San Francisco set to vote on becoming Anti-Semitic

[Omar]

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.

[obfuscator]

If hospitals are going to refuse to do this, all it's going to lead to is unsafe home surgeries anyway. Groups who have a religious obligation to do this will not stop, no matter what you do...

[Omar]

If hospitals are going to refuse to do this, all it's going to lead to is unsafe home surgeries anyway. Groups who have a religious obligation to do this will not stop, no matter what you do...

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

[Giordano]

If hospitals are going to refuse to do this, all it's going to lead to is unsafe home surgeries anyway. Groups who have a religious obligation to do this will not stop, no matter what you do...

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

It works though. You see how much the record industry makes? :mrgreen:

[sees_all1]

If hospitals are going to refuse to do this, all it's going to lead to is unsafe home surgeries anyway. Groups who have a religious obligation to do this will not stop, no matter what you do...

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

It works though. You see how much the record industry makes? :mrgreen:

That's why they have to sue limewire for $75 trillion.

[The_Gabe]

However a simple solution for that is allow the child to sue [within 20 years of the operation] both the parents and hospital if the operation went against his wishes.

 

I'm sorry, but are you being serious? Bastard should be happy he didn't get aborted.

 

Lets always blame the parents. Yup. After everyone they had done for the child---raise him, feed him, cloth him,--- if his penis is not what he chose, lets blame the parents. I mean, there surely aren't more important things in life now, are there?

[Nomrombom]

More important than human rights violations?

 

 

 

Lol k

[The_Gabe]

More important than human rights violations?

 

 

 

Lol k

 

Yes, especially when you're talking about something as trivial as circumcisions. Want me to compare what I said in a previous post to something that would be on the same level of consideration as real human rights violations? Go tell me if you can compare circumcisions to people living in North Korea or Cuba or even Thailand.

[The_Gabe]

However a simple solution for that is allow the child to sue [within 20 years of the operation] both the parents and hospital if the operation went against his wishes.

 

I'm sorry, but are you being serious? Bastard should be happy he didn't get aborted.

 

Lets always blame the parents. Yup. After everyone they had done for the child---raise him, feed him, cloth him,--- if his penis is not what he chose, lets blame the parents. I mean, there surely aren't more important things in life now, are there?

 

I reserve the parents rights to abort him however once he is born I think that he holds all the rights to person and property as a human being afterall in the united states those are unalienable rights derived directly from God [according to the law].

 

So from what I understand

 

Abortion-> Sure go ahead

Circumcision-> NO DON'T TOUCH ME SUE SUE SUE

 

Also, seeing as you do say law is derived directly from God, what about atheists? Would you say they are excerpt from this?

 

Laws are not made by God, they are made by the people. Until someone is the legal age of 18, as the United State government says, the parents have custody and will know best for the child. Don't circumcise your kid, nobody is forcing you; however, don't talk for other people when circumcision at birth was the right choice and would have saved a lot of pain.

 

In this case, the good outweigh the bad. Until you can give me statistics that say that the majority of people circumcised at birth are unhappy, and I will stay standing for the parents to do so to their children.

[Nomrombom]

However a simple solution for that is allow the child to sue [within 20 years of the operation] both the parents and hospital if the operation went against his wishes.

 

I'm sorry, but are you being serious? Bastard should be happy he didn't get aborted.

 

Lets always blame the parents. Yup. After everyone they had done for the child---raise him, feed him, cloth him,--- if his penis is not what he chose, lets blame the parents. I mean, there surely aren't more important things in life now, are there?

 

I reserve the parents rights to abort him however once he is born I think that he holds all the rights to person and property as a human being afterall in the united states those are unalienable rights derived directly from God [according to the law].

 

So from what I understand

 

Abortion-> Sure go ahead

Circumcision-> NO DON'T TOUCH ME SUE SUE SUE

 

Also, seeing as you do say law is derived directly from God, what about atheists? Would you say they are excerpt from this?

 

Laws are not made by God, they are made by the people. Until someone is the legal age of 18, as the United State government says, the parents have custody and will know best for the child. Don't circumcise your kid, nobody is forcing you; however, don't talk for other people when circumcision at birth was the right choice and would have saved a lot of pain.

 

In this case, the good outweigh the bad. Until you can give me statistics that say that the majority of people circumcised at birth are unhappy, and I will stay standing for the parents to do so to their children.

 

Abortion = by definition a fetus isn't a sovereign being therefor before a certain stage of development you can abort

A baby is considered a person therefor has the rights of a person.

 

I realize they are made by people and I myself am an atheist however the law of America recognizes unalienable rights to be God given. I personally believe that if a person [parent or not] harms your person or property you should be able to receive financial payment in return.

 

Much like lets say in some freak accident you get a circumcision through an accident at a private building, say somehow or another that injury happens at a McDonalds play area, how much do you think the court would reward the injured party? Millions. So obviously there is a consencious that a circumcision is an injury that deserves financial compensation.

 

 

*slow clap*

[Omar]

Hmm you would be right to the fact that parents are going to do it anyways [mainly jewish parents] in unsafe conditions if the hospital chooses not to.

 

However a simple solution for that is allow the child to sue [within 20 years of the operation] both the parents and hospital if the operation went against his wishes.

 

While it wouldn't outright ban it, the parents better do a damn good job of brainwashing unless they want a brb lawsuit.

 

Currently we have a nanny government preventing a personal lawsuit, so Im all for getting rid of more nanny government.

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.

[Nomrombom]

Hmm you would be right to the fact that parents are going to do it anyways [mainly jewish parents] in unsafe conditions if the hospital chooses not to.

 

However a simple solution for that is allow the child to sue [within 20 years of the operation] both the parents and hospital if the operation went against his wishes.

 

While it wouldn't outright ban it, the parents better do a damn good job of brainwashing unless they want a brb lawsuit.

 

Currently we have a nanny government preventing a personal lawsuit, so Im all for getting rid of more nanny government.

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.

 

God murdered more people than Hitler...

[sees_all1]

I think everything reasonable to be said on the topic has been said (and perhaps a bit more), I'm requesting this thread to be locked.

[Giordano]

We can still talk about how forum threads should be turned public so the single users may not suddenly lock them on demand when posters are willing to continue posting.

 

 

But, hey, just a thought.

[sees_all1]

I think everything reasonable to be said on the topic has been said (and perhaps a bit more), I'm requesting this thread to be locked.

 

I still have reasonable things to say about this topic, your request is denied.

Out with it, then. :rolleyes:

[Nomrombom]

I think everything reasonable to be said on the topic has been said (and perhaps a bit more), I'm requesting this thread to be locked.

 

I still have reasonable things to say about this topic, your request is denied.

Out with it, then. :rolleyes:

 

I conditionally accept your offer for me to divulge reasonable information to this topic if someone posts a reasonable counter argument.

 

 

I say, good sire, it has come to my attention that you, or someone posing as you, has claimed to be able to enter for discussion details on a matter of importance if or when another person presents relevant arguments to the opposite side?

[The_Gabe]

However a simple solution for that is allow the child to sue [within 20 years of the operation] both the parents and hospital if the operation went against his wishes.

 

I'm sorry, but are you being serious? Bastard should be happy he didn't get aborted.

 

Lets always blame the parents. Yup. After everyone they had done for the child---raise him, feed him, cloth him,--- if his penis is not what he chose, lets blame the parents. I mean, there surely aren't more important things in life now, are there?

 

I reserve the parents rights to abort him however once he is born I think that he holds all the rights to person and property as a human being afterall in the united states those are unalienable rights derived directly from God [according to the law].

 

So from what I understand

 

Abortion-> Sure go ahead

Circumcision-> NO DON'T TOUCH ME SUE SUE SUE

 

Also, seeing as you do say law is derived directly from God, what about atheists? Would you say they are excerpt from this?

 

Laws are not made by God, they are made by the people. Until someone is the legal age of 18, as the United State government says, the parents have custody and will know best for the child. Don't circumcise your kid, nobody is forcing you; however, don't talk for other people when circumcision at birth was the right choice and would have saved a lot of pain.

 

In this case, the good outweigh the bad. Until you can give me statistics that say that the majority of people circumcised at birth are unhappy, and I will stay standing for the parents to do so to their children.

 

Abortion = by definition a fetus isn't a sovereign being therefor before a certain stage of development you can abort

A baby is considered a person therefor has the rights of a person.

 

I realize they are made by people and I myself am an atheist however the law of America recognizes unalienable rights to be God given. I personally believe that if a person [parent or not] harms your person or property you should be able to receive financial payment in return.

 

Much like lets say in some freak accident you get a circumcision through an accident at a private building, say somehow or another that injury happens at a McDonalds play area, how much do you think the court would reward the injured party? Millions. So obviously there is a consencious that a circumcision is an injury that deserves financial compensation.

 

Once more there is strong contrary debate on whether or not a fetus is a being.

 

Second of all, I wouldn't even call circumcision harming anyone. At the very least I will call it a gift.

 

Third, how the hell did you compare breaking an arm/leg/whatever to circumcision? Do you realize that your analogy made absolutely no sense? We are not talking about accidents either; this is intentional. And also, seeing as it takes over $400,000 dollars to raise a child, I do believe the money portion has been paid. Finally, you mentioned suing the hospital. Do you honestly think you can sue something in which your legal guardians at the time signed a consent form for the hospital to do?

 

All you are thinking about is the very rare cases of people being unhappy with what they are. If the people who are circumcised don't care, yet the ones that aren't care, then why is it? It is not affecting you in any way at all.

 

Lastly I would request the mods not to lock this thread as it is still debatable.

[Furah]

Laws are not made by God, they are made by the people. Until someone is the legal age of 18, as the United State government says, the parents have custody and will know best for the child. Don't circumcise your kid, nobody is forcing you; however, don't talk for other people when circumcision at birth was the right choice and would have saved a lot of pain.

Parents do not always do what is best for the child, let alone always know what is.

[The_Gabe]

Laws are not made by God, they are made by the people. Until someone is the legal age of 18, as the United State government says, the parents have custody and will know best for the child. Don't circumcise your kid, nobody is forcing you; however, don't talk for other people when circumcision at birth was the right choice and would have saved a lot of pain.

Parents do not always do what is best for the child, let alone always know what is.

 

Yet most parents, who even bothered to consider this, would probably know.

[Omar]

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.

[h3art]

Do you realize that your analogy made absolutely no sense? We are not talking about accidents either; this is intentional. And also, seeing as it takes over $400,000 dollars to raise a child, I do believe the money portion has been paid. Finally, you mentioned suing the hospital. Do you honestly think you can sue something in which your legal guardians at the time signed a consent form for the hospital to do?

 

All you are thinking about is the very rare cases of people being unhappy with what they are. If the people who are circumcised don't care, yet the ones that aren't care, then why is it? It is not affecting you in any way at all.

 

Hell, why don't the parents sell off one of the kid's kidneys? The little tyke only needs the one, and it's a sweet few grand.

[The_Gabe]

Do you realize that your analogy made absolutely no sense? We are not talking about accidents either; this is intentional. And also, seeing as it takes over $400,000 dollars to raise a child, I do believe the money portion has been paid. Finally, you mentioned suing the hospital. Do you honestly think you can sue something in which your legal guardians at the time signed a consent form for the hospital to do?

 

All you are thinking about is the very rare cases of people being unhappy with what they are. If the people who are circumcised don't care, yet the ones that aren't care, then why is it? It is not affecting you in any way at all.

 

Hell, why don't the parents sell off one of the kid's kidneys? The little tyke only needs the one, and it's a sweet few grand.

 

Thank you for another post that completely missed the point. I was answering Ring_World about someone suing their parents for cash because of a circumcision. I'm simply stating how much is averages out to raise a kid, and your post, in all due respect, is completely... ???

[obfuscator]

By extension, kids should be allowed to sue their parents for not circumcising them, since if they were to get it done as adults it would cause a great deal of pain and suffering.

[The_Gabe]

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.

[Distracted]

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.

 

Do you have a source for this? A case where a child's kidney was taken from him for no reason but to... piss him off? I find this pretty hard to believe. Doesn't a blood donor have to be over 18 years? I'm not sure how it is elsewhere, but here you can't give blood if you're under 18. So why would you be able to give a kidney under 18, without your consent? The only potential situation where I can ever see this happening is if one of the parents is terminally ill and in dire need of a kidney and the only compatible match is their child, but even then, I don't think that's allowed. Feel free to correct me on this.

 

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.

 

You stated somewhere else that people should be able to sue the hospital or their parents if they're unsatisfied with the fact that they're circumcised. You also acknowledge that there may be close to no one that would actually want to do this, but that the whole legal system should be changed for this one person. That's ridiculous. So should we be changing the whole legal system because some people think that homosexuality should warrant a death sentence? Should the whole majority change its ways because of a few people who have a specific opinion? Doesn't that go against the whole idea of democracy? And even then, what fault does the hospital have in performing a surgery with your parent's consent? Your guardian's consent is what legally counts as long as you're under-aged. It's this way for every kind of surgery to be performed on a minor. What are you gonna do? Sue the people who spent years raising you because you feel that your penis doesn't look nice?

 

Omar already addressed your "If it were an accident" argument. If some accident happened on private property that caused someone's nose to be mutilated in the same a nose job would, the injured person would be able to sue. Neither he nor his parents wanted this to happen. It's like this for everything. If some baby had an abnormally large nose and the parents opted for corrective surgery, it'd be perfectly legal, but if an accident had some kind of mutilating effect on the kid's nose, of course they'd be able to sue.

 

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.