Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
(03-01-2012 03:09 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  It is not the means of transport that kills children its wreckless driving.
Wreckless driving is outlawd and is punished with anything from a ticket to jail sentances depending on where you live.
DUI is forbidden and there exists a traffic law that governs the use of transportation, seatbelts and safety precautions and special ones for children.
anything done outside of these laws is due to wrecklessness, negligence, physiological/psychological disorders and stupidity.

Like i said before and ill say again, male Circumcision is governed by no laws, has chances of error, has no dire immediate necessity and is purely cosmetic. Therefore it should be illegal to circumcize a child and only legal to get circumcised electivly when one is above the age of consent.
just as self destructive habits such as smoking and drinking have a legal age so should be the case with circumcision.



People still die with seatbelts on when an occasional tire blows out.

KC just reminded me that botched medical procedures are against the law as well. It's called malpractice. Given the overwhelming success rate of circumcision would it be the doctor or parent at fault if a child dies from circumcision?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 03:27 PM
RE: Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
You are taking two completely different things and comparing them as though they are the same.

You don't put a child in a car with the intention of mutilating them, you do with circumcision.

Atleast let the child grow up to an age where he can decide for himself what to do with his body, instead of forcing your choice on them.

unless there is a medical reason to do so, it is an unnecessary procedure for negligible benifits, so why force it on the child?

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
03-01-2012, 03:42 PM
RE: Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
(03-01-2012 03:10 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 03:09 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  It is not the means of transport that kills children its wreckless driving.
Wreckless driving is outlawd and is punished with anything from a ticket to jail sentances depending on where you live.
DUI is forbidden and there exists a traffic law that governs the use of transportation, seatbelts and safety precautions and special ones for children.
anything done outside of these laws is due to wrecklessness, negligence, physiological/psychological disorders and stupidity.

Like i said before and ill say again, male Circumcision is governed by no laws, has chances of error, has no dire immediate necessity and is purely cosmetic. Therefore it should be illegal to circumcize a child and only legal to get circumcised electivly when one is above the age of consent.
just as self destructive habits such as smoking and drinking have a legal age so should be the case with circumcision.



People still die with seatbelts on when an occasional tire blows out.

Tires should be changed regularly for saftey reasons and if the tire is punctured that is is the fault of the person who caused the tire to blow out, by littering glass or leaving obstacles in a road that might blow out a tyre.


KC just reminded me that botched medical procedures are against the law as well. It's called malpractice. Given the overwhelming success rate of circumcision would it be the doctor or parent at fault if a child dies from circumcision?

The damage is still done, in both cases of the car and the circumcision, but your analogy doesnt hold up for these reasons.
Circumcision is elective surgery involentarily forced on children.
while you might say, "well children are forced to ride cars" well heres where ur logic is stupid and also you. Cars are there because they solve a logistical problem, they are also designed with safety in mind (the build of the car, seatbelts, aircushions) and also traffic law further impose saftey. They still solve the problem nontheless, the lives lost during use of cars are not willingly put on the line, it is rather the wrecklessness and negligence of people also there are speccific laws that govern the safety of children in automobiles.
Lets look at circumcision, no medical reason, no medical benifit, no problems solved, problems created and from those problems children die or have disfunctional penises. end result? completely pointlessly mutilate healthy tissue and change lifestyle + risk of needless death or complication without payoff.
the whole anti circumcision case doesnt rest solely upon the 100-150 deaths per year but it also rests on a principle of human rights, one which you have failed to grasp in your ingnorant ravings, the fact that a child might grow up to disagree with your views on circumcision should be enough to prevent you to from circumcising your own child, as a sentient entity a child is entitled to disagree and have a say in matters of his own body as it is a lifestyle choice and should be given said choice once of legal consenting age. A child is an equal human being in your care and said care is not to be abused to enforce culteral and religious views that my friend is child abuse. I know that this argument will fall on deaf ears and i wont repeat it again because i repeated it much in the original thread, any more than this and im just wasting my time on you.

If you choose to remain an idiot that's your choice, i only hope that a law is in place before you get to do any damage to your children and protect them from your idiocy.

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 04:16 PM
RE: Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
(03-01-2012 03:09 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Like i said before and ill say again, male Circumcision is governed by no laws, has chances of error, has no dire immediate necessity and is purely cosmetic. Therefore it should be illegal to circumcize a child and only legal to get circumcised electivly when one is above the age of consent.
just as self destructive habits such as smoking and drinking have a legal age so should be the case with circumcision.

Ouch!
I don't know if there will be many volunteering to have a surgeon remove a piece of skin from their penis with a laser scalpel. Tongue
Unless of course, it becomes some kind of fetish, or rite of passage, or status or conformity kind of thing... Tattoos come to mind. Wink

Anyway, many people have been known to provide their own children with measured exposure to questionable habits very early in life, many of which might be seen as self destructive habits.
My own Grandfather began smoking a pipe at the age of 6 -not uncommon at the beginning of the 20th century... he would often offer a puff to one of his young grandchildren. From this, my own coughing fit at age 7, was enough to keep me at arms length from peer pressure at the ripe old age of 13. Many people allow their children a sip of their wine or alcoholic drink early in their life, if for no other reason than to dissuade them by the horrible taste. Once in a while, I'll brew a new pot of coffee and pour a little over a scoop of vanilla ice cream -something I've done since the age of 3... a treat I thank my grandparents & parents for.
One might argue that parent or grandparent could simply be instilling the child with a set of actions and consequences. I guess I'm just asking who would be charged or fined for the breaking of a "law", when it pertains to such questionable activity? Somehow, someone will always decide that such a law is only made to be broken.

Essentially, we are back to square one... it's up to the individual who is directly effected... and then... ouch, I guess. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 04:29 PM
RE: Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
(03-01-2012 03:27 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  You don't put a child in a car with the intention of mutilating them, you do with circumcision.

There's that word again. You are assuming that a parent who circumcises their son is 'mutilating' him. The parents don't see it as mutilation.


Perhaps I'm not explaining or wording my opinion correctly. And to be honest, I'm kinda tired of this back and forth nonsense. Think what you all want, circumcision is legal and will most likely stay that way because plenty of people out there are okay with it. And short of the internet, I've never met a person unhappy with their circumcision.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 04:46 PM
RE: "Because Chas asked for it." I didn't, but ...
(03-01-2012 02:08 PM)germanyt Wrote:  We've decided in this forum that .....
I didn't decide anything.

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

Circumsition is hurting your child for no valid reason and knowingly risking it's life by doing so.
Putting your child in the car has an actual purpose, you are going to reach a destination *together* and you do not have the target to remove a part of your child or harm it any way and you are most likely not killing it.
The same goes for crossing the road which is not only important to reach your destination but also provides the lesson of "how to cross a road". Or would you like it to be your fault that your kid gets run over a car because you never taught it how to cross the road?

Your numbers are not useful as they don't show an actual number on children, they just show that people die in cars but so do people die in fires and from smoking and from biking and from walking and because a piano was dropped on their head.

<myopinion>I am not sure if you are serious, trolling, ranting... no idea but you are not making sense. </myopinion>

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 04:59 PM
RE: "Because Chas asked for it." I didn't, but ...
(03-01-2012 04:46 PM)Leela Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 02:08 PM)germanyt Wrote:  We've decided in this forum that .....
I didn't decide anything.

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

Circumsition is hurting your child for no valid reason and knowingly risking it's life by doing so.
Putting your child in the car has an actual purpose, you are going to reach a destination *together* and you do not have the target to remove a part of your child or harm it any way and you are most likely not killing it.
The same goes for crossing the road which is not only important to reach your destination but also provides the lesson of "how to cross a road". Or would you like it to be your fault that your kid gets run over a car because you never taught it how to cross the road?

Your numbers are not useful as they don't show an actual number on children, they just show that people die in cars but so do people die in fires and from smoking and from biking and from walking and because a piano was dropped on their head.

<myopinion>I am not sure if you are serious, trolling, ranting... no idea but you are not making sense. </myopinion>


I couldn't find numbers specific to those under the driving age. I tossed out ones that could have been the actual drivers. Just last year a van on I-10 swerved to miss something in the road. 2 adults and 8 children were killed. What I'm pointing out is that we endanger our children every day. Most are done because the apparent result outweighs the risk involved. Same with circumcision, whether people do it for social or religious reasons they do it becasue the results that are important to them far outweigh the risks involved. Driving around kills far more children than circumcisions. I'd argue that more kids die on theme park rides. Other than entertainment those rides provide nothing to the child. Yet we still let them get on the ferris wheel and many parents drag their kids onto these rides. Is that not a violation of the child's rights?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 05:25 PM
RE: Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
There is a fine line between a violation of human right and violation of the child's right. You made it a case of human right in the first post. And this is what I am opposing.

And just to mention a tiny but important detail > Children do in fact have less rights than adults. And that is good. Because with right comes duty and they also have less duties than adults. You don't want to overwhelm it with rights they don't understand and duties that come with it and may be too complicated or difficult to take care of. This is why there is an age of conscent and certain regulations that give children rights (and duties) step by step, depending on the country.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leela's post
03-01-2012, 05:31 PM
RE: Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
(03-01-2012 05:25 PM)Leela Wrote:  There is a fine line between a violation of human right and violation of the child's right. You made it a case of human right in the first post. And this is what I am opposing.

And just to mention a tiny but important detail > Children do in fact have less rights than adults. And that is good. Because with right comes duty and they also have less duties than adults. You don't want to overwhelm it with rights they don't understand and duties that come with it and may be too complicated or difficult to take care of. This is why there is an age of conscent and certain regulations that give children rights (and duties) step by step, depending on the country.

I guess I'm one of those assholes who thinks dependent children have no 'child's' rights. My house, my rules, and my kids do what the fuck I say. And I define my own human rights, which most of the civilized world happens to agree with. I don't set my ideals based on what others think, they just happen to be the same in most cases.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 05:41 PM
RE: Driving With Minors - Because Chas asked for it.
(03-01-2012 05:31 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I guess I'm one of those assholes who thinks dependent children have no 'child's' rights. My house, my rules, and my kids do what the fuck I say. And I define my own human rights, which most of the civilized world happens to agree with. I don't set my ideals based on what others think, they just happen to be the same in most cases.

And that is the basis of our disagreement. Children have rights regardless of who their parents are.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: