San Francisco set to vote on becoming Anti-Semitic

[Nomrombom]

Except abortions cannot be performed past six months and often won't be performed even earlier than that.

[obfuscator]

In the states. In canada they're legal up until birth. Although yes, I'm getting off topic.

[The_Gabe]

Except abortions cannot be performed past six months and often won't be performed even earlier than that.

 

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?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't see how figurative language such as 'ripped out with a vacuum' is at all appropriate for a moderator to be posting in view of a debate on circumcision, regardless of your personal view on abortion and especially when they can't be performed past six months into a pregnancy anyway.

[Serpent Eye]

The decision should be left to the parents to make.

 

Do I care if you do or don't circumcise your son? No. It isn't any of my business.

 

I think it is silly to compare circumcision to cutting off your big toe or entire ear. If you circumcise your child, yes, they will be losing a small part of their body (really, how big can the piece of skin be on an infant?) but they will be left with a fully functional penis that will serve its intended purpose. This argument is invalid unless they were removing the entire penis.

 

(Sorry for any rambling here, I'm trying to remember posts as I go.)

 

I think it is equally silly to say that circumcision will lead to any adverse psychological effects on the child. If you were to encounter this issue, it is likely a disorder known as body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) in which a person is overly concerned/obsessed with his or her physical features - in this case, his lack of a foreskin. I doubt the issue would lay directly in the fact that he was circumcised; I think it would have more to do with the fact that outside influences (other boys in school, teasing, media and pictures, etc.) have had an ill-effect on him, i.e. thinking My penis doesn't look like anyone elses. Something must be wrong with mine.

 

As a few others have mentioned, circumcision on an adult male can be EXTREMELY painful. That being said, circumcision on adult males may be required due to a condition called phimosis, in which the foreskin cannot fully retract over the head of the penis. It isn't always a problem, but it can lead to pain/discomfort during intercourse and urination.

 

Edit: My point here (^) was, you might possibly prevent phimosis (I don't think it's that common) by circumcising your child. I didn't really want to get into a Cut vs. Uncut debate though.

 

 

Also, I think it worth mentioning (at least one person already has) that this proposed law doesn't single out Jewish people; I think the statistic someone posted was, what, 80% of American men are circumcised? Jewish people aren't the only ones circumcising their children. No one in my family is Jewish, and without calling or texting all of my various cousins, I would make a wager that all of them are circumcised. Yes, it's easy to point and say, "Look, they're out to screw over Jewish people!," but that isn't the case here. It isn't exclusive to any one group of people.

[Nomrombom]

Except abortions cannot be performed past six months and often won't be performed even earlier than that.

 

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.

[sees_all1]

especially when they can't be performed past six months into a pregnancy anyway.

Once again six months doesn't matter when babies born at 5 are known to survive.

[Alg]

Putting words into my [bleep]ing mouth. Get out.

Page 2, post 24

[The_Gabe]

I don't see how figurative language such as 'ripped out with a vacuum' is at all appropriate for a moderator to be posting in view of a debate on circumcision, regardless of your personal view on abortion and especially when they can't be performed past six months into a pregnancy anyway.

 

I don't see what Y_Guy being a mod has anything to do it with.

 

 

Except abortions cannot be performed past six months and often won't be performed even earlier than that.

 

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.

 

Then what are you trying to say by that logic?

[obfuscator]

I don't see how figurative language such as 'ripped out with a vacuum' is at all appropriate for a moderator to be posting in view of a debate on circumcision, regardless of your personal view on abortion and especially when they can't be performed past six months into a pregnancy anyway.

Figurative? There's nothing figurative about it - that's exactly what happens.

 

I got off topic, because I see a certain hypocrisy coming from people who are so vehement that snipping off a little piece of skin is so wrong when they've no problem with taking a life.

And once again, I looked at it from the Canadian perspective - I realize the US is not as ridiculously lax, so I apologize.

[Nomrombom]

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.

[h3art]

Frankly, I'm thinking all newborn children should have frenum ladders - it's non permanent, enhances pleasurable sensation and is a very simple procedure. :thumbup:

 

Also, it a core component of my belief system.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The cut off point in this country (UK) is when the unborn baby is deemed capable of indepedent survival (after the 24th week) so that argument holds no weight.

 

Any abortion held after 24 weeks is done so because the child is likely to suffer from disability and even after 13 weeks doctors are more reticent to agree due to potential complications.

 

To imply doctors find an abortion at 8 months 'cooooooollll' is just intellectually scandelous and wholly inappropriate, I'm sorry.

[The_Gabe]

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 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.

[obfuscator]

The cut off point in this country (UK) is when the unborn baby is deemed capable of indepedent survival (after the 24th week) so that argument holds no weight.

 

Any abortion held after 24 weeks is done so because the child is likely to suffer from disability and even after 13 weeks doctors are more reticent to agree due to potential complications.

 

To imply doctors find an abortion at 8 months 'cooooooollll' is just intellectually scandelous and wholly inappropriate, I'm sorry.

 

It holds weight for me - as I've already indicated that's not the case where I live.

I never implied that all doctors find an abortion at 8 months is acceptable. Where I live, many do. Unfortunately, the truth is scandalous and inappropriate sometimes.

[Nomrombom]

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 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.

[h3art]

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.

 

Wait, no. Unless it's denying women legal access to abortions.

[The_Gabe]

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 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.

 

That was a troll post, but you did answer it with what I wanted. You said YOU

don't consider it a life, but there are many, many other people do. You are putting your opinion again before others.

 

Second of all

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.

 

Wait, no. Unless it's denying women legal access to abortions.

 

Except that people are trying to make abortion illegal, like you are saying circumcisions should be. They are both affecting people who are way too young to consent.

 

You seem to be fine with abortions, so what makes circumcisions so different?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well, the whole point of what I'm saying is how an unborn fetus has its human rights treated. In this country, it's deemed to be when the fetus is capable of independent living, unless there is good reason to believe it would be severely disabled as a result of pregnancy in which case an abortion may be considered as a protection of its human right to live free from pain.

 

There is also a weighing of human rights in abortion about the mother's right to autonomy over medical procedures vs an unborn fetus' human rights. It is regrettable that abortions are being made so late into the third trimester but they don't represent the bigger picture by any means.

[sees_all1]

The cut off point in this country (UK) is when the unborn baby is deemed capable of indepedent survival (after the 24th week) so that argument holds no weight.

Baby Amilla survives at 22 weeks

Baby Jaslyn survives at 23 weeks

Baby Amelia survives at 23 weeks

Baby Jessica surives at 23 weeks

Baby Chelsey survives at 23 weeks

 

I don't see any weight to your argument either.

[demby123]

Also, I think it worth mentioning (at least one person already has) that this proposed law doesn't single out Jewish people; I think the statistic someone posted was, what, 80% of American men are circumcised? Jewish people aren't the only ones circumcising their children. No one in my family is Jewish, and without calling or texting all of my various cousins, I would make a wager that all of them are circumcised. Yes, it's easy to point and say, "Look, they're out to screw over Jewish people!," but that isn't the case here. It isn't exclusive to any one group of people.

I think people feel it singles out Jewish people based on the fact that it's part of their religious practice, so it screws them over more so than the rest of the population as their rights are being infringed upon.

[The_Gabe]

The cut off point in this country (UK) is when the unborn baby is deemed capable of indepedent survival (after the 24th week) so that argument holds no weight.

Baby Amilla survives at 22 weeks

Baby Jaslyn survives at 23 weeks

Baby Amelia survives at 23 weeks

Baby Jessica surives at 23 weeks

Baby Chelsey survives at 23 weeks

 

I don't see any weight to your argument either.

 

Your statements are not at all relevant to the discussion..

[h3art]

[hide]

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 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.

 

That was a troll post, but you did answer it with what I wanted. You said YOU

don't consider it a life, but there are many, many other people do. You are putting your opinion again before others.

 

Second of all

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.

 

Wait, no. Unless it's denying women legal access to abortions.

 

Except that people are trying to make abortion illegal, like you are saying circumcisions should be. They are both affecting people who are way too young to consent.

 

You seem to be fine with abortions, so what makes circumcisions so different?

[/hide]

 

You're not getting it. Unborn babies are not people and as such, whatever rights they have are unimportant compared to those of us living right now. So yes, I'm against uniformed, nonconsensual and unnecessary medical practices on human infants. However, I weigh the rights of a living, realised human mother as above and beyond anything a fetus may incidentally have.

[obfuscator]

[moderator hat]

 

This discussion is about circumcision. Keep the abortion talk out of here, and that includes me too.

 

[/moderator hat]

 

edit: three abortion related posts deleted so far, just FYI, I realize most of you probably didn't see this post...

[The_Gabe]

[hide]

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 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.

 

That was a troll post, but you did answer it with what I wanted. You said YOU

don't consider it a life, but there are many, many other people do. You are putting your opinion again before others.

 

Second of all

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.

 

Wait, no. Unless it's denying women legal access to abortions.

 

Except that people are trying to make abortion illegal, like you are saying circumcisions should be. They are both affecting people who are way too young to consent.

 

You seem to be fine with abortions, so what makes circumcisions so different?

[/hide]

 

You're not getting it. Unborn babies are not people and as such, whatever rights they have are unimportant compared to those of us living right now. So yes, I'm against uniformed, nonconsensual and unnecessary medical practices on human infants. However, I weigh the rights of a living, realised human mother as above and beyond anything a fetus may incidentally have.

 

Then again, who decides if they are not or if they are not? This is the problem; it's all about perspective. That's why it's not a good idea to ban abortion and circumcisions. If you ban them, then you are respecting one opinion. If you keep them optional, than both sides win. If you don't want your own child circumcised, no one is forcing you. You have no right to talk about other peoples' children, though.