I hate to bumb this thread, but I found some crazy propaganda concerning the original San Francisco foreskin debate. I thought some of the guys here were crazy, but this guy tops them all.

SAN DIEGO — His fists clenched and muscles rippling beneath a tight blue suit, the yellow-caped character appears poised to take on evil-doers.

But as his name suggests, "Foreskin Man" is not a typical comic-book superhero, and neither is his choice of adversaries: doctors who practice circumcision and Orthodox Jews who support the religious ritual.San Diego activist Matthew Hess says he conceived the Internet comic series last year as a way to boost his budding national effort to outlaw circumcision, an effort that has led to a measure on San Francisco's ballot in November that would make it illegal to perform a circumcision on a boy under 18.

Double post so I will post another pic.

http://weirdnews.aol.com/2011/06/18/anticircumcision-comic-he_n_879739.html

Washing one's dick with alcohol gel? I find that idea ridicuous.

Btw, I'm still waiting for hs point on his question. Really am.

Oh, and Foreskin Man ftw lol

Actually, most shower gells are alcohol-based. I don't use those though. Don't see where he was gettign at though.

My hero! Go Foreskinmnan, go! Save that poor baby's foreskin!!!

I've looked into some reports regarding this issue (San Francisco to vote on circumcision issue) and I'm still confused as to why some group of people should force their belief or choice to the rest of the residents in San Francisco. I believe that in San Francisco, different religious group exist and they practice circumcision for variety of reasons. Some does it for sanitary reason, and that's alright. Some does it for religious reasons, and I can't say that that is something unreasonable, because it's part of the tradition that they religiously follow both for their faith and being clean. Some prefer to do the circumcision during the child's infant-hood so that they won't remember or endure the pain in their adulthood and the healing capability is still good, and I think that is a sign of good-will of the parents towards the child.  If a certain group of people doesn't support circumcision in infants, then it's perfectly fine that they have such preference and do what they think is right for their son when they become a father. But isn't it inconsiderate to force that on other group of people with different ethnicity and religion? The ideology that they're fighting for is making the ideology of another suffer, and that I think is unreasonable. I just don't believe in imposing personal preferences on other people, much like I don't want anybody to say anything about the things that I like.

What's inconsiderate is people circumcising infants for no good reason (religious reasons are not good reasons). The anti-circumcision group are protecting people's rights, more precisely the right of the infants to their own body. The pro-circumcision group is that one who's breaking people's rights. They're the ones who are imposing their views on someone else (the infants). You're talking as if infants are objects, and parents can do whatever they want with them. Well guess what: infants are human beings, and parents cannot mutilate them if they feel like it.

Also, what's wrong "making the ideology of another suffer"? If anything, the anti-circumcision group is going against an ideology, rather than making one itself.

Lol! My wife just saw me looking at this and asked if that was me.

I agree, I do not know why some group (parents) should force their belief or choice to other residents of San Francisco (their children).

If after analysind the pros and cons of the procedure they choose to go ahead with it, more power to them.

Circumcising an adult is a 30 minute outpatient procedure that can be done under local or total anaesthesia. The anaesthetic means that there is little or no pain for them to remember and if the procedure was so crippling it wouldn't be an outpatient procedure as they would need time to rest at the hospital.

Yes, because it is well known that 18 years old have a crippled regenerative capacity that would totally prevent them from recovering from such a dangerous procedure.

The ethnicity and religion of the person is totally irrelevant as to whether circumcision on non-consenting people is acceptable so I assume that you just mentioned it as an attempt to play the race/religion card. Religion is not an excuse to do things that are illegal, like murder, theft, fraud, or battery and when discussing making laws concerning those areas we do not worry, for example, whether it will prevent a given religious group from committing ritual murder but only whether making murder illegal is a good thing. Of course circumcision is not as extreme as murder (it is more to the level of battery as battery is concerned with the right to have one's body left alone by others)

My ideology is that the choice of whether the suffering should happen at all should either be decided medically (if there is a real medical need to remove on a case by case basis, not "let's do it to everyone because their risk of needing antibiotics for UTI drops from 1.5% to 0.25%") or by the person doing the suffering. If an adult wants to suffer by undergoing circumcision _without anaesthtic_ then that is his right, but what right does a parent have to make his kid suffer (according to you) just because he won't remember it?

Taken from thefreedictionary: There is no requirement that the plaintiff be aware of a battery at the time it is committed. The gist of the action is the lack of consent to contact. It is no defense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious at the time.

I would amend the last line as:  It is no defense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious or too young to remember at the time.

An infant cannot consent to the action and that he cannot consciously remember it does not make it any more acceptable than punching him would be (he wouldn't remember that either) so the only thing remaining is whether there is a real medical need, and in the vast majority of cases there isn't.

Yes you do. You believe in parents imposing their personal preference on other people, their children; you know the ones they are supposed to care for and protect, not batter. If their child's taste/belief happen to develop in the same direction as that of their parent then the child himself can consent to the action once he is old enough to do so.

@chocoloco: "national effort to outlaw circumcision"

I know it is not your wording but if making underage circumcision illegal is outlawing it then cigarette smoking has been outlawed a long time ago as underage smoking is also illegal (and note that generally underage smoking is done with the consent of the subject, contrary to infant circumcision).

Well Foreskinman, you should get a better disguise.