Finally, some common sense being demonstrated in Kali...

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

First they came for the Happy Meals, then they came for the penis. The penis is evil.

So it is written, so it shall be.

[MicroBalrog]

Those who say male circumcision by a trained professional in clean sterile conditions is the same as female circumcision done on the ground with a dirty knife against a screaming struggling girl who's much more fully grown are putting up a big strawman argument.  rolleyes

Trained professional? You mean, like a mohel?

You should look up what is it that mohels do during circumcision.

[MicroBalrog]

Anyhow, I guess we should outlaw ear piercings for minors, too.

Ear piercings for minors are legal?

[280plus]

I can see you guys take your penises pretty seriously. 

[Perd Hapley]

"Then I dreamed that one day there was nothing but milk for them, and the jailor said as he put down the pipkin:

'Our relations with the cow are not delicate - as you can easily see if you imagine eating any of her other secretions.'

Now John had been in the pit a shorter time than any of the others: and at these words something seemed to snap in his head and he gave a great sigh and suddenly spoke out in a loud, clear voice:

'Thank heaven!  Now at last I know that you are talking nonsense.....You are trying to pretend that unlike things are like.  You are trying to make us think that milk is the same sort of thing as sweat or dung.'

'And pray, what difference is there except by custom?'

'Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?'  'Milk does feed calves and dung does not.'"


C.S. Lewis  The Pilgrim's Regress  Book III, Chapter VIII

[freakazoid]

You make it sound like cutting hair or something. They don't "take it off". They forcibly separate the foreskin from the glans (which would ordinarily not separate until later in life, protecting the glans during childhood) and then they slice off all the functional parts of the foreskin along with an arbitrary amount of penile skin, leaving the mobility and appearance of the future man's penis decided by the whim's of the mutilating doctor. Thus leaving an open wound and unprotected mucous membrane festering in feces and urine-filled diapers (because it's cleaner). I guess this bloody business doesn't fall into your definition of "harm". The victim is left with a hobbled approximation to a natural penis with no foreskin structures, millions of missing nerves, ugly varicose veins that have been clamped off by the amputation, and a dried out, unprotected, calloused glans. With so many nerves gone, and the mucous membrane of the glans scarified, it's a wonder it works at all. How many premature ejaculation and ED problems are caused by the fact that circumcised men are missing most of the actual nerves that ordinarily control arousal and orgasm?

I look down at mine and this is what I think,

Nothing like what you seem to be trying to make it.

And lolz at Penny Arcade having the perfect picture today, XD

[Nick1911]

It's a fine line, but personally?  I don't have a particular problem with disallowing optional forced surgeries on minors.

[wuluf]

Tyme wrote:

This San Fran law is the right thing to do.

If parents want to make this decision, it has always been their right.  I'm worried that so many are ok with turning that power over to the state.

[RevDisk]

It's a fine line, but personally?  I don't have a particular problem with disallowing optional forced surgeries on minors.

My only problem is the government doing so.   Each and every item we concede to government is something further we give to the government something to use against us.  How do you think we are in this current mess?  One small "reasonable" concession at a time.  Think of it as taking ammo out of your CCW piece and handing it to your worst enemy.  Now, sometimes there is a valid reason to do so.  But do so too much and you're really screwed.  Even if it's a minor and trivial thing, the bar for allowing any government to ban anything should be set insanely high and be as difficult as we can make it.  On principle and common sense grounds alone.

I'm neutral on the matter.  But until otherwise proven, I'm against any government ban unless proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that it is warranted.  

[280plus]

I guess it all depends on where you want to draw the line on .gov intrusion. Whereas I tend to agree with the anti-mutilation faction and wonder what sex might have been like with the extra danglies, for both myself AND my partner, I question whether the .gov should be involved in passing mandates to control it. What comes next, back alley circumcisions?  

[MicroBalrog]

Tyme wrote:

If parents want to make this decision, it has always been their right.  I'm worried that so many are ok with turning that power over to the state.

Do you believe that the child is the property of his parents?

[AJ Dual]

Do you believe that the child is the property of his parents?

Well, OTOH having had that decision made for me as an infant, if my parents hadn't done it, with most everyone of my generation in my area being circumcised, I'd be pretty pissed once I was old enough to understand the difference they didn't have it done. And the bigger differences of debating whether or not to get it done as a teen/or an adult.

And we did get our daughters ears pierced at 6 months. We were uncertain on the decision for awhile, I admit. Doing it that early is sometimes associated with trashier/lower socio-economic strata, but with two sets of twin girls to deal with, we wanted a semi permanent way of being absolutely sure we never switched them, for reasons of food and medicine etc.

Tattooing seemed extreme, and "permanent" marker on the bottom of the foot isn't quite as permanent as one might think.

Being handed to the girls at the jewelry store bothered them the most, in all honesty, they never noticed the piercing. (shrug)

And once they were old enough to know that they had them, they've been enamored ever since.

[Perd Hapley]

You mean you got one twin's ears pierced, as a fail-safe way of knowing which was which?

[Tallpine]

Aren't piercings only semi-permanent?

I thought they would close up if left without jewelry for a while 

[RevDisk]

And we did get our daughters ears pierced at 6 months. We were uncertain on the decision for awhile, I admit. Doing it that early is sometimes associated with trashier/lower socio-economic strata, but with two sets of twin girls to deal with, we wanted a semi permanent way of being absolutely sure we never switched them, for reasons of food and medicine etc.

Epic.  Win.

[Ben]

Aren't piercings only semi-permanent?

I thought they would close up if left without jewelry for a while 

I stopped wearing an earring in my late 20's. Last year during "shock your co-worker's day" (one of my personal holidays), I took the dangly earring out of a co-worker's ear during a staff meeting and stuck it in mine. Went in just fine.

[AJ Dual]

You mean you got one twin's ears pierced, as a fail-safe way of knowing which was which?

Yep, and it helped kept Mrs. Dual and I out of jail for assult and battery.

"Oh TWINS! IDENTICAL?" No.. they're fraternal girls...

"Ohhhh IDENTICAL! How CUUUUUTE! A BOY AND A GIRL!"  (Common sense FAIL, genetics FAIL. One set is not identical FAIL. Listening FAIL.)

About the hundredfold time, we were ready to throttle people.

Now imagine the onslaught of stupid attempting to traverse in public with two sets of twins.

Once, when the younger set were just newborns, and the older set were barely over a year, we had the older girls in grocery carts, and the newborns in chest-carriers. One elderly woman was fawning over the one year olds, and we were tolerating her, because she'd managed to use all the visual clues, (both wearing girl clothes) and correctly identified their gender, and managed to figure out they were fraternal even (sororal, technically)

Then she had to ruin the moment. One of the newborn girls in our carriers sneezed.

The woman SHRIEKED.

She had thought the younger babies in our carriers were DOLLS we were carrying around for the one year olds. 

[wuluf]

MicroBalrog wrote:

Do you believe that the child is the property of his parents?

I believe it is best that parents make decisions for their own children.  Do you believe the state is better informed or equipped to make these decisions?

Freedom is messy.

[Nitrogen]

The law is anti-freedom.  Period.

It's really easy to restrict people from doing things we don't like, isn't it?

[zahc]

It's really easy to restrict people from doing things we don't like, isn't it?

Nice spin you got going there. The neonatal circumcision situation is more "restricting people from seriously harming others who do not have the ability to defend themselves" which is completely in line with most moral systems and liberal/libertarian political philosophies, in which people have inalienable rights and one of the roles of the government is to protect those.

I agree that government should never restrict people from doing what they like to themselves or to consenting others.

[White Horseradish]

So is this the only elective surgery that parents should not be restricted from having performed on their children? Where should the line be drawn?

[Nitrogen]

Nice spin you got going there. The neonatal circumcision situation is more "restricting people from seriously harming others who do not have the ability to defend themselves" which is completely in line with most moral systems and liberal/libertarian political philosophies, in which people have inalienable rights and one of the roles of the government is to protect those.

I agree that government should never restrict people from doing what they like to themselves or to consenting others.

So parents should not be allowed to make decisions for their children?

[zahc]

Yes, they should be able to make decisions for their children.

I think that parents should be able to make decisions for their children, as long as those decisions don't involve things like branding them, killing them, blinding them, starving them, abusing them, cutting off parts of their genitals, etc. and it's not some radical leftism to think that these things should be illegal.

Is it "making decisions for their children" to tattoo them, bind their feet as the Chinese used to do, castrate them so they have a higher voice as has been done in the past, etc? Should all those things be perfectly legal decisions that parents should be able to make? If footbinding were still in practice, would you argue for its legality because "the parents have a right to make decisions for their children"?

I happen to feel that neonatal circumcision, which serves no purpose but to satisfy the primitive traditions of the parents, and permanently scars and hobbles the child, should be in the category of things that it's not acceptable to do to your children. As has been said before, there's plenty of places in the world where that kind of thing flys, but I'm not a moral relativist and I don't think we need to allow it here. I would oppose any such federal law, but CA's law is in the right direction. I can't believe I just said that, but I call them like I see them.

[tyme]

http://www.aaatattoodirectory.com/tattoo_regulations.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_tattooing_in_the_United_States

Tattooing laws seem to be split between forbidding tattoos on minors and requiring parental consent.  Implicit in the law is that the minor (likely an adolescent) wants the tattoo.  Can you imagine the political and legal outcry if a parent forcibly tattooed a child?  Why is circumcision different?

If parents want to make this decision, it has always been their right.  I'm worried that so many are ok with turning that power over to the state.

I agree.  If parents want to beat their children or lock them in the basement with nothing except water and bread, or sexually abuse their children because their religion says it's appropriate, or cut off their children's fingers, or blind them with lye, that should be allowed, too.  Let's get the State completely out of the business of ensuring some normality of life for children, and let parents visit on their own children all manner of barbaric rituals.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how many kids you raised?  so far?