San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Another thing, it is a decision for life. This is a decision that cannot be reversed, no matter how much the person may want it to be later in life. Once it's done, it's done.

This is different from the parents' rights to choosing the school and religion to raise their children in. The child will be able to make his own decisions as soon as he becomes an adult. However, circumcision is a decision he cannot do anything about because there is no way to reverse it.

Human rights should be above parental rights at any given time.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I agree with you, but, I don't think this is a liberal vs conservative issue. However, this is a VERY controversial issue (which is why this is thread is so stinking long!).

One thing I want to clear up... As far as I know, there's no relation to cervical cancer and a woman having sex with an uncircumcised male. What DOES cause cervical cancer is HPV, which is a virus that is sexually transmitted. Since the majority of men are circumcised, I don't see a correlation between the two at all.
Click to expand...
It says in medical already and my mother and many of her friends did not get HPV back in 60's. That is all I say here.
 
I recall an old joke:

A doctor saved a bunch of foreskins from his practice. He had a wallet made from them. When he traveled, he would rub the wallet. It would grow into a suitcase. :laugh2:
 
jazzy said:
It says in medical already and my mother and many of her friends did not get HPV back in 60's. That is all I say here.
Click to expand...

You can have HPV without developing cervical cancer, but you almost never develop cervical cancer without having HPV.

Reality check: your mother and all of her friends were not all coincidentally the one-in-a-few-million cases to develop cervical cancer without HPV. Chances are, they or their partners had sex with someone else at some point in their lives and they got infected.
 
Banjo said:
The tonsils should be removed at birth just to be safe.
The appendix should be removed at birth just to be safe.
The gall bladder should be removed at birth just to be safe.
The spleen should be removed at birth just to be safe.
The foreskin should be removed at birth just to be safe.

Don't kid yourself, nearly all of people who were left intact are managing just fine. People can believe what they want to, but in the end, it's still genital mutilation, no matter how you try to put it.
Click to expand...

You forgot that your head should be removed at birth just to be safe. :D
 
Ok, just did some research....12,000 women out of 150 million in America per year will get cervical cancer. 1 in 8 American women will get breast cancer, that's about 17,750,000 women. If using someone's logic above that we are justified in cutting off pieces of newborn babies' penises to prevent cervical cancer, shouldn't we be justified cutting off daughters' breasts to ward off chances of getting breast cancer?

Not that I personally advocate this but just showing how illogical some logical arguments can be.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ok, just did some research....12,000 women out of 150 million in America per year will get cervical cancer. 1 in 8 American women will get breast cancer, that's about 17,750,000 women. If using someone's logic above that we are justified in cutting off pieces of newborn babies' penises to prevent cervical cancer, shouldn't we be justified cutting off daughters' breasts to ward off chances of getting breast cancer?

Not that I personally advocate this but just showing how illogical some logical arguments can be.
Click to expand...

Now you've said it. Ruined my eye-candy future. :mad:
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ok, just did some research....12,000 women out of 150 million in America per year will get cervical cancer. 1 in 8 American women will get breast cancer, that's about 17,750,000 women. If using someone's logic above that we are justified in cutting off pieces of newborn babies' penises to prevent cervical cancer, shouldn't we be justified cutting off daughters' breasts to ward off chances of getting breast cancer?

Not that I personally advocate this but just showing how illogical some logical arguments can be.
Click to expand...

I have heard of women from high-risk families that have their non-cancerous breasts removed. I forget when this was a big story.
 
saywhatkid said:
I have heard of women from high-risk families that have their non-cancerous breasts removed. I forget when this was a big story.
Click to expand...

I've heard the same. It's so high risk for my sister and I, that on her last gyn visit, that very suggestion was made to her.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ok, just did some research....12,000 women out of 150 million in America per year will get cervical cancer. 1 in 8 American women will get breast cancer, that's about 17,750,000 women. If using someone's logic above that we are justified in cutting off pieces of newborn babies' penises to prevent cervical cancer, shouldn't we be justified cutting off daughters' breasts to ward off chances of getting breast cancer?

Not that I personally advocate this but just showing how illogical some logical arguments can be.
Click to expand...

Excellent question.:hmm:
 
AlleyCat said:
I've heard the same. It's so high risk for my sister and I, that on her last gyn visit, that very suggestion was made to her.
Click to expand...

My mother, my maternal grandmother, and both of my maternal great aunts died of breast cancer. My mother's sister (my aunt) has had a double mastectomy and is currently in remission. Her daughter (my age within 1 month) has had a double mastectomy as of 2 years ago and is currently in remission. My uncle (the baby of the family) was diagnosed with prostate cancer; until then I did not know that the same gene if responsible in certain types of breast and prostate cancers.

It is not a matter of if, but when, given my risk factor. I have considered preventive surgery, but decided that with my awareness of the need for early detection, and the success rates being seen from early detection, that drastic a move was just a bit overboard.
 
I'm sorry for your losses.

My mother, her sister, and their mother, all have had breast cancer. The sister has had it recur three times. My mother is in remission. My grandmother has passed, but not from breast cancer. So my sister and I are next in line. I just hope we are good with early detection.
 
jillio said:
My mother, my maternal grandmother, and both of my maternal great aunts died of breast cancer. My mother's sister (my aunt) has had a double mastectomy and is currently in remission. Her daughter (my age within 1 month) has had a double mastectomy as of 2 years ago and is currently in remission. My uncle (the baby of the family) was diagnosed with prostate cancer; until then I did not know that the same gene if responsible in certain types of breast and prostate cancers.

It is not a matter of if, but when, given my risk factor. I have considered preventive surgery, but decided that with my awareness of the need for early detection, and the success rates being seen from early detection, that drastic a move was just a bit overboard.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the same thing. My mother survived but only because it was detected early. She did have to have one of her breasts removed though. My dad says she's cured of it.

I wonder if my great uncle Claude Grove died of prostate cancer. I never knew him. I will have to ask my mother about my great uncle. He was my grandmother Price's brother. My grandmother Price and her sister (my great aunt Helen) both died of this disease. :hmm:
 
AlleyCat said:
I'm sorry for your losses.

My mother, her sister, and their mother, all have had breast cancer. The sister has had it recur three times. My mother is in remission. My grandmother has passed, but not from breast cancer. So my sister and I are next in line. I just hope we are good with early detection.
Click to expand...

Me too!
 
jillio said:
My mother, my maternal grandmother, and both of my maternal great aunts died of breast cancer. My mother's sister (my aunt) has had a double mastectomy and is currently in remission. Her daughter (my age within 1 month) has had a double mastectomy as of 2 years ago and is currently in remission. My uncle (the baby of the family) was diagnosed with prostate cancer; until then I did not know that the same gene if responsible in certain types of breast and prostate cancers.

It is not a matter of if, but when, given my risk factor. I have considered preventive surgery, but decided that with my awareness of the need for early detection, and the success rates being seen from early detection, that drastic a move was just a bit overboard.
Click to expand...

Have you actually been tested for the gene mutations? Without a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation diagnosis, there is absolutely no way to know you have inherited the genes or will develop BC.

If you -do- get a BRCA1/BRCA2 diagnosis, depending on which type you have it might significantly skew your feelings about prophylactic surgery and its benefits. At the very least, it can help get your insurance to shell out for more sensitive testing like MRIs (important especially if you're still in your 40s or so).
 
Back
Top