What's new
By:

No more circumcision in SF?

Marcus said:
post removed by moderator

Oops. Nothing in my inbox yet but I've found that it usually shows up 24-48 hours later.
Click to expand...

I can see why they removed it but I can't see an infraction in that post.
 
The Thriller said:
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:



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!
Click to expand...

You're a Mormon, right? (I assume that you are, so if you're not, forgive the assumption.) When my daughter was born, because she didn't take a breath -- actually live outside the womb -- the church wouldn't allow me to give her a name and a blessing. If life begins at 6 weeks, or whatever crap you were saying earlier, then why wouldn't my daughter count? I'm not complaining, I just thought it was interesting.

What this has to do with anything is beyond me, but I support a womans right to choose, no matter how idiotic I might think her choice is. The fact that you think you know better than her is mind boggling.
 
Secondly, there is only one thing in this world that is uglier than a mans dick, and that is an uncircumcised dick. I would beat my parents if they hadn't had me snipped.
 
Millsapa said:
I think it has more to do with parental rights. Both examples have to do with children not "our own bodies."
Since I think sometimes the law has to step in and protect children from their parents I can't really criticize this law.
I think they should make the more damaging ****oridectomy illegal while they are at it.
Click to expand...

as long as a fetus draws all of its necessities from the mother's body, then the State telling her what she can and can't do is effectively legislation on her body. This isn't controversial. As for circumcision, the State is extending rights to someone (the baby) that cannot understand the rights being given to it; this might sound benign (or even preferable in this instance), but the implications are huge when you think about it.

And, again, I'm not advocating for some anarchic removal of all checks on individual rights. Far from it. My discomfort is with the (deeply historical) record of the State assuming the (sole?) role in these issues.
 
NAOS said:
as long as a fetus draws all of its necessities from the mother's body, then the State telling her what she can and can't do is effectively legislation on her body. This isn't controversial. As for circumcision, the State is extending rights to someone (the baby) that cannot understand the rights being given to it; this might sound benign (or even preferable in this instance), but the implications are huge when you think about it.

And, again, I'm not advocating for some anarchic removal of all checks on individual rights. Far from it. My discomfort is with the (deeply historical) record of the State assuming the (sole?) role in these issues.
Click to expand...

A baby outside the womb is just as dependent on a caregiver.
The right to life is an essential god-given right whether a child can understand it or not. If the state doesn't protect the innocent, who will?
 
Millsapa said:
A baby outside the womb is just as dependent on a caregiver.
The right to life is an essential god-given right whether a child can understand it or not. If the state doesn't protect the innocent, who will?
Click to expand...

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.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Would this not fit under the constitution? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Click to expand...

You can't legalize an illegal activity be saying it is religious. Otherwise, the Church of Killing Other Dope Dealers would be a major institution.
 
Millsapa said:
A baby outside the womb is just as dependent on a caregiver.
Click to expand...

In the USA, you can force a person to physically care for a child. Monetarily, yes, but not physically. You can only say that if they abdicate this responsibility, they have to do so in way where they know the baby will be cared for (adoption, ward of the state, etc.).

Millsapa said:
The right to life is an essential god-given right whether a child can understand it or not. If the state doesn't protect the innocent, who will?
Click to expand...

No amount of innocence affords a child the right to use their mother's womb without consent.
 
I still wonder what people think about other body modifications on a child that should be allowed. If we are going to argue that circumcision is a parent's choice, then can that same parent choose to get their baby a nose job, or have it removed completely, or how about an ear or eyebrows or whatever. Pick any non-essential piece of skin or body part, is that fair game for parents?

(of course excluding medical necessity)
 
Millsapa said:
Don't lie. We all know you think your dick is beautiful.
Click to expand...

As the resident authority on all things 'lie', I guess I'm not surprised that you caught me in this one.

its-beautiful.jpg
 
at any rate, back to the original topic, it'll be interesting if this proposal actually makes it onto the ballot and how the voting goes in November. My guess is that if it does make it on the ballot it'll be voted down by a significant margin.

If by chance it passes, I imagine it'd be challenged in court on religious grounds at the very least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top