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

[BridgeRunner]

Aren't piercings only semi-permanent?

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

Depends on how they are pierced and how well they have healed.  My first two--earlobes--were with a 14 gauge needle.  Those are not closing up anytime soon, although I've gone for over a year at a time without wearing jewelry.  My second two--ear cartilage, both in the same ear--with done with a gun and were tiny.  They never healed properly and healed as soon as I left the jewelry out.

Needle piercings tend to heal better, but tiny ones sometimes still close up. 

[Monkeyleg]

When I was a kid, doctors would pretty routinely suggest that parents have their kid's tonsils removed, even if the kid didn't have tonsillitis at the time. The reasoning was that removing them early wasn't as big a deal, and it was a precautionary measure.

Were my parents wrong to have my tonsils removed?

[White Horseradish]

Were my parents wrong to have my tonsils removed?

Probably. These surgical fads come and go. At one point it was tonsils, at another it was the appendix. Many years ago in Europe spleen removal was common. All with "good reason" - tonsils and appendixes get inflamed, spleen dives you that funny feeling in your side if you run too fast. And then they figure out that these bits aren't quite as useless as was originally thought and start hacking them off only if you actually get sick.

You don't find hacking bits of your body off because they may possibly develop a problem at some point somewhat ridiculous and barbaric?

[roo_ster]

...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.

Minimum height ought to be, "You, Joe Q Citizen, are ready and willing to kill, with your own hands or maybe a knife, someone who is doing this so as to prevent it."

Like I wrote, minimum height.  We have puh-lenty of sociopaths who'd say, "Where's the knife and who do I get to kill?"

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.

Yes it is.  And every day we see some are not up to the task.  

[Perd Hapley]

Probably. These surgical fads come and go. At one point it was tonsils, at another it was the appendix....
 
You don't find hacking bits of your body off because they may possibly develop a problem at some point somewhat ridiculous and barbaric?

Come again? So the medical community has differing opinions and changing ideas about what surgeries are helpful and which are better left undone. And cutting things off is automatically barbaric? Please explain.

I guess we should outlaw any cutting or clamping of umbilical cords, too, right?

[Monkeyleg]

You don't find hacking bits of your body off because they may possibly develop a problem at some point somewhat ridiculous and barbaric?

No more so in the example mentioned than having thousands of needle pricks done on my body to inject inks, or dozens of holes cut to insert jewelry (or bones, or whatever).

[White Horseradish]

Come again? So the medical community has differing opinions and changing ideas about what surgeries are helpful and which are better left undone.

The medical community used to think that pumping tobacco smoke up a rectum of a drowning victim was helpful. Now they know better. So it is with these automatic surgeries.

And cutting things off is automatically barbaric? Please explain.

Cutting healthy bits off without a good reason is barbaric. Notice I said "may possibly develop a problem at some point", not " having a problem that requires fixing" Should all men past a certain age be castrated on the off chance they develop testicular cancer? Wanna hack your hand off on the off chance you cut yourself and get an infection?

"Parents feel it should be cut off" does not strike me as being a good reason. At various times and places parents thought cutting off some boy bits was indicated in order to make a future politician or an opera singer, or to ensure eternal salvation. In some places today parents think cutting off some girly bits is indicated to make a better wife.

Where and how do you draw the line?

I guess we should outlaw any cutting or clamping of umbilical cords, too, right?

Umbilical cords fall off on their own. Foreskins do not. See the difference?


In general terms I have no problem with circumcision so long as it is something a person chooses for himself. If you like it, go get it. I do think the cleanliness argument for it is moronic - even if you are hung like a horse it isn't that big of an area to clean. Water and soap do miracles.

[White Horseradish]

No more so in the example mentioned than having thousands of needle pricks done on my body to inject inks, or dozens of holes cut to insert jewelry (or bones, or whatever).

Right. Notice that you said my body. You should be able to do whatever you want to yourself no matter how silly or weird it is. That said, we are not talking about you doing something to yourself. We are talking about having something done to you without your consent.

Would you be OK with parents tattooing a newborn or with having those big plastic plugs put into the kid's earlobes?

[Perd Hapley]

The medical community used to think that pumping tobacco smoke up a rectum of a drowning victim was helpful. Now they know better. So it is with these automatic surgeries.

And don't some in the medical community now feel that circumcision may reduce the chances of, what was it, cervical cancer? Others point out the risks of the procedure. Or is that just a fad, as well?

Umbilical cords fall off on their own. Foreskins do not. See the difference?

Very much so. Messing with the umbilical cord is obviously an unnecessary procedure; a fad that may be dangerous. But that foreskin won't cut itself off.

Cutting healthy bits off without a good reason is barbaric. Notice I said "may possibly develop a problem at some point", not " having a problem that requires fixing" Should all men past a certain age be castrated on the off chance they develop testicular cancer? Wanna hack your hand off on the off chance you cut yourself and get an infection?

"Parents feel it should be cut off" does not strike me as being a good reason. At various times and places parents thought cutting off some boy bits was indicated in order to make a future politician or an opera singer, or to ensure eternal salvation. In some places today parents think cutting off some girly bits is indicated to make a better wife.

Where and how do you draw the line?

And you thought I had a bad comparison? You compare the testes with the foreskin, and you're giving medical advice? 

[MicroBalrog]

MicroBalrog wrote:

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.

I do not believe that the parents are there to own the child.

The child is a separate entity, with his own rights. The parents are at best custodians/guardians of these rights.

The parents' control of their child's life is - should be! - in all civilized jurisdictions, regulated to some extent.

Do you think it should be legal for a parent to subject the child to any kind of medical procedure he feels is good for the child, even against his will? How about plastic surgery?

People have discussed tattoos in this context. And I believe this is relevant to your interests.

[White Horseradish]

And don't some in the medical community now feel that circumcision may reduce the chances of, what was it, cervical cancer? Others point out the risks of the procedure. Or is that just a fad, as well?

Very well might be.

And you thought I had a bad comparison?

Yes, you did.

You compare the testes with the foreskin, and you're giving medical advice? 

I did not and I am not. You must be thinking of someone else, or misreading what I wrote.

How about you actually answer some of the questions I asked?

[Perd Hapley]

Do you think it should be legal for a parent to subject the child to any kind of medical procedure he feels is good for the child, even against his will? How about plastic surgery?

I believe we can differentiate between medical procedures that are beneficial, or at least low-risk, and those that are not. There is no reason to force ourselves to forget the difference between circumcision, FGM and tattoos. A free nation need not be a willfully ignorant or thoughtless nation. Being free doesn't mean that we ignore our traditions or our culture. It doesn't mean that our government must see everything through some hyper-rationalist lens that discards anything it can't understand.

Now if tattoos were mandated by religious beliefs, maybe that should be legal. If they are just there for the parents' aesthetic tastes, not so much.

As for cosmetic surgery, how about dental braces? I guess Susie needs to be of age before she can get her teeth straightened?

[Perd Hapley]

How about you actually answer some of the questions I asked?

I did. I'm under no obligation to answer each point to your satisfaction. Take what you can get.

How about you explain your misleading comparisons between castration and circumcision? Again, you object to the comparison between cutting off the umbilical cord and cutting off the foreskin, and then immediately try to compare the foreskin with the testicles. It's laughable, but it's also dishonest.

And I think you may have missed the point of my first response, which is; what if the objections to circumcision are just a passing fad? Will you then damn those who acted in accordance with such?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Would you be OK with parents tattooing a newborn or with having those big plastic plugs put into the kid's earlobes?
   


thats still ok in sanfransico

[MicroBalrog]

I believe we can differentiate between medical procedures that are beneficial, or at least low-risk, and those that are not. There is no reason to force ourselves to forget the difference between circumcision, FGM and tattoos. A free nation need not be a willfully ignorant or thoughtless nation. Being free doesn't mean that we ignore our traditions or our culture. It doesn't mean that our government must see everything through some hyper-rationalist lens that discards anything it can't understand.

Now if tattoos were mandated by religious beliefs, maybe that should be legal. If they are just there for the parents' aesthetic tastes, not so much.

As for cosmetic surgery, how about dental braces? I guess Susie needs to be of age before she can get her teeth straightened?

So what you mean is that there's no outright right for parents to inflict what they want on children's bodies. That there should be laws deciding what is legal and what is not, based on, quote, "our traditions and our culture." I agree with you.

I do not mean in my argument that male circumcision necessarily should be banned.  I am not of a set mind on that issue. All that I mean is that there's no specific, God-given, inherent right to choose whatever medical procedure you want for your child. There is a place for the State in this relationship because the child is a separate entity, with rights of his own.

As a libertarian, I believe a person owns their own body and it should be their legal right to have whatever medical procedures they want to have, as long as they can pay for them or get someone to perform them of their own free will. But this isn't the case here.

As you've said, all medical procedures are not made equal. In my view, this is the exact room for local legilsatures - like the SF one - to intervene. No inhuman oppression has taken place.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, local govt. should have more latitude to act than national/state govt. But the whole point of federalism is that those of us in St. Louis, MO and San Marcos, TX are going to disagree with SF's laws. Which is what we're doing.

[Nick1911]

Well said, Micro.

[Perd Hapley]

So what you mean is that there's no outright right for parents to inflict what they want on children's bodies.

Actually, that isn't quite what I said. Circumcision is not female genital mutilation. Nor is it castration or any other disgusting practice. It is a normal and non-scary procedure, even if it seems rather incomprehensible to some.

To equate circumcision to mutilation is to dwell in ignorance, as if it were not a custom we've been living with for thousands of years. There is no need for this.

[Perd Hapley]

There appear to be both medical and religious/ideological issues here.

Medical:
Both sides have concerns about the medical implications of circumcising or not. On the one side, circumcisions could be altogether banned. On the other extreme, they could be legally required. In the middle, parents could be allowed to make the decision, as they have been doing for some time now. Just as they make most other medical decisions for their children. This seems to be working out pretty well so far, doesn't it?

Religious/Ideological:
On one side, some religious systems require circumcision of their male children. On the other side, some ideologies would ban circumcision for everyone else. Again, parents have been deciding this, just as they make other religious and ideological decisions for their children. This system also works.

Why change any of that?

[White Horseradish]

Actually, that isn't quite what I said. Circumcision is not female genital mutilation. Nor is it castration or any other disgusting practice. It is a normal and non-scary procedure, even if it seems rather incomprehensible to some.

Tatooing is also a non-scary procedure that has been around a long time. Is that something parents should be able to choose?

There appear to be both medical and religious/ideological issues here.

Medical:
Both sides have concerns about the medical implications of circumcising or not. On the one side, circumcisions could be altogether banned. On the other extreme, they could be legally required. In the middle, parents could be allowed to make the decision, as they have been doing for some time now. Just as they make most other medical decisions for their children. This seems to be working out pretty well so far, doesn't it?

Religious/Ideological:
On one side, some religious systems require circumcision of their male children. On the other side, some ideologies would ban circumcision for everyone else. Again, parents have been deciding this, just as they make other religious and ideological decisions for their children. This system also works.

Why change any of that?

What is wrong with allowing the actual owner of the foreskin to choose? Nobody said all circumcisions should be banned - we are talking circumcisions without consent.

[freakazoid]

Tatooing is also a non-scary procedure that has been around a long time. Is that something parents should be able to choose?

Extreme tattoo and circumcision does not equate. Nor does it when trying to compare it to female mutilation. Is there a medical reason for said tattoo? Is there a religious reason?

[White Horseradish]

Extreme tattoo and circumcision does not equate.

Why not?

Is there a medical reason for said tattoo?

The circumcisions we are discussing have no medical reason. We are not treating phimosis, just continuing a tribal tradition.

Is there a religious reason?

Suppose there is. What of it? Is that a good enough reason? Is religion a good enough reason for other things?

Here is another example of a tribal tradition. Is this better?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Question: why do Christians circumcise, despite Paul's remarks on the subject?

[Tallpine]

normal and non-scary procedure

Well, it may be "normal" (as in common) but definitely it is scary even if you or I don't specifically remember it.

Let's strap you down to a table and start cutting off pieces without anesthesia and see how non-scary it is... 


As to whether the state should interfere, well I am undecided as I am pretty much an anarchist 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

parents can now chose to have kids tatooed  the sf folks don't wanna outlaw that