What's new
By:

No more circumcision in SF?

Agoxlea said:
Don't even get me started on vaccinations. If you don't see how completely different this is from vaccinations of children there might be little hope of explaining it to you. The idiocy of people not vaccinating their children not only affects their own children, but others as well which is why vaccinations must be mandatory. Fortunately you are usually really sarcastic so I don't think you were serious, but anti-vaxers upset me REALLY REALLY bad.
Click to expand...

From a consent perspective he has a point.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Please tell me more.

jenny_mccarthy.jpg


But seriously, https://jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html
Click to expand...

Haha she might be the worst of them all. It's nice to see numbers attached to her idiocy.

Millsapa said:
From a consent perspective he has a point.
Click to expand...

Ummm no. I'm all for people having their own rights UNTIL those rights start infringing on my own right for my yet to be conceived children to not be unnecessarily put at risk of a disease, such as the measles, before they are old enough to be vaccinated.
 
Agoxlea said:
Ummm no. I'm all for people having their own rights UNTIL those rights start infringing on my own right for my yet to be conceived children to not be unnecessarily put at risk of a disease, such as the measles, before they are old enough to be vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Umm yes. If it is wrong to hurt them for a few seconds/minutes for circumcision because they can't consent then it is wrong to hurt them for a few seconds/minutes/days/years for vaccination because they can't consent.

If you are really worried about your future spawn and their exposure to illness then you should be extremely worried about our illegal alien population.
 
I disagree. Circumcision only affects one individual (healthwise) at the most. Vaccination affects everyone. That is where the difference is. I actually don't think circumcision should be illegal, but see where they're coming from. Circumcision doesn't really have an undeniable health benefit that justifies it, but I'm still ok with this one being up to parents.

I agree that illegal immigrants could pose a health risk, but we will most likely disagree on how to deal with that problem. That's ok though. I'll stop hijacking this thread and let it get back on topic.
 
Millsapa said:
Umm yes. If it is wrong to hurt them for a few seconds/minutes for circumcision because they can't consent then it is wrong to hurt them for a few seconds/minutes/days/years for vaccination because they can't consent.
Click to expand...

Since circumcision has no secualr personal benefits and no secular societal benefits, while vaccination has both, your comparision is ill-founded.

Millsapa said:
If you are really worried about your future spawn and their exposure to illness then you should be extremely worried about our illegal alien population.
Click to expand...

The danger of getting measles from a non-vaccinated child is actually considerably higher than getting TB from an immigrant. Ensuring vaccination is a much more effective protection strategy.
 
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...

So, before you throw yourself a parade let me ask you an ****ing elementary question: it seems that there is in fact a point at which there is no beating heart, right? No brainwaves, right? What might that say about the distinction I was trying to making in the first place?

Answer: I MIGHT have been talking about early pregnancy. You are the most comical ****ing person on this board. Nobody reads what they want to read better than you.

summary for ****tards: I never said I supported all abortions.

If you throw yourself a parade, please wear a helmet.
 
Sirkickyass said:
When you can't afford to go to Prague, you show up drunk to a movie theater in Nashville and take what you can get.
Click to expand...

And when in Nashville you're 42% more likely to get fellatio if you're circumcised. Those are odds that only a fool would pass up.
 
NAOS said:
it seems that there is in fact a point at which there is no beating heart, right? No brainwaves, right? What might that say about the distinction I was trying to making in the first place?

Answer: I MIGHT have been talking about early pregnancy.
Click to expand...

The period of distinction is really early. If the heart beats in less than a month and it usually takes about that long to even discover she is pregnant then essentially there are no elective abortions dealing with just an "undifferentiated mass of cell."
 
Marcus said:
And when in Nashville you're 42% more likely to get fellatio if you're circumcised. Those are odds that only a fool would pass up.
Click to expand...

The poll says nothing about the likelihood of getting oral if circumcised vs not, it says what women prefer in that regard. In most cases outside established relationships I'm guessing a woman would pretty much be committed to doing it before she found out if he was cut or not.
 
Time to sell my shares in the circumcision clinic in SF I guess. As far as rights debate goes, I could have sworn I read somewhere that Van Jones is pushing to give Mother Nature human rights. So mother nature has rights but unborn babies don't.
 
Gameface said:
The poll says nothing about the likelihood of getting oral if circumcised vs not, it says what women prefer in that regard. In most cases outside established relationships I'm guessing a woman would pretty much be committed to doing it before she found out if he was cut or not.
Click to expand...

post removed by moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Millsapa said:
The period of distinction is really early. If the heart beats in less than a month and it usually takes about that long to even discover she is pregnant then essentially there are no elective abortions dealing with just an "undifferentiated mass of cell."
Click to expand...

The point I was sloppily gesturing toward is not whether I support abortions of any kind or not. I responded to O Gatino above in that manner only because he very stupidly responded as though that could be my ONLY point, and yet still made erroneous assumptions. 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.

Whatever you might say, there is a chance, however small, that giving birth could kill the woman. Whatever you might say, there is a chance that a woman, who really does not want to be a mother or go through the potential perils of pregnancy, got pregnant due to condom and/or birth control failure. There is a chance that pregnancy could be aborted before brainwaves and heartbeats. There is a chance, however small,.....

And, that's the whole point, this is all based on a theory of probabilities. I don't want the State asserting itself against this field of possibilities. Now, before you think I'm an off-the-chart 'liberal', note that I fully endorse the idea of people being affiliated/living with religious institutions and communities that mediate this decision in some meaningful way, whether that end in termination or in no chance at termination. But, I also wouldn't want that institution(s) to make demands that the State should mirror its policies (ahem... USA).

(as a counter example: some peoples in Papua New Guinea don't even consider new borns to be fully human. If you were caught talking to or cooing at a baby, then you'd be publicly shamed. They aren't given any "rights" in the community until they are able to assert themselves in some way, by walking, talking, etc. I say this because it should strike you as equally "odd" that members of our society try to afford full liberal rights to a fetus that doesn't yet have a beating heart. Where do you draw the line? That is an INTERESTING question, and I'd rather a community other than the State make that decision. That is all.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top