No more circumcision in SF?

[One Brow]

So everyone against abortion is really just pro-control of women, automatically or something?

I've never claimed it was everyone. I've said that the goals are revealed in their rhetoric and qualifications. But that's all the way back on page 10. I would never expect you to follow the link I provided to my statement so you could read it in context. It's much easier to dismiss my argument or thought when you can comfotably claim "crazy" is my real motive.

 

[PearlWatson]

So everyone against abortion is really just pro-control of women, automatically or something? No one is possibly really against abortion because they think killing an unborn child is wrong, it is all about controlling women and there is zero possibility of any other motive? So when they say it is about the unborn child they are all lying and trying to hide the fact that they really think all women are second-class citizens and deserve to be controlled in all aspects of their lives? What about women against abortion? Same there too? I guess it makes it easier to dismiss any and all argument or thought when you can comfortably claim "crazy" is their REAL motive.

You fell hard.

 

[LogGrad98]

Why do you owe something to a life that did not exist at the time you had sex?

So if you fire a bullet do you owe anything to the person who is killed by it, whether they were the intended target or not?

 

[LogGrad98]

You fell hard.

Did I?

 

[TroutBum]

I'm afraid that Jay said it best:

Also, just because:

and

 

[green]

Hilarious, and true.



Having an abortion is taking responsibility.

Show me one example, other than abortion, when killing someone is a legit way to take responsibility for your actions.

Why do you owe something to a life that did not exist at the time you had sex?

Because your actions brought about those consequences. By having sex, you allowed the chance for life to form, and now that it has, you have no right to take away the chances it has to live its life.

As I explicitly agreed. It has a right to live, just not at the mother's expense. If it can go on living with out the mother, it should be allowed to.

Stupid, stupid argument. So, in your eyes, every single infant, or child up to the age where it can live without help from its mother, can be murdered. Makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[One Brow]

So if you fire a bullet do you owe anything to the person who is killed by it, whether they were the intended target or not?

Were they alive when you fired the bullet? If so, you're responsible. On the other hand, if the person hit had not yet been conceived when the bullet was fired, then you may have a valid analogy.

 

[One Brow]

Show me one example, other than abortion, when killing someone is a legit way to take responsibility for your actions.

If I can, does that mean I'm correct in my argument? If not, what would be the point of that exercise?

Because your actions brought about those consequences. By having sex, you allowed the chance for life to form, and now that it has, you have no right to take away the chances it has to live its life.

It again comes back to controlling women's behavior.

Stupid, stupid argument. So, in your eyes, every single infant, or child up to the age where it can live without help from its mother, can be murdered. Makes a whole lot of sense.

That would be a stupid argument, and the exact opposite of the one I am making. There's a lot of stupidity there, definitely.

 

[moevillini]

one thing I don't get from those like Green is how they can say they're not trying to control someone's actions by imposing their beliefs on that other person. It's all well and good if you belief life begins at conception (which actually isn't even the at the moment of sexual activity/climax, but I don't expect you to really understand that...) but those who do not believe the same as you should be allowed to act upon their own beliefs, not forced to submit to what you believe to be the "truth"

anyhow, I thought the topic was circumcision - how'd we get here?

 

[One Brow]

anyhow, I thought the topic was circumcision - how'd we get here?

The Thriller first introduce the topic of abortion in htis thread.

 

[Scat]

I am uncertain why people think circumcision is necessary. It it cutting off a healthy piece of anatomy for no reason. They do not take out your appendix pre-emptively, and the ******** at least serves some purpose whereas the appendix does not.

There are billions of people worldwide who are not circumcised. This is largely an American phenomenon (and Jewish of course) to simply out of hand circumcise all boy babies. There is simply no valid reason for it. At all. So stop it.

[/soapbox]

Apparently there is a link between circumcision and lower rates of prostate cancer.

https://uk.health.lifestyle.yahoo.net/circumcision-linked-to-lower-risk-of-prostate-cancer.htm

 

[Stoked]

Government at any level has no business saying you can or cannot get a circumcision.

Stop trying to control EVERYTHING!