San Francisco set to vote on becoming Anti-Semitic

[obfuscator]

It's not violation of individual's right to practice their religion, it's a courageous affirmation of a vulnerable individual's right to body sovereignty and the right to refuse medical treatment and procedures. :thumbup:

Ahh yes, a one minute old baby is aware of those rights, and can use them fully, correct?

[Nomrombom]

It's not violation of individual's right to practice their religion, it's a courageous affirmation of a vulnerable individual's right to body sovereignty and the right to refuse medical treatment and procedures. :thumbup:

 

Simplify that a little please?

[obfuscator]

It's not violation of individual's right to practice their religion, it's a courageous affirmation of a vulnerable individual's right to body sovereignty and the right to refuse medical treatment and procedures. :thumbup:

 

Simplify that a little please?

He's saying this law is protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals who can't make decisions for themselves. His argument would hold a lot more water if abortion was illegal.

[The_Gabe]

It's not violation of individual's right to practice their religion, it's a courageous affirmation of a vulnerable individual's right to body sovereignty and the right to refuse medical treatment and procedures. :thumbup:

 

Simplify that a little please?

He's saying this law is protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals who can't make decisions for themselves. His argument would hold a lot more water if abortion was illegal.

 

Also by the logic of his argument, a child of any age should be able to leave his parent's care if he wanted or it'd be a violation of "individual rights".

[h3art]

However, there is an enormous difference between general duty of care influental acts (like what school your child goes to, what their name is) and unnecessary medical procedures and/or body mutilation. Don't be straw manning on me. :smile:

[obfuscator]

However, there is an enormous difference between general duty of care influental acts (like what school your child goes to, what their name is) and unnecessary medical procedures and/or body mutilation. Don't be straw manning on me. :smile:

Nail clipping, ear piercing, hair cutting, other piercings, hair dye, other cosmetic procedures. The list goes on and on...and circumcision does nothing wrong.

[Omar]

Comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is just as silly as comparing it to clipping your nails, only on the opposite side of the pain spectrum. Admittedly, it doesn't harm you, and we can't know for sure whether it makes sex really less enjoyable.

A similar question: can a religious family which refuses body modifications stop their child from receiving treatment?

[obfuscator]

So what you're saying is that performing a procedure that does no lasting harm at a point in life where the pain will be deliberately minimized should be criminalized....

[Omar]

So what you're saying is that performing a procedure that does no lasting harm at a point in life where the pain will be deliberately minimized should be criminalized....

What? No. I agree with you. I'm circumcised myself.

[obfuscator]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood your post.

 

---------------------------------

 

Personally, I'm uncircumcised, I think the procedure is stupid and pointless, but there's nothing wrong with it. It's unfair to say people can't do it just because you don't like it.

[champion]

I think it should be an option and up to the parents to decide.

 

For [bleep]'s sake, it's a baby. Who cares if it's "invading on their personal rights," they don't know what the hell is going on and it's not like they're ever going to remember it.

[Omar]

However, there is an enormous difference between general duty of care influental acts (like what school your child goes to, what their name is) and unnecessary medical procedures and/or body mutilation. Don't be straw manning on me. :smile:

It will have a direct affect on my child's ability to go to heaven.

With a dad like you, I think a little less skin here or there isn't going to change much...

[Alg]

However, there is an enormous difference between general duty of care influental acts (like what school your child goes to, what their name is) and unnecessary medical procedures and/or body mutilation. Don't be straw manning on me. :smile:

It will have a direct affect on my child's ability to go to heaven.

I'm not even sure if it is in any holy book. I've always thought of it as more cultural.

[obfuscator]

However, there is an enormous difference between general duty of care influental acts (like what school your child goes to, what their name is) and unnecessary medical procedures and/or body mutilation. Don't be straw manning on me. :smile:

It will have a direct affect on my child's ability to go to heaven.

I'm not even sure if it is in any holy book. I've always thought of it as more cultural.

There are indirect references in the old testament iirc. It is more cultural than anything.

[Alg]

Which shows that I should probably read one of them before talking :razz:

[Nomrombom]

Yes, god tells Moses (I think) that "the tips of their genitals shall be cut and cast off" or something to that effect. And back then, it was just the very tip, mostly noninvasive. Today, that has been morphed into the entire foreskin.

 

The thing I don't get is why are we born with one if we're supposed to cut it off...L2build, god?

[The Observer]

There are no real problems either way so it just should be allowed to be a choice among parents. It's not like people who become circumcised and those who don't become in two entirely different social groups.

 

Personally the only thing I see making it illegal does is make people go to other cities to have the procedure done. It isn't difficult.

[h3art]

Nail clipping, ear piercing, hair cutting, other piercings, hair dye, other cosmetic procedures. The list goes on and on...and circumcision does nothing wrong.

 

Have to say my respect for you just dropped there. Ridiculous statement. Haircutting/nail clipping/hair dying is non permanent, so irrelevant to the purpose this discussion, nor are they medical procedures. Piercing and tattooing individuals without their consent is also considered illegal.[1][2]

 

As a baby you are utterly unable to give the informed consent that say, a 10 or 13 year who desired piercings is able to give (not to mention that male circumcision is rather more permanent and the prohibition on less permanent modifications (e.g. tattoos) to those over the age of 18). With regards to the abortion argument, I don't see how that's relevant, as I don't consider a fetus to have the same rights or even be comparable to a newly born baby.

[Omar]

Nail clipping, ear piercing, hair cutting, other piercings, hair dye, other cosmetic procedures. The list goes on and on...and circumcision does nothing wrong.

 

Have to say my respect for you just dropped there. Ridiculous statement. Haircutting/nail clipping/hair dying is non permanent, so irrelevant to the purpose this discussion, nor are they medical procedures. Piercing and tattooing individuals without their consent is also considered illegal.[1][2]

 

As a baby you are utterly unable to give the informed consent that say, a 10 or 13 year who desired piercings is able to give (not to mention that male circumcision is rather more permanent and the prohibition on less permanent modifications (e.g. tattoos) to those over the age of 18).

Except piercings and tattoos are actually consequential, whereas circumcision doesn't seem to be.

[The_Gabe]

Nail clipping, ear piercing, hair cutting, other piercings, hair dye, other cosmetic procedures. The list goes on and on...and circumcision does nothing wrong.

 

Have to say my respect for you just dropped there. Ridiculous statement. Haircutting/nail clipping/hair dying is non permanent, so irrelevant to the purpose this discussion, nor are they medical procedures. Piercing and tattooing individuals without their consent is also considered illegal.[1][2]

 

As a baby you are utterly unable to give the informed consent that say, a 10 or 13 year who desired piercings is able to give (not to mention that male circumcision is rather more permanent and the prohibition on less permanent modifications (e.g. tattoos) to those over the age of 18). With regards to the abortion argument, I don't see how that's relevant, as I don't consider a fetus to have the same rights or even be comparable to a newly born baby.

 

Except that most people who are circumcised from year 1990-2000, around 85% of circumcisions are birth circumcisions. Consider that percentages don't change at rapid pasts, you can get a good estimate of how many of those are birth. Yet, I've asked this before, but please show me one documented evidence of harmful effects of circumcisions from birth that cause physiological trauma.

[obfuscator]

Nail clipping, ear piercing, hair cutting, other piercings, hair dye, other cosmetic procedures. The list goes on and on...and circumcision does nothing wrong.

 

Have to say my respect for you just dropped there. Ridiculous statement. Haircutting/nail clipping/hair dying is non permanent, so irrelevant to the purpose this discussion, nor are they medical procedures. Piercing and tattooing individuals without their consent is also considered illegal.[1][2]

 

I merely answered your ridiculous statement with one of my own. Circumcision is neither truly permanent nor damaging, and is arguably a medical procedure.

 

As a baby you are utterly unable to give the informed consent that say, a 10 or 13 year who desired piercings is able to give (not to mention that male circumcision is rather more permanent and the prohibition on less permanent modifications (e.g. tattoos) to those over the age of 18). With regards to the abortion argument, I don't see how that's relevant, as I don't consider a fetus to have the same rights or even be comparable to a newly born baby.

 

Baby in womb: 8 months, 30 days, 23 hours old - ripped to peices by vaccuum = coooooool

Baby outside womb: 9 months old - flap of skin removed - NOT INFORMED CONSENT OMGOMGOMG

[h3art]

I'm not arguing that it's harmful, I'm arguing that allowing non essential medical practices on individuals unable to give consent is a slippery slope, ethically. It's also hypocritical that body modification at ages under 16/18 are restricted, despite the recipients desire to have them performed, while circumcision is not.

 

Y_Guy, I'd be happy to have a chat about this with you over PM; but you more than the average poster should know better than to go off topic. :mellow:

[sees_all1]

I don't see how that's relevant, as I don't consider a fetus to have the same rights or even be comparable to a newly born baby.

The difference is what, an hour? Thirty seconds? Their location? Surely not their size. You can read my feelings on this topic in the abortion debate thread (wherever it went to).

 

 

 

Anyhow, the last point I want to emphasize that's relevant to this topic is that if you believe the parents know whats best for their children in all generic circumstances, yet circumcision somehow doesn't apply to "all generic circumstances", then you probably don't believe that parents really do know whats best for their own children.

If that's the case, be honest with yourself, and everyone else. If not, figure out what you believe and convince me its different than either of those two, but not why circumcision is special. It really isn't, and if you're going to make a special exception for this one minor thing, you're probably bound to make exceptions for other minor things.

[The_Gabe]

Nail clipping, ear piercing, hair cutting, other piercings, hair dye, other cosmetic procedures. The list goes on and on...and circumcision does nothing wrong.

 

Have to say my respect for you just dropped there. Ridiculous statement. Haircutting/nail clipping/hair dying is non permanent, so irrelevant to the purpose this discussion, nor are they medical procedures. Piercing and tattooing individuals without their consent is also considered illegal.[1][2]

 

I merely answered your ridiculous statement with one of my own. Circumcision is neither truly permanent nor damaging, and is arguably a medical procedure.

 

As a baby you are utterly unable to give the informed consent that say, a 10 or 13 year who desired piercings is able to give (not to mention that male circumcision is rather more permanent and the prohibition on less permanent modifications (e.g. tattoos) to those over the age of 18). With regards to the abortion argument, I don't see how that's relevant, as I don't consider a fetus to have the same rights or even be comparable to a newly born baby.

 

Baby in womb: 8 months, 30 days, 23 hours old - ripped to peices by vaccuum = coooooool

Baby outside womb: 9 months old - flap of skin removed - NOT INFORMED CONSENT OMGOMGOMG

 

Unfortunately, with abortions in the U.S, they can be performed in some states up until 24 weeks. That's

6 months, but that would only be a 3 month window, which is incredibly small. So technically, Y_Guy is correct in this true but funny observation.

[sees_all1]

Unfortunatly, with abortions in the U.S, they can be performed in some states up until 24 weeks. That's

6 months, but that'd only be a 3 month window, which is incredibly small. So technically, Y_Guy is correct in this true but funny observation.

Pretty much every law restricting abortion has some exception for "health of the mother," which conveniently includes mental health. 6 months isn't a hard deadline, but even if it was babies are born pretty much every week at 5 months and survive.