Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the parent's get to speak for that individual. The infant can only assert its rights through the parents, unless they are found for some legal reason to not be able to do that.
There is no way around it, really.
Not necessarily. Do you think CPS is unconstitutional?
If ever anyone needed an example that the far left believes the government has, or should have, more say over a child's health and welfare than the parent, this thread is that illustration.
The cognitive dissonance of those arguing for the ban is mindboggling.
The cognitive dissonance of those arguing for the ban is mindboggling.
The disdain for individual liberty and control over the physical intactness of ones own body shown by people who think it's okay that somebody else should be allowed to permanently remove perfectly natural, normal, and healthy parts of their body is mindboggling.
If ever anyone needed an example that the far left believes the government has, or should have, more say over a child's health and welfare than the parent, this thread is that illustration.
The cognitive dissonance of those arguing for the ban is mindboggling.
It seems that it is the left that wants the person directly affected by a procedure decide for himself. Why do you think it is a bad idea?
If the child has to make all the decisions, what will the parent do? A newborn child can only cry for communication. Do you have a child?
No I don't (yet), and I certainly won't subject my child to genital mutilation just because it can communicate only via crying. Nobody's expecting the child to make a decision. Is that a part of the proposition?
If the child has to make all the decisions, what will the parent do? A newborn child can only cry for communication. Do you have a child?
Why should parents have the right to permanently cut off their kids perfectly normal, natural, and healthy body parts? How did that become a "right" parents have?
Of course if a circumcision is needed out of medical necessity for a young child, then snip-snip away. Medically necessary circumcisions in children are exceedingly rare (something like 1 out of 100,000 or 200,000 male children need a circumcision for medical reasons).
Unless it's medically necessary to remove it in childhood, isn't it the right of that human being, that man, to make his own decision about whether or not he wants his foreskin permanently cut off? Why should the arbitrary decision to have my foreskin removed fall to anybody but me?
No I don't (yet), and I certainly won't subject my child to genital mutilation just because it can communicate only via crying. Nobody's expecting the child to make a decision. Is that a part of the proposition?
If you are going to be circumcised, shortly after birth is the best time. A one day old baby can heal in an incredible short amount of time. Injuries heal much faster, when the body is young and strong. As you get older injuries take more and more time to heal. Infection is always a danger. In a baby, circumcision can heal in a week or so. In a 18 year-old, it will take weeks longer to completely heal. Not many men get them at that age.
Actually the belly-button is much more painful and takes longer to heal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
