What's new
By:

No more circumcision in SF?

Millsapa said:
The part they circumcise is just an unwanted mass of cells.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with you here, because that would be besides the point. The point is that a distinction can be made concerning WHO doesn't want the cells. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other about that.... but can you afford full liberal freedoms to a handful of undifferentiated cells?
 
NAOS said:
I won't disagree with you here, because that would be besides the point. The point is that a distinction can be made concerning WHO doesn't want the cells. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other about that.... but can you afford full liberal freedoms to a handful of undifferentiated cells?
Click to expand...

Well it would be kinda hard for them to vote and such as.
 
NAOS said:
you know bloody well that there is a difference between a new-born child and the mass of cells that might have been accidentally conceived by two persons with a hell of a lot on the line. Unwanted pregnancies can have some serious ****ing consequences, man.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't know.

When does this mass of cells have rights? When it starts to have a heart beat? Or when it's actually born out of the womb?

Calm yourself before I blind you with facts fool, most body systems form in the first 4 weeks after conception. Heartbeat begins 18-24 days after. Brain waves after the first 6 weeks.

A lil more than just a junkheap of cells I'd say!

I understand cases of unwanted pregnancies when all the two adults wanted to do was jackpot. Or if someone forces their jackpotting on an unconsenting person.

But that doesn't justify killing "that mass of cells."

There's always the option of adoption. Even in cases of rape, incest, unwanted pregnancies, etc, one can always give the baby up for adoption. Besides, most abortions are done to those who just don't want to face the consequences of their jackpotting. In here's the stasticial breakdown from a study in 2005 on why women get abortions. Beware folks, the responses may surprise you. Don't say I didn't warn ya! Naos, don't wet your diaper, pretty scary stuff:

74% felt "having a baby would dramatically change my life" (which includes interrupting education, interfering with job and career, and/or concern over other children or dependents)
73% felt they "can't afford a baby now" (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)
48% "don't want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem"
38% "have completed [their] childbearing"
32% were "not ready for a(nother) child"
25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"
22% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child"
14% felt their "husband or partner wants me to have an abortion"
13% said there were "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus"
12% said there were "physical problems with my health"
6% felt their "parents want me to have an abortion"
1% said they were "a victim of rape"
Click to expand...


Very few cases of physical problems or rape nonsense.

Just selfishness.

Selfishness does not give someone permission to terminate life. Give the baby up for adoption.

Further proof on how out of touch SF is.

Run away and give us another copy of Mein Kampf from your undisclosed university and job. LOL.

Stuffing your ears full of facts, hell, maybe I should become a professor too?!

Domination booooo yeah!
 
The Thriller said:
So children have rights to not be circumsized but they don't have rights to not be aborted? Fascinating....
Click to expand...

If you want to pass a law that says every fetus has to be extracted live, fine. Otherwise, the right of the fetus, even if they are considered fully people, don't overrule the rights of the woman carrying it.
 
The Thriller said:
Calm yourself before I blind you with facts fool, most body systems form in the first 4 weeks after conception. Heartbeat begins 18-24 days after. Brain waves after the first 6 weeks.
Click to expand...

So, that brings it all the way up to the level of an ant. Wow. Are a member of PETA as well?

I don't need to have a non-selfish reason to refuse to donate blood. A woman doesn't need a nonselfish reason to lend out her womb.
 
I'm glad I got circumcised when I was a baby because it would hurt like hell to get that done at 18 when I can actually remember it happening.
 
Back to the topic, I see circumcision as the approximate equivalent of pierced ears on baby girls. Small, real chance of harm; no actual benefit; basically cosmetic. I see no reason for it to be done without good cause, but I see no reason to make it illegal.

Does the law have a religious exception? If not, Muslims and Jews will offer very vocal opposition. If so, it doesn't really prevent anything anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top