No more circumcision in SF?

[One Brow]

A baby outside the womb is just as dependent on a caregiver.

In the USA, you can force a person to physically care for a child. Monetarily, yes, but not physically. You can only say that if they abdicate this responsibility, they have to do so in way where they know the baby will be cared for (adoption, ward of the state, etc.).

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?

No amount of innocence affords a child the right to use their mother's womb without consent.

 

[LogGrad98]

I still wonder what people think about other body modifications on a child that should be allowed. If we are going to argue that circumcision is a parent's choice, then can that same parent choose to get their baby a nose job, or have it removed completely, or how about an ear or eyebrows or whatever. Pick any non-essential piece of skin or body part, is that fair game for parents?

(of course excluding medical necessity)

 

[TroutBum]

Don't lie. We all know you think your dick is beautiful.

As the resident authority on all things 'lie', I guess I'm not surprised that you caught me in this one.

 

[moevillini]

at any rate, back to the original topic, it'll be interesting if this proposal actually makes it onto the ballot and how the voting goes in November. My guess is that if it does make it on the ballot it'll be voted down by a significant margin.

If by chance it passes, I imagine it'd be challenged in court on religious grounds at the very least.

 

[PearlWatson]

No amount of innocence affords a child the right to use their mother's womb without consent.

Wow!

 

[Agoxlea]

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.

I completely agree with this. I also personally don't think "god given right" should any way every be used as a political argument of any sort. I'm slightly religious, but let's be real here, that just shouldn't be able to fly.

 

[sirkickyass]

I think they should make the more damaging ****oridectomy illegal while they are at it.

Been illegal in the United States since 1996.

 

[PearlWatson]

I completely agree with this. I also personally don't think "god given right" should any way every be used as a political argument of any sort. I'm slightly religious, but let's be real here, that just shouldn't be able to fly.

You do realize it was used as a political argument in the Declaration of Independence, right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...

 

[Agoxlea]

You do realize it was used as a political argument in the Declaration of Independence, right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...

Touche. I still think it should be political suicide. Example: the Senator or Representative that claimed global warming would not be a problem because God promised not to flood the earth or whatever. I'm slightly religious on occasion, or at least I am alright with the concept of it/GET it, and that is a still pretty ridiculous to me. Your argument is valid, but I guess it comes down to when you believe someone becomes a "man" with the unalienable right to life. Obviously our infallible founding fathers would disagree with me, but I believe those rights exist in the absence of a creator we, meaning humanity, give ourselves those rights. I just think I might be a little more picky on what I'd classify a "man" that has those rights.

 

[The-Joker]

Been illegal in the United States since 1996.

and that is a scientific fact.

 

[Bronco70]

Touche. I still think it should be political suicide.

Ultimately, though, whether it is or not is up to the constituency.

Example: the Senator or Representative that claimed global warming would not be a problem because God promised not to flood the earth or whatever.

Fortunately, the validity of global warning (and such) does not hinge on the opinions of individual legislators.

 

[PearlWatson]

Touche. I still think it should be political suicide. Example: the Senator or Representative that claimed global warming would not be a problem because God promised not to flood the earth or whatever. I'm slightly religious on occasion, or at least I am alright with the concept of it/GET it, and that is a still pretty ridiculous to me. Your argument is valid, but I guess it comes down to when you believe someone becomes a "man" with the unalienable right to life. Obviously our infallible founding fathers would disagree with me, but I believe those rights exist in the absence of a creator we, meaning humanity, give ourselves those rights. I just think I might be a little more picky on what I'd classify a "man" that has those rights.

Thomas Paine in Dissertations on First Principles of Government:

It is at all times necessary, and more particularly so during the progress of a revolution, and until right ideas confirm themselves by habit, that we frequently refresh our patriotism by reference to first principles. It is by tracing things to their origin that we learn to understand them: and it is by keeping that line and that origin always in view that we never forget them.

An inquiry into the origin of rights will demonstrate to us that rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another; for who is he who could be the first giver, or by what principle, or on what authority, could he possess the right of giving?

A declaration of rights is not a creation of them, nor a donation of them. It is a manifest of the principle by which they exist, followed by a detail of what the rights are; for every civil right has a natural right for its foundation, and it includes the principle of a reciprocal guarantee of those rights from man to man. As, therefore, it is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man, it consequently follows, that rights appertain to man in right of his existence only, and must therefore be equal to every man.

How picky? Do they have to be a certain color, intellect, gender, age, or class to have the right to life? or have the government protect that right?

 

[TroutBum]

You do realize it was used as a political argument in the Declaration of Independence, right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...

I love DoI/Constitution thumpers like you. You're the equivalent of those nut ball Bible thumpers down south.

 

[moevillini]

why not solve two issues at once - - when the circumcision is performed, whoever is doing it can make an extra little snip and sever the vasa deferentia.

 

[Scat]

No amount of innocence affords a child the right to use their mother's womb without consent.

In most cases the child is in the mother's womb because of her consent.

 

[moevillini]

In most cases the child is in the mother's womb because of her consent.

what about in cases of rape?

or a failure of birth control device or method?

 

[Scat]

what about in cases of rape?

or a failure of birth control device or method?

Hence the portion of my comment "In most cases". Even with birth control failure that child is there because of the mother's consent. No BC is 100% effective. She consented to have sex knowing that there was a 1% or better chance she could get pregnant.

 

[LogGrad98]

In most cases the child is in the mother's womb because of her consent.

what about in cases of rape?

or a failure of birth control device or method?

Hence the portion of my comment "In most cases". Even with birth control failure that child is there because of the mother's consent. No BC is 100% effective. She consented to have sex knowing that there was a 1% or better chance she could get pregnant.

The assertion that the child has no right to use the mother's womb is ludicrous in the extreme. The child would not be there in the first place if the mother had not engaged in activity that is DESIGNED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE ACT to put a child there. The child had no choice to be in a womb, or that womb, or to exist at all. So if I lock you in a room against your will, I should then have the choice to kill you because I do not want you using that room since it belongs to me? Insane.

Of course this always leads to the discussion about when life begins. For me it is mostly one of accountability for your actions. I am reasonably certain that most everyone who willfully engages in sexual intercourse have some inkling what could happen as a result. If they are adult enough to engage in the act they should be adult enough to deal with the consequences without needing to potentially destroy another life-form simply because it is "inconvenient". As was stated previously, adoption is always an option. I know that there is a shortage of babies available for adoption, so it isn't like it would not be possible to find willing parents.

(In cases like Moe pointed out I think then it falls into another realm. My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

 

[moevillini]

Hence the portion of my comment "In most cases". Even with birth control failure that child is there because of the mother's consent. No BC is 100% effective. She consented to have sex knowing that there was a 1% or better chance she could get pregnant.

The assertion that the child has no right to use the mother's womb is ludicrous in the extreme. The child would not be there in the first place if the mother had not engaged in activity that is DESIGNED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE ACT to put a child there...

(In cases like Moe pointed out I think then it falls into another realm. My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

This gets back to the entire debate we've had ad nauseum about whether or not the only purpose of sexual activity/intercourse is for procreation.

Some people believe this to be the case - - others have different ideas about this. If you're of the belief that procreation is a byproduct of sexual intercourse, rather than the primary goal, then that might change your point of view.

 

[Chucky Smith]

This gets back to the entire debate we've had ad nauseum about whether or not the only purpose of sexual activity/intercourse is for procreation.

Some people believe this to be the case - - others have different ideas about this. If you're of the belief that procreation is a byproduct of sexual intercourse, rather than the primary goal, then that might change your point of view.

This seems a specious argument at best. If I speed I don't intend to crash but it is a very real possibility. If you have sex it is a very real possibility that you'll get pregnant. It doesn't matter whether it is the primary reason or a by-product. It still happens.