captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^Your post sounds autobiographical!

Okay, that doesn't even make sense! You're losing your touch FM!

It wasn't supposed to make sense to you. What touch?

I am so fucking sick of you two.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

Okay, that doesn't even make sense! You're losing your touch FM!

It wasn't supposed to make sense to you.

Oh, well that's a relief!

Forgiveness Man wrote:

What touch?

Exactly. Although I admit, at least I was trying to be nice!

So getting back to the discussion at hand (because I don't feel like checking back to see if you actually answered the question) would you have your son circumcised? Why/Why not?

I actually haven't decided if I'd have my son circumcised or not. It's something I'd talk over with my wife when the time comes. I actually am neither pro nor anti circumcision.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I actually haven't decided if I'd have my son circumcised or not. It's something I'd talk over with my wife when the time comes. I actually am neither pro nor anti circumcision.

That's a very SAFE answer.

I hope this passes and that it starts a trend. I'm currently active with a group that is trying to end Medicaid coverage of neonatal circumcision. No medical organization in the entire world recommends that newborns be routinely circumcised, and most of the world leaves their boys in one piece. Any potential benefits of circumcision are just that....potential. There are no proven benefits, and plenty of proven risks and side effects....from relatively minor ones like keratination of the glans, all the way to amputation and death.

2xy wrote:

I hope this passes and that it starts a trend. I'm currently active with a group that is trying to end Medicaid coverage of neonatal circumcision. No medical organization in the entire world recommends that newborns be routinely circumcised, and most of the world leaves their boys in one piece. Any potential benefits of circumcision are just that....potential. There are no proven benefits, and plenty of proven risks and side effects....from relatively minor ones like keratination of the glans, all the way to amputation and death.

Medicaid here does not cover it. At least, I don't think it does because I had a friend complaining about "having" to come up with 600 dollars to get it done.

I'm happy to say that all the little boys that I know (well enough to know their "status" anyway, lol), save hers, are intact. I think there is definitely a trend in the right direction here at least.

So far I think seventeen states have dropped Medicaid coverage for circ. It's still covered in my state, which has a huge deficit. Tax dollars have better uses than for cutting the genitals of baby boys for no good reason. Unfortunately, since neonatal foreskins are a billion-dollar-a-year industry, hospitals are more than happy to keep supplying them, and doctors are in no hurry to stop parents from having it done.

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I actually haven't decided if I'd have my son circumcised or not. It's something I'd talk over with my wife when the time comes. I actually am neither pro nor anti circumcision.

That's a very SAFE answer.

The truth is safe once in awhile. Did you want the truthful answer or something you can pounce on?

2xy wrote:

So far I think seventeen states have dropped Medicaid coverage for circ. It's still covered in my state, which has a huge deficit. Tax dollars have better uses than for cutting the genitals of baby boys for no good reason. Unfortunately, since neonatal foreskins are a billion-dollar-a-year industry, hospitals are more than happy to keep supplying them, and doctors are in no hurry to stop parents from having it done.

You'd think in our current economy, that would be the first thing dropped by Medicaid nationwide! 600 dollars for cutting off a babies foreskin? Ridiculous!

captainbryce wrote:

2xy wrote:

So far I think seventeen states have dropped Medicaid coverage for circ. It's still covered in my state, which has a huge deficit. Tax dollars have better uses than for cutting the genitals of baby boys for no good reason. Unfortunately, since neonatal foreskins are a billion-dollar-a-year industry, hospitals are more than happy to keep supplying them, and doctors are in no hurry to stop parents from having it done.

You'd think in our current economy, that would be the first thing dropped by Medicaid nationwide! 600 dollars for cutting off a babies foreskin? Ridiculous!

Especially considering Medicaid is dropping coverage on the number of doctor visits & procedures covered on a regular basis now. Cut off a foreskin? Sure! Breast reduction for a girl who has a real medical need? Sorry.

captainbryce wrote:

2xy wrote:

So far I think seventeen states have dropped Medicaid coverage for circ. It's still covered in my state, which has a huge deficit. Tax dollars have better uses than for cutting the genitals of baby boys for no good reason. Unfortunately, since neonatal foreskins are a billion-dollar-a-year industry, hospitals are more than happy to keep supplying them, and doctors are in no hurry to stop parents from having it done.

You'd think in our current economy, that would be the first thing dropped by Medicaid nationwide! 600 dollars for cutting off a babies foreskin? Ridiculous!

Damn that's how much circs costs?

What a fucking waste of money. That 600 dollars could pay for groceries for months.

I'm amazed how attached men are to that extra skin. Our son was circumcised routinely 50 years ago. He says he is glad it was done. However what San Francisco has and is about to do is taking more freedom of choice from people. Just as Wisconsin has done in taking the workers freedom of choice from them. Little by little people are losing their rights and it seems they don't care as long as it is something they agree with it.

I think it's protecting the owner of the foreskins rights. I don't believe parents have a claim to it. It's his & should be his decision.

It was automatically done when he was born, unless a parent said "no" it was routine. Actually he says the girls like it better without the foreskin. So yes knowing that women like it he would choose to have it done as an adult. I'm not sure why women like it better, I've never seen an adult penis that was circumcised, So I couldn't give a personal opinion.

But personal preferences aside, what about the freedoms being lost? Little by little Americans personal freedoms are being eroded, and it is fine as long as someone agrees with the freedoms lost. What if a parent wants to give his kid a happy meal?(Yes I know all they have to do is drive out of San Francisco) since when does a city have the right to interfere with a parents rights, or a state interfere with a workers rights, how soon does the federal government then start issuing laws against the right to assemble, or free speech, etc?

Suzi wrote:

I'm amazed how attached men are to that extra skin. Our son was circumcised routinely 50 years ago. He says he is glad it was done. However what San Francisco has and is about to do is taking more freedom of choice from people. Just as Wisconsin has done in taking the workers freedom of choice from them. Little by little people are losing their rights and it seems they don't care as long as it is something they agree with it.

I agree. I don't necessarily "AGREE" with routine circumcision of infants per se, but it's not THAT serious and outlawing it altogether is totally stupid. Educate people on why it is or isn't needed so that they can make the choice that's right for them. If they're gonna outlaw something as minor as circumcision then I wonder if abortion is next.

I disagree wholeheartedly. They are GIVING choice. They aren't taking it away.

If that bill passes, hopefully the male will grow up to make his OWN choice regarding HIS penis.

Rockbird wrote:

I disagree wholeheartedly. They are GIVING choice. They aren't taking it away.

If that bill passes, hopefully the male will grow up to make his OWN choice regarding HIS penis.

What if the babies parents are Jewish?

Suzi wrote:

Rockbird wrote:

I disagree wholeheartedly. They are GIVING choice. They aren't taking it away.

If that bill passes, hopefully the male will grow up to make his OWN choice regarding HIS penis.

What if the babies parents are Jewish?

What if the child grows up to denounce Judaism?

Rockbird wrote:

Suzi wrote:

What if the babies parents are Jewish?

What if the child grows up to denounce Judaism?

Suzi wrote:

Rockbird wrote:

I disagree wholeheartedly. They are GIVING choice. They aren't taking it away.

If that bill passes, hopefully the male will grow up to make his OWN choice regarding HIS penis.

What if the babies parents are Jewish?

First of all, in the US the law wouldn't allow you to shove a bamboo shoot through your baby's bottom lip in accordance with tribal or religious traditions. Yet it does allow you to cut off his foreskin for such reasons? In this country it is illegal to perform a "pin-prick" on your daughter's genitals in the name of religion, but cutting off the most sensitive part of your boy's genitals is perfectly legal in the name of religion. It makes no sense and it's a hypocrasy!

http://everybodysgood.com/blogs/allegra/197/american-academy-pediatrics-reverses-pinprick-poli/

If circumcision is medically considered to be "cosmetic" and non-theraputic surgery (which it is), how can it be justified in the name of the PARENTS religion?

However, to alleviate such religious concerns the answer is simple: the parents can simply perform a "symbolic" circumcision in accordance with their beliefs without actually cutting the baby (reform Jews who don't believe in circumcision do it all the time). Adult converts to the Jewish faith also do this if they've already been circumcised. A Jewish baby is technically not "Jewish" unless he's had a bris ceremony performed (whether he's actually been circumcised or not). The significance of the procedure means absolutely nothing if it is not done by a mohel with the appropriate prayers during the ceremony, suggesting that it is more symbolic anyway.

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89xECfHG4

If the kid grows up wanting to embrace his parents religion, then he can always CHOOSE to undergo a ritual circumcision. The point is, it should be HIS choice, not the parents.

So much for personal freedom. Why bother with the US constitution if little by little rights are chipped away. Actually right now they are being hacked away at a horrendous rate. Wisconsin, Michigan, outlaw certain foods , and parental rights.

Suzi wrote:

So much for personal freedom. Why bother with the US constitution if little by little rights are chipped away. Actually right now they are being hacked away at a horrendous rate. Wisconsin, Michigan, outlaw certain foods , and parental rights.

Banning routine circumcision of infants would actually be RESTORING personal freedom to the individual such a procedure effects. Allowing PARENTS to cut off parts of their baby in the name of "religion" is essentially removing "personal" freedom and the right to bodily integrity!