San Francisco may ban circumcision - human rights issue (amendment, constitutional, medical)

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Strel

In some cases, not in others. Some do it for the arguable medical benefits, some do it for aesthetic reasons, and many, I expect, just do it because they think it's what you are supposed to do.

And who draws the line where a parent must stop with this crazy idea that they must dictate their kids
aesthetic choices? And what medical benefits, BTW?

That's fine and dandy, but also none of your business. That is my point. Don't circumcize your kids then.

You bet I won’t. But that doesn’t mean I won’t shy away from pointing at the fallacy of your arguments, the hypocrisy.

Everything has a purpose, but not all purposes have equal value.

I think you just might be talking too much. You, after all, are a hypocrite who would not support any mutilation that goes past your personal beliefs. Performing plastic surgery, or based on faux medical premise or solely driven by religious nuttiness, on a toddler may have some value to such parents, but I’m not sure what value it carries to the toddler. I guess if one can’t think or talk, everything is fine?

Originally Posted by TriMT7

One man's "mutilation" is another man's preference. Indeed, as mentioned above, to take the power away from parents to perform the surgery when a child is a baby and will not have memory of the pain of same is to REMOVE the choice from most men in adulthood who WOULD "choose" to be circumcized.

So, the assumption that the child will not have a memory of pain is a good excuse to go about it at parent’s will? Do such children cry during and following the procedure? Do some of them get dealt with infection and scarring for life? Who do you think should be held responsible for it? Or, is that the child’s problem?

What is the percentage of men in America who are "upset" or feel "mutilated" by their being circumcized? How many circumcized men would prefer to be circumcized and are happy that their parents did it when they were babies, so they do not have to endure pain?

I don’t think you understand the biblical quote I mentioned, “casting pearly before swine”. What makes you assume that the foreskin has no function?

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Strel

Consent to medical procedures, elective or not, is the parent's right and responsibility regarding the child.

How is it NOT? This has been the law for a very, very, VERY long time.

We've been over this.

I don't agree with your characterization.

Human beings, including children, have certain fundamental rights that need to be protected. I don't see how anyone could believe that the right not to be physically mutilated - to have body parts arbitarily cut off - is not one of them. As far as fundamental rights go, I put the right to physical intactness pretty damn high up there (the first being the right to live and not be summarily killed).


Parents don't have total dominion over their children.

We don't let parents sacrifice their children to appease whatever God the believe in.

We don't let parents have sex with their children.

We don't let parents beat a sense of respect and submission into their children.

We shouldn't let parents arbitrarily cut off their kids' body parts.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by LauraC

Food, ROTC, etc., isn't good enough for them. Now they want to control your penis. So what happens, parents have to go to another city to get the job done?

It's the exact opposite. They want to GIVE you control over your penis. This law would protect and preserve your rights (well, if you were a man).

[SourD]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

Wow. Just wow.

Amazing how the most vehemently "anti-gays" out there have such intimate knowledge of obscure gay sex acts. I bet you also know ALLLL about what happens down at the Folsom Street Fair too, huh? And have seen the pictures to prove it?!

What's the matter? Don't like opposing opinions? Why else would they be trying to do this while supporting abortion? Which one is the real human rights violator?

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

So, the assumption that the child will not have a memory of pain is a good excuse to go about it at parent’s will?

It's a reason, yes.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Do such children cry during and following the procedure? Do some of them get dealt with infection and scarring for life?

Of course they cry during the procedure. But they are not subject to painful memory of same, nor painful biological erections that tear staples and stitches.

When done correctly, there will be no "infection for life," nor "scarring" beyond the obvious "scar." Given that most heterosexual women in the United States prefer the "look" of the circumcized penis, it is also not a detriment to their future sex life, aesthetics wise.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Who do you think should be held responsible for it? Or, is that the child’s problem?

Responsible for what? A Circumcision gone wrong? The person responsible for a child's circumcision gone wrong is the same person responsible for an adult's circumcision gone wrong - the doctor.

Restoration of foreskin surgically or non-surgically is available for those who feel "slighted" by their parents choices. Some people will always find things to be mad at their parents about, I suppose.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

I don’t think you understand the biblical quote I mentioned, “casting pearly before swine”.

I am not familiar with biblical quotable quotes. Completely unnecessary. If you have a point, that point can be made without reference to the Bible.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

What makes you assume that the foreskin has no function?

Is it a NECESSARY function? I could have an air conditioning in my igloo in Antarctica. The air conditioning has a function, but is it something that is necessary?

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by SourD

What's the matter? Don't like opposing opinions? Why else would they be trying to do this while supporting abortion? Which one is the real human rights violator?

Seriously?? You thing this bill is aimed at recruiting more males into the "homosexual sex act" of ****-docking?

[Strel]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

And who draws the line where a parent must stop with this crazy idea that they must dictate their kids
aesthetic choices? And what medical benefits, BTW?

No one. No one should, unless the welfare of the child is at risk. I don't see losing a foreskin as falling into that category.

You bet I won’t. But that doesn’t mean I won’t shy away from pointing at the fallacy of your arguments, the hypocrisy.

Well you can try.

I think you just might be talking too much. You, after all, are a hypocrite who would not support any mutilation that goes past your personal beliefs.

Ahem. You really don't know what my personal beliefs are. And you won't, if you keep up this tone.

I drew the line. Address that if you wish, or try to flame me further. Whatever creams your twinkie.

Performing plastic surgery, or based on faux medical premise or solely driven by religious nuttiness, on a toddler may have some value to such parents, but I’m not sure what value it carries to the toddler. I guess if one can’t think or talk, everything is fine?

Again, your argument is full of premises that are themselves at issue. The parents get to decide, at that point, what is in the best interests of the toddler.

BECAUSE they can't think or talk. This is how we handle it. We let the parents decide.

So, the assumption that the child will not have a memory of pain is a good excuse to go about it at parent’s will? Do such children cry during and following the procedure? Do some of them get dealt with infection and scarring for life? Who do you think should be held responsible for it? Or, is that the child’s problem?

I think it is more than an assumption that a boy isn't going to remember a fairly simple, external surgical procedure that occurred at age 0.

I've been to more than one bris where the child didn't cry at all.

Lidocaine is kosher, you know.

And how many get scarring and infection? How does that rate compare with other plastic surgeries, like mammoplasty? This is a non-argument.

Anyway, if it is an iatrogenic complication, you blame the doctor.

I don’t think you understand the biblical quote I mentioned, “casting pearly before swine”. What makes you assume that the foreskin has no function?

I understand it, and the arrogance it represents.

I never said it had "no" function. I mean it has negligible function relative to all the other examples given here.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by SourD

What's the matter? Don't like opposing opinions? Why else would they be trying to do this while supporting abortion? Which one is the real human rights violator?

Yes. Because only gays live in San Francisco. Nobody else, but gays. 100% gays everywhere. Even the straight couples are just gays and lesbians shacking up for benefits.


Your "opinion" is not "opposing".... it's ridiculous.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Human beings, including children, have certain fundamental rights that need to be protected.

Yes, but making medical decisions for themselves when they are underage are not among their generally recognized rights.

There are exceptions, of course.

I don't see how anyone could believe that the right not to be physically mutilated - to have body parts arbitarily cut off - is not one of them. As far as fundamental rights go, I put the right to physical intactness pretty damn high up there (the first being the right to live and not be summarily killed).

Again, I am not going to accept your premise of "arbitrary mutilation." And the law already declares you wrong.

Parents don't have total dominion over their children.

I never said they did. But they do have the legal right and responsibility to make medical decisions, including elective ones, for the children under their charge.

This is not an opinion. It is.

We don't let parents sacrifice their children to appease whatever God the believe in.

Overreaching hyperbole.

We don't let parents have sex with their children.

Ditto. Again, this is something that poses potential short and long term harm to the child. I fail to see how the removal of a foreskin equates with human sacrifice or incest.

We don't let parents beat a sense of respect and submission into their children.

Same answer.

We shouldn't let parents arbitrarily cut off their kids' body parts.

We don't. It isn't arbitrary.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by SourD

What's the matter? Don't like opposing opinions? Why else would they be trying to do this while supporting abortion? Which one is the real human rights violator?

Please stop posting before someone thinks you are on my side of this debate.

FFS.