snipsnip

[Haggis_McMutton]

Is cutting a kid's hair acceptable?

There are no health benefits from having short hair either..

There are definite health benefits.
gender inappropriate hair = you get beaten up in school more

[natty dread]

Yes, cutting off the tip of a child's penis is wrong.

But killing the child while still in the womb is a-ok.

AoG has a good point. [citation needed] In my abortion mega-poll, some people [who?] said they are okay with abortion even during labor. [dubious - discuss] If it's okay to kill something at 11AM, how can it be illegal to perform a partial amputation on that same thing at 1PM?

AoG is obviously just compensating for his lack of foreskin. The comparison is faulty and biased - abortion isn't performed on actual living human beings. Genital mutilation however has lasting, irreversible effects to an actual human being that last for a lifetime.

Well, first of all, original editorial statements don't need citations.

Second, I can understand the argument that, at 2 days, 2 months, 6 months, whatever, the fetus doesn't constitute a "human being" but to suggest that - in the final 8 hours of pregnancy - it is still not a "human being" is probably not an idea based in 21st century biology.

The point is, you're using a dishonest way of framing the question. You specify "abortion during labour" based on some other person's supposed opinion in some other thread a long time ago, even though no one here has expressed agreement for performing abortion during labour.

Yes, abortion during labour when the child is fully developed and capable of being delivered is wrong. It does not follow from that that abortion during the fetal stage is also wrong. Similarly, accepting abortion during the fetal stage does not mean that genital mutilation of already born children should also be accepted.

Is cutting a kid's hair acceptable?

There are no health benefits from having short hair either..

There are no harmful effects either. Hair grows back, foreskin doesn't.

[saxitoxin]

Yes, cutting off the tip of a child's penis is wrong.

But killing the child while still in the womb is a-ok.

AoG has a good point. [citation needed] In my abortion mega-poll, some people [who?] said they are okay with abortion even during labor. [dubious - discuss] If it's okay to kill something at 11AM, how can it be illegal to perform a partial amputation on that same thing at 1PM?

AoG is obviously just compensating for his lack of foreskin. The comparison is faulty and biased - abortion isn't performed on actual living human beings. Genital mutilation however has lasting, irreversible effects to an actual human being that last for a lifetime.

Well, first of all, original editorial statements don't need citations.

Second, I can understand the argument that, at 2 days, 2 months, 6 months, whatever, the fetus doesn't constitute a "human being" but to suggest that - in the final 8 hours of pregnancy - it is still not a "human being" is probably not an idea based in 21st century biology.

The point is, you're using a dishonest way of framing the question. You specify "abortion during labour" based on some other person's supposed opinion in some other thread a long time ago, even though no one here has expressed agreement for performing abortion during labour.

A participant in this thread did, in fact, indicate no objection to abortion during labor. In fairness to keeping this thread on-track I don't think it's fruitful I name names but it should be easy to look up if someone references my Abortion Mega-Poll.

There are no harmful effects either. Hair grows back, foreskin doesn't.

No, sometimes circumcised males occasionally have to go in for a trim every few years.

Or maybe I'm thinking of salamanders. I could have those two confused, but I don't think so.

edit: turns out it was salamanders, disregard

[natty dread]

A participant in this thread did, in fact, indicate no objection to abortion during labor.

Fine, but it's still not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to deduct 50 saxi bux from your account.

[saxitoxin]

A participant in this thread did, in fact, indicate no objection to abortion during labor.

Fine, but it's still not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I agree it's not relevant to your position. Your position seems consistent by stating that elective abortion during labor should be illegal and so should elective amputations after labor.

But, AoG's point still stands in the face of those who have less consistent positions.

[Army of GOD]

natty, why do you think abortion during labor is immoral? At what point does a fetus become a human?

Also, is it immoral to cut off a salamander's dick if it's still in the womb?

[nietzsche]

Is cutting a kid's hair acceptable?

There are no health benefits from having short hair either..

There are definite health benefits.
gender inappropriate hair = you get beaten up in school more

Seriously, it's the same bullcrap. Parents have their kids cirmucised because they truly believe it's best for them. They don't go to college and take a major in "Circumcising or not".

Maybe they are wrong, maybe not, but some parents damage their kids a whole lot more psychologically, even those who are doing it for their benefit, like teaching them catholic guilt.

Stop jerking your brain off, leave it to some activists who will make a campaign and convince parents not to have their kids circumcised.

The world is multicultural, colorful, different. Not everything has to be the way you think it's best. For one there are many points of view, and you do not hold a monopoly on reason. Furthermore reason isn't all.

[natty dread]

Nietzsche, what's your stand on female genital mutilation, in particular: clitoridectomy?

Is it acceptable because "it's part of their culture"?

natty, why do you think abortion during labor is immoral? At what point does a fetus become a human?

After it stops being a fetus. DUH

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE AOG

[Haggis_McMutton]

Is cutting a kid's hair acceptable?

There are no health benefits from having short hair either..

There are definite health benefits.
gender inappropriate hair = you get beaten up in school more

Seriously, it's the same bullcrap. Parents have their kids cirmucised because they truly believe it's best for them. They don't go to college and take a major in "Circumcising or not".

Maybe they are wrong, maybe not, but some parents damage their kids a whole lot more psychologically, even those who are doing it for their benefit, like teaching them catholic guilt.

Stop jerking your brain off, leave it to some activists who will make a campaign and convince parents not to have their kids circumcised.

The world is multicultural, colorful, different. Not everything has to be the way you think it's best. For one there are many points of view, and you do not hold a monopoly on reason. Furthermore reason isn't all.

This seems to be an argument against discussing things in general.

Thing is i like discussing stuff.

Don't worry, I'm not gonna go camp outside parliament to change circumcision laws or anything, I'm just arguing that the parents who believe "it's best for their children" are probably wrong.

Reason may not be everything, but when deciding what bits your baby gets to keep and what bits should be removed I would hope reason will be the main factor.

[BigBallinStalin]

If property rights over one's body are held dear, then why are parents allowed to violate the property rights of their child? Surely, they must have some good reasons for justifying the theft/removal of their child's foreskin.

[natty dread]

If property rights over one's body are held dear, then why are parents allowed to violate the property rights of their child? Surely, they must have some good reasons for justifying the theft/removal of their child's foreskin.

The opportunity cost for removing their child's foreskin just isn't high enough.

[BigBallinStalin]

If property rights over one's body are held dear, then why are parents allowed to violate the property rights of their child? Surely, they must have some good reasons for justifying the theft/removal of their child's foreskin.

The opportunity cost for removing their child's foreskin just isn't high enough.

But people have the negative right for their property, i.e. they have the right not to have their property taken away from them. So, given this natural rights defense, opportunity cost plays no justifiable role here.

[natty dread]

opportunity cost plays no justifiable role here.

LE GASP

[Symmetry]

Is cutting a kid's hair acceptable?

There are no health benefits from having short hair either..

There are definite health benefits.
gender inappropriate hair = you get beaten up in school more

Seriously, it's the same bullcrap. Parents have their kids cirmucised because they truly believe it's best for them. They don't go to college and take a major in "Circumcising or not".

Maybe they are wrong, maybe not, but some parents damage their kids a whole lot more psychologically, even those who are doing it for their benefit, like teaching them catholic guilt.

Stop jerking your brain off, leave it to some activists who will make a campaign and convince parents not to have their kids circumcised.

The world is multicultural, colorful, different. Not everything has to be the way you think it's best. For one there are many points of view, and you do not hold a monopoly on reason. Furthermore reason isn't all.

While you have a fair point on the pschological aspects of how parents can damage their kids, I'm not sure you can really justify circumcision under the same terms, let alone justify along the lines of "Meh, there are worse things..."

Seems like a bit of a cop out.