San Francisco set to vote on becoming Anti-Semitic

[Ginger_Warrior]

Deleting my posts after you started the abortion talk? Well that's rich...

[obfuscator]

Deleting my posts after you started the abortion talk? Well that's rich...

And I posted a warning saying not talking of such applies to me as well after apologizing for derailing the topic.

 

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

 

On topic: I guess my fear is that this is somewhat of a gateway to religious persecution, especially as it's being made into a religious issue when circumcisions are really more cultural.

[The_Gabe]

[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...

 

Don't delete them. They're completely relevant..

[Nomrombom]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

[Hamtaro]

I couldn't help but laugh when I read "human rights violation." A painless and most likely beneficial procedure is literally the exact opposite of a human rights violation. The bill, on the other hand, is literally oppressing religion (Jews, Catholics, and several protestant denominations). 68 million Catholics and 6.5 million Jews alone add up to be nearly 25% of the country (that's in case a "small minority" doesn't count to you). Sorry, my great-grandparents didn't come to the United States for freedom of religion only to have nonsensical regulations placed on it. Jews and Catholics have been treated poorly enough in this country by racist and xenophobic whack jobs, and now the people who are supposedly "open-minded" are against us too :thumbup:. I don't have a problem if you aren't a member of my faith, but please don't regulate how we practice ours (inb4irrelavent jim jones reference). No wait this is San Fransisco and they are, in fact, just so progressive that the First Amendment actually expired for them (it was written on some worthless piece of scrap paper 220+ years ago, I mean come on :rolleyes: ).

 

I am very glad that I'm circumcised because of the health benefits that it does provide. If they were "open-minded" and left the decision to me now, I would not even consider it because of the pain it would cause now. I would, however, be angry at my parents for not having me circumcised as an infant.

 

Being Circumcised: No credible consequences with a likelihood of health benefits and painless as an infant

Not being Circumcised: Painful if you want it later in life and possible health hindrances for sexually active persons (thus making the only argument for circumcision redundant anyway)

^Toughest choice ever. I probably just don't understand, though, because I don't, amirite?

 

Edit: Had a pretty good analogy to abortion at first, but I guess we should start sugar coating everything because it might accidentally cause intelligent discussion.

[Alg]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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'm assuming that what Gabe is arguing is that you are happy when policies are based in your beliefs, but not when it's based on others.

[The_Gabe]

I couldn't help but laugh when I read "human rights violation." A painless and most likely beneficial procedure is literally the exact opposite of a human rights violation. The bill, on the other hand, is literally oppressing religion (Jews, Catholics, and several protestant denominations). 68 million Catholics and 6.5 million Jews alone add up to be nearly 25% of the country (that's in case a "small minority" doesn't count to you). Sorry, my great-grandparents didn't come to the United States for freedom of religion only to have nonsensical regulations placed on it. Jews and Catholics have been treated poorly enough in this country by racist and xenophobic whack jobs, and now the people who are supposedly "open-minded" are against us too :thumbup:. I don't have a problem if you aren't a member of my faith, but please don't regulate how we practice ours (inb4irrelavent jim jones reference). No wait this is San Fransisco and they are, in fact, just so progressive that the First Amendment actually expired for them (it was written on some worthless piece of scrap paper 220+ years ago, I mean come on :rolleyes: ).

 

I am very glad that I'm circumcised because of the health benefits that it does provide. If they were "open-minded" and left the decision to me now, I would not even consider it because of the pain it would cause now. I would, however, be angry at my parents for not having me circumcised as an infant.

 

Being Circumcised: No credible consequences with a likelihood of health benefits and painless as an infant

Not being Circumcised: Painful if you want it later in life and possible health hindrances for sexually active persons (thus making the only argument for circumcision redundant anyway)

^Toughest choice ever. I probably just don't understand, though, because I don't, amirite?

 

I very much enjoyed that post. Thank you.

[The Observer]

Being Circumcised: No credible consequences with a likelihood of health benefits and painless as an infant

Not being Circumcised: Painful if you want it later in life and possible health hindrances for sexually active persons (thus making the only argument for circumcision redundant anyway)

^Toughest choice ever. I probably just don't understand, though, because I don't, amirite?

 

It's not like contraception is terribly difficult to get a hold of nowadays.

[Omar]

Being Circumcised: No credible consequences with a likelihood of health benefits and painless as an infant

Not being Circumcised: Painful if you want it later in life and possible health hindrances for sexually active persons (thus making the only argument for circumcision redundant anyway)

^Toughest choice ever. I probably just don't understand, though, because I don't, amirite?

 

It's not like contraception is terribly difficult to get a hold of nowadays.

Sure (though arguably contraception isn't perfect), but there's no reason to outlaw a useless thing.

[h3art]

I couldn't help but laugh when I read "human rights violation." A painless and most likely beneficial procedure is literally the exact opposite of a human rights violation. The bill, on the other hand, is literally oppressing religion (Jews, Catholics, and several protestant denominations). 68 million Catholics and 6.5 million Jews alone add up to be nearly 25% of the country (that's in case a "small minority" doesn't count to you).

 

Feel free to get circumcised - I'm certainly stopping you. What I am supporting stopping is the human rights violation of nonconsensual medical practices. [1][2]

If getting circumcised is such an essential and core aspect of your religious belief, surely there's no issue getting it done as of when you reach the age of consent and majority? :rolleyes:

[The_Gabe]

I couldn't help but laugh when I read "human rights violation." A painless and most likely beneficial procedure is literally the exact opposite of a human rights violation. The bill, on the other hand, is literally oppressing religion (Jews, Catholics, and several protestant denominations). 68 million Catholics and 6.5 million Jews alone add up to be nearly 25% of the country (that's in case a "small minority" doesn't count to you).

 

Feel free to get circumcised - I'm certainly stopping you. What I am supporting stopping is the human rights violation of nonconsensual medical practices. [1][2]

If getting circumcised is such an essential and core aspect of your religious belief, surely there's no issue getting it done as of when you reach the age of consent and majority? :rolleyes:

 

Are you seriously making me go back to the part of the discussion where I pointed out that later circumcisions can be costly, may have complications, a lot more painful, and take longer than the procedures done on birth...

[The Dark Lord]

It would be nice to have a choice over such a thing. Aside from cosmetic reasons, there really isn't much of an advantage to a circumcision. Also, supposedly the foreskin gives more sexual pleasure during sex for males. Not sure if this is true as I've never personally experienced sex with a foreskin since I was circumcised, but yeah.

 

You can honestly live without the foreskin, so I don't see too much of a moral dilemma over the practice.

[Omar]

I couldn't help but laugh when I read "human rights violation." A painless and most likely beneficial procedure is literally the exact opposite of a human rights violation. The bill, on the other hand, is literally oppressing religion (Jews, Catholics, and several protestant denominations). 68 million Catholics and 6.5 million Jews alone add up to be nearly 25% of the country (that's in case a "small minority" doesn't count to you).

 

Feel free to get circumcised - I'm certainly stopping you. What I am supporting stopping is the human rights violation of nonconsensual medical practices. [1][2]

If getting circumcised is such an essential and core aspect of your religious belief, surely there's no issue getting it done as of when you reach the age of consent and majority? :rolleyes:

If you consider severe discomfort, increased chances of complications, and pain to be non-issues, then that is correct.

There are plenty of very important medical practices a new-born can't consent to. This one is arguably not important at all, but it literally doesn't have negative consequences. No harm, no foul. No circumcised baby will ever complain about it.

[Hamtaro]

I couldn't help but laugh when I read "human rights violation." A painless and most likely beneficial procedure is literally the exact opposite of a human rights violation. The bill, on the other hand, is literally oppressing religion (Jews, Catholics, and several protestant denominations). 68 million Catholics and 6.5 million Jews alone add up to be nearly 25% of the country (that's in case a "small minority" doesn't count to you).

 

Feel free to get circumcised - I'm certainly stopping you. What I am supporting stopping is the human rights violation of nonconsensual medical practices. [1][2]

If getting circumcised is such an essential and core aspect of your religious belief, surely there's no issue getting it done as of when you reach the age of consent and majority? :rolleyes:

I'm perfectly happy with having it done as a baby. My parents certainly do have a right to encourage my religious beliefs (sorry for not being an awesome teen rebel who has to go against society).

 

Being circumcised = no consequences.

Not being circumcised but wanting to later = dangerous and painful.

 

How is this difficult to understand? Where is the human rights violation? Where is it? Is it the part where there's no consequences or the part where it's painless as a child?

 

[satire]Also, you should check out my blog @ my-opinions-are-obviously-facts.blogspot.com. I'm very bitter about religion because my parents tried to make me religious, but I'm such a cool rebel that I can go against the grain. Also, my community college philosophy professor said so, therefore I'm 100% right and thinking for myself (wait...)[/satire]

[The_Gabe]

Studio1417, I feel you can handle any further arguments from here. I'm going to bed, cya. :razz:

[h3art]

Read up on my previous posts. My argument is that nonconsensual, non essential medical practices are an ethically slippery slope; quite apart from the separate argument that I feel religious parents have no right to force their crackpot beliefs and on malleable, uninformed children's minds.

 

Also, nice ad hominem there bro. :thumbup:

 

[satire]I'm sorry I'm not brainwashed and lacking in intellectual integrity.[/satire]

 

Nowait, I mean [troll].

 

Yeah, keep it clean. :shame:

[Omar]

Read up on my previous posts. My argument is that nonconsensual, non essential medical practices are an ethically slippery slope

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.

[Alg]

Read up on my previous posts. My argument is that nonconsensual, non essential medical practices are an ethically slippery slope; quite apart from the separate argument that I feel religious parents have no right to force their crackpot beliefs and on malleable, uninformed children's minds.

And this is where people stop taking you seriously. You're talking about a literally harmless cultural practice. You seem to hate it solely because it's linked to religion. Grow up, people believe differently than you and have just as much right to that as you do.

[sees_all1]

nonconsensual, non essential medical practices are an ethically slippery slope;

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.

[Omar]

Read up on my previous posts. My argument is that nonconsensual, non essential medical practices are an ethically slippery slope

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.

 

nonconsensual, non essential medical practices are an ethically slippery slope;

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.

[sees_all1]

There's only room for once of us in this thread, sees_all.

*slinks away muttering under breath*

 

Wait, no... JINX!

[i_love_burritos]

Banning circumcision ? I don't see the point, really. On purely practical terms it's useless, but sure if you want to intentionally mutilate your kid's [bleep], then fine.

 

EDIT:

 

[bleep] is bleeped now ? What the [bleep].

[Alg]

Banning circumcision ? I don't see the point, really. On purely practical terms it's useless, but sure if you want to intentionally mutilate your kid's [bleep], then fine.

Thing is, if San Francisco bans it, parents could just go to Daly City, Oakland, San Mateo, Redwood City, or any other city that's less than an hour away. The same thing was brought up when they tried banning toys from fast food.

I'll say it again, San Francisco's local government is insane.

[h3art]

And this is where people stop taking you seriously. You're talking about a literally harmless cultural practice. You seem to hate it solely because it's linked to religion. Grow up, people believe differently than you and have just as much right to that as you do.

 

Ah, so you're denying that consent should be a necessary part of undergoing medical treatment? I'm not stopping people form practicing their religions, or impinging on their ability to do that - see my previous posts. All I'm calling for is a general observance that children are unable to give consent (for instance, lacking the ability to sign legally binding contracts or consenting to sexual intercourse) and that such practices should wait until the individuals involved have the information and willpower to give informed consent.

 

The law isn't against jews or circumcision: it's about informed consent for medical practices. Isn't difficult. :mellow:

[i_love_burritos]

Banning circumcision ? I don't see the point, really. On purely practical terms it's useless, but sure if you want to intentionally mutilate your kid's [bleep], then fine.

Thing is, if San Francisco bans it, parents could just go to Daly City, Oakland, San Mateo, Redwood City, or any other city that's less than an hour away. The same thing was brought up when they tried banning toys from fast food.

I'll say it again, San Francisco's local government is insane.

Yeah exactly. I mean if you're really that inclined to do the whole thing I don't see why the government is banning it. Unless it directly affects the child's health, I don't think it should be banned. Just because something serves no purpose, doesn't mean it should be "outlawed".