Nomrombom

"The evidence was flawed, next time we'll have proper evidence and we'll be certain of it then" Just... shut up. You've been wrong twice. Get out.

A valid reason to contribute to the whole. Cleft palate is not just cosmetic, it always comes with medical side effects too, so it is irrelevant.

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation. If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol: At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children. If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want. True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it? I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that. If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now. Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut. I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though. @Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed. I would support reconstructive surgery, not destructive surgery. A major injury, yes get the reconstructive surgeries done [doubtful the child would object to it anyways]. Though where it gets iffy for me is if the child was born with a major deformity should the parents have the right to change their kids looks? Here is a good example: Cleft lip and palate's would be something I support a cosmetic surgery for, as this will help with speech, attractiveness, health, etc. plus arguably can be considered a medical emergency where there would be negative side affects for doing nothing. In relation to a circumcision... A circumcision may or may not have benefits, my beef with it is that not getting circumcised has no disadvantages [not enough of a difference in reducing risk of std's for it to be justified, nor is the "why does mine look different" in a society where sex education is a click away or a responsible parent is completely able to tell their kids about] and is certainly not a medical necessity [except in specific cases where it is one I support the surgery]. In unnecessary permanent [not earrings which the hole in your ear can close, or even tattoos which can be fully removed with enough money] cosmetic surgeries I think the patient should have the right to say no, which a baby doesnt have. Good example, I'll run with that. You say that attractiveness is an acceptable reason to correct a cleft lip in a child, but that's purely a cultural reason. Society could treat children with cleft lips no differently than children without. It would be a better and more tolerant world. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A child with an uncorrected cleft lip would feel pretty isolated from the culture it grows up in. I'm not Jewish, so I might be taking a leap here, but I assume that circumcision is the same thing in Jewish families, albeit a version that isn't so outwardly obvious. As far as they're concerned, being uncircumcised is something against their own cultural norm. As such, they should be at the liberty to correct that, so long as it does not harm the child. Well attractiveness was a minor reason for cleft lip as there is more medical complications by not doing anything then just being ostracized, but for circumcision its not like your friends and family will see you there on a daily basis [or ever]. Besides by the time he would be having sex he would likely be able to decide for himself if circumcision is something he wants. But I know what your saying the whole "mine looks different then his, is there something wrong with me?" its part of growing up, sex ed [>] mindless conformity, imo. Its not as blatantly everyday as your face, but even then attractiveness isnt the only reason I'd allow parents to make decisions for say cleft lips, its also because of the medical complications that go with that if left untreated. So you regard attractiveness, a purely social/cultural concept, as enough of a reason alone to have the surgery? If so, I rest my case. He never said that. He said that attractiveness was a minor part of it, and that medical reasons are far more important. And Furah, while I wholly agree with your points, it has been shown that circumcisions in Africa have *helped* (not prevented) the spread of HIV. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-1293.2008.00596.x/abstract That's a study done in Africa looking at circumcision vs. HIV rates. It does help, but they also say safe sex practices must be used in any case to actually prevent the transmission. On that grounds, education > circumcision as a means of reducing HIV spread.

What are the majority of rap songs concerned with today?

ROFL

Also include what sort of guide you wrote in the title of the topic.

Why would you ever do it on foot?

Songs suck more in general today. Especially rap, or "mentally handicappeds" (go to hell, censor) attempting poetry.

...?

And in other threads, and most of your topics.

I'm just saying that nearly every post of yours seems to require incorporating your kid into it somehow.

Which is why I said mostly. Why don't you go on some forum for moms? I'm sure you'd find a bit more sympathy there (looking at your thread about constant reminder of your boyfriend, you're finding a lot of people not sympathizing)

Is that all you can talk about? Seriously, this is a forum mostly about an online videogame.

To be fair though, getting circumsized earlier is a lot less painful than doing it at the age of, say, 18. And from what I gleamed from the article, a petition of ~7000 people signing it means that a small part of the population of SF is trying to push this law through for everyone else. Then it will fail. And you can get local anesthesia or general - doesn't need to be painful.

Wrong. The tonsils can cause/harbor serious disease and can in very severe cases cause death. The foreskin cannot. Your human rights were violated only once :thumbup:

I really, really hope you're trolling. Basically, the water/cloth combo restricts your breathing down to nothing. The pillow thing was just an analogy, it's not used in waterboarding. They place a cloth over your face and pour water on it, soaking it and letting water enter your nose and throat. The presence of the cloth makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to breath, and the presence of water in the throat and nose (in combination with restricted breath) triggers a gag reflex and makes the brain believe you are drowning (which you technically are). People have given accounts of being affected for years afterward, including fear of water and general trauma. Torture is generally defined as causing severe physical or mental distress, and anyone with half a brain could reason that simulated drowning causes severe physical and mental distress.

I still don't get how people don't get why I think it is a human rights violation. As I have said before, circumcision is the forced, non-consensual removal of part of another person's body, where said body part is NOT and never will be life threatening. Religion should have no bearing whatsoever on forced removal of body parts without consent.

At 78 cb they're going to be pretty inefficient. I'd just do babies if I were you, unless you're going to range with 61+ range and a cbow. In that case, Tav Dungeon resource dungeon is best, followed by Ogre Enclave.

1. Yes, I am. That's part of a debate. That's also why I preceded the sentence before it with "I do not consider." Edit: removing abortion portion.

I disagree; they are very much so related. They are both in your category of violation of human rights, yet one of them is taking a life by itself and you don't seem to mind it. Your statement about me wanting to perform circumcision before birth was either a troll post or simply stupid. I do not consider a fetus to be alive until about 6 months. Therefore, it is not taking a life.

I made one argument about circumcision. I replied to a post by Y Guy about an abortion being performed at "8 Months 30 Days and 23 hours". These are not related. This is not a difficult concept.

I'm sorry, but from gathering all of your posts together, are you saying that we should try and perform circumcisions before babies are born? Putting words into my [bleep]ing mouth. Get out.

Ass. You can get by with just a great ass. Reverse cowgirl. That is all.