It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ProvehitoInAltum
I would imagine that this is a matter that could be taken up by the Federal courts, because in banning circumcision aren't they stepping on residents freedom of religion, considering that circumcision is a requirement to some?
Chock it up to more invasive intrusion, because in my opinion the only persons who should have the right to decide whether or not a male child is circumsized should be the children's parents. (Unless of course, said parents are unfit and the child has been immediatly removed from their custody).
ETA: I do not personally agree with circumcision, I basically agree it's a form of mutilation, however, it is not my place to interfere with the religious beliefs of another.edit on 19-11-2010 by ProvehitoInAltum because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by Pyros
Well I am a do gooder and I am liberal (it is called live and let live). I still say leave it to the family!!!! I really like to make one thing clear. I need the government out of the home.
There's a reason why nature gave you foreskin.
Originally posted by Carseller4
To those that oppose circumcision....do you support a woman's right to have an abortion?
This should be interesting.
Well I agree with this. Male genital mutilation is a crime.
To those that oppose circumcision....do you support a woman's right to have an abortion?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Carseller4
To those that oppose circumcision....do you support a woman's right to have an abortion?
This should be interesting.
I oppose abortion AND circumcision and support the rights of people to choose both.
What's your point? This should be interesting...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You make some excellent points. And I completely agree with them from a personal perspective. My dilemma is - how far do we go in having the government tell parents what they can and cannot do with their children? Should the government dictate punishment, for example? Where do we draw the line in how far the government should impose itself into the family and their religious or cultural practices?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In some cultures, they still bind girl's feet so they won't grow any bigger than a child's. In others they wear rings around their necks to stretch them and make them long. Others pierce, tattoo, etch and stretch body parts of children. I absolutely DON'T agree with ANY of it, but who am I (and who is the government) to tell these people that practices that their families have done for centuries are suddenly not their decision anymore?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is why I say that education is the best tool. I don't believe that we should always turn to government to 'police' the people. That's how it's become so easy for them to dictate that spanking is child abuse. I got my share of angered beatings and it WAS child abuse, but our society learns over generations what is and is not effective as regards raising children.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Kids who get circumcised will be all right, just as I'm all right even after the abuse I suffered, but education is lowering the numbers of circumcision and that's the way we need to go about this. Educating the parents and having THEM decide that it's an old and outdated practice and a form of abuse (IMO) is the right way to make this change happen over time, not giving the government more power.
Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
In the California city that banned Happy Meal toys,outlawed sitting on sidewalks during daylight hours and fined residents for not sorting garbage into recycling, compost and trash, Lloyd Schofield wants to add a new law to the books in San Francisco: A ban on all male circumcisions. Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal. Circumcisions even for religious reasons would not be allowed. At this point, Schofield's proposal is an idea that would have to clear several hurdles to be considered.
News Source
More banning! Who and what supports these crazy ideas? This is just crazy to see people want to ban. I can't believe my eyes!
Originally posted by Carseller4
To those that oppose circumcision....do you support a woman's right to have an abortion?
This should be interesting.
Originally posted by Carseller4
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Carseller4
To those that oppose circumcision....do you support a woman's right to have an abortion?
This should be interesting.
I oppose abortion AND circumcision and support the rights of people to choose both.
What's your point? This should be interesting...
My point is from within a matter of months allowing a woman the choice to kill her baby, to not allowing the mother the choice to get it circumcised.
It won't get interesting anyway. Not too many people can overcome this logic.