San Francisco Gays go Nazi with Penile Obsession graphics. Have gay activists gone over the edge?
dublin9
June 17, 2011 23:46:16
The title of my post should really read “Gays go Nazi for foreskin.” It now seems that not only have San Francisco obsessed gays pushed to criminalize circumcision, but the group that began it all has come out with a quasi-Nazi comic book, essentially portraying Jews as the enemies of humanity.
In point of fact, there was considerable homosexuality among top Nazis. They didn’t mind this, just as long as the anally fixated Aryan wasn’t overly effeminate. This aspect has obviously been set aside as can be witnessed in the lewd Gay Pride parades of San Francisco, but I digress.
So let’s go directly to what we all want to see now that Anthony Weiner has resigned and relegated his manhood to the annals of Congressional depravity.
In the comic book, you have “Foreskin Man.” He’s blond, muscular and in a tutu outfit that’s ready for the bath house. He’s the hero with the untouched “package.” You have equally blond and chest shaven Miles Hastwick. This gay joker is head of (you’ll love this one) “The Museum of Genital Integrity.” It goes on and on, throwing in a couple of gals, just to make things appear inclusive.
Now to the villains: You have “Monster Mohel” made to look like an Orthodox Jewish character out of a German kids comic from the 1930’s. You have Jorah, the Orthodox hit man enforcer, replete with an Uzi.
I’m not kidding abut this. You can read about it by going to http://judaism.about.com/b/2011/06/06/anti-circumcision-group... and see what some of Obama’s FIRMEST (pardon the pun) supporters are ERECTING (Oops). And if you want to read the comic, just go to http://www.foreskinman.com/index.htm where you can read some HARD (Ooops, sorry) Obama loving literature.
Of course, these paragons of liberalism don’t say anything about Muslims who are also circumcised. Perhaps they don’t want to offend Mohammed’s people of peace for fear of getting their HEADS (There I go again) chopped off. So much for Hope and Change in Obama’s Inclusive America. It’s a HARD act to follow.
THE GAY HEROS and defenders of the blessed foreskin:
THE JEWISH VILLANS and enemies of bath house Manhood
More polls by dublin9
Top Opinion
-
Cat June 18, 2011 00:18:32
+22JEEZE & CRACKERS I THOUGHT I HAD SEEN IT ALL OUT OF THESE FAR LEFT LOONS ON CASTO STREET! Apparently NOT! My God not only are they Now screaming QUEENS they are SCREAMING BIGOTS! Or Racists I'm not sure which. Call me Homophobic but you can't I have 2 gay brothers! One who has passed to AIDS who would have died of EMBARRASSMENT if he weren't already gone. I'm not going to discuss this with the other because he is a dignified person who does not act like an idiot, and this would be simply too embarrassing. AS FAR AS THESE GAYS SCREAMING ALL OVER in polls and in the streets in parades YATTA YATTA. I don't do it!
The difference here, I argue, is that with a child, we are clearly dealing with a whole and complete living individual imbued with legal rights, which are considered separate and apart from the rights of others, including the parents.
One of these rights is religious freedom. There has to be a balance in terms of how much we consider and respect the child's free choice, of course (e.g., forbidding the parents from raising the child in a certain religion has very little, if any, constitutional grounding as free choice is always available to the child, even if it is constricted by the influence of the parents and the community)...but where the issue involves the permanent alteration of a person's genitals, we must start considering the implications of it for that individual.
However, not circumcising a child isn't placing the child at risk in any significant manner, I would argue...it's mostly a convenience thing. It seems counter-intuitive that as a species we would develop males born with sexual organs that pose a significant health risk to them. In truth, it sounds like an extremely biologically maladaptive feature.
The appendix, for instance, is clearly a vestigial organ. The foreskin is not. Therefore, the fact that we still have an appendix isn't a "mistake" or "maladaptive" because it was necessary at one point for survival - but now is only a problem because we as a culture have changed (we no longer eat raw meat).
And you're right about the botched circumcisions - but I don't think that's a significant enough fear. Personally, I don't think that there's anything gravely wrong about performing a circumcision physically...I just think that we need to concern ourselves with the balance of rights involved, including the child's choice.
I do think that this legislation likely goes too far at the moment.
The problem is that we don't know that the foreskin is vestigial - do we?
And I'm not against circumcision here, but rather would want the man to decide for himself, and don't see why that is so upsetting to many.
I do think that the legislation goes too far here, and all the comics are in poor form as they are classic scare tactics - which never bring good change so much as "change at any cost."
I've been to circumcisions. It's a quick snip and it's all over. In adulthood, it becomes far more traumatic although a surprising number of adult males subsequently need to be circumcised relaltive to discomfort and complications in not having it done earlier.
Do you feel that circumcision should be criminalized as is proposed in San Francisco? Do you want parents incarcerated for doing this? What happens to the child while the parents are in prison? Perhaps they should be placed in a government orphanage. I'm sure members of the gay community would like them adopted out to gay couples.
I find this proposed lelgislation to be enraging and very provocative. It's the type of legislation that turns around and bites those responsible. I'm glad I wrote this post. Responses are certainly making me rethink lifelong views.
(2) I don't believe in the criminalization aspects of it right now. I think that's too far. I do believe that we need to begin a large-scale discussion - and this legislation helps do that.
PS - not in defense of the legislation, but the punishment involved is not unique to this law, but is rather the criminal penalty range generally imposed for non-felonious crimes (e.g., up to $X fines and up to one year in prison (felonies are anything over a year). So the risk of such things is not clear, as different felonies often generally get certain numbers or types of punishment in that range, and often there are more alternatives.
(3) If you wanted to talk about the legislation, then you should have asked about that, rather than the comic, and rather than blaming a gay activist group for both the legislation and the comic, without any real information on it.
If you're enraged, then you should focus on the issue that enrages you. If you just want to blame someone, then you're spreading anger, not finding solutions.
He sent me a email about it.
Oh, how crazy and demented those lefty loons are in San Fran.
Those blowhards in San Fran just don't get that nobody really cares that they are confused and think the lower intestinal tract is a sexual organ do they?
hey its a free country, but don't get upset when the rest of the sane world looks at you kooks and laughs or shakes their heads at you in disgust!
What sane person makes their sexuality their main identity? None that I know of, and I have gays in my family.
Fortunately for the rest of us, they too find this type of nonsense just sickening!
lol just kidding, I couldn't resist.
See the "Up Your Alley Fair" left hand margin. Choose the "censored" version if you don't want to lose your lunch.
http://www.zombietime.com
Circumcision of an infant is a profound imposition of parental will on any choice of the individual. Let the individual decide if they want to be circumcised.
Do you agree with throwing parents in jail for circumcising their newly born children for either health or religious reasons? If so, would you as a gay person, believe in throwing people in jail for having unprotected homosexual sex and spreading HIV and other diseases?
I'd suggest that you be careful of what you support. It can set a bad precedent and turn around to bite you. One thing that rubs me about groups like these activist gays is that they self righteously scream about "rights" but are quick to take away the liberty of others under penalty of jail.
Issue one, which you can read panel by panel here, levies the same amount of criticism in terms of imagery at the medical community (liberal scientist elites - good god, they're criticizing their own!):
http://www.foreskinman.com/no...
I do not have a problem with any group who believes that a particular act is brutal portraying those who practice the act as brutal.
The rest of your questions regarding support for the actual movement do not directly relate to the comic, and it seems from your response that you are intent on limiting the discussion to the issue of the comic and the imagery therein.
You are correct when you claim that my post is limited to gay activists having an anti-Jewish anti-Semitic agenda. My post was not written to debate circumcision although my own opinion is that I would have had my male children circumcised whether I was Jewish or not.
It's not an issue for me because I could care less what anyone does or does not do in the area of male circumcision. It's none of my business, just as someone's sexual preference is none of my business.
But I must admit to having a very visceral reaction to the anti-Semitic photos created by the gay activists. To me, it appears that radical gays have devolved into the worst of what they always complained about. They are using their own phallic preoccupation to create laws incarcerating people who do not believe as they do.
Although foolishly wedded to the left, gay activists are revealing a hidden side of ugliness, bigotry and a penchant for social tyranny. I've known many people who happened to be gay and do not believe the majority feels this way. I hope I'm not wrong.
But I must tell you that I'm not a pass...
You are correct when you claim that my post is limited to gay activists having an anti-Jewish anti-Semitic agenda. My post was not written to debate circumcision although my own opinion is that I would have had my male children circumcised whether I was Jewish or not.
It's not an issue for me because I could care less what anyone does or does not do in the area of male circumcision. It's none of my business, just as someone's sexual preference is none of my business.
But I must admit to having a very visceral reaction to the anti-Semitic photos created by the gay activists. To me, it appears that radical gays have devolved into the worst of what they always complained about. They are using their own phallic preoccupation to create laws incarcerating people who do not believe as they do.
Although foolishly wedded to the left, gay activists are revealing a hidden side of ugliness, bigotry and a penchant for social tyranny. I've known many people who happened to be gay and do not believe the majority feels this way. I hope I'm not wrong.
But I must tell you that I'm not a passive person and the activist gays in San Francisco do not help gays. This goes beyond the tasteless Jew and Christian bashing that has raised its ugly head in that community.
And I'm quite scornful that the cowardly gays producing this material are staying clear of producing a comic book showing Muslims (who also circumcise male children) as depraved, evil people. It displays what feckless, sniveling, yellow bellies the gay activists really are.
People like myself are among the first to come to the aid of someone being beaten up because they are gay. We are against hiring discrimination based on sexual preference.
But this can easily change. If this radical gay agenda spreads to other areas of America, you will see people like myself respond with, "You want to throw me in jail because of decisions I make in raising my children? You want to force me into bowing to your brand of phallic worship? To hell with you all. I could care less what happens to any of you."
Actions have results, particularly when a movement becomes a tyranny.
(2) How is this a production of San Francisco gay activists when the organization producing the comic is San Diego based?
(3) How is the anti-circumcision movement a product of the gay community as opposed to the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), which is distinctly heterosexual in its leanings, and considered by many on the left to be conservative whimpering about the loss of male privilege?
(4) If it is mostly a product of the MRM (which would of course have gay membership in some instances), then why is your concern about anti-semitism in the gay community?
(5) If this is the product of an anti-semitic movement, why are there organizations such as the "Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation" and "Jews Against Circumcision"?
(6) How is the character of "Foreskin Man" a "gay hero" when his love interests and past are with the fictional women characters in the books?
(7) How is the individual issue itself dealing with a gay storyline when the entire event occurs while the character of Foreskin Man is on a date with one of those women?
(8) How is it that you claim that they are not dealing with criticism of Muslim circumcision when the movement is based on and includes arguments from the criminalization of FGM, whi...
(2) How is this a production of San Francisco gay activists when the organization producing the comic is San Diego based?
(3) How is the anti-circumcision movement a product of the gay community as opposed to the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), which is distinctly heterosexual in its leanings, and considered by many on the left to be conservative whimpering about the loss of male privilege?
(4) If it is mostly a product of the MRM (which would of course have gay membership in some instances), then why is your concern about anti-semitism in the gay community?
(5) If this is the product of an anti-semitic movement, why are there organizations such as the "Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation" and "Jews Against Circumcision"?
(6) How is the character of "Foreskin Man" a "gay hero" when his love interests and past are with the fictional women characters in the books?
(7) How is the individual issue itself dealing with a gay storyline when the entire event occurs while the character of Foreskin Man is on a date with one of those women?
(8) How is it that you claim that they are not dealing with criticism of Muslim circumcision when the movement is based on and includes arguments from the criminalization of FGM, which has been openly been criticized as part of the Muslim community?
(9) How can there also be no criticism of Muslims when the organizations website itself states: "Although Muslims represent the largest single group of circumcised men in the world, not all Muslim men are circumcised. Ethnic Chams substitute non-violent rituals, and converts to Islam are not required to undergo circumcision. Muslim intactivists are also increasingly speaking out against the harmful effects of Islamic ritual circumcision, helping to provide support to Muslim parents who choose not to circumcise their sons."?
(10) How can you reasonably claim that there is no criticism when the series remains unfinished, and there are several issues left on its full run?
(11) How can you claim that this is part of gay activism when the main sponsor/organizer in San Fransisco who's gay, Lloyd Schofield, has stated this of the comic and the images: "It's inflammatory and 180 degrees different from the direction that we wanted to go in and I could understand completely why people would be offended. That's why we never used them on our website."
(12) How can you claim that this is part of gay activism also when multiple gay organizations have spoken out against it, as well as the movement generally, including LGBT Jewish leaders, openly gay District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener who stated "This proposal is rallying the Jewish community, including very progressive LGBT Jewish people who are really offended by this false message that circumcision is somehow barbaric or similar to female genital mutilation," and Mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty, an openly gay former San Francisco supervisor, who stated:."From a standpoint of parental choice and public health, banning circumcision is the wrong thing for San Francisco."
(13) Why do you assert that I am making excuses for a community based on the fact that they are gay? I did not mention anything about sexuality as an issue here as I actually both read the comic and the background news about it, and am familiar with the intactivist movement and have never considered it part of a "liberal" agenda (and much of the liberal community considers it and the MRM, again, part of the conservative agenda). So why are you disappointed in me based on your assumptions, rather than disappointed in yourself for not knowing about the issue you're talking about?
All of the above is my own writing, except for the quotes. I have included no links, but do reference organizations that you should look into before you answer, because if you do not than you are not addressing the issue honestly. I expect a full and honest answer to the above, or no answer at all.
2- Anti-circumcision heterosexual movements are their own business as it is for gays. When they produce Jew bating graphics used in everything from Nazi Germany to the Jew hating Arab world, it crosses the line.
3- You claim "If this is the product of an anti-semitic movement, why are there organizations such as the "Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation" and "Jews Against Circumcision?"
Congratulations, your logic is similar to Muslims and anti-Semites who want Israel destroyed. They too, drag out some small group of Jews that doesn't believe in the existence of Israel. It's the same with your examples. You're in great company.
4- You claim "How can there also be no criticism of Muslims when the organizations website itself states: "Although Muslims represent the largest single group of circumcised men in the w...
2- Anti-circumcision heterosexual movements are their own business as it is for gays. When they produce Jew bating graphics used in everything from Nazi Germany to the Jew hating Arab world, it crosses the line.
3- You claim "If this is the product of an anti-semitic movement, why are there organizations such as the "Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation" and "Jews Against Circumcision?"
Congratulations, your logic is similar to Muslims and anti-Semites who want Israel destroyed. They too, drag out some small group of Jews that doesn't believe in the existence of Israel. It's the same with your examples. You're in great company.
4- You claim "How can there also be no criticism of Muslims when the organizations website itself states: "Although Muslims represent the largest single group of circumcised men in the world, not all Muslim men are circumcised."
Not to hurt your feelings, but I can't believe that I had developed respect for your cognitive skills during previous conversations. There are 1.5 BILLION Muslim men and women in the world. Perhaps 700 MILLION are male and the vast majority are circumcized. There are 11 Million Jewish men and women in the world. Perhaps 5.5 million are circumcized. That's 700 million circumcized Muslims vs. 5.5 million circumcized Jews.
The logic they use is pure mincing cowardice by setting aside Muslim circumcision. That they single out Jews for attack is anti-Semitism. They do it because they feel it is safe. It's the same reason they Crititcize Christianity and never Islam. That you even attempt to use that bit of sophistry on me is an insult to my intellect.
6- You then go on to claim that because a left wing secular gay activist of Jewish background named Lloyd Schofield supports this anti-Semitic tripe is quite expected. George Soros is of Jewish background although totally secular. He worked with the Nazis in his teens. He supports Hamas. Again, your stab at forming a logical argument is hardly a good example of high level cognitive skills.
You make no valid point. Using your logic, perhaps I should go on the internet and find a gay who spread HIV among women in the heterosexual community. It wouldn't be hard. I could then extrapolate that all gays wish to infect heterosexuals with HIV.
CONCLUSION: Sorry, but I'm not going to take the time out and respond to every logically questionable piece of minutia. I stop at point 13. I've always believed that everyone has a right to be left alone in their personal lives. It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that this is not what all too many gays want.
I've known many gays in my life and know a not insignificant number now. I've never come across this attempt at dominating and incarcerating those who do not share their sexual preference. I still believe that most just want to live their lives and not stick their noses (or anything else) in other people's business.
But what the gay San Francisco group did by pushing for the criminalization of circumcision and holding up Jews in some Blood Libel is beyond my tolerance. I will conclude my response off line for reasons that you will understand.
No. It is clear that you chose not to read any further into the actual facts of this situation as I asked you to. The main push for the San Francisco legislation is Lloyd Schofield - he's the "gay activist' that you seem to be fixated on. The person who produced the comic is Matthew Hess, who works to support nationwide efforts to ban male circumcision.
Lloyd Schofield stated that the comic went to far, was inflammatory, and was 180 degrees off message from what they should be saying in San Fransisco, and in fact stated these were the reasons the images were NOT posted or distributed by the local "gay activist" movement.
"That they single out Jews for attack is anti-Semitism. They do it because they feel it is safe. It's the same reason they Crititcize Christianity and never Islam. That you even attempt to use that bit of sophistry on me is an insult to my intellect."
You see a gap in my logic because there is a gap in your knowledge. I don't know why - I told you about the first issue of the comic series, which targeted the medical community, where the main villain was "Dr. Mutilator.":
The ...
No. It is clear that you chose not to read any further into the actual facts of this situation as I asked you to. The main push for the San Francisco legislation is Lloyd Schofield - he's the "gay activist' that you seem to be fixated on. The person who produced the comic is Matthew Hess, who works to support nationwide efforts to ban male circumcision.
Lloyd Schofield stated that the comic went to far, was inflammatory, and was 180 degrees off message from what they should be saying in San Fransisco, and in fact stated these were the reasons the images were NOT posted or distributed by the local "gay activist" movement.
"That they single out Jews for attack is anti-Semitism. They do it because they feel it is safe. It's the same reason they Crititcize Christianity and never Islam. That you even attempt to use that bit of sophistry on me is an insult to my intellect."
You see a gap in my logic because there is a gap in your knowledge. I don't know why - I told you about the first issue of the comic series, which targeted the medical community, where the main villain was "Dr. Mutilator.":
The focus is on the U.S., so the international numbers are a bit off topic.
The FIRST group of concern would be those circumcised by the general medical community basically as a default position. Upwards of 3/4 of male children born in the U.S. are circumcised in by doctors for non-religious reasons. Prior to recent decades, in the 70s and before, the number was over 90%. As the doctors doing this procedure as standard practice are the overwhelmingly primary reason for circumcision in the U.S., they were "attacked" in the FIRST ISSUE. First group of concern = first issue. Makes sense.
The SECOND group of concern would be those in the Jewish community who view circumcision as a necessary part of their religious practice. And, they were the focus in the SECOND ISSUE.
Even though I brought up the fact that you're only talking about a single issue in a comic series which seems to be handling each type of opponent in turn, you don't seem to have read that, or understood that means that they are not "singling out" Jews because Jewish practitioners were not even the first group they dealt with, and they certainly weren't the only...because you stated:
"The logic they use is pure mincing cowardice by setting aside Muslim circumcision."
I don't know what the whole "they" you're talking about here is, but I'm assuming because it's a response to my point, it'll be Matthew Hess and his group, and may include me depending on what you're thinking.
In the third issue, Hess states they will be dealing with a different kind of circumcision. And there are several issues after that. Now, do we want to wait, maybe, to see if Muslims are one of the groups that are "assaulted" as the medical community has been? I don't think we should claim that someone is using logic to defend a cowardice when the cowardice has yet to be demonstrated - or maybe you just want to be sure that regardless of whether they focus on the Muslim as the villain of the week, they should be sure to criticize Muslims in every issue...
"You then go on to claim that because a left wing secular gay activist of Jewish background named Lloyd Schofield supports this anti-Semitic tripe is quite expected. George Soros is of Jewish background although totally secular. He worked with the Nazis in his teens. He supports Hamas. Again, your stab at forming a logical argument is hardly a good example of high level cognitive skills."
Before I got here, I was almost positive that you hadn't even tried to read about the issue. Reading that quote, and I was completely positive. I'm also positive that you apparently didn't even really read my post.
(1) For the second time, Lloyd Schofield is leading the charge on the ballot measure. He's the one you've been thinking of when you wrote the original question, although you seem to have mushed together him (as the activist in San Francisco pushing the measure) but he is a different person than Matthew Hess (who wrote the comic, is based out of San Diego, and supports the San Francisco measure as part of a nation-wide campaign on him and his group's part). Mike Hess wrote legislation that is being used and introduced by Schofield, it is true. However, the effort has been going on since 2005.
I have to include links, because you're not apparently taking the time to determine who is actually doing the activist work that you seem to be discussing (i.e., the current push to criminalize circumcision by seeking signatures to get the issue on the ballot):
http://www.alternet.org/rss/b...
(2) For the third time, Lloyd Schofield did not support the "anti-Semitic tripe." I've already quoted him once, and paraphrased the quote above. Again, just in case that's not enough, I'm going to give this unsolicited link, because it seems you're very confused about what people and groups you're discussing:
http://www.ebar.com/news/arti...
(3) Lloyd Schofield is not Jewish, despite what you say above. I know Schofield may "sound" like a Jewish name to some people. I don't make assumptions like that though, especially without reading about the people first.
(4) Lloyd Schofield, as far as we know, is not gay (he has not disclosed his sexuality publicly - but I think that he is. But to be a "gay activist" he should be out and gay, no?).
The comment about what you claim is "quite expected" is embarrassing for you. Your post is about the concern of the nazi tendency of unnamed "gay activists" in San Francisco. Lloyd Schofield is the public face of the legislation that you're complaining about. He's the gay activist with the nazi-like tendencies.
But, he does not claim to be from the gay community, did not produce the images you claim are worrisome, and in fact criticized them as the exact opposite of what the movement should be doing.
Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong. The first sentence clearly started off as one sentence and ended as another, making it a grammar disaster...so maybe you didn't mean to show ignorance, and complete ignorance, about what you were talking about here.
If the Gay community is against circumcision... let them be against it. Let them not do it.
However, groups who use circumcision as a way of expressing their religion... groups like Jews and Arabs/Muslims... have the right to continue following their religions don't they?
I find it ironic that although Arabs/Muslims practice circumcision... only the Jews are targeted for the hate by the Gay community.
I imagine the Gay Community would have more supporters or at least more individuals who were apathetic to their cause if they would cease their habit of targeting and disparaging other groups of people.
(1) What ad did the gay community run?
(2) What about requiring informed consent of the child prior to circumcision do to undermine the free expression of religion?
(3) When does the free expression of religion allow for the non-consensual permanent physical alteration of a non-consenting person?
(4) The gay and liberal community (although not solely them by any means) have been instrumental and outspoken against the Muslim practice of FGM (which is more regional and traditional than it is religious, but is something people believe is part of the religion), and that practice is already criminal on both the state level and federally, as part of the gay and liberal communities speaking out against the Muslim practice...so how is it that there is any irony?
(5) Isn't the irony that we protect children against genital alteration that is non-consensual based on religion, but only if they are of a particular gender?
(2) Seems pretty unreasonable, given the age of the "child" - little baby. Waiting until the child gets "informed" brings us to causing pain - yes, it is MUCH more painful if the patient is not a baby. I know, following "principles" is much more important than avoiding pain, right?
(5) Seems just absurd. FGM is really mutilation - it is painful (even years after the surgery) and risky to a woman's health. Do you rally see no difference between foreskin and body parts? And you gave us a hint why you dared to confront FGM - it has little if anything to do with Islam, the leftist ally in their battle against the Western civilization.
(2) That's the whole problem. This is a pretty significant decision for an adult to make. Would most men make it for normal health reasons? I feel like the answer might very well be no...or it wouldn't be a large majority. If that's the case, what right do parents have to impose a procedure on a person who, given the choice, would likely refuse it?
(5) You are right to point out the difference between FGM and male circumcision. The are significantly different from each other in terms of degree, and there are several major additional reasons for banning FGM that male circumcision does not share. But, when we talk about the rights of the child, which are separate and apart from the rights of parents, we have to wonder why we're not taking a moment and asking how male circumcision is similar to FGM. Not nearly the same - but there are similar issues.
You focus on the wrong thing with the relation of FGM to Islam, though. The important part in determining whether an individual truly holds something as a religious belief is not whether or not that belief is wholly and accurately related to the religion, but whether the person was taught by those of the same faith and in similar circumstances to believe that it was, and if that person subjectively believes it.
When we identify a person's religious belief, we do not have a place in determining whether it is an accurate belief.
BTW, how about teachers emposing their views on students? For example, propagating socialism, which consistently brings nations to dictatorships, hungers, mass murders, mutilations ...? Who gives the kids choice here?
(5) Having remote similarities never justifiers legal banning. What is funny, the same people who are fighting for the parent’s right to kill the baby while he/she is still in the womb, become so sensitive about the foreskin several days later. Don’t you view an abnormality here?
Yes, some tribal leaders present the female mutilation as requirements of Islam – but that is a small fraction. That is why leftists can afford opposing it, without angering “mainstream” Islamism.
It's not an all or nothing issue, as we have reasonable legal standards to look at these issues and see what is too great an intrusion, and what isn't.
A further problem is that the pacifier may in some circumstances change a person permanently. Circumcision always does.
Further, when you look at beliefs, those are always alterable. There's nothing permanent about them. Teachers are, in fact, limited in many ways in terms of what they can promote in school, already.
These issues are always fact-specific. Let me ask the flip side: is it too significant an intrusion on the religious rights of the parents to prevent them from forcing circumcision on an infant, but rather instill the faith that mandates circumcision as part of the covenant with God, so that they will feel it is necessary to be a full part of their community at adulthood?
(5) This argument would be relevant if I was stating that the remote similarity justified a ban. But I am not. I don't really even support this legislation wholly at this point.
I do, however, think that there are significant child rights issues here that people seem to dismiss as...
It's not an all or nothing issue, as we have reasonable legal standards to look at these issues and see what is too great an intrusion, and what isn't.
A further problem is that the pacifier may in some circumstances change a person permanently. Circumcision always does.
Further, when you look at beliefs, those are always alterable. There's nothing permanent about them. Teachers are, in fact, limited in many ways in terms of what they can promote in school, already.
These issues are always fact-specific. Let me ask the flip side: is it too significant an intrusion on the religious rights of the parents to prevent them from forcing circumcision on an infant, but rather instill the faith that mandates circumcision as part of the covenant with God, so that they will feel it is necessary to be a full part of their community at adulthood?
(5) This argument would be relevant if I was stating that the remote similarity justified a ban. But I am not. I don't really even support this legislation wholly at this point.
I do, however, think that there are significant child rights issues here that people seem to dismiss as irrelevant. We seem to be automatically privileging the rights of one individual over another, and a right over their own bodies, in fact, without being appropriately critical.
“Education” aka indoctrination always changes a person. Then let us stop ANY development of a child until he/she can make a rational choice – right? Only people who never assumed the parental obligations do not understand that parents MUST be given some exceptional rights when it comes to making decisions for the baby. Otherwise, the mankind is dead.
(5) Again “one individual” (a parent) is NATURALLY given more responsibilities toward the baby than millions of others. Do you have any problems with that? And what gives you the reason to believe that parents are less critical than strangers to what the baby is going to endure
(5) I have stated nothing that suggests that I have a problem with parental rights over the rights of a child.
I also never stated that the parents would be less critical.