http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/07/granderson.circumcision.ballot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

How about this for a government putting its nose where it does not belong.

Discuss.

:California:

Do they have an exception for religious reasons? If not, a whole lotta Jewish folks are going to be mighty upset.

Torn on this one.

California never heard about one's right to choose?

WWTWT What would Tony Weiner think?

good ol' fashioned male genital mutilation

I can see the t-shirts now: "Keep your hands off my foreskin".

Little Danny;796584 wrote:California never heard about one's right to choose?

Most of these people only believe the mother has the right to choose how to slice her baby while it is in the womb. After that the government is free to intervene.

Little Danny;796584 wrote:California never heard about one's right to choose?

Maybe prenatal foreskin removal would be acceptable, since it's still a fetus.

Belly35;796696 wrote:WWTWT What would Tony Weiner think?

Pretty sure weiner is just concerned about keeping his turtleneck.

O-Trap;796926 wrote:Maybe prenatal foreskin removal would be acceptable, since it's still a fetus.

This. And in the most extreme cases you could have partial birth circumcisions. Just leave the feet in the birth canal while performing the circumcision and your good to go.

majorspark;796955 wrote:This. And in the most extreme cases you could have partial birth circumcisions. Just leave the feet in the birth canal while performing the circumcision and your good to go.

Less skin. No waiting.


I like it ...

majorspark;796955 wrote:This. And in the most extreme cases you could have partial birth circumcisions. Just leave the feet in the birth canal while performing the circumcision and your good to go.

Partial birth circumcision, eh? I like it. Better yet, why not come up with a pill designed to dissolve the foreskin after the baby is born? Instead of RU 486 we'll call it RU 4 Skin.

Little Danny;796584 wrote:California never heard about one's right to choose?

only to abort babies....then there is a right to choose.

Any guy here who's circumcised honestly say they remember the procedure? Isn't that the big argument from the liberals? That it's traumatizing to the baby? Bullshit, I think "choosing" to get circumcised when you're a teen/adult would be a thousand times worse. Bunch of liberal busybodies who don't have anything else to do than stick their noses in a families business.

Why stop there? If they're going to ban mutilation of the body, better add tattoo and piercing parlors to the law. How can one discriminate against circumcision as mutilation yet be behind running a spiked rod through your johnson and call it a Prince Albert? Or sticking needles under your skin in the desire to turn it different colors? They can't. I'm not against tattoos, unless they were acquired with gold pants, but if bodily mutilation is on the ballot, better cover ALL OF THEM.

Are drug addicts body mutilators, too? Better throw their arses in the hoosegow while we're at it.

The mental disease liberalism continues to infect.

BGFalcons82;797319 wrote:Why stop there? If they're going to ban mutilation of the body, better add tattoo and piercing parlors to the law. How can one discriminate against circumcision as mutilation yet be behind running a spiked rod through your johnson and call it a Prince Albert? Or sticking needles under your skin in the desire to turn it different colors? They can't. I'm not against tattoos, unless they were acquired with gold pants, but if bodily mutilation is on the ballot, better cover ALL OF THEM.

Are drug addicts body mutilators, too? Better throw their arses in the hoosegow while we're at it.

Nice shot. I liked that.

QuakerOats;797335 wrote:The mental disease liberalism continues to infect.

It's an epidemic in California -- which is why the state is majorly fucked up.

What if it is California that is normal?

ccrunner609;797269 wrote:I dont know anyone that has their skin.

I do. His nickname in high school was "Alien Skin."

BGFalcons82;797319 wrote:Why stop there? If they're going to ban mutilation of the body, better add tattoo and piercing parlors to the law. How can one discriminate against circumcision as mutilation yet be behind running a spiked rod through your johnson and call it a Prince Albert? Or sticking needles under your skin in the desire to turn it different colors? They can't. I'm not against tattoos, unless they were acquired with gold pants, but if bodily mutilation is on the ballot, better cover ALL OF THEM.

Are drug addicts body mutilators, too? Better throw their arses in the hoosegow while we're at it.

I think the point is that it's not the infant's choice. I can choose to get a tattoo. I did not choose circumcision.

Writerbuckeye;797600 wrote:It's an epidemic in California -- which is why the state is majorly fucked up.

It's far less prevalent in the state as a whole than you think. There is a reason why they voted down same-sex marriage.

The liberal pockets just happen to be louder about it. Hollywood areas, San Francisco, Oakland, etc. seem to receive a lot of attention, and they are very liberal by comparison to many cities.

Sacramento, however, would make most conservative cities look like San Francisco.

The hypocrisy is amazing. Abortion fine, circumcision bad. If you have an abortion will they have to keep the foreskin on life support?

mella;797989 wrote:The hypocrisy is amazing. Abortion fine, circumcision bad. If you have an abortion will they have to keep the foreskin on life support?

The idea is that as long as it is a fetus, it is part of the woman's body. Once out, it is a separate individual. As such, if circumcision were to somehow be done prenataly, it would be acceptable.

O-Trap;797982 wrote:...
I think the point is that it's not the infant's choice. ....

There are many things a parent chooses for their child that they have no choice in.

I wonder how the religious component might play in this as mentioned earlier regarding the Jewish people.

Con_Alma;798017 wrote:There are many things a parent chooses for their child that they have no choice in.

Naturally, but alterations to the physical body (an alleged infringement of rights) is not typically in that category.

I can see the point with this. However, your point hints at the reason I am still okay with circumcision.

When I was 10, a boy in my elementary school class had a tattoo. It was a religious tattoo that he got as a baby. I wanted one, too (not the religious one, but just a tattoo). My parents had the right to say "no."

I would contend that as long as the parent has the right to say no to something, they also have the right to say yes, especially if there is a beneficial purpose behind it. With circumcision, even though the foreskin is not that difficult to clean, it can increase the chance of infection if not kept clean properly, and I guarantee that I would not have kept it clean properly growing up. Kids are dirty. They'll lie to you about brushing their teeth or taking a bath. Do you think they will be responsible about keeping Private Peter Johnson's turtleneck clean? That's a risk that is up to the parents, and given that it is done prior to when a person remembers, I don't see the problem with it.

Con_Alma;798017 wrote:I wonder how the religious component might play in this as mentioned earlier regarding the Jewish people.

If it wasn't going to get shot down without them, I believe it definitely will be with them in the mix (even many Christians still hold a religious view of circumcision).