Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco
- Thread starter Agent 1337
- Start date
- Status
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
It's decreasing the risk when you're screwing around, which is why it's so popular with American Protestants.
I'm kidding of course!
I'm kidding of course!
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, cutting off the foreskin doesn't = killing them.
If I were convinced it has any effect on their life, I would oppose it, but I doubt it matters.
Well, in my case it was for health reasons. But I don't even remember it and so do not care.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
The word I used was "principle" and I was speaking specifically about the "rights". Also I knew beforehand you'd wiggle like you just did.
So, care to answer the original question?
Ahhhh, subjectiveness rears it ugly head
I don't think anyone believes those are healthier now unless you're talking about egg whites but maybe in the 50s they did. The difference is even now doctors will argue there are certain benefits to circumcision but those are controversial and perhaps exaggerated.
GhostWriter16
Deity
@Ziggy- First of all, its not a matter of whether they were born or not, but what it actually does to them. And its a matter of actual change of their life.
For instance, if an infant has an extra piece of skin, and the parent has it cut off, so what? It has no effect on their life. I have no idea if the same is true for circumcision, but it seems to be.
That said, you absolutely cannot justify banning it because it is required by some religions (Although my religion does not require it.)
For instance, if an infant has an extra piece of skin, and the parent has it cut off, so what? It has no effect on their life. I have no idea if the same is true for circumcision, but it seems to be.
That said, you absolutely cannot justify banning it because it is required by some religions (Although my religion does not require it.)
Why not?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
So we can't ban human sacrifice when it's required by some religions? Of course we can. And we do! But the point dear Dom was: Your opinion is that an unborn has the right to determine what happens with it's body, but an infant doesn't.
Before you answer, I am fully aware of the differences in procedure and severity of the damage, but once you allow a little damage, your objections to abortion stop being a principled one based on the right of the unborn to self determination since you are denying the infant exactly that.
Before you answer, I am fully aware of the differences in procedure and severity of the damage, but once you allow a little damage, your objections to abortion stop being a principled one based on the right of the unborn to self determination since you are denying the infant exactly that.
I don't think it can be banned either but mainly because it's so ubiquitous that it would need a major social change for that to happen.
No one in my family is circumcised but that's because we're from the sticks of Kentucky and my father was born at home so he didn't want it done to me either. It's not like that for most Americans.
No one in my family is circumcised but that's because we're from the sticks of Kentucky and my father was born at home so he didn't want it done to me either. It's not like that for most Americans.
Yared
That Guy
MSNBC said:
The thing is, circumcision will not be illegal for adults. If you, after the age of 18, feel strongly about your religion or that the "health benefits" are worth circumcising yourself, go ahead. Nobody will stop you. At least you mutilated your penis by your own choice.
GhostWriter16
Deity
No, you miss the point. A better argument would be comparing banning circumcision to banning unhealthy eating by a pregnant mother, which won't kill the baby but may slightly affect its health (And you can't ban that, obviously.)
As for human sacrifice, #1 few people support that, but more importantly #2, that is an actual violation of rights. Circumcision just isn't.
That's the ENTIRE POINT!
Its not really "Damaging" anything though. Until proven otherwise, its just a piece of skin.
The problem is, Judaism (And Islam IIRC) REQUIRE it done to infants. Since its not a cruel procedure (No memories of it) I see no reason not to allow it.
And the penalty is laughworthy. Really? A 1,000 dollar fine? If this were actually important, the penalty would be far worse.
The same could be said about the bundle of cells that emerge shortly after conception.
GhostWriter16
Deity
It could, but it would be inaccurate.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
The entire point was you not answering my question?
Hmmm. That actually makes sense.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The absolute WORSE possible results from circumcision are still less bad than what happens with an abortion...
I'm not saying you can't look at it negatively or oppose it, or even support this San Fran law (Even though I don't, and think this is take 2 of why San Fran is the dumbest city in the country) but to compare it to abortion through the lens of a pro-life person is ridiculous.
The entire point is differences in severity. That's why spanking is allowed but beating your kid isn't. Is this a problem? (Note, "Problem" is worse than personal disagreement.)
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Not when said pro-life person has used the exact same reasoning to argue against abortion.
Freedom to believe what you want should not mean that you can declare an arbitrary illegal or immoral act a tenet of your faith and claim religious immunity. We ought to decide whether something is good or bad on it's own merits, not on whether it is sacrosanct to someone.
- Status
