before and after circumcision. By one year post-procedure, the total bacterial load in that area had dropped significantly and the prevalence of anaerobic bacteria, which thrive in locations with limited oxygen, declined while the numbers of some aerobic bacteria increased slightly.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certainly a medical issue, a health issue,

http://medicalxpress...obiome-hiv.html

Circumcision alters penis microbiome, could explain HIV protection April 16, 2013 in HIV & AIDS Circumcision drastically alters the microbiome of the penis, changes that could explain why circumcision offers protection against HIV and other viral infections. In a study to be published on April 16 in mBio, the online open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology, researchers studied the effects of adult male circumcision on the types of bacteria that live under the foreskin before and after circumcision. By one year post-procedure, the total bacterial load in that area had dropped significantly and the prevalence of anaerobic bacteria, which thrive in locations with limited oxygen, declined while the numbers of some aerobic bacteria increased slightly.

This is good news, your son doesn't have to worry about using protection or cleaning himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumcision to a child is disgusting and absolutely barbaric. I can't even imagine giving the go ahead for it to be done to my son and the thought wouldn't even cross my mind. I don't really, nor will I ever, buy the more healthy/hygienic argument. I've never had a problem and I don't think I just got lucky, I just happen to keep myself clean. Not rocket science. Now if it was for medical reasons later in life? Sure, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

A father's role is to protect, not mutilate. Just my opinion, of course.

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more realistic in the days, when Hygience isnt as good as it is now, Infection would be the main reason, when cleaning yourself was more difficult than our modern sytle living.

This day and age, there is REALLY no need for it, untill later life, however - Not all of us will end up in the stage of being unable to care for ourselfs hopefully.

Also people that care for the elderly should be advised this. It is unacceptable that they do no do there job right by not cleaning the areas correctly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumcision to a child is disgusting and absolutely barbaric. I can't even imagine giving the go ahead for it to be done to my son and the thought wouldn't even cross my mind. I don't really, nor will I ever, buy the more healthy/hygienic argument. I've never had a problem and I don't think I just got lucky, I just happen to keep myself clean. Not rocket science. Now if it was for medical reasons later in life? Sure, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

A father's role is to protect, not mutilate. Just my opinion, of course.

As a nurse, I have seen it time and time again, that when a man is no longer able to physically "care" for his uncircumcised member, there are few other people willing to or knowledgable about how to, do it for him. The bacteria from the smegma, if conditions are right, and they often are right, lead to bedsores. If cared for in an unproper manner, the foreskin can accumulate interstitial fluids and cut off circulation. Ending in some pretty undesirable consequences.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.