When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-05-2011, 04:49 PM
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
It is illegal to beat your kids because it is traumatizing and painful. Why is it not illegal to circumcise your child if it is also traumatizing and painful (which it very well seems to be from everything I have read)?

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2011, 09:44 AM
 
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
It's no longer a "may be" on the ballot!

Circumcision ban lands on San Francisco ballot


The gall! I mean, really! Bigots, phobes in California think they can put a measure on their ballot to ban gay marriage (Prop 8) and violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. and California Constitution and sure enough, the Mormon cult illegally gives millions to the effort that ends up being an elected success. Then it's overturned, by a sane Judge that knows the law. And now, penis obsessed individuals think they have a right to tell anyone with a male child that regardless of their preference, even smacking in the face of religious doctrine, circumcision should be illegal as a parent's right of choice, for their child.

It's like a gay man's payback for familial choice going back to get revenge for the ballot regarding gay marriage in California. As if to say, hey ultra Conservative voters? So you don't want me and my partner to legally marry according to your majority vote? How about this gay man pursue a measure to take your right to decide your son's personal hygiene future in matters of his foreskin , despite whatever religious issues may also compel you!

Meet the man behind the "cutting" ban! Lloyd Schofield! Think he's cut?
Do we care? Rolleyes
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2011, 06:16 PM
 
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  penis-obsessed individuals think they have a right to tell anyone with a male child that regardless of their preference, even smacking in the face of religious doctrine

Who's penis obsessed? The one who says leave it alone, that's his body to decide about? Or the one who says strap him down, I need to slice a piece off of that penis?

(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  circumcision should be illegal as a parent's right of choice, for their child.

Seems like you mean to say it should be a parent's choice to make, and I would ask why? Adults the world over choose all sorts of body mods, like tattoos, lip-stetching plates, tongue piercings, and breast enlargement. Even if 100% of those people were delighted with the mods, we would never feel entitiled to impose those on an infant. WHY is a boy's penis an exception? NOT ONE national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision.

(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  It's like a gay man's payback for familial choice going back to get revenge for the ballot regarding gay marriage in California.

That is a civil rights issue. This is a human rights issue. Some of the same people support both, but they are otherwise unrelated.

(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  take your right to decide your son's personal hygiene future in matters of his foreskin , despite whatever religious issues may also compel you!

It's settled law that the 1st ammendment doesn't grant the right to harm or neglect a child in the name of religion. Just ask a Snake Handler, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientist, Latter Day Saint, or Muslim.

The 14th ammendment demands equal protection under the law.

(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  Meet the man behind the "cutting" ban! Think he's cut? Do we care?

And there you go! Why SHOULD you care. Does it matter that Princess Di never was hurt be a land mine? She said we should find a way to protect people from land mines and she was right. It's a matter of basic human rights and it matters not whether a proponent of protecting infants is a cut man, intact boy, menapausal woman, or intersexed person. Every person has a basic human right to be free of unwarranted mutilations. It's even in the UN charter on the rights of the child.

Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure when there is no diagnosis of defect or disease, and no record of other less-destructive remedies tried before resorting to the drastic last-resort step of amputation. "Male" is not a diagnosis. Foreskin is not a birth defect.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision.
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2011, 07:16 PM
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
Couldn't agree with TLCtugger more. Having foreskin isn't ugly, dirty or less pleasurable during sexual relations. It doesn't prevent infection and is susceptible to complications, including fatalities. It is an outdated practice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2011, 12:26 PM
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
The grieving family of a tragic Queens toddler are blasting doctors at Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan -- accusing them of botching a simple circumcision that led to the boy's sudden death.

Jamaal Coleson Jr. died Tuesday, about 10 hours after what was supposed to be a routine procedure, according to his uncle Jabbar Coleson, 23.

Coleson said the hospital was supposed to give his nephew a local analgesic, but instead administered a general.

The boy, who would have turned 2 next month, "Woke up and laughed and called for his mother and then went critical.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queen...z1LsgsXqVT
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2011, 07:42 PM
 
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
(03-05-2011 06:46 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  I think the whole thing is based on the concept that it's MY child, I do what I want to MY child. The problem is, of course, that children don't, in fact, belong to you, they are entrusted to your care, and therefore you don't have the right to do whatever you want to that child but only what's in his/her best interest....

That's an interesting statement since it reminds me of a comment by someone named, "Horsecrazy" at sciencebuzz.org, regarding parents being able to select the sex of their child using genetic testing. Small world.

In fact the child belongs to the State. The certificate of life birth wherein that child was born and it issued, makes that a lawful reality. Relegating then the parents to custodial guardian. Which is why the State can petition to remove the child from the parental custody with due cause.
That being said, we're not talking about tonsils, appendix, or any internal organ. This debate is about foreskin. Smile

(08-05-2011 06:16 PM)TLCTugger Wrote:  
(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  penis-obsessed individuals think they have a right to tell anyone with a male child that regardless of their preference, even smacking in the face of religious doctrine

Who's penis obsessed? The one who says leave it alone, that's his body to decide about? Or the one who says strap him down, I need to slice a piece off of that penis?
The one who's striking off on pushing for legislation that makes his personal opinion of the matter a matter of law for every parent of a son, in California. That's who.
Imagine in context, if someone's opinion of something you do in your personal life made them push for a law that said you can not make that personal choice, for your personal reasons.



(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  circumcision should be illegal as a parent's right of choice, for their child.

Seems like you mean to say it should be a parent's choice to make...
No, I said exactly what I meant. Your snipping my remark out of context so as to make it appear in error and then attempting to correct me, is a mistake.
Quote: NOT ONE national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision.

Let me introduce myself. I'm the kind of person that when someone makes a bold sweeping statement like that , I go and do the research so as to ascertain if it's valid or if it's bogus. Especially since I worked in a hospital for 3 years as a volunteer in newborn nurseries and saw my fare share of circumcisions.

Turns out, your declaration is bogus. Aka/ Intellectually dishonest. Smile
The American Medical Association's Policy on Circumcision


[Image: archpedi_106_2_017-T001.gif] *Source: Archives of Pediatrics Medicine & Adolescents Medicine - Routine Circumcision A Problem for Medicine



(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  It's like a gay man's payback for familial choice going back to get revenge for the ballot regarding gay marriage in California.

[color=#1E9off3]That is a civil rights issue. This is a human rights issue. Some of the same people support both, but they are otherwise unrelated. [/color]
Not in the case of minor children and parental custody.

(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  take your right to decide your son's personal hygiene future in matters of his foreskin , despite whatever religious issues may also compel you!

It's settled law that the 1st amendment doesn't grant the right to harm or neglect a child in the name of religion. Just ask a Snake Handler, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientist, Latter Day Saint, or Muslim.
Immaterial citations. Circumcision is a viable lawful medical elective procedure. The first amendment relative to that stands as freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression.

Quote:The 14th ammendment demands equal protection under the law.
That will be decided if it applies in this case.

(08-05-2011 09:44 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  Meet the man behind the "cutting" ban! Think he's cut? Do we care?

And there you go! Why SHOULD you care. Does it matter that Princess Di never was hurt be a land mine? She said we should find a way to protect people from land mines and she was right.
This thread isn't about Princess Di. Thank you. Smile


Quote: It's a matter of basic human rights and it matters not whether a proponent of protecting infants is a cut man, intact boy, menopausal woman, or inter-sexed person. Every person has a basic human right to be free of unwarranted mutilations. It's even in the UN charter on the rights of the child.

Circumcision is NOT a medical procedure when there is no diagnosis of defect or disease, and no record of other less-destructive remedies tried before resorting to the drastic last-resort step of amputation. "Male" is not a diagnosis. Foreskin is not a birth defect.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision.
I'll leave this quote as is. You elect to make a errant statement about circumcision and medicine yet again and it would be repetitive to again demonstrate your claims are bogus.
Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2011, 10:37 AM
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
(09-05-2011 07:42 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  That being said, we're not talking about tonsils, appendix, or any internal organ. This debate is about foreskin. Smile

Yes, the reason I mentioned appendix and tonsils is that I have heard many people say basically, who cares, the foreskin is basically useless, you can easily go through your life without missing it. This is true of a number of body parts, including for example tonsils, whose removal is quite an easy procedure. In fact, when I was growing up it was quite common for doctors to remove them at the first sign of infection because they were just "trouble". Now I am glad that doctors have shifted their approach to not removing them unless the situation is very serious. In fact, around age 20 or so I begged my doctor to remove them while having a severe case of throat infection, and even then he refused and decided to cure the infection instead. Now, if doctors have this attitude toward tonsils, I fail to see why they should have a different attitude toward foreskin, or any other body part for that matter. The only other body part that doctors seem eager to remove even when healthy is wisdom teeth, and I suspect it's more due to wanting to get your money than anything else.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2011, 11:50 PM
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
Heres a video by Concordance, wherein he analyses the medical pros and cons of male circumcision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2gloq-prkA

Apparently there isn't much medical evidence against circumcision.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2011, 04:05 AM
 
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
(09-05-2011 07:42 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  In fact the child belongs to the State.

It's always a good thing to know that a child is born with an ownership tag. Can you imagine if it wouldn't? People would just be happier! Preposterous! AngryDodgy
Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2011, 09:57 AM
 
RE: When foreskin is on the ballot you may be in San Francisco!
(14-05-2011 04:05 AM)Celestus87 Wrote:  
(09-05-2011 07:42 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  In fact the child belongs to the State.

It's always a good thing to know that a child is born with an ownership tag. Can you imagine if it wouldn't? People would just be happier! Preposterous! AngryDodgy
Ownership tag and serial number. (SSN)
In Florida when I was volunteer at Tampa General in the newborn nursery section, if a parent didn't name their child they weren't discharged! The hospital figured, if the mother at the very least had 9 months to think about it and didn't come up with something by the time she went into labor, something was seriously wrong.
The good news was, the parent(s) had something like 30 days to change their mind about that name, after they gave it if for no other reason than to get out of the hospital.

Right after all that, we started hearing rumblings about legislation not only firing up in Florida, where it was backwards as all hell when it came to babies and kids anyway, as in white couples couldn't adopt a baby from a different race. Nor could they foster. Which I found out on both sides of it, when I tried to start the process to take custody of a little black baby boy who's mom had been a crack head most all her pregnancy and he'd been born with two fingers missing on one hand.
Hospital counselors and nurses who I was close with told me State law would shut me down as soon as they saw my face and read the file of the boy. Sad Unbelievable!

In any event, the rumblings started that Midwifery was going to be forced under the dominion of RN's and Doctors. So that a lay Midwife, who wasn't a RN and who wasn't working under the authority and supervision of a OBGYN, were going to be made illegal.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that legislation did indeed pass in Florida. And it's sweeping across the country still.

One final thing, home deliveries in many States are on the verge of being outlawed. If they're not already. Why? Abject stupidity! But besides that, no official record of live birth can be guaranteed issuance in a private home!
So there's probably some nonsense about national security involved, and since kids born today are automatically tagged with a Social Security Number, all that would be precluded from happening with a live home birth.

Of course, a woman in labor would be worried about getting out of the home so as to make it all legal, I'm sure. Rolleyes However, in many States if a home birth does occur, there's a time limit to get the proper documentation and witnesses! WITNESSES! (No that's not a real child born just yesterday. Not at all. It's a squash that squalls, that's all. )
Otherwise, the child is taken, the mother can be arrested and definitely fined.

Hell of a testament to "free country", no?
NO!
Exactly! Dodgy
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GassyKitten's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: