No more circumcision in SF?

[PearlWatson]

No amount of innocence affords a child the right to use their mother's womb without consent.

Wow!

 

[Agoxlea]

first off, let's be clear that you and I are probably not very far from one another if we were to shift this discussion to ethics. But, as long as we're pushing this in the direction of institutions and law, then I'll hold my position.

While I agree that the baby outside the womb is still dependent, I'd claim that there is a significant qualitative difference that comes with being born. This is a MEANINGFUL difference, and I'm calling for this difference to be taken up in regimes of meaning that are separate from the State. That is all. Next, I'm going to back away slowly from the way you naturalized "god-given right" and the protection of the "state." Slowly.

I completely agree with this. I also personally don't think "god given right" should any way every be used as a political argument of any sort. I'm slightly religious, but let's be real here, that just shouldn't be able to fly.

 

[sirkickyass]

I think they should make the more damaging ****oridectomy illegal while they are at it.

Been illegal in the United States since 1996.

 

[PearlWatson]

I completely agree with this. I also personally don't think "god given right" should any way every be used as a political argument of any sort. I'm slightly religious, but let's be real here, that just shouldn't be able to fly.

You do realize it was used as a political argument in the Declaration of Independence, right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...

 

[Agoxlea]

You do realize it was used as a political argument in the Declaration of Independence, right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...

Touche. I still think it should be political suicide. Example: the Senator or Representative that claimed global warming would not be a problem because God promised not to flood the earth or whatever. I'm slightly religious on occasion, or at least I am alright with the concept of it/GET it, and that is a still pretty ridiculous to me. Your argument is valid, but I guess it comes down to when you believe someone becomes a "man" with the unalienable right to life. Obviously our infallible founding fathers would disagree with me, but I believe those rights exist in the absence of a creator we, meaning humanity, give ourselves those rights. I just think I might be a little more picky on what I'd classify a "man" that has those rights.

 

[The-Joker]

Been illegal in the United States since 1996.

and that is a scientific fact.

 

[Bronco70]

Touche. I still think it should be political suicide.

Ultimately, though, whether it is or not is up to the constituency.

Example: the Senator or Representative that claimed global warming would not be a problem because God promised not to flood the earth or whatever.

Fortunately, the validity of global warning (and such) does not hinge on the opinions of individual legislators.

 

[PearlWatson]

Touche. I still think it should be political suicide. Example: the Senator or Representative that claimed global warming would not be a problem because God promised not to flood the earth or whatever. I'm slightly religious on occasion, or at least I am alright with the concept of it/GET it, and that is a still pretty ridiculous to me. Your argument is valid, but I guess it comes down to when you believe someone becomes a "man" with the unalienable right to life. Obviously our infallible founding fathers would disagree with me, but I believe those rights exist in the absence of a creator we, meaning humanity, give ourselves those rights. I just think I might be a little more picky on what I'd classify a "man" that has those rights.

Thomas Paine in Dissertations on First Principles of Government:

It is at all times necessary, and more particularly so during the progress of a revolution, and until right ideas confirm themselves by habit, that we frequently refresh our patriotism by reference to first principles. It is by tracing things to their origin that we learn to understand them: and it is by keeping that line and that origin always in view that we never forget them.

An inquiry into the origin of rights will demonstrate to us that rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another; for who is he who could be the first giver, or by what principle, or on what authority, could he possess the right of giving?

A declaration of rights is not a creation of them, nor a donation of them. It is a manifest of the principle by which they exist, followed by a detail of what the rights are; for every civil right has a natural right for its foundation, and it includes the principle of a reciprocal guarantee of those rights from man to man. As, therefore, it is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man, it consequently follows, that rights appertain to man in right of his existence only, and must therefore be equal to every man.

How picky? Do they have to be a certain color, intellect, gender, age, or class to have the right to life? or have the government protect that right?

 

[TroutBum]

You do realize it was used as a political argument in the Declaration of Independence, right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...

I love DoI/Constitution thumpers like you. You're the equivalent of those nut ball Bible thumpers down south.

 

[moevillini]

why not solve two issues at once - - when the circumcision is performed, whoever is doing it can make an extra little snip and sever the vasa deferentia.

 

[Scat]

No amount of innocence affords a child the right to use their mother's womb without consent.

In most cases the child is in the mother's womb because of her consent.

 

[moevillini]

In most cases the child is in the mother's womb because of her consent.

what about in cases of rape?

or a failure of birth control device or method?