Omar

If she accepted, she probably has no idea what's going to happen to her; remember we're not talking about adults. RPG, on the other hand, knows full well what's going to happen. It's like encouraging someone to make a mistake because it's going to get you something. I'm sorry, but if he had any sense of responsibility and maturity he'd be saving her the pain instead of thinking with his [bleep]. It's completely selfish. Helping is brownie points, not acting is okay, but harming for your own good seems so obviously wrong...

I'm well aware of the consequences of my potential actions. I accept this responsibility, and the inevitable [cabbage] storm that succeeds it. Wait, so you know you're going to be using her and hurting her, but you accept this responsability? Am I missing something?

This. You'd think you'd know by now... Hakaan, focus on improving yourself as a person. Go to the gym, learn to have fun, get really good at whatever you love doing, etc. See this. That gives you self-esteem. And once you ahve self-esteem, you can stop thinking realistically, nothing of the sort will ever happen to you.

I think it's one of those things you don't understand until it happens to you, if it ever does. But basically, I think a girlfriend is supposed to be a best friend+sexual attraction. It's not that you restrict yourself to one person, it's that you want to spend so mcuh time with that one person.

If the pants fit, suspenders aren't required (their purpose is only practical, not aesthetic, and they should really not be seen). Probably not worth paying the 90$ sans shipping price tag at Brooks Brothers when you can most likely get the pants tailored.

http://www.ctshirts.co.uk/men%27s-outerwear/men%27s-blazers-and-jackets/Navy-unstructured-jacket?q=usddefault||US008NAV||||||||||||| 200$, and they don't have my size. :angry: Got my hunter green OCBD and my APC shirt jacket in the mail. I'm going to go get the sleeves shortened a tad.

It doesn't scrobble, I suppose?

http://topodesigns.com/collection/ To the guy looking for a backpack.

Religious motives aside, why would you circumcise your child? It's an unnecessary risk, but people are still taking it. Either they're not informed, or they're making an irrational decision.

To make it illegal is perhaps irrational, but the parents should be fully informed of what could happen to their baby, especially when the circumcision is not religiously motivated.

You've stated elsewhere in this thread that you're not against abortion, which implies you're pro-choice, meaning you feel that the parents should be able to, should have the freedom to choose whatever they feel is best. But when it comes to circumcision, you're suddenly anti-choice, instead opting for the person to get a circumcision themselves when they're over the age of consent, which is a painful and annoying procedure. When you're circumcised as a kid, it might hurt at that moment, the baby might cry a bit, but the baby won't remember the pain. The baby isn't even self-conscious enough to realize what pain is or what's happening. If adults are allowed to decide about the baby's life or death according to you, then why can't they decide themselves whether they want their kid circumcised? In the end, the effects on the person's life is close to nothing, it's not like your parents are attaching a big sign to your head saying you're an idiot and don't deserve to ever get paid. It's something that only a few people will see. The medical effects, both positive and negative, are debatable, but as far as I know, it's not a matter of life or death in the same way inserting radioactive material into a kid's heart would be. I agree with most of what you said, but the fact is the operation can be lethal. In that case, I really don't think it should be done. Whether that's grounds to make it illegal or not, I'm still wondering about. You're a square. :lol: No, because those actually have a use. As for cosmetic surgeries, patients should be able to judge and choose for themselves if they want the surgery. Unfortunately, much religious talk surrounds the issue, so while that may constitute a valid use for some, it might seem like the operation falls within the category of cosmetic surgeries.

Not a lot, but I don't see how that changes anything, especially considering some can't voice their opinion because they die from blood loss due to a botched operation. Regardless, I think suing your parents is just as silly as making circumcision illegal: in addition to Y_Guy's point, by the time you know what "sue" means, you won't remember being circumcised, and you'll have a hard time convincing a jury.

You're not exactly the easiest OTer to read. And that's cool and all, I'm not criticizing you, just saying, on occasion it takes a fair amount of effort. Onto your argument. Here is what I think is a better analogy: a trained surgeon, possessing of all the tools necessary for a circumcision in the rules of the art, including anesthetics (which, one can hope, are not a part of McDonalds' food), precise and sterile cutting devices, etc., decides to kidnap children and circumcise them, regardless of their will. That's against the law. No one will disagree with me. However, there's one difference between this case (coupled witht he McDonalds analogy) and the real one: the parents' will isn't kept in mind. The parents' will should be more important. Babies can't be sovereign over their own body. They don't even know what that means, let alone have the necessary thought processes to protect themselves. The parents are just doing what they think the child will be happy with 20 years down the line.

Well that's a great solution... No, really, I think the best you can do is educate the parents. Those who don't need to get their child circumcised will be more reluctant, and maybe one day, religion will go away and so will circumcision altogether. Other than that, you might as well start passing laws against tornadoes.

Exactly. It's like prohibiting drinking or music piracy.

That's the only problem: the law's not going to work. But other than that, I don't see why the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict such a surgery. Surely, a better idea would be to educate parents about circumcision and its dangers.

Alright, I'll think about it. How about parent's rights versus nanny state? Yeah, [bleep] the police!...

How does having a second protection not help? I agree that is what the debate boils down to, but I don't understand why you would force someone not to circumcise their child. It would make sense if it was harming the child, but it isn't. On top of that, it forces those who weren't circumcised at birth to go through a great deal of pain. So cutting off part of a child's body without any medical necessity is not harm? Depends what part of the body we're talking about, whether anaesthesia is used properly, and so on, and so forth. If you can name some negative consequences to child circumcision, then I'll change positions. @Ring: You realize the further away from birth you are, the more sensitive your penis gets, and the more surface needs to be removed during the operation, right? I hope you do. Not only does that imply it hurts more when you're an adult, but it also means it hurts a lot less as an infant, if at all. Don't picture it as chopping up your own genitals, because that's not what it is. If you can picture the penis of a baby, you can understand where the nail clipping comparison comes from; it's a lot less barbaric than you think, unlike female circumcision. As for the permanent body alteration, I don't buy it either. I don't see how it matters. It doesn't change anything, at least when you don't consider religion. If your parents somehow changed your blood type at birth, notwithstanding the compatibility issues that would come up in the prospect of blood transfusions, would you complain?

How does having a second protection not help? I agree that is what the debate boils down to, but I don't understand why you would force someone not to circumcise their child. It would make sense if it was harming the child, but it isn't. On top of that, it forces those who weren't circumcised at birth to go through a great deal of pain.

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. Some people really believe circumcision is important in a religious way. In that sense, it's not just a matter of making your child's penis pretty, so it's not the same as cosmetic surgery. In fact, it's more threatening to the child's well-being than a medical condition, according to their point of view. It's not an option for them.

As someone with multiple, relevant modifications, I'm well aware of issues with complications. :rolleyes: Obviously, the question was a little flippant - however the point still stands. Actually, I edited my post and addressed it more seriously.

And I'll repeat my assertion that if it is your considered, well thought out and adult position that circumcision is an inherent, core aspect of your world view and faith, then the procedure should not be too much to ask for; what's a little complication compared the to kingdom of heaven? You seem to be taking your penis for granted. I hope you take care of that thing, or else you'll find out what "a little complication" can be. You're also turning mere humans into superheroes with perfect control of will. Easier said than done.

There have been several posts replying to this assertion already. Yes, in a perfect world, that's how it would be, but it's not a perfect world.

Then why have no other problematic medical practices arisen? If it's a slippery slope, you're saying circumcision isn't intrinsically bad, but it will excuse practices which have a much more significant effect, but it's been thousands of years and we've yet to see them. For example, you can't tattoo someone against their will. For such a slippery slope, acceptable norms on procedures likes haven't moved very much, have they? Heck, I'd be more inclined to agree with you if this was introduced yesterday, or a year ago, and not more than 2000 years ago. There's only room for one of us in this thread, sees_all.