On the flip side, I would think there should be great barriers to any parent being allowed to force their kid into any of the above procedures against the kid’s will and I would be surprised if a doctor would even be willing to ethically do any of the above with a non-consenting patient.

So with all we’ve discussed, I don’t think I would support this proposed law. I might, though, support a law that basically put a few barriers to circumcision to limit the cosmetic ones but granted religious exemptions for Jewish and Muslim parents as well as a parent who really wanted one. I would, however, ban the Hasidic practice of cleaning the wound with the mouth as it 1. Looks to me like borderline child molesting 2. Endangers babies to STDs and other infections. Cry oppression all you want.

Actually I read that girls under the age of 18 comprised 4% of the breast augmentation procedures a few years back.

One article put the number at almost 4000 girls having the procedure in a single year. Another put the number at 1800.

But, you are right: most young girls aren’t getting breast jobs – mostly because the FDA has been cracking down on that. Liposuction and nose jobs are far more common in the younger girls.

That’s because female circumcision does harm.

Male circumcision does not.

But forcing devout Jews to break their covenant with God does harm.

But, then, that’s the point, isn’t it?

Oh wait … you need straw man arguments, because you can’t come up with a single way in which losing one’s foreskin actually does any harm to a person, don’t you?

(If you actually care enough to Google for me – what an amusing idea! – you should look up the Dec. 2005 warning issued by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons re: doing breast implants on women under the age of 18.)

Back to building straw men arguments, I see.

What’s the matter, can’t critique the argument the way it really is, without rewriting it and misrepresenting it?

BTW just for the record, I am very concerned about the increasingly young ages liberal parents are pushing kids into boob jobs and sex change issues.

or as Rashida Dati put it
“No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those who force us to bow our heads.”

“IMO the law works best when it works with actual cases, not broad categories”

I believe the converse is the case. The legislator should lay down broad principles, then Doctrine is developed by the law professors in their commentaries and, then, Jurisprudence in the courts applies this to actual cases, as they arise.

Meanwhile, the Minister can make orders or regulations to implement the law

The provisions I quoted are a good example of this approach

Well, sure, because materialists are committed to prizing the flesh, and are also committed to usurping the authority of anyone who doesn’t.

One does not have to be a materialist in the hard sense to ‘prize the flesh’ in the sense that you should not cut off pieces of someone else’s body unless there’s a good reason to do so.

Because otherwise it just becomes one more loophole so that liberals can do whatever they want to and with their own children (including perversions and bodily mutilations), ….

Back to the imaginary ‘boob jobs for 11 yr olds’ again I see. I also note ‘liberal’ here means basically anyone Blake disagrees with. The only citation for a childhood boob job came froma UK story about some minor model who was famous for having lots of plastic surgery saying she would let her daughter have a boob job if she wanted one. How does that turn into ‘liberals’ unless you’re mental picture is so distorted that liberal basically means everyone and anyone who isn’t like you.

But any authority that says so is automatically suspect.

Science has stopped being about finding truth and has started being about replacing democracy with dogma. (With themselves at the top of the hierarchy, natch.)