Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Man, I want to get a gif of an abrams rolling ever forward as an avatar now.

I just searched a bit myself, be damned if I found absolutely nothing.  Best bet would be a documentary video on YouTube and screencaping some repeatable frames.

[Strife26]

I'm going to go buy a webcam next time I can, so I'll try to get something shot, then order myself a copy of Toon Boom (which I like for animational purposes), and learn how to draw in perspective.

[Cuppsworth]

Anyone else here about the attempted ban on circumcision is San Diego? Constitutional or what?

[freeformschooler]

Anyone else here about the attempted ban on circumcision is San Diego? Constitutional or what?

But... what? Why would they do that? Most people in the US are circumcised, AFAIK.

[RedKing]

Actually it's in San Francisco, but the proponent is from San Diego. And is apparently something of an anti-Semite.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137082736/san-franciscans-to-vote-on-banning-circumcision
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=90251

Doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of passing, IMHO. Especially not in San Francisco. For one thing, the bill allows only medical exemptions, not religious ones. Fails the First Amendment test HARD.

[Glowcat]

Anyone else here about the attempted ban on circumcision is San Diego? Constitutional or what?

But... what? Why would they do that? Most people in the US are circumcised, AFAIK.

Probably because they figure children shouldn't have their genitals mutilated without good cause. And no, the traditions their parents follow isn't a good reason.

[freeformschooler]

Anyone else here about the attempted ban on circumcision is San Diego? Constitutional or what?

But... what? Why would they do that? Most people in the US are circumcised, AFAIK.

Probably because they figure children shouldn't have their genitals mutilated without good cause. And no, the traditions their parents follow isn't a good reason.

Maybe. But I think it should be up to the parents, sort of like most Americans.

Plus, this isn't directly harmful to the child. I don't think I've ever heard of a case where modern circumcision had negative effects on the health of the child. On the flipside, a parent could be jailed for raising a baby as vegan, because regardless of tradition that has direct negative effects on their health and growth.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Anyone else here about the attempted ban on circumcision is San Diego? Constitutional or what?

But... what? Why would they do that? Most people in the US are circumcised, AFAIK.

Probably because they figure children shouldn't have their genitals mutilated without good cause. And no, the traditions their parents follow isn't a good reason.

Maybe. But I think it should be up to the parents, sort of like most Americans.

So I suppose you'd let the let the same happen to girls as well, if the parent desires? Double standards abound. A child's right not to be permanantly mutilated should not be up to the personal choice of their parents. Some things cannot be left for the mob rule to decide.

[RedKing]

Anyone else here about the attempted ban on circumcision is San Diego? Constitutional or what?

But... what? Why would they do that? Most people in the US are circumcised, AFAIK.

Probably because they figure children shouldn't have their genitals mutilated without good cause. And no, the traditions their parents follow isn't a good reason.

Maybe. But I think it should be up to the parents, sort of like most Americans.

^^^^^ This.

Most American men are circumcised at birth, not because we're all Jews but because it's a social norm, and has been for quite some time. Opting out of circumcision is a choice that is gaining ground in the US, but it's no more morally valid to ban male circumcision than it is to mandate it.

Female circumcision is an altogether different beast. It's a far more invasive procedure which can be shown to cause direct detrimental effects. There's no good evidence to suggest that male circumcision is medically better or worse than non-circumcision.

[freeformschooler]

Anyone else here about the attempted ban on circumcision is San Diego? Constitutional or what?

But... what? Why would they do that? Most people in the US are circumcised, AFAIK.

Probably because they figure children shouldn't have their genitals mutilated without good cause. And no, the traditions their parents follow isn't a good reason.

Maybe. But I think it should be up to the parents, sort of like most Americans.

So I suppose you'd let the let the same happen to girls as well, if the parent desires? Double standards abound. A child's right not to be permanantly mutilated should not be up to the personal choice of their parents. Some things cannot be left for the mob rule to decide.

No, because I've heard of and read about direct negative health effects of female children who are exposed to this. I don't like the double standard, but circumcision seems to have less of a health hit than female cutting.

On the other hand, I'd immediately change my view if I was shown that circumcision had a similar negative health impact.

And yeah, what RedKing said.

[Glowcat]

Maybe. But I think it should be up to the parents, sort of like most Americans.

Why? It may not be immediately as dangerous as Faith Healing examples, but it's removing the rights of the child simply at the behest of their parents' belief systems. Most people only accept circumcision because it has become the cultural norm. Given that it's possible for circumcision complications to arise during the surgery it should universally be considered a bad medical move, yet we keep it around because our conditioning from normalcy tells us that it is no big deal.

[scriver]

Plus, this isn't directly harmful to the child. I don't think I've ever heard of a case where modern circumcision had negative effects on the health of the child. On the flipside, a parent could be jailed for raising a baby as vegan, because regardless of tradition that has direct negative effects on their health and growth.

It shouldn't if you do it right. There's plenty of ways go get yourself the required amount of all kinds of nutrition without eating meat.

So I suppose you'd let the let the same happen to girls as well, if the parent desires? Double standards abound. A child's right not to be permanantly mutilated should not be up to the personal choice of their parents. Some things cannot be left for the mob rule to decide.

Female and male "circumcision" would only be comparable if male circumcision involed cutting of half or the whole of the "head".

Why? It may not be immediately as dangerous as Faith Healing examples, but it's removing the rights of the child simply at the behest of their parents' belief systems. Most people only accept circumcision because it has become the cultural norm. Given that it's possible for circumcision complications to arise during the surgery it should universally be considered a bad medical move, yet we keep it around because our conditioning from normalcy tells us that it is no big deal.

One reason to keep allowing it is similiar to arguments for abortion - to hinder the huge amount of "back alley circumcisions" that would otherwise be made. Then you could really start talking about complications arising during the procedure. Just consider the sanitary circumstances of when this surgery being performed in people's living rooms.

[freeformschooler]

Why do I even voice my opinion on these forums when everyone else says it better than me This is freeformschooler, and I'm here to say "what Scriver said".

Also, thank you scriver for teaching me something new and forcing me to look it up. Turns out all the regular supplements are in soy baby formula, and the majority of cases where vegan families have their babies taken away is when they won't use baby formula, instead opting to feed them the same things they eat, just mashed up.

[MorleyDev]

The circumcision debate is an odd one to me. I'm from the UK and it's rather rare over here so I can't really chime in xD

Though I do know it's, like a lot of surgeries, more painful to have done when you're older. I've had an operation done because of that logic when I was about 14, but that was actually a needed operation anyway that simply could have waited several years before it started causing any real discomfort.

[RedKing]

One reason to keep allowing it is similiar to arguments for abortion - to hinder the huge amount of "back alley circumcisions" that would otherwise be made. Then you could really start talking about complications arising during the procedure. Just consider the sanitary circumstances of when this surgery being performed in people's living rooms.

Errr...just as a note, a Jewish bris is typically performed in a synagogue, which isn't a particularly sterile environment. My son was circumcised at a pediatrician's office (who also happened to be a mohel), which while clean, wasn't surgical theater clean or anything. Most of the sanitation concerns are afterwards while it's healing (and are thus the responsibility of the parents). The concern would be more with the skill of the surgeon. We have friends who have horror stories of their sons having to be re-circumcised at like age 2 because the initial one was done so sloppily. Usually these are the ones done in the hospital, often by doctors or interns with next to no experience in the procedure.

Which is why we waited and took him to a doctor who was also a mohel. The guy's done so many of these he could probably do it blindfolded. (And he did in fact seem more focused on chatting about sports and politics and animatedly waving his hands WHILE he's putting my son's schlong through what looks like a cigar-cutter...nerve-wracking, but he did a great job)