You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Peruvian gang allegedly killed for human fat for cosmetics. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

The truth is they are adorable, and looked absolutely miserable when they opened their cages.

edit: If animals are being used in proper medical research (i.e: NOT cosmetics) to develop cures and vaccines for diseases, and as long as they are treated well when they are in the laboratory, I can't really feel too bad about it. It is a necessity, not something done out of cruelty or greed.

I honestly thought this was another movie ad when I saw it on youtube, but that is crazy to think that cosmetics has come such a long way that it can now completely conceal tattoos like that...

Now I want to see him walk in a busy park when it starts to rains and the make up melts away... That would be a hilarious prank...

besides, being put through years of psychiatric and medical and legal inquiry before a procedure like this can be done is by no means a magic failsafe that this could never happen to the wrong person who didn't really "need it"

people can be bought. Just take a look at regular cosmetic surgery. You think for one second those people care about the ethics of what they're doing? Nope, it's just a price tag that needs to be met and they'll do whatever cutting on a whim if someone pays the right price. All most of these people see is a market to be exploited and weak-minded people to prey upon their insecurities

Petras couldn't even articulate in a mature way how people react to her when they find out that she used to be a boy. But yet we just accept it at face value that she's mature enough to make a lifelong decision like this?

Surprised that this guy wasn't featured in the piece!

The "medical ethics" they refer to at the end of the piece is not that much different than cosmetic surgery (which might even include limb lengthening).

Also wondering why there was no mention of this documentary which came out a few years ago and is all about transhumanism.

I merely stated my opinion on what I view as an easy moral dilemma. No need to call me names. You seem to base your argument on freedom. That's exactly what I do too: The freedom of males to make their own choices regarding cosmetic surgery on their genitals. It seems to me you value the freedom of the parents higher. I can see where you're coming from, but to me the individual concerned always weighs heavier in such moral arguments.

Let it be known that I don't want a ban on circumcition per se. If someone wants to make that decision for themselves when he comes of age, for religious reasons or otherwise, I have no problem with it. My problem is when someone else (in this case parents) removes irreversibly the opportunity to choose yourself.
>> ^VoodooV:

Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.
and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.
As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

I dug Rise of the Planet of the Apes too. Part of the reason Ceasar seemed so human was that Andy 'Gollum' Serkis did the motion capture.

I do love me some dystopian apocalyptic fiction, and had no problem cheering on the apes, but I certainly don't have a societal death wish. Quite the contrary. I think these films are more of a warning of what may happen if we don't get our collective shit together as a planet. I think these films are an exaggeration of the problems of the present - greed, selfishness, conformity, commercialization, corporatism, the devaluation of humanity, disconnectedness, environmental destruction, weapons of mass destruction, cosmetic surgery, prescription drugs, a return to base human violence, loveless sexuality, prejudice, etc. The post apocalypse is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

I was fined for parking in my yard a few years ago when people across the street have been doing it for years. The reason I was fined? Obstructing the sidewalk. There's no sidewalk in my yard, it stops about a block before my house. When I brought this to the attention of the local courthouse they told me that I was fined because if there would have been a sidewalk there, I would have been blocking it

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I fucking hate shit like this. I recently received a notice of violation from the city regarding my car being parked in my front year. How much grass do you see in any of the front yards here? None. All the yards here are rock and gravel. It's too costly and wasteful to maintain grass in 115 degree summers. Keep in mind it's not some shitty, broken-down car on blocks. It's an 04 Volvo S60 that's in perfect running order with no cosmetic damage. It's my fucking yard. I should be able to park my car there. I understand that the intent of the law is to keep heaps of junk from being stashed there, but fuck.

Yeah, the intent of the law is to legislate against poor people, but apparently we can't make a law against being poor. Maybe some day congress will get its shit together.>> ^MarineGunrock:

I fucking hate shit like this. I recently received a notice of violation from the city regarding my car being parked in my front year. How much grass do you see in any of the front yards here? None. All the yards here are rock and gravel. It's too costly and wasteful to maintain grass in 115 degree summers. Keep in mind it's not some shitty, broken-down car on blocks. It's an 04 Volvo S60 that's in perfect running order with no cosmetic damage. It's my fucking yard. I should be able to park my car there. I understand that the intent of the law is to keep heaps of junk from being stashed there, but fuck.

Mwahahaha and now I know where @MarineGunrock LIVES!

I'm gonna poop in his yard!>> ^MarineGunrock:

I fucking hate shit like this. I recently received a notice of violation from the city regarding my car being parked in my front year. How much grass do you see in any of the front yards here? None. All the yards here are rock and gravel. It's too costly and wasteful to maintain grass in 115 degree summers. Keep in mind it's not some shitty, broken-down car on blocks. It's an 04 Volvo S60 that's in perfect running order with no cosmetic damage. It's my fucking yard. I should be able to park my car there. I understand that the intent of the law is to keep heaps of junk from being stashed there, but fuck.

I fucking hate shit like this. I recently received a notice of violation from the city regarding my car being parked in my front year. How much grass do you see in any of the front yards here? None. All the yards here are rock and gravel. It's too costly and wasteful to maintain grass in 115 degree summers. Keep in mind it's not some shitty, broken-down car on blocks. It's an 04 Volvo S60 that's in perfect running order with no cosmetic damage. It's my fucking yard. I should be able to park my car there. I understand that the intent of the law is to keep heaps of junk from being stashed there, but fuck.

Thank you for this comprehensive response, it helps me better understand your stance. I can see now how, from an American legislative point of view, the San Fransisco law might have difficulty passing. That being said, I still believe it is unethical to irretrievably modify a child's body for cultural purposes.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

@chilaxe

Nearly every medical association in the world disagrees with you (read the page on the Bioethics of Circumcision that I linked to above). There is no conclusive evidence that it causes any decrease in sensitivity or pleasure. If convincing empirical evidence arose in the future, I'd agree with you entirely--it needs to be banned. But until such evidence arises, any law attempting to stop circumcisions doesn't have a leg to stand on.

@Lawdeedaw

I believe I answered your question multiple times, most specifically in my response to hpqp above. Circumcision is more than just a cosmetic adjustment. But, as I've said in other responses, I wouldn't personally be against parents choosing to make other cosmetic adjustments to their children so long as there was no evidence of permanent harm being done. I think most doctors would agree that cutting off someone's earlobes will cause lasting medical harm. According to Wikipedia:

Since the earlobe does not contain cartilage it has a large blood supply and may help to warm the ears and maintain balance.

So, cutting someone's earlobes off seems at the least potentially likely to kill them (through massive blood loss) and may impair both ear and balance functioning. Plus it doesn't seem like it would prevent any illnesses either. That's why I find it a red-herring argument when discussing circumcision. It's a nice emotional visual, I'll give you that. But it's irrelevant to whether circumcisions should be legally banned or not.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't finish my response to chilaxe before I hit submit. Plus fixed some typos/tags.