Circumcision may make the cut! (legal, title, roach)

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by hgnmx

a brainwashed population.

-A Southern conservative Virginian

^ Ironic these two appearing so closely together...

Gotta love religion and imposed theocracy, yes?

[hgnmx]

Originally Posted by allenk893

So by your argument, I'm sure you believe that we should leave the umbilical cord attached to children because it's mutilitation?!

You people are a joke. Seriously. If you want to ban circumcison in the city of San Francisco, then you better ban all other forms of so-called flesh mutilation such as ear piercing. Matter fact, why don't you support the end to abortion as well?! After all, it's more than mutilation of a child. It's the vile murder of them. They didn't have a "choice" if they could live. They were just killed. So ban that.

I think you're confused. Ear piercing is a choice.

And the abortion issue - which some may call murder - is in a completely different ballpark. I'm sorry you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend this. And for the record, I don't live in San Francisco, which I'm slowly starting to be thankful for partly due to the comments in this thread.

[hgnmx]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

^ Ironic these two appearing so closely together...

Gotta love religion and imposed theocracy, yes?

Lol.. I'm an atheist. You know what they say about assumptions.

[hgnmx]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

OK, folks, as I intended and Nita just articulated, this thread is not and was not supposed to be about the efficacy of circumcisn or lack thereof. At issue is governmental interference in family and adult freedon and responsibility issues of the most egregious kind.

What about the child's freedom of choice? Further, without government interference, we would not have societal necessities such as bridges and roads - so what's your point?

[hgnmx]

Originally Posted by GlobalistPotato

Penises are different that dinner. Quite simply.

Exactly. I can understand cutting into your steak to eat, but a penis?

[SandyCo]

I resent any municipality making circumcision illegal. It does seem rather silly, since as others have already pointed out, the parents can simply go elsewhere outside of San Francisco to have it done, anyway. Parents make decisions for their children all the time, and ear piercings are often done to tiny babies who may not want pierced ears when they're older. No, I'm not trying to equate ear piercing with circumcision, except that it's a decision that the parent deliberately makes without any input from the baby or child.

My son is going to be 23 years old in July. Twenty-three years ago, we didn't even give it a thought. Yes, he was circumcised. If he were born now, I might make a different choice. I'd have to really give it some thought beyond the simplistic "I want him to look like other boys", or whatever. No matter what choice I'd make now, though, I don't have the right to tell other parents what to do in this situation, and the government doesn't either.

[hgnmx]

Why don't we just cut off their left thumb after birth while we're at it. Where do we draw the line? The child was born with foreskin. He should have foreskin - as he should have thumbs. In this case I feel we may have to agree to disagree, since I'm obviously in the minority here. Thankfully I have the choice to not do this to my child, even though it was done to me. Bless this country.

[hgnmx]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

I resent any municipality making circumcision illegal. It does seem rather silly, since as others have already pointed out, the parents can simply go elsewhere outside of San Francisco to have it done, anyway. Parents make decisions for their children all the time, and ear piercings are often done to tiny babies who may not want pierced ears when they're older. No, I'm not trying to equate ear piercing with circumcision, except that it's a decision that the parent deliberately makes without any input from the baby or child.

My son is going to be 23 years old in July. Twenty-three years ago, we didn't even give it a thought. Yes, he was circumcised. If he were born now, I might make a different choice. I'd have to really give it some thought beyond the simplistic "I want him to look like other boys", or whatever. No matter what choice I'd make now, though, I don't have the right to tell other parents what to do in this situation, and the government doesn't either.

Apologies, one last thing: I'm a little disturbed that people continually deny the right of the child.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by hgnmx

Apologies, one last thing: I'm a little disturbed that people continually deny the right of the child.

That must be horribly difficult to live with. But then again, where would you be without some social cause to lament?

Not to worry. Nanny government will heal all your ills. That way you don't have to lift a finger, or even think.

[allenk893]

Originally Posted by hgnmx

Why don't we just cut off their left thumb after birth while we're at it. Where do we draw the line? The child was born with foreskin. He should have foreskin - as he should have thumbs. In this case I feel we may have to agree to disagree, since I'm obviously in the minority here. Thankfully I have the choice to not do this to my child, even though it was done to me. Bless this country.

Again, children are also born with umbilical cords too. But yet we cut them anyway. Where do you draw the line?! Perhaps you shouldn't have been cut from your mother. But of course, that would be idiotic, considering the fact that you wouldn't have a life and your mother wouldn't have been able to do anything like use the bathroom or wear pants because she was still connected to you. But by your logic you still believe you should have had a choice in the matter to have your umbilical cord cut.