Circumcision..Child abuse or parental right?

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Post by Uraniun235 »

Loss of sensitivity is not covered under the definition of damage
Oh really? So the phrase "can damage your hearing" is an errant one, then? Since, after all, damaged hearing is just a reduced sensitivity to sound.
Im not saying it was right, just saying its really not worth crying over.
You know, I happen to like those little dangly bits on my ears. If someone decided to take them from me without my consent I'd be rather upset about it. But I guess I shouldn't be, since after all it's only "minor". Am I right?
User avatar
Icehawk
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1852
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:16pm
Location: Canada

Post by Icehawk »

Uraniun235 wrote:Oh really? So the phrase "can damage your hearing" is an errant one, then? Since, after all, damaged hearing is just a reduced sensitivity to sound.
A mistake on my part, I should have explained it better. The definition of damage states: Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness. In the case of your hearing example, their is an actual impairing of the usefullness of the ear since its sensitivity is now limited (its primary purpose is to sense sound as you should know). HOWEVER, a lowered level of physical sensitivity in a penis doesn't actually impair its usefullness since its primary purposes do not revolve around having a full level of sensitivity.
You know, I happen to like those little dangly bits on my ears. If someone decided to take them from me without my consent I'd be rather upset about it. But I guess I shouldn't be, since after all it's only "minor". Am I right?
I can understand how you would initially be angered don't get me wrong, but to dwell on it as a serious issue in your life would be just silly which is the point im trying to make.

Anyways, I think we've all had enough of this whole debate, we all agree here that its an unnecessary procedure that shouldnt be performed unless medically necessity or personal choice dictates it. But I will never hold any animosity against my parents just because my foreskin was cut at birth. Its just not a real issue for me to care about and I will always think its silly for other people to continuously care so much about it over their lives. Initial shock or anger I can understand, but continued animosity or anger towards ones parents or whoever over this particular thing is just irrational and stupid as far as im concerned.
"The Cosmos is expanding every second everyday, but their minds are slowly shrinking as they close their eyes and pray." - MC Hawking
"It's like a kids game. A morbid, blood-soaked Tetris game..." - Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs)
User avatar
Metrion Cascade
Village Idiot
Posts: 2030
Joined: 2003-06-14 05:54pm
Location: Detonating in the upper atmosphere

Post by Metrion Cascade »

Darth Wong wrote:
Justforfun000 wrote:
In other words, if people don't agree with your opinion, they're obviously stupid. Let's see here...
Excuse me. Don't put a fucking Strawman in my mouth. I didn't say any such goddamn thing.
Indeed, the "you just have a problem with anyone who disagrees with you" tactic is such a common and worthless pseudo-rebuttal that there should be a name for this particular "debate" technique.
Maybe it's a version of the Golden Mean fallacy?
User avatar
Metrion Cascade
Village Idiot
Posts: 2030
Joined: 2003-06-14 05:54pm
Location: Detonating in the upper atmosphere

Post by Metrion Cascade »

Broomstick wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote: And Broomstick - good points overall. But FGM and MGM are both unethical for the same reason if not to the same extent. It's like the difference between stealing $1000 and stealing someone's Dodge. They're not equally wrong, but both violate a person's right to security of property. And someone saying MGM is okay because FGM is worse is using a false dilemma fallacy
Huh. That's not where I was trying to go at all. I'd say circumcism and FGM, particuarly in the more extreme forms, are NOT comparable. After all, a man with a standard circumcism is able to achieve orgasm, reproduce, and urinate without difficulty or additional procedures. A woman with an infibulation is subject to repeated infections of the the genitourinary area. Her ability to piss is severely hampered. Clotting of menstrual blood may block the opening entirely, leading to a build up of necrotizing tissue and blood which, you can imagine, is no good at all for the woman. With no clitoris and extensive damage to other structures in the region she is extremely unlikely to experience sex as pleasurable, and may find it painful. She is not able to reproduce without assistance and further cutting. These are common effects of infibulation.
If this is what makes FGM unethical (it's not), then simply removing the hood is okay by the above standard.
So, while I will agree that circumcism is multilation, at least in the sense of bodily alteration without consent, the effects of a typical circucism are far, far less disabling than FGM. For that reason, I don't think they are comparable. It's like equating losing the tip of your pinkie finger with losing your entire arm. Yes, both are amputations, but in day-to-day life one really is a minor defect (and may pose no difficulty at all) and the other is a severely crippling defect.
Both are human rights violations that need to be banned. That doesn't require them to be worse than other violations. And only the man who lives with the result of a circumcision is entitled to decide whether he finds the result cripping or not. I've talked to men who have never orgasmed via intercourse. If they say that's a problem (or say that the appearance or anything of the other results are problems), then it is. Their standard overrides yours.
Another false dilemma I hear alot on the RIC issue. People say that getting it done as a baby is better than getting it done as an adult.
And that I can't quite fathom - why anyone would think this is less painful for an infant than for an adult I can't imagine. The main difference is that the infant can't articulate his complaint.

I definitely would put up a fuss to prevent this being done to any child under my care (should that ever happen). As I said, I can tolerate a world in which this continues for religious reasons - but only because there are much worse injustices in the world that need attending to, and the impairment of life quality isn't horrific. When we've eliminated problems that leave people truly disabled, hungry, ill, abused, or needlessly dead I'll start campaigning to make circumcism completely illegal.
That will never happen. There will always be something worse than most of the unjustices people face in the world (injustices you aren't putting much work into anyway unless you're donating shitloads to charity or join the Peace Corps). People do not have the right to perform RIC under any circumstances. Nothing changes that. Nor does the fact that infanticide is worse than infibulation entitle African parents to keep their shit up.
Or, to return to my earlier analogy - in an ideal world everyone's arms and fingers would be intact. However, we don't live in an ideal world. I realize that to some people - a professional piano player, perhaps - losing even a portion of a single finger can be a major life trauma, but for most it's an annoyance and disfigurement, but not something that will leave them crippled. Likewise, circumcism is repugnant (except for medical reasons) and may be a major trauma for some, but for most men who have had this done it's not disabling, pre-occupying, or probably even something they think much about. Would it be better for all foreskins and pinkie fingers to be intact? Yes. But it's not an issue I lay awake nights agonizing about.
It doesn't matter if most men do. Some do. And regardless of their opinion, they have the final say in whether their bodies should be altered. I don't need my hair by any standard (mine included). If it gets cut off forcibly, I'll be pissed but it'll grow back. But if someone comes after me with scissors trying to force it on me, I'm entitled to do whatever I have to to stop them, even if they just want to take an inch. It's mine, regardless of what value another person places on it.
User avatar
Metrion Cascade
Village Idiot
Posts: 2030
Joined: 2003-06-14 05:54pm
Location: Detonating in the upper atmosphere

Post by Metrion Cascade »

Icehawk wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:Oh really? So the phrase "can damage your hearing" is an errant one, then? Since, after all, damaged hearing is just a reduced sensitivity to sound.
A mistake on my part, I should have explained it better. The definition of damage states: Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness. In the case of your hearing example, their is an actual impairing of the usefullness of the ear since its sensitivity is now limited (its primary purpose is to sense sound as you should know). HOWEVER, a lowered level of physical sensitivity in a penis doesn't actually impair its usefullness since its primary purposes do not revolve around having a full level of sensitivity.
That's not up to you. If a guy says the main use for his penis is to feel pleasure, that makes it true.
You know, I happen to like those little dangly bits on my ears. If someone decided to take them from me without my consent I'd be rather upset about it. But I guess I shouldn't be, since after all it's only "minor". Am I right?
I can understand how you would initially be angered don't get me wrong, but to dwell on it as a serious issue in your life would be just silly which is the point im trying to make.

Anyways, I think we've all had enough of this whole debate, we all agree here that its an unnecessary procedure that shouldnt be performed unless medically necessity or personal choice dictates it. But I will never hold any animosity against my parents just because my foreskin was cut at birth. Its just not a real issue for me to care about and I will always think its silly for other people to continuously care so much about it over their lives. Initial shock or anger I can understand, but continued animosity or anger towards ones parents or whoever over this particular thing is just irrational and stupid as far as im concerned.
Icehawk, remember when I said you're entitled to be okay with your penis? The flipside of that is that you aren't entitled to tell other guys they have to be okay with the same thing. You're entitled to your opinion on your penis because it's your body. The same right makes another guy's opinion that he was mutilated override your impression of how he "should" feel. There are men who can't orgasm, or have painful erections because they were cut as kids. If they say that's a major problem, you are not entitled to tell them otherwise. If their parents feed them bullshit and refuse to see the light, it's also their prerogative to label their parents child abusers and break ties with them. I don't blame all parents for being fed bullshit information, but if they're shown the facts and ignore them, they're as guilty as the doctors and mohels who do this shit.
User avatar
Metrion Cascade
Village Idiot
Posts: 2030
Joined: 2003-06-14 05:54pm
Location: Detonating in the upper atmosphere

Post by Metrion Cascade »

Stark wrote:I feel like starting a goddamn support group or something. Grrr.
Or something more militant. How sorry would I be if there were violence done to doctors and mohels over this?

::looks for internal moral objection::

Shit, can't find one. :evil:
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Edi »

Icehawk, you're a fucking moron, for reasons Mike and Keevan have already stated. Being circumcised means you have been damaged, and damage is real. Your personal preference and indifference to what you have lost without even knowing do not change that in the least.

As for the effects of circumcised vs uncircumcised condition, here's a personal account of what it means: I happen to have been circumcised as an adult for reasons of medical necessity that I'm not going to go into (and expect a "Fuck you!" as answer to any queries, by way of warning, it's none of your business), but the net effect of it was that I lost half to two thirds of sensitivity there, and a corresponding lessening of intensity of the pleasure when masturbating or having sex. In addition to that, it's less comfortable than being uncircumcised, even several years after the operation. Not to mention that it's easier to get infections as well because the glans is exposed all the time.

Now is there anybody here who is still going to claim it's not damaging a person to circumcise them? Anybody want to cite health reasons for elective circumcision? Circumcisions performed out of legitimate medical necessities (which are rather few) are okay, but others aren't.

Edi
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
Justforfun000
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2503
Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

For Stark

Post by Justforfun000 »

I feel like starting a goddamn support group or something. Grrr.

Is this the sorta stuff thats in those 'Good Parenting' books? My friend has heaps because of his daughter, and they don't have anything about crazy shit like this, they're about looking after your baby.
There ARE support groups. They go hand in hand with restoring. Check this out:


http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Cultur ... storation/
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
User avatar
Justforfun000
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2503
Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by Justforfun000 »

As for the effects of circumcised vs uncircumcised condition, here's a personal account of what it means: I happen to have been circumcised as an adult for reasons of medical necessity that I'm not going to go into (and expect a "Fuck you!" as answer to any queries, by way of warning, it's none of your business), but the net effect of it was that I lost half to two thirds of sensitivity there, and a corresponding lessening of intensity of the pleasure when masturbating or having sex. In addition to that, it's less comfortable than being uncircumcised, even several years after the operation. Not to mention that it's easier to get infections as well because the glans is exposed all the time.
There you go. Straight from someone who knows EXACTLY what the difference is. If someof you out there feel that losing half to two-thirds is basically "minor" damage, then I'd hate to see what you'd consider major.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
h0rus
BANNED
Posts: 372
Joined: 2003-05-23 08:54pm

Re: Circumcision..Child abuse or parental right?

Post by h0rus »

Justforfun000 wrote:They say the first cut is the deepest. :D

I personally never thought much of it for most of my life, but after discovering a great deal of the anti-circumcision movements out there, I've learned a great deal about what I've been missing. Worse, what I'll never have again. In my case I had a Jewish doctor. *Gah*.

In all fairness I don't know if that's the reason he talked my mother into it, but he told her it's "cleaner" and would help prevent infection. After a lot of research I discovered that's all bullshit, and they have basically removed (if I remember correctly) 5 square miles of healthy, extremely sensitive erogenous skin consisting of special components like the frenulum, and meissner's corpuscles as two examples.

All in all, I'm quite annoyed at this mutilation done to me against my will, and I personally think it should be outlawed as severely as female genital mutilation. Of course it's not as SEVERE, but it's no more beneficial either.

What do you think? Should parent's the right to do this to their children for religious reasons?

Obviously the extremely rare cases involving a medical reason would be fine.
This doesn't even require a discussion to decide upon. Religious reasons, or other bs 'studies' aside, no one has any right to mutilate your body. So yes, it is child abuse, by a bunch of hypocrites that need to get their asses kicked in a brutal fashion.
h0rus
BANNED
Posts: 372
Joined: 2003-05-23 08:54pm

Post by h0rus »

Darth_Zod wrote:i think the main reason it's supposedly about preventing infection is due to alot of lazy guys not wanting to pull back their foreskin and wipe it off every once in awhile with soap. being circumcised, i can honestly say i don't remember anything of it happening, as of course i was too young at the time. i'm fairly certain most guys don't. personally i don't really see it as any big deal, unless someone tries to expect you to get a circumcision after you're so many years old that is. then it's a different story, but otherwise no biggie.
I fail to see how keeping your cock inside your sheath would increase the likelyhood of infection. I mean, unless you're dragging your cock around the ground and cutting it up, you're okay. In the case of lint and other shit like that, you merely dampen the area with water to get the stuff off. Soap will only help to dry the area and jack with the skin. Which can... Surprise! Lead to the possibility of wounds which can also get infected.
h0rus
BANNED
Posts: 372
Joined: 2003-05-23 08:54pm

Post by h0rus »

Frank Hipper wrote:I've never come across a single convincing medical argument for circumcision on infants.
Adults are a different story, apparently there's a condition that results in the foreskin becoming too tight to allow for erections without extreme discomfort.
That condition can also happen in the youth too. Infact, I too had problems with tightness in my foreskin. It became hard to pull down the skin. Over time though, it 'loosened' up and I was able to pull it down without problems.
Skelron
Jedi Master
Posts: 1431
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:48pm
Location: The Web Way...

Post by Skelron »

I've got to say this has degenerated somewhat we have a claim from one poster insulting Icehawk for not accepting others interpretation of the effect being Circumzied has had on them as being valid, and then we have people attacking Icehawk for his view that it is not worth getting worked up about.

We have calls for it to be banned, and attacks on it as religious nonsense. etc, in the end, it should not be banned, simply because as an issue I would view it as small scale, while before banning anything that can generate such emotions I'd want it to be a life and death situation. In banning Circumsicion you would have to include legislation taking into account religious exceptions, and such, by the time you had finished the document would likely not be worth the paper it was written on, on the other hand. Or you could out right ban it barring Medical reasons, and be discrimanating against a section of soceity.

Either way renders a Ban worthless or worse.
From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '
h0rus
BANNED
Posts: 372
Joined: 2003-05-23 08:54pm

Post by h0rus »

NapoleonGH wrote:circumcision, has been shown to reduce infections, especially with STDs if I recall correctly, thus i'd see it as a public health move, and parents have the rights to agree to any medical proceedures for their minor children.
Bullshit, condoms, and not sleeping with every skank that spreads her legs is a better public health move, if it would be done enmass. Once you get down with someone you trust, you could fully enjoy sexual arousal, seeing as you aren't desensitized down there from being cut. That's my ideal approach. I see it as misinformed jackasses trying to take a hammer to a screw approach. It is unfortunate that morons can decide the rest of their life for their children. Hopefully this can be done away with, in favor of protection of the bodies of those who can't decide for themselves yet. Unless It has imperitive medical purpose (i.e immediate loss of life, permanent disablity otherwise), I fail see to why circumcision should be done for chlidren premptively. You're assuming a lot about a persons future sexual habits, and accepting a procedure based on those grounds. I would prefer strong sexual education, and heavy distroing of contraceptives in schools. The hell with those religious nuts who don't give a damn about their children.
User avatar
Justforfun000
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2503
Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by Justforfun000 »

Infact, I too had problems with tightness in my foreskin. It became hard to pull down the skin. Over time though, it 'loosened' up and I was able to pull it down without problems.
This is COMPLETELY normal and in fact, is the natural design of the body. What's sad is that most doctors didn't know enough about uncut dicks to know this and there was a lot of unnecessary pulling back and trying to clean underneath. Pretty bad when your medical care specialist are ignorant of a simple bodily function. :roll:

Oh, Here's a poll going on right now as to whether circumcision should be illegal. Apparently there are a preponderance of sick fucks out there that think it's perfectly fine. Last check on my part it was 73% saying no it shouldn't be. :shock:

http://www.newscentral.tv/

(bottom right of page)
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
h0rus
BANNED
Posts: 372
Joined: 2003-05-23 08:54pm

Post by h0rus »

Saurencaerthai wrote:Pardon the grammar. Should read "Besides, I consulted a number of my female friends at one point and many expressed a preference of circumcised over uncircumcised.)
Selfishness has decided for them. That, and bad experiences with sexually inexperienced men, who 'cum too quickly'.
h0rus
BANNED
Posts: 372
Joined: 2003-05-23 08:54pm

Post by h0rus »

NapoleonGH wrote:all i know is if i enjoyed sexual activity and orgasm any more than I already do then i would NEVER get any work done and never do anything but chase girls, so i really dont see a problem with having been circumsized, and better that it was done before I was old enough to remember the pain
What a pithy excuse for a mutilation. I love how you retroactively justify what was done without your consent. Reminds me of that idiot baptist I know of who excuses his parents harsh behaviour towards him, because in the airforce 'he saw the world as it really is': loosely paraphrasing it. I.e There are a lot of bad people in the world, so people treating you like crap is character building and therefore acceptable. Bullshit. Just like those sadistic parents who always claim 'When, you come of age, you will understand why I do, what I do'.
User avatar
Justforfun000
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2503
Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by Justforfun000 »

We have calls for it to be banned, and attacks on it as religious nonsense. etc, in the end, it should not be banned, simply because as an issue I would view it as small scale, while before banning anything that can generate such emotions I'd want it to be a life and death situation.
I just cannot understand this viewpoint. Why is it that so many people think it's such a "small" issue just because it doesn't COMPLETELY fuck up your ability to have sex? So you are left with SOME sensitivity, be happy with that. Why get worked up about someone reducing it to less optimal potential?

I also don't understand how any issue can be judged as not being worthy enough to ban based on someone's opinion on it being "too minor", regardless of it being completely unethical and indefensible.
In banning Circumsicion you would have to include legislation taking into account religious exceptions
And why would you have to do that? They don't take into account religious exceptions when it's FEMALE genital mutilation in the "modern" world countries.

The reason is because they have all agreed unequivocably that it is a violation of the human body and a human rights issue that should be addressed by banning. The ONLY difference here is the male circumcision is still not looked on as seriously because it ISN'T as damaging. But so what? It's still wrong under the same damn principle. It's mutilation with no good goddamn reason unless medically warranted.

FUCK the religious butchers. If you want to wait until you are older and do it yourself, then fine. Butcher your dick and be sorry for the rest of your life with something less than your birthright. But there is no fucking way anyone should be arbitrarily making that decision for you, ESPECIALLY when it's a religious reason.
Or you could out right ban it barring Medical reasons, and be discrimanating against a section of soceity.
And you would consider "discrimination" to be more important than protection of children's bodily integrity? And their right to choose?

My God, I know we're all entitled to our opinions, but when I see people just not getting the concept of this being completely WRONG to force on another human being, I worry.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Napoleon, you are so fucking stupid that it hurts.

First on the list of things to do is ban it for stupid religious reasons. It isnt fucking discrimination you dumb asshole, it's protecting the rights of minors...in case you've forgotten, there are wierdo religious groups that think fucking kids is okay...we do NOT make exceptions to the law for them. Why the fuck do it for the dickheads that get thier jollies cutting bits off little boys?
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Tribun
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2164
Joined: 2003-05-25 10:02am
Location: Lübeck, Germany
Contact:

Post by Tribun »

Btw. I somewhere heared, that it is common practise to do that to 90% of all newborn males in the U.S. But why? Is there some kind of "Jew-lobby", which wants to extent thier stupid cutting custom to all males?

I Europe the doctor who did this simply because he thinks it should be done would be jailed.....
Skelron
Jedi Master
Posts: 1431
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:48pm
Location: The Web Way...

Post by Skelron »

Of course it's discrimination, if you ban it and do not take into account a legitmate religious belief, to shout the claim that there are wierdo cults is a fallacy. There are wierdo cults who believe in all amnor of things, but the Hebrew Religion is not a Weirdo cult, it has been in existence longer than most of todays nations.

It has adherents all over the world, and simply put banning the practice of Circumsision would be impossible if you did not place into effect a Religious clause. Why simply because you would find Parents going abroad before the birth of their Child, having him Circumsised and then returning to the country.

Of course after the first few instances of this, a parent wouldn't even need to do this, since the police and social services do not have the time to investigate every new Jewish Parent, to see if A.) They have been abroad recently, and B.) if their child is Circumsised. (You do realise the cost of investigating such a situation as the above would be astronmical or else the Law would be ignored completly as no funds would be made availble.)

And even removing the Jewish issue, how would you enforce such a law on the non-Jewish sections of the population? Mandatory checking of a baby's Penis? Or would you wait for the matter to be reported by a Nanny or a Nurse, which would be a hard case to prove in court, simply as the amount of evidence a lawyer could throw forwards is astronmical.

'Your Honour, the Defendents went abroad for their holidays this year, to a nation where the Circumsion of a baby is legal, can the prosecution prove that the procedure did not take place while the defendents where on holiday, therefore not breaking any laws?'

In the end it would be a mammoth waste of paper, totally unworkable as a law.
From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod »

Skelron wrote:Of course it's discrimination, if you ban it and do not take into account a legitmate religious belief, to shout the claim that there are wierdo cults is a fallacy. There are wierdo cults who believe in all amnor of things, but the Hebrew Religion is not a Weirdo cult, it has been in existence longer than most of todays nations.


exactly what makes circumcision a legitimate religious practice? you're intentionally mutilating a child. Nowadays it has absolutely no reason to be performed. the only people at risk from any kind of health problems are the lazy fucks that don't take the time to peel back their foreskin and wash their dicks.
It has adherents all over the world, and simply put banning the practice of Circumsision would be impossible if you did not place into effect a Religious clause. Why simply because you would find Parents going abroad before the birth of their Child, having him Circumsised and then returning to the country.


so in other words because everyone else is doing it it's okay? :roll:
Of course after the first few instances of this, a parent wouldn't even need to do this, since the police and social services do not have the time to investigate every new Jewish Parent, to see if A.) They have been abroad recently, and B.) if their child is Circumsised. (You do realise the cost of investigating such a situation as the above would be astronmical or else the Law would be ignored completly as no funds would be made availble.)
you would have to get a doctor actually willing to perform the operation. most people don't have the kind of money needed to simply fly out of the country, and pay a doctor just to circumsize their child.
And even removing the Jewish issue, how would you enforce such a law on the non-Jewish sections of the population? Mandatory checking of a baby's Penis? Or would you wait for the matter to be reported by a Nanny or a Nurse, which would be a hard case to prove in court, simply as the amount of evidence a lawyer could throw forwards is astronmical.
the parents aren't the ones that do the circumcision. it's the doctors that perform the operation, or did you not know this?
'Your Honour, the Defendents went abroad for their holidays this year, to a nation where the Circumsion of a baby is legal, can the prosecution prove that the procedure did not take place while the defendents where on holiday, therefore not breaking any laws?'

In the end it would be a mammoth waste of paper, totally unworkable as a law.
i'd say that removing a physicians medical license if they're caught performing these kind of operations would be a great way to enforce it.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Skelron, welcome to the appeal to tradition.

It's a fallacy.

Also, introducing, the appeal to popularity.

It's a fallacy too.

Now grow a fucking brain.
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Rye
To Mega Therion
Posts: 12493
Joined: 2003-03-08 07:48am
Location: Uighur, please!

Post by Rye »

Skelron wrote:Of course it's discrimination, if you ban it and do not take into account a legitmate religious belief, to shout the claim that there are wierdo cults is a fallacy.
"Legitimite religious belief" that includes ritual imposed scarification is immoral. That's the way it is.
There are wierdo cults who believe in all amnor of things, but the Hebrew Religion is not a Weirdo cult, it has been in existence longer than most of todays nations.
So? Still weird, just weird and old.
It has adherents all over the world, and simply put banning the practice of Circumsision would be impossible if you did not place into effect a Religious clause. Why simply because you would find Parents going abroad before the birth of their Child, having him Circumsised and then returning to the country.
If people want to mutilate themselves via plastic surgery, circumcision, whatever when they're older, then let them. Otherwise it's abuse of another human being.
And even removing the Jewish issue, how would you enforce such a law on the non-Jewish sections of the population? Mandatory checking of a baby's Penis? Or would you wait for the matter to be reported by a Nanny or a Nurse, which would be a hard case to prove in court, simply as the amount of evidence a lawyer could throw forwards is astronmical.
Stop non-surgeons legally from having the ability to do it. Then put it under the same constraints as plastic surgery.
EBC|Fucking Metal|Artist|Androgynous Sexfiend|Gozer Kvltist|
Listen to my music! http://www.soundclick.com/nihilanth
"America is, now, the most powerful and economically prosperous nation in the country." - Master of Ossus
Skelron
Jedi Master
Posts: 1431
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:48pm
Location: The Web Way...

Post by Skelron »

1.) You'd be surprised at what people will do to keep up with the Traditions of several thousend years, if they believe it, they will find a way to afford it, and buying a Plane ticket is not that expensive these days. As a quick proof of this I will now look at how much it would cost to fly from London to Zurich for a ticket flying out on the 23rd April, the first day of this route, for two Adults, it would cost if I was booking today £111.99 and if I was willing to wait one more day £51.99. The return fare anywhere from between £36.99 to £66.99 assuming the worst on this quick test I would be looking at a total fare of £178.98 for two Adults return.

Hardly a great expense, so the argument that people could not afford to just jump on a plane and go seems a little defunct. As for why do it, tradition, a link to the past, and the road others have traveled before you.

Yes it's the Doctor that performs the act, but what does this matter, erm are you expecting a Doctor that performed an illegal act to write a nice little report on it, before his staff and submit it to the records! Of course not it would be done at home, or at a place of worship, by a doctor sympathetic to the religion or a Rabbi, so you'd still be reduced to seeking a third party to report the issue, or did that not occur to you?

Oh yes remove the Doctors Medical licence... erm you seem to be rather missing a key point... YOU have to prove the Doctor/Family guilty first, that is you either have to catch them in the act, or find concrete evidence. Any investigation is going to run into hurdles so overwhelming that it renders the point of an investigation moot, and a waste of resources, the conviction rate would be pitiful.
From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '
Post Reply