San Francisco set to vote on becoming Anti-Semitic

[Omar]

Once more, please show me statistics of people who were circumcised at birth and are not happy with it.

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.

[Distracted]

[spoiler=Quotes]

You should read before you say I made an analogy.

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.

Keep in mind even with all that it is still painful and done without consent of the person getting the operation. In any case im glad that is the only thing we do, imagine if we had a culture where parents could beat their kids faces in as a beauty modification.

 

Why not? Sure they dont have concept of what it means, it just means that they cant knowling consent to operations, sex, tattoos, etc. until they have concept of the affects of doing so [18 years old in the US]. I support the parents rights in situations where iet is life threatening or painful to not do an operation but the kid is still too young to legally sign for themselves.

 

Another thing what if parents dont have their best interest for their child, after all they could legally make you give up a kidney if they wanted. Do you think thats right? I dont think the potential to allow that nor circumcisions should exist at all.

 

 

Once more, please show me statistics of people who were circumcised at birth and are not happy with it.

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.

Many people die yearly from bad operations, does that mean those operations should be outlawed?

[Omar]

Another thing what if parents dont have their best interest for their child, after all they could legally make you give up a kidney if they wanted. Do you think thats right? I dont think the potential to allow that nor circumcisions should exist at all.

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.

And to finish, the grammar nazi in me wants to say something. I tried to stop him, but he's a persistent bastard, so I apologize on his part in advance. When you want to put something between parentheses, use (), not []. [] is a way to modify a person's direct quote so it fits the context. So if someone said "I'm blue", you could quote him in a text without interrupting the sentence by saying that he says "[he's] blue." It's just something that was mildly bothering the grammar nazi in me, so again, sorry for nitpicking.

You're a square. :lol:

 

Many people die yearly from bad operations, does that mean those operations should be outlawed?

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.

[Distracted]

I'll admit that I didn't know the operation could be lethal, which does complicate matters for me a bit. I think that in the end, it's the hospital's job to inform the patient (or the patient's guardian if the patient is unable to decide for himself for whatever reason) about the dangers of specific operations. Most operations have a danger factor, but in the end, it's up to the patient himself (or the patient's guardian, see my previous parentheses :P) to decide whether they want to take the risk.

 

Also, I won't disagree that "[i'm] a square" :P

[angel_mage]

I think Ring_World is so focused on the child's rights that he's completely oblivious to the rights of the parents to circumcise their child. Also, as The_Gabe mentioned, the hundreds and thousands of dollars used to raise the child should be compensation enough. If the child is that emotionally distraught over something so petty than it's clear that he needs to man up.

[The_Gabe]

Another thing what if parents dont have their best interest for their child, after all they could legally make you give up a kidney if they wanted. Do you think thats right? I dont think the potential to allow that nor circumcisions should exist at all.

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.

And to finish, the grammar nazi in me wants to say something. I tried to stop him, but he's a persistent bastard, so I apologize on his part in advance. When you want to put something between parentheses, use (), not []. [] is a way to modify a person's direct quote so it fits the context. So if someone said "I'm blue", you could quote him in a text without interrupting the sentence by saying that he says "[he's] blue." It's just something that was mildly bothering the grammar nazi in me, so again, sorry for nitpicking.

You're a square. :lol:

 

Many people die yearly from bad operations, does that mean those operations should be outlawed?

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.

 

According to http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm, out of 65,863,000 circumcisions, 131-2744 deaths have occurred. At a worst case scenario, that's 0.000042. Keep in mind that the numbers were totaled up from 1940-1990, so medical procedures have become safer still. The insignificant chance of complications should not be considered. It would be irrational to act on such an insignificant factor.

[Omar]

According to http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm, out of 65,863,000 circumcisions, 131-2744 deaths have occurred. At a worst case scenario, that's 0.000042. Keep in mind that the numbers were totaled up from 1940-1990, so medical procedures have become safer still. The insignificant chance of complications should not be considered. It would be irrational to act on such an insignificant factor.

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.

[The_Gabe]

According to http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm, out of 65,863,000 circumcisions, 131-2744 deaths have occurred. At a worst case scenario, that's 0.000042. Keep in mind that the numbers were totaled up from 1940-1990, so medical procedures have become safer still. The insignificant chance of complications should not be considered. It would be irrational to act on such an insignificant factor.

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.

 

Are you saying that parents are not informed?

[Nomrombom]

Once more, please show me statistics of people who were circumcised at birth and are not happy with it.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/31/health/he-asadults31

 

 

[spoiler=other article]Male Circumcision (Part 2) Much More Than The Mutilation of Sexual Pleasure

By Jamie Glaz. To read the article click here

Wall Street Journal - December 28, 2000

'Intactivists' Seek to Undo A Long-Practiced Ritual

 

 

By BARRY NEWMAN

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

 

CONCORD, Calif. -- For over a century, in the belief that nature can be

improved upon, Americans have circumcised their baby boys. Today, the value

of circumcision as a health measure is in doubt in some quarters at a time

when face lifts, tummy tucks and breast implants have lost their ability to

shock us.

 

Should it come as any surprise, then, that some men would try to regain what

circumcision took away?

 

"If you're willing to walk around with a pin through your tongue," says R.

Wayne Griffiths, one of the principal founders of the foreskin-restoration

movement, "this is not absurd at all." ... ( you may buy the whole article from the Wall Street Journal website at www.wsj.com Go to the website click the tab to search from 1996 to 91 days and type in 'foreskin restoration' )

 

 

http://tlctugger.com/testimonials.htm

http://www.houstonpress.com/2007-07-12/news/the-fantastic-foreskin/

[The_Gabe]

Once more, please show me statistics of people who were circumcised at birth and are not happy with it.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/31/health/he-asadults31

 

 

[spoiler=other article]Male Circumcision (Part 2) – Much More Than The Mutilation of Sexual Pleasure

By Jamie Glaz. To read the article click here

Wall Street Journal - December 28, 2000

'Intactivists' Seek to Undo A Long-Practiced Ritual

 

 

By BARRY NEWMAN

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

 

CONCORD, Calif. -- For over a century, in the belief that nature can be

improved upon, Americans have circumcised their baby boys. Today, the value

of circumcision as a health measure is in doubt in some quarters at a time

when face lifts, tummy tucks and breast implants have lost their ability to

shock us.

 

Should it come as any surprise, then, that some men would try to regain what

circumcision took away?

 

"If you're willing to walk around with a pin through your tongue," says R.

Wayne Griffiths, one of the principal founders of the foreskin-restoration

movement, "this is not absurd at all." ... ( you may buy the whole article from the Wall Street Journal website at www.wsj.com Go to the website click the tab to search from 1996 to 91 days and type in 'foreskin restoration' )

 

 

http://tlctugger.com/testimonials.htm

http://www.houstonpress.com/2007-07-12/news/the-fantastic-foreskin/

 

Once more, not only does it say small fraction, it does not state that these were circumcisions from birth.

 

EDIT: Taking a closer look, the article says there's a way to restore the foreskin. Your whole argument about mutilation just collapsed.

[Nomrombom]

You can restore fingers. Does that mean it's okay to chop them off for basically no reason at birth?

 

And some of those articles do in fact mention at birth circumcisions. If people are trying to grow it back, it's extremely unlikely they consented.

[The_Gabe]

You can restore fingers. Does that mean it's okay to chop them off for basically no reason at birth?

 

And some of those articles do in fact mention at birth circumcisions. If people are trying to grow it back, it's extremely unlikely they consented.

 

Ok, how do you grow back fingers?

 

Yet, it is such as small portion of the people, while saving the rest a lot of complications, pain. Your point still doesn't stand based on those arguments.

[Zierro]

Yet, it is such as small portion of the people, while saving the rest a lot of complications, pain.

 

Basically where I stand. There is no universal solution that will make everybody happy, so what fairer way is there than majority rules?

[Zierro]

Yet, it is such as small portion of the people, while saving the rest a lot of complications, pain.

 

Basically where I stand. There is no universal solution that will make everybody happy, so what fairer way is there than majority rules?

 

The tyranny of the majority. I stand for the freedom of choice by the person receiving the medical operation versus a government upholding someone having expressed rights over you.

 

In certain circumstances, democracy definitely shouldn't be the answer. But when it's a purely subjective issue and isn't really a matter of harming anyone as much as it is upsetting anyone, one group is bound to be "tyrannized" so it may as well be the minority, right? Situations like these are the only time I think democracy works properly.

 

The fact that a child has no say in the issue and is essentially being forced to be deprived of a body part is definitely a strong point. But then on the other hand it's much more common in society that males desire the penis skin to be removed and there are far more cons to waiting until the man has the ability to make the personal intellectual choice.

 

What surprises me is how people brush this topic off as a non-issue. What's not controversial about personal freedoms and sexuality?

[The_Gabe]

Yet, it is such as small portion of the people, while saving the rest a lot of complications, pain.

 

Basically where I stand. There is no universal solution that will make everybody happy, so what fairer way is there than majority rules?

 

The tyranny of the majority. I stand for the freedom of choice by the person receiving the medical operation versus a government upholding someone having expressed rights over you.

 

Be it legal guardians, cops, states, etc.

 

Hence my stance on any controversial issue.

 

Also my stance on abortion follows this too. I think the WOMEN deserves the freedom of choice for her medical operation she consents to [in the case of it being an abortion im still alright with it] and since an unborn fetus is not considered fully living being until it can be born I support her right to do what she wants with her own body and whatever is in it.

 

If she backs out and doesn't abort it, and the second it is born I see that baby as a sovereign being who shouldn't have its rights taken by a 3rd party [in this case the mother], now there are other issues where I said my 2 cents on such as life threatening medical operations, other cosmetic operations such as a cleft lip or a reconstructive surgery from a bad injury from a car accident or serious burn.

 

However just cutting off some skin cause you have the right to decide that for your child is something I am personally against.

 

Yet, as Nomrombom mentioned, you can reverse the circumcision according to http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/31/health/he-asadults31 .

 

So, an operation, with religious background, helps prevent diseases, and has a lot less complications, pain, and memories at birth and can be reversed if not wanted later in life is a violation of human rights? To me, I'd be a violation of human right not to do so. There seems to be more pros than cons doing it at birth. IF IT CAN BE RESERVED, IT'S NOT MUTILATION. Simple as that.

[Omar]

Are you saying that parents are not informed?

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.

[Zierro]

Are you saying that parents are not informed?

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.

 

http://men.webmd.com/guide/circumcision-decision-weighing-risks-benefits

 

There are plenty of non-religious motives. Of course many people probably do it because they're pressing their religion onto the child, which I would disagree with, but there are scientific health benefits. I think circumcision is the optimal choice and I'm not religious at all. I don't understand what the benefits to having the extra skin are. Does it really make sex feel better?

[obfuscator]

Found this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343492869888506.html

 

Pretty interesting.

[Alg]

Why not leave the decision to circumcised males on both sides, though? Let those that have had the operation and kept it/didn't want it speak and decide based on that?

I've never understood why the people against circumcisions tend to be people that didn't have them done. Personal experience with the topic would speak quite loudly in this case.