SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

[nobody's_hero]

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

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

 

[low preference guy]

LPF, it's a family forum, please watch the terms used that may have dual slang meaning.

i'm using the term in the literal meaning

 

[jkr]

i thought these fughers celebrated diversity and choice!

dust off your sandals folks...


i'm cut.
you gonna go retroactive on us ( once again) and start checking our...oh wait.

?

the question mark was emphasized



have fun touching my yoda azz muncherz

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[aravoth]

While circumcision is unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting minor, you lose a lot more than cosmetic looks -- you lose the most sensitive nerves in the human body. That's a lot at stake, and due to that it is not a decision that a parent can morally make for their child; only the individual can morally and ethically make that decision, when they are old enough to make informed consent to unnecessary cosmetic surgical alterations to their body.

To address your concern about the government though, an outright government ban may not be the most ideal way to go about it, but routine infant circumcision or the decision being left to the parent is certainly a violation of human rights.

I agree, an outright ban by the powers that be is certainly not the way to go about. It is a cultural issue. And weather you, me or anyone else agrees with it or not, it is a decision that is made by the parent.

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. Circumcision predates San-Francisco and The Untied States, and it will continue to survive long after both of those things are gone.

 

[Yieu]

And weather you, me or anyone else agrees with it or not, it is a decision that is made by the parent.

I can never agree to that. If the decision to remove important, functional, useful, and the most sensitive part of the body is a choice that can be left up to the parent, then an unnecessary cosmetic surgical removal could be made for ANY body part of the infant at the decision of the parent, including fingers, ears, eyelids, or whatever.

As libertarians we believe we own our body right? That we have a right to it? Then we have a right to our WHOLE body, not just the parts our parents decided we are allowed to keep. No parent has a right to decide how much their child is able to feel down there by removing the most sensitive nerves. All boys have a human right to keep their whole body until they are of age to consent to it and understand the value of what they are losing. It is a violation of human rights, liberty, and dignity to deny a man this right by giving the decision to the parents. Plus a factor of routine infant circumcision is that some doctors pressure parents into it before they fully understand the dangers and just what exactly they are stealing from their son. It is genital mutilation, no different from certain versions of female genital mutilation.

If it is the parents choice to circumcise males, then it must also be the parents choice to circumcise females. No double standards. It is wrong for the parent to make that decision morally, and it is anti-liberty for the parent to make that decision. Only the individual can rightfully make that decision. When the parent makes that decision, they are being against free choice, because they take away the choice from the person who has to actually live with it.

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.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I put the over/under for yes votes on this at 20%.

Freedom of choice means being able to chose whether you are circumcised. That is not possible if that choice was taken away from you by your parents. Parents circumcising their children is anti-freedom of choice -- it takes the choice away from the individual. The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done to infants who are unable to consent when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

So you're saying give a religious test and if Jewish/Muslim then ok but otherwise not ok? How do you plan on determining the religion of the parents?

 

[Yieu]

I'm not Jewish but I'm circumcised, the bit about not being inconvenienced to retract the foreskin to thoroughly wash my penis is a nice perk.

As I started reading this, I thought you were going to go on to point out how ridiculous it is to say it would be difficult somehow to use soap and water in the shower.

But, seriously, I'm not particularly in favor of giving the government more authority than parents when it comes to raising a child. I'd likely not vote for a ban if I lived in San Fran. But then again, I wouldn't live in San Fran because hardly anyone else there shares my idea about letting parents raise their kids without government intervening.

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.

 

[Agorism]

Well we've banned female circumcision, but we need to ban male circumcision as well unless the person himself wants it.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

As I started reading this, I thought you were going to go on to point out how ridiculous it is to say it would be difficult somehow to use soap and water in the shower.

Or he can just chop the whole thing off and not worry about having to wash any part of it.

 

[ghengis86]

I'm for the ban, as long as the ban injections of neurological toxins as well. Oh, immunizations are not up to the liberty of the child? My bad. Let's ban disposable diapers, mandate breast feeding only, prohibit nail clipping and jail any parent that registers their child for a social security number.

 

[Yieu]

So you're saying give a religious test and if Jewish/Muslim then ok but otherwise not ok? How do you plan on determining the religion of the parents?

No, I don't think the government should be involved at all to be able to give such a test, but parents have no right to make this decision for their child. I only consider the possibility of exception for religions which request it to happen (which is limited to Judaism and Islam) because that takes religion out of the issue. I'm not trying to get into complex arguments about Judaism or Islam, so I won't bother people of those faiths. But there is no reason and no excuse for anyone else to do it. It removes the most sensitive area of the body. I think that in Judaism and Islam, they don't have it done at hospitals anyway, they have priests do it. So if hospitals did not perform the operation, then all males would have more of their rights (and body) Intact when they become an adult and can make an informed consensual choice.

 

[Yieu]

Well we've banned female circumcision, but we need to ban male circumcision as well unless the person himself wants it.

There is indeed no difference between male circumcision and the most common forms of female circumcision, so we should not view the two any differently.

If "parents can decide" whether male children are "allowed" to have the most sensitive part of their bodies, then "parents can decide" the same for females too. Otherwise it is not logical or consistent.

Because there is no medical or religious reason for people who are not Jewish or Islamic to circumcise their child, all it does is take away from the amount the individual can feel by removing important and healthy functional nerves.

Or he can just chop the whole thing off and not worry about having to wash any part of it.

Might as well. If you can cut the most sensitive part of the body off, then you can use the same logic to cut any part of the body off.

I'm for the ban, as long as the ban injections of neurological toxins as well. Oh, immunizations are not up to the liberty of the child? My bad. Let's ban disposable diapers, mandate breast feeding only, prohibit nail clipping and jail any parent that registers their child for a social security number.

You really equate those harmless things to removing the most sensitive part of the body for no medical reason -- for purely cosmetic purposes? Cosmetic surgery on an infant which removes the most sensitive part of the body is not the same as things that are a part of actually raising your child.

 

[ghengis86]

Might as well. If you can cut the most sensitive part of the body off, then you can use the same logic to cut any part of the body off.



You really equate those harmless things to removing the most sensitive part of the body for no medical reason -- for purely cosmetic purposes? Cosmetic surgery on an infant which removes the most sensitive part of the body is not the same as things that are a part of actually raising your child.

Just ask the kids with autism, that is if their most sensitive collection of nerves (the brain) is functioning. If you don't believe the autism link, than surely you can accept the likelihood of a Guillian-barre reaction

 

[Yieu]

Just ask the kids with autism, that is if their most sensitive collection of nerves (the brain) is functioning. If you don't believe the autism link, than surely you can accept the likelihood of a Guillian-barre reaction

You are not making an argument that logically follows. A physical disease such as autism is not the same as healthy, functional nerve and skin tissue. Having your whole body intact is not the same as having a disease. Please try to think this issue through, because it is an issue involving the liberty of an individual to experience their whole body, an inalienable right. It is reactionary to ignore that and equate it with things which are incomparable. Circumcision is more comparable to slavery (note for those who might misread: when I say slavery I do not mean slavery in early American history, I mean the general concept of it) than autism, because it removes a human right to experience all of our body.

 

[Agorism]

Mom Who Botoxed 8-Year-Old Under Investigation

The woman who went on "Good Morning America" yesterday and ADMITTED to giving regular Botox injections to her 8-year-old daughter is now being investigated by Child Protective Services.


CPS in San Francisco says their phones rang off the hook yesterday after Kerry Campbell appeared on "GMA" -- and admitted she regularly administered the anti-wrinkle injections ... to give her daughter an edge in the world of child beauty pageants.

 

[Yieu]

Mom Who Botoxed 8-Year-Old Under Investigation

People who have no problem with routine infant circumcision should have no problem with this, in order to be consistent.

 

[ghengis86]

People who have no problem with routine infant circumcision should have no problem with this, in order to be consistent.

As such, you should have no problem BANNING injecting infants with toxic substances, in order to be consistent.

Edit: insert banning

 

[Yieu]

As such, you should have no problem injecting infants with toxic substances, in order to be consistent.

Again, this logic does not follow. It is a logical fallacy. Because I would not harm my child in one way, means I would harm my child in another? No, I am against all harm.

But if you want to talk about vaccinations, that is not exactly the same as circumcision because while they are harmful in many ways, one might argue (I personally would not because I do not want to vaccinate my children) that vaccination has some medical value, however slight. There is no medical benefit to cosmetic surgical removal of an infant's foreskin -- it is only for looks, and does remove the individual's ability to have as much sensation down there so it is an injustice and a violation of the individual's human rights to perform this never-necessary surgical operation to a non-consenting minor.

Edit: I see your edit, and I also addressed that concern in my second paragraph.

 

[Flash]

As such, you should have no problem BANNING injecting infants with toxic substances, in order to be consistent.

Edit: insert banning

Who is inserting toxic substances into their kids?