Babies stricken with HERPES after ritual oral blood sucking circumcision in NYC

Danan said:
I meant the "mad max anarch society" you were envisioning.
Click to expand...
in mad max world, justice is vigilante. though on the small scale, in a small community of church dwellers, when one family members wrongs another- the church could work as court. early Christians confessed their crimes/sins before their group and ask for penance and forgiveness. it was after forgiveness that the member was allowed back into the tribe. so exile from the group in a dangerous world would be one form of justice system that could work. you could have mafia boss controlled area where the mafia has its own laws and courts, even in mad max world. thunderdome.
 
Danan said:
If the baby is the property of its parents it would be even worse for it. Not only would the parents have the right to evict it, but also to kill it. And that at every point in time until it is considered to be an adault (by whom?). If you don't have the right to destroy something, it's not really your property.
Click to expand...
property infers liability. do you really have the right to kill your dog?
 
and the line of demarcation for adulthood/self-ownership is the liability factor. if someone else is paying for your losses at the casino, you aren't gambling with your money. a child that runs around destroying shit isn't liable for the damage. in all of human societies, in all times- the parent and or tribe is responsible for the action of its offspring. you could have an extended family of adults. for if one of the adults broke something, or crash a car or something- that adult would be liable. maybe we should call it the age of reason. the point in which you have enough intelligence to take care of yourself and your business. this does not mean you have to be an island, or even live in a different house.
 
torchbearer said:
this mean's a child, even at the fetus level, has no right to the resources of its mother. it can be evicted at any time. why? because everyone owns themselves at all times and the child cannot force anyone to take care of it.
and now you have the real problem of people evicting babies from wombs- to a sentence of death with malnourishment. the baby is a self-owning independent being. it can no make no demands from any other entity, and no other entity is liable for it. the baby is its own property.
Click to expand...

According to whatever philosophy you have in mind, maybe. I'm not debating abortion. My statement was that a child is born into self-ownership. I'm only addressing born children, children who have already vacated the womb. If those children are property, they have no rights. Property can be destroyed, so there is no obligation to care for the child. If the child has self-ownership, the child has rights independent of the parents. If the government is established to protect rights, it has a duty to protect the rights of that child. If the parents fail in their duty to protect those rights, intervention is possible.
 
even badnarik speaks of rights and responsibility. if you can't be held responsible, you don't have that right. a two year old doesn't have the right to bare arms. why? because it doesn't have the mental capability to understand the responsibility. the adult can ban the child from holding a gun. if the child was a free/self-owning person, the parent would have no authority to restrict it from picking up a gun and pulling the trigger.
 
Last edited:
torchbearer said:
even badnarik speaks of rights and responsibility. if you can't be held responsible, you don't have that right. a two year old doesn't have the right to bare arms. why? because it doesn't have the mental capability to understand the responsibility. the adult can ban the child from holding a gun. if the child was a free/self-owning person, the parent would have no authority to restrict it from picking up a gun and pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...

The rights of the child are exercised through the parents. The child has the right. He is born with the right. His capacity to exercise his rights independently are not recognized until he reaches the age of majority. It's different than not possessing rights until one reaches adulthood.
 
RockEnds said:
The parents aren't owners. They are legal guardians for 18 or 21 years.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even talking about man made laws, I was talking about the actual happening of what is going on between the offspring and its parent. the child is a product of the parents. it remains their product until developed.
 
kcchiefs6465 said:
There is a law against it. I don't see how their religion overrules it.
Click to expand...

Back to this relevant point. Is there a law against a person putting a kid's willie in their mouth? If there is, then the person doing it can be arrested and charged. This is standard procedure. Hell, just possessing a picture of the person doing this could put somebody in jail.

And let's go ahead and state the obvious: these guys are most likely pedophiles who are using religion as an excuse. There is not, and has never been a medical justification for this practice whatsoever. It's the opposite. It's dangerous, sometimes fatal.
 
torchbearer said:
I wasn't even talking about man made laws, I was talking about the actual happening of what is going on between the offspring and its parent. the child is a product of the parents. it remains their product until developed.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a difference in how we were raised. Maybe it's because we had different college profs, but I was raised to understand that I was a free person under the governance of my parents. But, I have to leave for the afternoon, so I'll have to end my thought there for now.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Back to this relevant point. Is there a law against a person putting a kid's willie in their mouth? If there is, then the person doing it can be arrested and charged. This is standard procedure. Hell, just possessing a picture of the person doing this could put somebody in jail.

And let's go ahead and state the obvious: these guys are most likely pedophiles who are using religion as an excuse. There is not, and has never been a medical justification for this practice whatsoever. It's the opposite. It's dangerous, sometimes fatal.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The same principle applies if a person wanted to sacrifice their child. There are laws that actually serve purpose. (trying to protect those who cannot protect themselves: children) I don't agree with how ridiculous it has all grown but there is a point where someone needs to step in. (if so need be, the State)

I personally am getting tired of all the PC. There honestly comes a point where people ought say, "Fuck your religion, you sick piece of shit."

'Children are your property' explantions, (rationalizations) can't quite cut it. Especially when put towards common sensical questions as to how it would all be implemented or effected. (such as, does the father or mother have final authority?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Created4
Baby Foreskin Is Being Used To Make Vaccines
Replies
14
Views
1K
Working Poor
Working Poor
E
Pressure building on NYC mayor Blasio to ban sucking of blood from circumcised penis
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Christian Liberty
C
donnay
Tetanus Shot: How Do We Know That It Works?
Replies
3
Views
513
Zippyjuan
Zippyjuan
presence
Florida to Arial Spray for Mosquitos w/ Organophosphate NALED/DIBROM
2
Replies
28
Views
8K
presence
presence
Back
Top