SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

[Flash]

For my part, it is best to be left that way, it is not the purpose of government to ensure a standard for the way children look, nor is it their purpose to stomp on thousands of years of tradition.

Murder was prevalent before the creation of a State. So was rape, circumcision, mutilations, theft, human sacrifices, etc.. these are all ancient practices. Why should da 'gubmint have a role in such matters? Perhaps it's because we need a sort of governance over man to ensure the powerless & innocent are protected from harmful members of society? Circumcision is never moral or justified unless it's for a medical purpose. Pointing out that it's an ancient, primitive tradition does nothing for your argument. So I suspect you have some sort of deep-seeded political motive.

 

[ghengis86]

Also, we should ban parents from naming their children. This could pose irreparable emotional harm. Just ask the kid named Richard Weed. Not even a name change at 18 can cure those emotional scars. We must also ban parents from feeding their children high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen what that stuff can do to a liver? They should also mandate HEPA furnace filters, as bacterial spores can cause all sorts of infections that could lead to death. Parents should not be allowed to have webbed fingers and toes surgically remidied either. Think how fast that kid could swim!!

 

[Yieu]

Also, we should ban parents from naming their children. This could pose irreparable emotional harm. Just ask the kid named Richard Weed. Not even a name change at 18 can cure those emotional scars. We must also ban parents from feeding their children high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen what that stuff can do to a liver? They should also mandate HEPA furnace filters, as bacterial spores can cause all sorts of infections that could lead to death. Parents should not be allowed to gave webbed fingers and toes surgically remidied either. Think how fast that kid could swim!!

Why do you continue to make logical fallacies after it was pointed out that they are logical fallacies? None of those things can be equated with removing the most sensitive part of the male body without consent and for no medical reason.

This type of logical fallacy is called a Non-sequitur. You can read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

In addition, the slippery slope logical fallacy was used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

We need to get amy31416 and roxic27 in here for the female opinion on why routine infant circumcision is a violation of human liberty and our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Circumcising is not authority that parents rightfully have to do over their child unless there is some weird and very rare medical problem, and less invasive measures can be used in most such cases. It is not a part of "raising your children". Only the individual can rightfully and morally make that decision. Not the government, not parents. It is against free choice if the parents make that decision, because it deprives the individual from being able to make it.

Parents > government when it comes to their children. That's just how I feel. I'm sorry that so many people on this forum seem to have had some sort of lousy tyrant-slave relationship with their parents, but you seem to have all turned out fine, and I'm glad for that.

Having said that, let me say this. If the ban passes, we'll have one of those 'laboratories of innovation' that Gary Johnson coined the phrase for.

A scientific study:

People in San Francisco will either have really wonderful sex, or increased risk of urinary tract infection, or both, and everyone else can look at the San Fran variable group and assess the data for themselves, and make their own decisions regarding the health of their children.

Having said that, there are already numerous instances of cities, states, and the federal government which have made laws on child health, and whenever someone says that wonderful phrase, "But it's for the children!", I tend to worry for the next generation.

 

[low preference guy]

Parents > government when it comes to their children. That's just how I feel. I'm sorry that so many people on this forum seem to have had some sort of lousy tyrant-slave relationship with their parents, but you seem to have all turned out fine, and I'm glad for that.

so if a parent kills his children that's fine because parents > government?

 

[Flash]

Also, we should ban parents from naming their children. This could pose irreparable emotional harm. Just ask the kid named Richard Weed. Not even a name change at 18 can cure those emotional scars. We must also ban parents from feeding their children high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen what that stuff can do to a liver? They should also mandate HEPA furnace filters, as bacterial spores can cause all sorts of infections that could lead to death. Parents should not be allowed to gave webbed fingers and toes surgically remidied either. Think how fast that kid could swim!!

Yeah, not everyone can be protected by the government. So let's just throw our hands up in the air, open the borders to a billion aids-infested africans/asians and say, "you're on your own, everyone. The government has no say in these matters."

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Also, we should ban parents from naming their children. This could pose irreparable emotional harm. Just ask the kid named Richard Weed. Not even a name change at 18 can cure those emotional scars. We must also ban parents from feeding their children high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen what that stuff can do to a liver? They should also mandate HEPA furnace filters, as bacterial spores can cause all sorts of infections that could lead to death. Parents should not be allowed to have webbed fingers and toes surgically remidied either. Think how fast that kid could swim!!

Those are strawman arguments. Naming is superficial. Cutting the penis of a child just born into the world is barbaric.

 

[Agorism]

The difference is that one has a medical indication. The other does not. It's preference in the case of circumcision as the AMA does not recommend routine circumcision.

Since it's a preference it makes sense to let the person himself decide.

 

[Yieu]

Parents > government when it comes to their children. That's just how I feel. I'm sorry that so many people on this forum seem to have had some sort of lousy tyrant-slave relationship with their parents, but you seem to have all turned out fine, and I'm glad for that.

Parents > government, I agree. The household is supreme. But there are some things that NO ONE has a right to do to another individual, and removal of healthy, functional body parts is something no one, government nor parent, has the right to do to another individual, regardless of whether it is their child or not. And yes it has negatively affected me, I have deep regrets that my parents allowed my body to be mutilated, it stole my liberty to my whole body. My #1 guiding principle is ahimsa, the non-aggression principle -- and circumcision violates this principle because it does harm.

so if a parent kills his children that's fine because parents > government?

Good point. If one can make the argument that a parent can remove a vital part of their child's body, they can make the argument to remove any part of the child's body. Perhaps even vital organs. "It's the parent's choice," after all.

 

[ghengis86]

Yeah, not everyone can be protected by the government. So let's just throw our hands up in the air, open the borders to a billion aids-infested africans/asians and say, "you're on your own, everyone. The government has no say in these matters."

Sounds good to me (only Africans and Asians have AIDS? Who knew?)

Also,

Wow

 

[Yieu]

Yeah, not everyone can be protected by the government. So let's just throw our hands up in the air, open the borders to a billion aids-infested africans/asians and say, "you're on your own, everyone. The government has no say in these matters."

To be fair, this also wasn't that good of an argument... the point could have been made better.

 

[Flash]

No, but it's extremely prevalent in those continents. Especially in a few countries. Should we have NO say in who immigrates here, no matter if they have a disease? That is infringing on MY liberty.

To be fair, this also wasn't that good of an argument... the point could have been made better

It is to some people like me, who don't believe in mass immigration. That's much more immoral than circumcision. I think it's rather foolish to say government should have NO say in anything..

 

[ghengis86]

No but it's extremely prevalent in those continents. Especially in a few countries. Should we have NO say in who immigrates here, no matter if they have a disease? That is infringing on MY liberty.

How? (maybe this should be answered in a separate thread before this one is derailed?)

 

[Flash]

How? (maybe this should be answered in a separate thread before this one is derailed?)

Think about the swine flu epidemic and how Obama refused to close the Mexican-American border, which could've stunted the spread of the disease. There comes a time where the government must restrict basic rights, such as freedom of movement between nations.

 

[aravoth]

As libertarians we believe we own our body right?

If you believe in liberty and you believe in free choice of the individuals, you cannot be for the individual not being free to make that decision on their own because that is inconsistent with the ideals of liberty and not doing harm to the innocent and non-consenting.

My belief in liberty is what drives me to say that you me and everyone else has absolutely no right to enforce our moral code on other people. Period.

 

[ghengis86]

Why do you continue to make logical fallacies after it was pointed out that they are logical fallacies? None of those things can be equated with removing the most sensitive part of the male body without consent and for no medical reason.

This type of logical fallacy is called a Non-sequitur. You can read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

In addition, the slippery slope logical fallacy was used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

We need to get amy31416 and roxic27 in here for the female opinion on why routine infant circumcision is a violation of human liberty and our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.

I would argue that it is not a logical fallacy. One could argue the medical benefits of circumcision as well. Citing the AMA (not yourself in this instance), would be an appeal to authority. There would be contradicting studies (as in the case of vaccines) and it would be up to the parent to decide what is right for their child.

Do you see where I'm coming from at least, or why I'm trying to argue this point? I may be in complete agreement with you on this, but for the sake of fleshing out the correct position, am challenging the both of us to arrive at the most consistent, liberty-endorsed conclusion

 

[nobody's_hero]

so if a parent kills his children that's fine because parents > government?

I'm going to say no. If circumcisions killed people, there'd be about 75-80% less males in the U.S. population.

 

[ghengis86]

Think about the swine flu epidemic and how Obama refused to close the Mexican-American border, which could've stunted the spread of the disease. There comes a time where the government must restrict basic rights, such as freedom of movement between nations.

Thank you for the clarity and honest. Would all be so genuine as you...

 

[low preference guy]

I'm going to say no. If circumcisions killed people, there'd be about 75-80% less males in the U.S. population.

so you're saying that government > parents? statist!

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I would argue that it is not a logical fallacy. One could argue the medical benefits of circumcision as well. Citing the AMA (not yourself in this instance), would be an appeal to authority. There would be contradicting studies (as in the case of vaccines) and it would be up to the parent to decide what is right for their child.

Do you see where I'm coming from at least, or why I'm trying to argue this point? I may be in complete agreement with you on this, but for the sake of fleshing out the correct position, am challenging the both of us to arrive at the most consistent, liberty-endorsed conclusion

Cutting out their eyeballs prevent them from going blind. Cutting off their feet prevents them from getting athlete's foot.