SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

[ghengis86]

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

Is the urethra connected to the foreskin?

 

[Yieu]

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.

I respect you very much and your views, so please try not to be offended by the statement I'm about to make.

It would still be taking away your child's liberty, whether you have a different moral code or not. I'll make exception if it is a part of your religion (Judaism, Islam) to be fair.

The question then comes up though, that since murder is illegal because it is immoral and does harm to another, and circumcision is immoral (and, if you don't believe it is immoral, it still does take away the liberty of the child) and does harm to another, where is the line drawn? Should murder be legal too? Assault? Again, I am not saying I support a government ban, but this very much takes away the liberty of another person, and taking away the liberty of another person is sometimes referred to as slavery (to a degree).

 

[CrissyNY]

little baby boys do die from circumcision, not at 75%, but it's senseless all the same.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

 

[Golding]

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

Cutting out their eyeballs actually causes the person to go blind.

I'm a little surprised that people are trying to make these sorts of exaggerated comparisons to actually defend the proposed ban. Circumcision is a parental choice that simply isn't akin to amputation of an extremity. If you don't want it done to your own children, then answer "no" when your doctor asks whether or not you would like your child circumcised. Stop trying to impose your parenting opinions on others.

little baby boys do die from circumcision, not at 75%, but it's senseless all the same.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

The website you link to doesn't have very much in the way of frequency of death related to circumcision. Most of the specific anecdotes seem to be related to anesthetic use, and I'm inclined to point out how many of these specific deaths appear to have occurred outside the US. Circumcision is infrequently done with any anesthetic at all, from my observation.

I also have to question the veracity of some of the deaths listed as attributable to circumcision. They list a baby born with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome, accuse the circumcision for the death, and (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) say "the doctors would deny the circumcision had anything to do with the death, wouldn't they?" Common things are common. Children with HLHS commonly die from having HLHS.

It's not to say that circumcision is without its risks. But as with any procedure, there are risks. There are risks to opting for a vaginal delivery over a C-section, and vice-versa. Understanding and accepting/refusing those risks is inherent to having a choice.

 

[dannno]

Victorians don't want the teenage males masturbating. That's the reason.

Doesn't work.

 

[affa]

i view it as genital mutilation. that americans defend it is only because it's a regular occurrence here. if another country did it and we didn't we'd all think it is as barbaric as it actually is.

 

[Yieu]

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

Well, it can cause death, the loss of the entire genital organ, and other scary complications.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

But aside from that, both killing and removal of healthy functional important tissues are doing harm to someone.

 

[ghengis86]

little baby boys do die from circumcision, not at 75%, but it's senseless all the same.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

So do vaccines

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/Feb_22_02/Scandal5.htm

 

[nobody's_hero]

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

Okay, fine. I live in Georgia, and do not forsee a ban on circumcision here any time soon.

I tell you what. I'll let people on the other side of the U.S. use democracy to place a government ban on circumcision 'for the children', and we'll see whose government grows out of control the quickest. Deal?

Georgians, for the most part, have traditionally held the belief that a child's health is a family concern. Californians, tending to be more liberal on average than the typical Georgian, can't remember the last time government didn't intervene in a parent's affairs.

So, let's just see how this works out.

 

[CrissyNY]

So do vaccines

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/Feb_22_02/Scandal5.htm

I did not anything about vaccines, that's a whole nother thread.

I am saying infant circumcision is a direct and irreversible assault on a minor's genitals.

That occasionally results in death.

 

[ghengis86]

I wonder what would happen if people put as much effort into an educational campaign to change a behavior instead of an appeal to the state to force someone to what they thought was right? Which would be mire in line with liberty?

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well, it can cause death, the loss of the entire genital organ, and other scary complications.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

But aside from that, both killing and removal of healthy functional important tissues are doing harm to someone.

And urinary tract infections can cause sepsis and death. Since both outcomes suck, depending on whether you are circumcised or uncircumcised, what is getting the government involved going to solve, exactly?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.



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..

I disagree. In a truly free society, the government would own 0% of the land (and individuals/business 100%) and landowners would keep out harmful/uninvited people. The government has no legitimate say in anything unless all parties involved request it. To argue otherwise is to assume that the regime owns us. (truly sovereign people are not subject to the arbitrary whims of others, including the government)

 

[Yieu]

Cutting out their eyeballs actually causes the person to go blind.

I'm a little surprised that people are trying to make these sorts of exaggerated comparisons to actually defend the proposed ban. Circumcision is a parental choice that simply isn't akin to amputation of an extremity. If you don't want it done to your own children, then answer "no" when your doctor asks whether or not you would like your child circumcised. Stop trying to impose your parenting opinions on others.

Cutting out the eyeballs makes the person go blind, and cutting off the foreskin makes the person feel less sexual pleasure. But that example is a bit exaggerated.

I believe he was saying that to show how ridiculous it is to cut off healthy functional nerves and skin to potentially, maybe, reduce the chances of risks of STDs which can be prevented by lifestyle choices (though those studies have been debunked, so there is no medical benefit).

It is not the same as removing an entire limb, or eyes. It is more like singeing the skin of the fingertips so that they feel less sensation, or partially removing the eyelids (the glans is supposed to be covered just like the eye is supposed to be covered). It is a violation of the child's right to life, liberty, and happiness to remove this vital part of their body, so it cannot be a parental choice. It is not a parental choice to do harm to your child or to remove their liberty by force.

 

[ghengis86]

I did not anything about vaccines, that's a whole nother thread.

I am saying infant circumcision is a direct and irreversible assault on a minor's genitals.

That occasionally results in death.

And not banning vaccines us a direct and irreversible assault on minors brain and body. That occasionally results in death. They are the same because it's the parents choice.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Mine works pretty good, lol. It did in my teenage years, anyway.

I assume you used lube of some sort, yes? I can't relate to being cut, so pardon my ignorance. I imagine there would be too much friction without the lube. We intact guys don't need no stinkin lube.

 

[Yieu]

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

I understand that you are attached to circumcision and perhaps that may be because you don't want to think anything is "wrong" with you by being circumcised. I am not trying to tell you there is something wrong with you, though.

I firmly believe that what I have been saying on this subject is the position of liberty, and non-consenting routine infant circumcision violates the child's right to their body, their life, their liberty, and more.

 

[CrissyNY]

And not banning vaccines us a direct and irreversible assault on minors brain and body. That occasionally results in death. They are the same because it's the parents choice.

I'm talking about THIS. Right now. Why do you keep bringing up vaccines?

 

[low preference guy]

I firmly believe that what I have been saying on this subject is the position of liberty, and non-consenting routine infant circumcision violates the child's right to their body, their life, their liberty, and more.

+1

 

[ghengis86]

It is not a parental choice to do harm to your child or to remove their liberty by force.

Define harm. This is the essence of the argument.