Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
First it was Happy Meals, now it's circumcision.; What's a kid to do?
Topic Started: Nov 11 2010, 06:10 PM (624 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Next-on-San-Franciscos-Hit-List-Circumcision-107316878.html
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

We've had these discussions before. I would sign the petition to add it to the ballot.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Add another. Should have been outlawed during the first millenium.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
It shouldn't be outlawed. If, upon reaching the age of majority, one wishes to have his own foreskin removed he should be free to do so.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

That's what the bill/ballot/whatever it's called says. Upon reaching the age of 18 one can elect to do whatever they want.
Edited by 1hp, Nov 11 2010, 08:50 PM.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
1hp
Nov 11 2010, 08:49 PM
That's what the bill/ballot/whatever it's called says. Upon reaching the age of 18 one can elect to do whatever they want.
Which just makes sense, don't you think?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
It wouldn't pass the separation of church and state test, but apart from that Constitutional question and respect for the Jewish sensibilities (and of course with some provision for true medical cases that the law has no business prohibiting) I have no issue with banning the practice. (Though I also have no strong sense that it should not rest in the decision of the family)....
Edited by ivorythumper, Nov 11 2010, 09:28 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 09:27 PM
(Though I also have no strong sense that it should not rest in the decision of the family)....
The family? Shouldn't a decision of that magnitude rest on the on the choice of the actual patient? It's not going to hurt the family either way if bits of his foreskin is chopped away. They won't feel that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
sue
Nov 11 2010, 09:31 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 09:27 PM
(Though I also have no strong sense that it should not rest in the decision of the family)....
The family? Shouldn't a decision of that magnitude rest on the on the choice of the actual patient? It's not going to hurt the family either way if bits of his foreskin is chopped away. They won't feel that.
I generally think that parents rightly have more say in what happens to their kids than the government.

(and circumcision is more benign, it's not like the government rightly being able to prevent parents from putting their kids out to work the streets -- the question for me has to do with the relative merits of parental control over governmental control).
Edited by ivorythumper, Nov 11 2010, 09:40 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
1hp
Nov 11 2010, 08:49 PM
That's what the bill/ballot/whatever it's called says. Upon reaching the age of 18 one can elect to do whatever they want.
A good ballot measure in general; though there should be exceptions allowed for medically necessary circumcisions (e.g., to cure chronic infections, to correct certain congenital defects).

And, no, I don't see any First Amendment "Separation of Church and State" issue here -- no more than, say, not letting minor drink alcohol when certain religious practices call for the consumption of alcohol.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 09:37 PM
I generally think that parents rightly have more say in what happens to their kids than the government.

(and circumcision is more benign, it's not like the government rightly being able to prevent parents from putting their kids out to work the streets -- the question for me has to do with the relative merits of parental control over governmental control).
The kid has skin in the game here, literally. He stands to lose something that cannot grow back (not easily, anyway).

It's not "parental control vs. governmental control," it's "parental control vs. individual control."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Nov 11 2010, 10:25 PM
And, no, I don't see any First Amendment "Separation of Church and State" issue here -- no more than, say, not letting minor drink alcohol when certain religious practices call for the consumption of alcohol.
The gov is not about to go after any minors consuming alcohol in communion, so I think that actually argues for my position.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Nov 11 2010, 10:32 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 09:37 PM
I generally think that parents rightly have more say in what happens to their kids than the government.

(and circumcision is more benign, it's not like the government rightly being able to prevent parents from putting their kids out to work the streets -- the question for me has to do with the relative merits of parental control over governmental control).
The kid has skin in the game here, literally. He stands to lose something that cannot grow back (not easily, anyway).

It's not "parental control vs. governmental control," it's "parental control vs. individual control."
It must be about parental control vs governmental control since the children (individual) are in the proper care of the parents, not the government.

As collectivistic as you (personally) might be, I seriously doubt you (personally) want any governmental agency, bureaucrat, policy wonk or legally empowered social worker telling you (personally) how you (personally) must raise your own children under the penalty of law.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jgoo
Member Avatar
Administrator
I think I would vote for it. We did not have Riley circumcised. I believe that I have absolutely no business in making a permanent body modification to him without his consent. It's not like going uncircumcised is life threatening, nor anything close to it either. It won't make you sick, disabled, change quality of life, or anything else. If, as an adult, a person decides to have the procedure done to himself, well then that's fine, but otherwise I don't think it's moral for me as a parent to make the decision for him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
You will make all sorts of life changing decisions for Riley that are far more important and more influential and more impacting (for better or for worse) than whether he gets circumcised. ;)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 11:34 PM
Axtremus
Nov 11 2010, 10:25 PM
And, no, I don't see any First Amendment "Separation of Church and State" issue here -- no more than, say, not letting minor drink alcohol when certain religious practices call for the consumption of alcohol.
The gov is not about to go after any minors consuming alcohol in communion, so I think that actually argues for my position.
Yeah ... so the people can put laws on the book banning circumcisions to be performed on minors (just like the people has put laws on the book prohibiting the serving of alcohol to minors), but not have law enforcement vigorously enforce those laws in all situations.

The practical implication, though, is this:

Most legitimate healthcare providers would stop circumcising minors (much like many legitimate bars/restaurants with alcohol licenses stopped service alcohol to minors).

Not perfect, but still a pretty good outcome.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jgoo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Parents should worry more about teaching their children good morals and ethics and polite manners and patience and honesty and good work ethic, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. than making body modifications to them that they ultimately may not have wanted done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jgoo
Member Avatar
Administrator
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 11:44 PM
You will make all sorts of life changing decisions for Riley that are far more important and more influential and more impacting (for better or for worse) than whether he gets circumcised. ;)
True. Permanent body modification should NOT be one of them! It is completely unnecessary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 11:37 PM
... I seriously doubt you (personally) want any governmental agency, bureaucrat, policy wonk or legally empowered social worker telling you (personally) how you (personally) must raise your own children under the penalty of law.
I'm defending all (male) children from practically pointless mutilation.

Want to take it a step further? No permanent tattoo and no body piercing for all minors. Who among your parents want to go this far? :silly:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jgoo
Nov 11 2010, 11:46 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 11:44 PM
You will make all sorts of life changing decisions for Riley that are far more important and more influential and more impacting (for better or for worse) than whether he gets circumcised. ;)
True. Permanent body modification should NOT be one of them! It is completely unnecessary.
BTW, jgoo, I am completely opposed to circumcision and agree with you. I also think that Riley is blessed to have a father so concerned about making the best choices for him before he is able to do so himself. :thumb:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Re: jgoo's last two posts ...

Now, see, that sounds like a sensible parent talking. :thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
(pppssss.... IT, want to bring in abortion now; like, how some people can support letting would-be parents abort their whole fetuses and yet won't let parents consent to cutting off their sons' foreskins? ;) )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Nov 11 2010, 11:50 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 11 2010, 11:37 PM
... I seriously doubt you (personally) want any governmental agency, bureaucrat, policy wonk or legally empowered social worker telling you (personally) how you (personally) must raise your own children under the penalty of law.
I'm defending all (male) children from practically pointless mutilation.

Want to take it a step further? No permanent tattoo and no body piercing for all minors. Who among your parents want to go this far? :silly:
That is the point -- how far do you want to take it? Regulating what you are allowed to feed them? Regulating what they are allowed to watch on TV or the amount of time they can? Regulating what toys they can play with? Regulating how you can discipline them and what tone of voice you must use?

In this instance, circumcision is a relatively safe and benign procedure, and done by state certified professionals. I would rather not have government intrusion into the rights of parents to raise their children as they best see fit rather than allow more government intrusion into any areas of concern that is properly the domain of parents.

I assure you that *some* policy wonk or bureaucrat can easily find fault with the way anyone raises their children, and would be more than happy to have the force of law behind them to demand how you must do so.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Nov 11 2010, 11:55 PM
(pppssss.... IT, want to bring in abortion now; like, how some people can support letting would-be parents abort their whole fetuses and yet won't let parents consent to cutting off their sons' foreskins? ;) )
The abortion issue is much more instructive regarding the use of graphic advertising to demonstrate the adverse effects of smoking and the profit motives of the industry.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jgoo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Axtremus
Nov 11 2010, 11:55 PM
(pppssss.... IT, want to bring in abortion now; like, how some people can support letting would-be parents abort their whole fetuses and yet won't let parents consent to cutting off their sons' foreskins? ;) )
Not to open THAT whole can of worms, but IMHO, abortion = murder, and that's all the more I care to go into on that one at this point. It can be a massive flamewar topic!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3