San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Foxrac said:
Whatever.

I believe in parent's choice to do with their baby.
Click to expand...

Parents want you to be porn star. Therefore, they want to cut your tool.

Europe are popular uncircumsized
 
Foxrac said:
There is interesting link about percent of men are circumcised in each countries, I'm surprised about South Korea has highest number of circumcised men than most countries in Asia, in North Korea, it is opposite.
http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/infopack_en_2.pdf
Click to expand...

It's because South Korea are jealous of West, so they copy to be white. I'm glad, I'm uncircumcised. Women love me.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
OK. Then, the solution is reasonably simple. Instead of banning the procedure ( which I believe is an infrigment on parental rights), we create a law that ensures that everyone must give INFORMED consent before procedures are done. This goes for any procedure; and not just circumcision. I believe that if we did this, then there could be a significant decrease in the number of elective procedures. As someone who's had a lot of procedures done (some elective; most not), I am ALL FOR informed consent! I just don't like the idea of a parent's right to decision making being trampled on by laws.
Click to expand...
Well, anyone that has seen Michael Jackson or the Lion Lady would have been warned about plastic surgery drawbacks..
 
saywhatkid said:
Well, anyone that has seen Michael Jackson or the Lion Lady would have been warned about plastic surgery drawbacks..
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. And, some people still take the risks. When a person is informed of all the risks, but still undergoes procedures despite warnings, then it's on THEM.

I don't like the idea of banning procedures on a politicians say so. Thats my point. It really doesn't matter if we're discussing circumcision, plastic surgery, or anything else that's elective. As you said before, what's next?

Extremism doesn't solve anything.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Yes, I agree. And, some people still take the risks. When a person is informed of all the risks, but still undergoes procedures despite warnings, then it's on THEM.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be on them, it would be on the child. There is a difference between deciding what to do with your own body and somebody else's body.

Informed consent or not, it's still the child who had to go through with it, not the parents. There is nothing extreme about preserving human rights especially when it come to their bodies.

It only seems extreme to ban the procedure because it is a common procedure. It is viewed to be normal among the people because they do it on a daily basis. However, it does not make it any less wrong.
 
Banjo said:
It wouldn't be on them, it would be on the child. There is a difference between deciding what to do with your own body and somebody else's body.

Informed consent or not, it's still the child who had to go through with it, not the parents. There is nothing extreme about preserving human rights especially when it come to their bodies.

It only seems extreme to ban the procedure because it is a common procedure. It is viewed to be normal among the people because they do it on a daily basis. However, it does not make it any less wrong.
Click to expand...

We aren't going to agree here, Banjo. I think that's become obvious.
 
saywhatkid said:
Well, I still feel that the government has no business telling people what to do in this case. If the reasoning behind this law is to prevent an unnecessary procedure, what is next; banning plastic surgery? breast augmentation?
Click to expand...

I absolutely believe that the government has no business whatsoever telling adults what to do with their own bodies. If they want to chop off a leg and install a pair of horns on their skull, by all means.

I also absolutely believe the government has every right to tell parents what they can do with a separate human being's body. A child is not merely an extension of the parents or their choices, they are their own person.

If an adult chooses circumcision, carry on! It is their body, they are old enough to understand the risks and benefits, and they are the ones actively consenting.

An infant cannot withdraw the consent parents give "on his behalf" when he grows up: the surgery is done and cannot be taken back.

Comparing consenting adult cosmetic surgery to non-consenting infant cosmetic surgery is comparing apples and oranges.
 
PowerON said:
Parents want you to be porn star. Therefore, they want to cut your tool.

Europe are popular uncircumsized
Click to expand...

That has to be one of the most bizzare posts that I've come across in this thread.
 
PowerON said:
Parents want you to be porn star. Therefore, they want to cut your tool.

Europe are popular uncircumsized
Click to expand...

Oceanbreeze said:
What? That's a really bizarre argument.
Click to expand...

deafskeptic said:
That has to be one of the most bizzare posts that I've come across in this thread.
Click to expand...
I had planned to steer clear of this...but what parent would want to tell their parents (the grandparents of Johnny) "We have BIG plans for Johnny. We are going to steer his interests and education to pursuing a career in the adult film industry. If he measures up, the sky is the limit!"
 
saywhatkid said:
I had planned to steer clear of this...but what parent would want to tell their parents (the grandparents of Johnny) "We have BIG plans for Johnny. We are going to steer his interests and education to pursuing a career in the adult film industry. If he measures up, the sky is the limit!"
Click to expand...

None that I know of! :laugh2:
 
saywhatkid said:
Most of your examples (I don't know the first pictured one) are famous people that went overboard with plastic surgery. I agree that there are risks associated with both surgeries I mentioned. I am asking if we should ban them. Do we need laws to protect people from making choices that may adversely affect them? Let the legislating begin:
Click to expand...

You're missing something here. It is not a choice that will adversely affect them but the child.
 
Last edited:
The phrase "will adversely affect" which means each and every case this would be true. Not so. "Adversely," in this instance, means "harmful or unfavorable." Yet this procedure has been proven not to be the case in many instances where you have benefits and protection to make the case. Again, sure, there are risks, albeit quite low, but first let's be honest when making over-reaching generalities here. "May adversely affect," sure. "May likely to adversely to affect," perhaps but that would be stretching it a bit. This isn't abortion here where it certainly does 100% adversely affect the victim.
 
kokonut said:
The phrase "will adversely affect" which means each and every case this would be true. Not so. "Adversely," in this instance, means "harmful or unfavorable." Yet this procedure has been proven not to be the case in many instances where you have benefits and protection to make the case. Again, sure, there are risks, albeit quite low, but first let's be honest when making over-reaching generalities here. "May adversely affect," sure. "May likely to adversely to affect," perhaps but that would be stretching it a bit. This isn't abortion here where it certainly does 100% adversely affect the victim.
Click to expand...

Circumcision results in loss of genital tissue 100% of the time. The person may not be bothered by this harm because society has told them that it is normal, but that does not negate the fact that 100% of circumcised boys have lost tissue they were born with and meant to have.

Also, don't try to sling this into an abortion debate. Seriously.
 
souggy said:
Wrong. In academia, anti-Semite applies to hatred of Jews and Arabs both. Every single seminar I attended about Judaism and Islam emphasis this. If the Jews say it applies to Arabs, then it applies equally to Arabs as well.

Don't use Wikipedia for everything.
Click to expand...

What academia do you hail from? Arabs have been using that excuse for YEARS: We're not anti-Semitic; we're Arab! Gimme a break. Antisemitism is just a replacement for the 'hatred' of Juden, or an English version of Judenhass or derogatory Yid (short i).

Anti-Semite refers to bigotry and xenophobia towards Jews. It has nothing to do with language or appearance. If that were not the case, there wouldn't be topics in academia like, 'Antisemitism in Arab lands" or "Islamic antisemitism".
 
TheOracle said:
What academia do you hail from? Arabs have been using that excuse for YEARS: We're not anti-Semitic; we're Arab! Gimme a break. Antisemitism is just a replacement for the 'hatred' of Juden, or an English version of Judenhass or derogatory Yid (short i).

Anti-Semite refers to bigotry and xenophobia towards Jews. It has nothing to do with language or appearance. If that were not the case, there wouldn't be topics in academia like, 'Antisemitism in Arab lands" or "Islamic antisemitism".
Click to expand...

Se·mit·ic

adjective /səˈmitik/ 

1. Relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family

2. Of or relating to the peoples who speak these languages, esp. Hebrew and Arabic
 
Back
Top