What's new
By:

No more circumcision in SF?

at any rate, as someone mentioned, does this proposed new rule have an exemption on religious grounds?


This somewhat reminds me of that California case of the boy of Sikh background who was forbidden from wearing his ceremonial dagger to school, as I recall that case has given impetus to a movement to recognize the rights of Sikh's to carry this dagger as part of their everyday apparel as required by their religion
https://www.sikhcoalition.org/advisories/CAKirpanBill.htm
 
Isn't it amazing how California with all the problems they have still have time to argue over crap like this? Or about teaching homosexual history at school? It's amazing to me what Californians allow their governments to argue about. In Utah, a lot of people were outraged when the government was talking about the "state gun." It was nonsense. But Utah doesn't have the long list of budget shortfalls and problems California has. Unbelievable.
 
moevillini said:
So LESS than HALF prefer a circumcised male....

and your point?
Click to expand...

My point is that if 42% think there is no difference and 45% prefer a circumcised member, a circumcised person has a much wider pool of women to choose from than an uncircumcised person. That's 87% of women that would go for an circumcised member. In politics that would be called a landslide. A referendum even...
 
Marcus said:
My point is that if 42% think there is no difference and 45% prefer a circumcised member, a circumcised person has a much wider pool of women to choose from than an uncircumcised person. That's 87% of women that would go for an circumcised member. In politics that would be called a landslide. A referendum even...
Click to expand...

well, there's still 53% who'd take the uncircumsized guy, I should think that would be plenty...

at any rate, it'll be interesting to see where this proposal ends up
 
ok, this might be sort of like karma coming full circle...

https://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/04/27/20110427obama-birth-certificate-arizona-tea-party.html

The Arizona Legislature this year was the first in the nation to pass a measure requiring presidential candidates to show proof of citizenship to get on the state's ballot, and Gov. Jan Brewer was the first to veto such an effort.

House Bill 2177 garnered international media attention, including support from businessman Donald Trump.

Kelly Townsend, co-founder of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party, believes the bill deserves at least part of the credit for President Obama's decision Wednesday to release his long-form birth certificate....
Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be "natural born" U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. It does not define natural-born citizen.

The final version of HB 2177 would have required presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide the Arizona Secretary of State with documents proving they are natural-born citizens. Those documents could be either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.
Click to expand...

Obama... Trump... Arizona... Tea Party... Birth Certificate... Natural Born Citizen... Naturalized Citizen... Circumcision Certificiate...

everything, it's all there
 
The Thriller said:
Isn't it amazing how California with all the problems they have still have time to argue over crap like this? Or about teaching homosexual history at school? It's amazing to me what Californians allow their governments to argue about. In Utah, a lot of people were outraged when the government was talking about the "state gun." It was nonsense. But Utah doesn't have the long list of budget shortfalls and problems California has. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Not yet.
 
I may be up in the night, but I am willing to bet that any romantic relationships that actually matter are decided on more factors than the condition of the male's ********. I also am willing to bet that most one-night-stand type relationships are engaged in without interrogating the male as to the condition of his ******** pre-emptively.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I may be up in the night, but I am willing to bet that any romantic relationships that actually matter are decided on more factors than the condition of the male's ********. I also am willing to bet that most one-night-stand type relationships are engaged in without interrogating the male as to the condition of his ******** pre-emptively.
Click to expand...

post removed by moderator

Oops. Nothing in my inbox yet but I've found that it usually shows up 24-48 hours later.
 
Last edited:
NAOS said:
The point was that I don't want the State telling me or my partner what we can do with our own bodies. Abortion is one example; circumcision is another. I think it's ******** that the SF might make the latter illegal.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with parental rights. Both examples have to do with children not "our own bodies."
Since I think sometimes the law has to step in and protect children from their parents I can't really criticize this law.
I think they should make the more damaging ****oridectomy illegal while they are at it.
 
Millsapa said:
I think it has more to do with parental rights. Both examples have to do with children not "our own bodies."
Since I think sometimes the law has to step in and protect children from their parents I can't really criticize this law.
I think they should make the more damaging ****oridectomy illegal while they are at it.
Click to expand...

iawtp
 
moevillini said:
at any rate, as someone mentioned, does this proposed new rule have an exemption on religious grounds?


This somewhat reminds me of that California case of the boy of Sikh background who was forbidden from wearing his ceremonial dagger to school, as I recall that case has given impetus to a movement to recognize the rights of Sikh's to carry this dagger as part of their everyday apparel as required by their religion
https://www.sikhcoalition.org/advisories/CAKirpanBill.htm
Click to expand...

Would this not fit under the constitution? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
 
Marcus said:
post removed by moderator

Oops. Nothing in my inbox yet but I've found that it usually shows up 24-48 hours later.
Click to expand...

I can see why they removed it but I can't see an infraction in that post.
 
The Thriller said:
Actually, I don't know.

When does this mass of cells have rights? When it starts to have a heart beat? Or when it's actually born out of the womb?

Calm yourself before I blind you with facts fool, most body systems form in the first 4 weeks after conception. Heartbeat begins 18-24 days after. Brain waves after the first 6 weeks.

A lil more than just a junkheap of cells I'd say!

I understand cases of unwanted pregnancies when all the two adults wanted to do was jackpot. Or if someone forces their jackpotting on an unconsenting person.

But that doesn't justify killing "that mass of cells."

There's always the option of adoption. Even in cases of rape, incest, unwanted pregnancies, etc, one can always give the baby up for adoption. Besides, most abortions are done to those who just don't want to face the consequences of their jackpotting. In here's the stasticial breakdown from a study in 2005 on why women get abortions. Beware folks, the responses may surprise you. Don't say I didn't warn ya! Naos, don't wet your diaper, pretty scary stuff:



Very few cases of physical problems or rape nonsense.

Just selfishness.

Selfishness does not give someone permission to terminate life. Give the baby up for adoption.

Further proof on how out of touch SF is.

Run away and give us another copy of Mein Kampf from your undisclosed university and job. LOL.

Stuffing your ears full of facts, hell, maybe I should become a professor too?!

Domination booooo yeah!
Click to expand...

You're a Mormon, right? (I assume that you are, so if you're not, forgive the assumption.) When my daughter was born, because she didn't take a breath -- actually live outside the womb -- the church wouldn't allow me to give her a name and a blessing. If life begins at 6 weeks, or whatever crap you were saying earlier, then why wouldn't my daughter count? I'm not complaining, I just thought it was interesting.

What this has to do with anything is beyond me, but I support a womans right to choose, no matter how idiotic I might think her choice is. The fact that you think you know better than her is mind boggling.
 
Secondly, there is only one thing in this world that is uglier than a mans dick, and that is an uncircumcised dick. I would beat my parents if they hadn't had me snipped.
 
Millsapa said:
I think it has more to do with parental rights. Both examples have to do with children not "our own bodies."
Since I think sometimes the law has to step in and protect children from their parents I can't really criticize this law.
I think they should make the more damaging ****oridectomy illegal while they are at it.
Click to expand...

as long as a fetus draws all of its necessities from the mother's body, then the State telling her what she can and can't do is effectively legislation on her body. This isn't controversial. As for circumcision, the State is extending rights to someone (the baby) that cannot understand the rights being given to it; this might sound benign (or even preferable in this instance), but the implications are huge when you think about it.

And, again, I'm not advocating for some anarchic removal of all checks on individual rights. Far from it. My discomfort is with the (deeply historical) record of the State assuming the (sole?) role in these issues.
 
NAOS said:
as long as a fetus draws all of its necessities from the mother's body, then the State telling her what she can and can't do is effectively legislation on her body. This isn't controversial. As for circumcision, the State is extending rights to someone (the baby) that cannot understand the rights being given to it; this might sound benign (or even preferable in this instance), but the implications are huge when you think about it.

And, again, I'm not advocating for some anarchic removal of all checks on individual rights. Far from it. My discomfort is with the (deeply historical) record of the State assuming the (sole?) role in these issues.
Click to expand...

A baby outside the womb is just as dependent on a caregiver.
The right to life is an essential god-given right whether a child can understand it or not. If the state doesn't protect the innocent, who will?
 
Millsapa said:
A baby outside the womb is just as dependent on a caregiver.
The right to life is an essential god-given right whether a child can understand it or not. If the state doesn't protect the innocent, who will?
Click to expand...

first off, let's be clear that you and I are probably not very far from one another if we were to shift this discussion to ethics. But, as long as we're pushing this in the direction of institutions and law, then I'll hold my position.

While I agree that the baby outside the womb is still dependent, I'd claim that there is a significant qualitative difference that comes with being born. This is a MEANINGFUL difference, and I'm calling for this difference to be taken up in regimes of meaning that are separate from the State. That is all. Next, I'm going to back away slowly from the way you naturalized "god-given right" and the protection of the "state." Slowly.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Would this not fit under the constitution? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Click to expand...

You can't legalize an illegal activity be saying it is religious. Otherwise, the Church of Killing Other Dope Dealers would be a major institution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top