Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Nov 12, 2010.
Thread title too over the top.
The wrong way to go about it, but I agree with the sentiment. Circumcision is ridiculously barbaric in this day and age and carries lots of risks. I know I personally am angry it was done to me without my consent. No one should be able to mutilate another's genitals without their permission.
Some people may say that I don't know what I'm missing if I never had it. But I do know by virtue of the fact that I have dated uncircumcised guys, and believe me, I'm missing a lot.
That's how I felt when my son was born. If he wants to get it done when he is older that should be his choice. I am also strongly against small little girls getting their ears pierced unless they want it done.
Good for you. You're a good parent to do this.
I remember feeling like I was definitely cheated after dating a few uncircumcised guys. I just kept wondering what it must feel like. I asked, and they guaranteed me it was good to be uncircumcised.
But regarding your article... are you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to propose legislation? Should we appoint a board to approve ideas before they even begin to circulate petitions?
Edit: My penis is mutilated.
I'm curious as to what those risks are, as several major studies have found the opposite Lee. Cutting risk of HIV infection by as high as 60% and reducing the risks of HPV and genital warts seems like a major benefit to society personally.
This could be argue as lets have the people propose legislation to kill any one of religions faith.
Or legation to ban gay marriage and it all be perfectly legal.
lol good tags for this thread
beef...it's whats for dinner
Pages and pages:
A more specific list:
BTW- we live in the US, and anything mentioned as far as STD prevention can be addressed with condom use.
Regardless, do you feel this is a decision a person should be able to make for themselves or not?
That's already happened. Proposition 8 in effect banned gay marriage and passed in 2008.
The real check and balance occurs in the courts where any legislation can be declared unconstitutional. People seem to forget that small detail. They really get up in arms, as if the simple fact that they voted something in means something more. But it doesn't matter where the legislation originates. If it doesn't pass the constitutional test then it is void.
Check out this tidbit about California proposition's...
The first method, the direct initiative process, allows a citizen the option to bypass the Legislature and go straight to the public in an effort to place an issue of interest on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. The process adopted in 1911, which is still in use today, requires the proponent to obtain an official title and summary of the proposed initiative from the Attorney General. Upon obtaining a title and summary, the proponent of an initiative is permitted to circulate the petition for 150 days. During the course of the 150 days, the proponent must gather a requisite number of signatures of registered voters who support the initiative. If a citizen circulates an initiative petition with the intention to revise a California statute, the number of signatures gathered must equal 5% of all the votes cast for the office of Governor in the last gubernatorial election. If the initiative proposes an amendment to the California Constitution, the number of signatures gathered must equal 8% of all votes cast for the office of Governor in the last gubernatorial election. Once the proponent of an initiative gathers the requisite number of signatures during the 150-day circulation period, the petition must then enter and pass a random or a full signature verification process, or both, before it is finally placed on the ballot to be accepted or rejected by voters.
So really it doesn't matter what crazy idea someone comes up with. Get it through the process, weather the court challenges, and you can make yourself up a law.
I think I might make one up right now.
So by like I said by your logic that should be allowed and it would be legal.
I do not think prop 8 should of been legal. I just stated that under your logic it should be allowed.
I think by my logic I said that the person has every right to try to make that a law.
The voters have every right to approve or disapprove it.
And the courts have every right to uphold it or strike it down if it did get passed.
Doesn't that make sense?
BTW, I voted against Prop 8.
After a quick perusing of those pages, most of those "risks" deal with loss of sensation. And then there's the whole skin-to-skin and oral sex contact issue that condoms don't adequately address.
A little bit of skin removed to cut down spread of disease, regardless of the advent of condoms, which dulls feeling anyways, seems like a net benefit to society.
So, you think this decision should be forced on people? Or do you think it should be up to individuals whether or not they wish to be circumcised? Again, the study you linked to is severe in nature. STD protection in Africa is extremely poor to begin with. Europe seems to be doing just fine without circumcision.
And you may wish to read the link to specific risks involved. I think that anything altering genitalia should be left up to the individual who owns it.
As for oral sex, regardless of whether you're circumcised, if you're exposed to warts, etc during that act, you're gonna get them.
See my problem is laws that should be thrown out and clearly thrown out on being violation of the bill of rights should not even be allowed to be voted on. This is an example of one of those laws in my book.
I know the Jewish religion believes in it. Good chunk of the Christan faith pushes it. I do not know about Muslim religions (I would not be surprised as well) so in my book this law would over night be thrown out of in court.
What's the difference in this to damper the spread of diseases and mandatory shots and vaccines?
Then let them do it when they're 18.
Last time I checked, neither of those things mutilates the body as severely as circumcision, not even close.
I believe the cost sky rocket at that point and again it would violated a lot of religions faiths.
The kid has no religious faith at birth. His religious beliefs are not being violated.
What governmental body would you assign to do study and judge proposed laws?
Keep in mind that the courts currently require a person demonstrate harm has been done to them before they consider whether legislation is constitutional. They aren't there to review laws before they've ever been passed... let alone petitioned.
It should of course be left up to the individual.
if they make it to the stage that they are allowed on the ballet they should be allowed to be challenge. It would greatly reduce effect on these laws. If it voted and past I full expect it to be taken to court and at the very least have a stay put on it going into effect until it is thrown out.
Okay... but again... by what governmental body?
Who do you propose to challenge and judge a law before it even becomes a law?
OMG, I'm at risk for vaginal warts???
But, but, I don't even have a vaginal.
Isn't female circumcision completely illegal? Some African religions practice that, I think. That's a double standard if there ever was one.
Anyway, yeah. It shouldn't be up to parents to mutilate their child's body. I know some people may have a religious reason, but an act that's forced upon another can't really be an act of faith, can it?
On a completely unrelated note: I heard a guy on the radio who got drunk one night and decided (for some inexplicable reason) to circumcise himself with a broken beer bottle. The next day he had to go to the emergency room because of infection.
What an idiot. Everybody knows that's what cigar cutters are for.