-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Szeppelin
you actually think this issue is one of the reasons you don't have children? I could almost hsit laughing at this. what's one of the many reasons why you're not married?
It's off topic but I'll bite - when I was young and stupid I didn't want to rush to get married and have children only to discover that I was gay later in life and drag my family through a messy divorce. It's easy enough to resolve now, I just tell any women that I am dating that I like men too - hell - I advertise it prominently on dating sites - that way they can decide for themselves if it is something they can live with before we invest years in the relationship. How about you?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
@Velorex- It is illegal to tattoo a baby coz there are no millions claiming it is their religiouse/cultural right to. If there were, it would still be a violation of a babies rights just to suit it's parents beliefs. Same as circumsission for non-medical reasons.2yo's having their ears pierced is stupid and supperficial IMO, but the hole can heal. Circumsission is ireversable. The baby will NEVER get to chose how they want their own body. Vegitarian parents lose their 'no choice' agenda when the child moves out or can get to a cafe etc. Difference being, choices can be made by the individual eventually.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Long Duck Dong
humankind revolves, learns and changes its ideas..... but honesty, fran, your constant judgmental and opinionated ways of expressing yourself about other people, are most of the reason that people avoid listening to people like you.....
speak up about what you believe in by all means... but seriously, get your head out of your ass..... a child molester as you have called some medical experts and specialists, is a term that most people would associate with one of the lowest forms of life to breath air, they are often isolated in prison for their own safety and well being .... and well any intelligent person can see in the papal thread that nobody in that thread is talking about doctors and nurses in the catholic church......
I know that you will justify your actions by arguing that its a shock tactic to get the biggest reaction, from people, using a very offensive and dangerous label for a person.... and never mind the fact that mislabeling a person with such a dangerous label, can destroy a persons life.......... and its for that sake that I am thankful that you are not a parent..... as its parents that would not sacrifice their own beliefs for the sake of their children, that often place their children at the most risk....
and yes do the big song and dance about how you act around kates children,... but they are still kates children, and not your own.... its harder for your ideas to be challenged when its not your own flesh and blood that is the basis for the challenge to your beliefs.... and hence why its easier to call others, child molesters than face the fact that you would be a unfit mother
I haven't done any song and dance 'bout how I act around my partner's children.. others make the song and dance about how they are not my own.. one is.. in the eyes of the law.. I would have thought it was more difficult for my ideas to be challenged if they were my natural children.. just shows what thought did.. but I can tell u this.. if I had a son of my own body, there is not a cat in hells chance I would allow any medical profession near his penis to remove its foreskin save that there were pressing medical need.. if anything my ideas would be firmer and my resolve greater.. u may well believe me to be a rigid, doctrinaire unfit mother.. but like all parents I have learned on the job so to speak.. and many of the illusions I had about raising children have been shown to be pie in the sky... but we adapt and learn through experience and care for and protect our children as best we are able... and oddly enough...many of those illusions have been shown not to be illusions... but have become the reality...
I don't accuse parents, who, after receiving advice from medical professionals that their child be circumcised, of molestation.. parents do things out of love and out of concern for their children and many follow the advice of those who "know best"... I am much less kind to the medical professional who advises circumcision. In the US there is money in circumcision and being a natural cynic about such things, I firmly believe that money plays its part in why so many US medical professionals advise as they do...what else is it when, without our informed consent, a part of our body is removed? An infant or young child cannot consent because he does not have the capacity or ability to consent... I have nothing against circumcision.. I never have... as long as that person is of an age to decide for himself that it should be done and is provided with the information to enable him to make that decision..
In this country parents have attempted to use the law to have their infant daughters' breast tissue removed as a precaution against breast cancer... the courts told them where to get off.. rightly so too.. but I am not opposed to women having their breasts removed..if that is their wish and they have the information available for them to make that decision.. neither do we allow female circumcision to be done on a child.. yet, I have no objection to a woman deciding to proceed with having their genitals mutilated if they are of an age to decide for themselves for cultural or religious reasons that they be done as long as they have the information, proper medical care and are not subject to undue pressure. Informed consent.. just what are people afraid of? I don't think I am being unreasonable in that people should have the maturity, knowledge and the awareness to be allowed to decide for themselves what to do with what is after all their body.
I don't accuse people of being unfit parents because they decide to proceed with having their sons circumcised.. I think they are wrong, and yes I would make it illegal save in cases of medical need, but I don't believe that their belief and their decision makes them unfit to raise their children.. every parent makes decisions which prove to be wrong and I am no different...Kate is no different.. but that doesn't make she or I unfit to raise a child.. and neither do our beliefs and our exercise of them..
..and Gear, while u are right about piercings, it is not up to us to decide whether either of our children have their ears or any other part of their body pierced... our elder has piercings including one through her snitch,and has ear piercings at least since she decided at the age of 7 to have it done... I was about the same age.. at 7 I do think a child has sufficient awareness to be able to decide, and to accept the knowledge of the reality.. and so it has proved.. it is aesthetic.. it also fucking hurts and smarts however fleetingly...*laffs*... she discussed it at length with her father and mother (Kate's parents) who agreed because as I understand it they felt she was mature enough to deal with it... Lou is beginning to show an interest in part because of peer pressure, and it is under discussion although as yet not very seriously.. but u know how kids can be once an idea pops into the head!! But it will be her decision if and when we feel she is old enough to make that decision for herself which as yet neither of us believe to be the case.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
@ DD & LDD- Please start a thread about nonbiological parents. I'm sure it would very informative and clear up some points you have made here. As you haven't gone into much detail on this thread, you both come accros as a pair of ignorant dumb schoolgirls having a bitch at Fran. So if you realy have a point, explain it to us please.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gearbox
@ DD & LDD- Please start a thread about nonbiological parents. I'm sure it would very informative and clear up some points you have made here. As you haven't gone into much detail on this thread, you both come accros as a pair of ignorant dumb schoolgirls having a bitch at Fran. So if you realy have a point, explain it to us please.
You don't have a clue, Gear. Fran and I have been around this issue before about stating that circumcision is molestation of children. She knows very well how offensive it is yet she is the first to bitch about people using terms other might find offensive like tranny or shemale. So spare me your butting in, you are the one sounding very ignorant right now. I am the mother of three sons, you have a daughter. It's a moot point now isn't it?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DuckiesDarling
You don't have a clue, Gear. Fran and I have been around this issue before about stating that circumcision is molestation of children. She knows very well how offensive it is yet she is the first to bitch about people using terms other might find offensive like tranny or shemale. So spare me your butting in, you are the one sounding very ignorant right now. I am the mother of three sons, you have a daughter. It's a moot point now isn't it?
He is also a male... hardly moot...
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
He is also a male... hardly moot...
It is moot when he has never been in the position of having to decide whether or not circ a child. Still moot.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
I haven't done any song and dance 'bout how I act around my partner's children.. others make the song and dance about how they are not my own.. one is.. in the eyes of the law.. I would have thought it was more difficult for my ideas to be challenged if they were my natural children.. just shows what thought did.. but I can tell u this.. if I had a son of my own body, there is not a cat in hells chance I would allow any medical profession near his penis to remove its foreskin save that there were pressing medical need.. if anything my ideas would be firmer and my resolve greater.. u may well believe me to be a rigid, doctrinaire unfit mother.. but like all parents I have learned on the job so to speak.. and many of the illusions I had about raising children have been shown to be pie in the sky... but we adapt and learn through experience and care for and protect our children as best we are able... and oddly enough...many of those illusions have been shown not to be illusions... but have become the reality...
I don't accuse parents, who, after receiving advice from medical professionals that their child be circumcised, of molestation.. parents do things out of love and out of concern for their children and many follow the advice of those who "know best"... I am much less kind to the medical professional who advises circumcision. In the US there is money in circumcision and being a natural cynic about such things, I firmly believe that money plays its part in why so many US medical professionals advise as they do...what else is it when, without our informed consent, a part of our body is removed? An infant or young child cannot consent because he does not have the capacity or ability to consent... I have nothing against circumcision.. I never have... as long as that person is of an age to decide for himself that it should be done and is provided with the information to enable him to make that decision..
In this country parents have attempted to use the law to have their infant daughters' breast tissue removed as a precaution against breast cancer... the courts told them where to get off.. rightly so too.. but I am not opposed to women having their breasts removed..if that is their wish and they have the information available for them to make that decision.. neither do we allow female circumcision to be done on a child.. yet, I have no objection to a woman deciding to proceed with having their genitals mutilated if they are of an age to decide for themselves for cultural or religious reasons that they be done as long as they have the information, proper medical care and are not subject to undue pressure. Informed consent.. just what are people afraid of? I don't think I am being unreasonable in that people should have the maturity, knowledge and the awareness to be allowed to decide for themselves what to do with what is after all their body.
I don't accuse people of being unfit parents because they decide to proceed with having their sons circumcised.. I think they are wrong, and yes I would make it illegal save in cases of medical need, but I don't believe that their belief and their decision makes them unfit to raise their children.. every parent makes decisions which prove to be wrong and I am no different...Kate is no different.. but that doesn't make she or I unfit to raise a child.. and neither do our beliefs and our exercise of them..
you are using everything that you can to justify your stance... which is fine... you do not like circumcision,......
I know that you will argue that you are using a dictionary term for molestation...you have done it in the past....... and that you are using the term molestation, meaning to interfere with.....
a simple request from a circumcised male.... all I am asking, is what others have asked.... can you stop referring to circumcised children as children that were molested.... there are many circumcised males that are 100% sure that we were not molested by a child molester, we were circumcised...... and can you stop calling medical people child molesters, our parents never willingly put us in the arms of a child molester..... but you put that label on us and others.....
be a lil more sensitive, will you..
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I think that someone like showguy has a valid and interestingly worthwhile position to pay attention to. The fact that many men in North America were circumcised at birth made it the norm while in Europe circumcision was not the norm. Unlike show guy, I can not compare. I have no concern/anxiety about being circumcised. Showguy mentions sensitivity issues. Did he find that before being circumcised that he had early ejaculation issues more so than after circumcision? It probably varies from uncircumcised guy to guy. I know of one guy whose foreskin doesn't retract when hard. He tends to cum quickly and has little control. I know another guy whose foreskin retracts when hard and he seemed to have a bit more control over his orgasm. Then we have aging and that is possibly a factor as well. Showguy waited until his 30's and may have developed better control methods by then(more in tune with his body & penis).
Those that have circumcision for religious purposes should have a right but it is probably best to not circumcise male infants in today's society. If it happened to guys like me, most of us are fine with it. It is all that we know. I am happier to have it done when a two day old infant than show guy later in life in my 30's.
"I am the mother of three sons, you have a daughter.
Clearly, we have read her story before in this thread and others. She seems to suffer from what appears a lot of guilt despite her protests. Other hetero and bisexual mothers on this site do not seem to get so upset and rant on in attack mode of others. What we haven't read is if she is the custodial parent of three sons. Do her (at least teen?) sons resent that she had them circumcised and watched(control issues much)? Where was her husband in this decision? She has previously posted that she made the decision and not her husband. I got the impression that he had no say(or was not around or didn't care is the impression her posts have given me). Personally, I think that the husband should be making this decision for his sons to a greater extent than the mother. If the father didn't want his sons circumcised, that should be it. The wife should have nothing to say. If the husband wanted his sons circumcised and the wife didn't, I don't know what the medical doctor should do. Probably the doctor should refuse to circumcise the boy.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
No DD I've never been in the possition to decide if a son should be circumsised or not. I have a daughter who I chose not to enforce my beliefs on though. Especially if it disfigured her perfectly healthy genitalia for life. That seems unecasarily extreme to me. What you are suggesting is that there is some undefined biological quality between a parent and son that forces a choice on the parents to remove his foreskin or not. Something that no biological parent of a male can understand.That sounds completely unbelievable, so would like to see any research on that if you have it.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gearbox
No DD I've never been in the possition to decide if a son should be circumsised or not. I have a daughter who I chose not to enforce my beliefs on though. Especially if it disfigured her perfectly healthy genitalia for life. That seems unecasarily extreme to me. What you are suggesting is that there is some undefined biological quality between a parent and son that forces a choice on the parents to remove his foreskin or not. Something that no biological parent of a male can understand.That sounds completely unbelievable, so would like to see any research on that if you have it.
No, Gear, I never said there was a quality between a parent and child that forced anything. So you can stop trying to put words into my mouth. I took offense at people being refered to as molested for being circumsized, for the parents being called molesters for circumsizing their sons. So stop trying to bring it back to nothing more than a choice to circ or not circ. It was something decided with my kids doctors and my ex husband. We made the choice for our kids based on medical evidence. I have no guilt over it and nothing anyone can say on this site can try to make me feel guilty. But I will not stand by and be called a child molester or be made to think my children were molested by the fact they were circed. The fact that my middle child was actually molested weighs heavily on my mind and to compare the two is beyond insane.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
"So the wish to allow a baby boy the right to grow up unmolested and not have a quiet important bit of his body lopped off without his informed consent is bigoted hey?"
post 116
darkeyes (guess who?)
Do you not mean "not mutalated"? rather than "unmolested"?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by DD
No, Gear, I never said there was a quality between a parent and child that forced anything. So you can stop trying to put words into my mouth. I took offense at people being refered to as molested for being circumsized, for the parents being called molesters for circumsizing their sons. So stop trying to bring it back to nothing more than a choice to circ or not circ. It was something decided with my kids doctors and my ex husband. We made the choice for our kids based on medical evidence. I have no guilt over it and nothing anyone can say on this site can try to make me feel guilty. But I will not stand by and be called a child molester or be made to think my children were molested by the fact they were circed. The fact that my middle child was actually molested weighs heavily on my mind and to compare the two is beyond insane.
You claimed that Fran not being a biological mother and I not having a son renders our opinions 'moot' to yours. If it's about doctors giving parents of males advice in favour of circumcision then I can see why you'd think that. Most wouldn't question the opinions of doctors when they claim that a 'routine procedure' is in the best interests of their child, especially if we didn't have accsess to the research they had. We'd likely think, "Well they know best!", even if we have no idea what they are talking about.
You can't be blamed for that! Neither can you serously think that Fran was accusing you of sexual molestation. She'd have no reason to, and would call a spade a spade if she did, I'm sure. To molest is to physicaly attack/assault a victim, a violation of persons rights etc. Not just a sexual assault! It's obviouse what sense Fran would use 'molestation' in regards to circumcission. She has explained her views ample times.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
gear, read back thru frans posts, she posted in the past that she uses the words in the way she does, with the intention to shock and offend, as it gets the biggest reaction.......
it should be in the thread where 8 different parents took offense at the way fran was portraying parents that had their children circumcised.... or could it be in the one where circumcised people were being portrayed as mutilated and sexual dysfunctional and the medical experts as sadistic freaks ( fran did not say that ) or it could be the one where circumcised people were hideous and deformed because their parents mutilated them happily... or it could be.....
maybe you get my point.... we are people too, human beings.... but we get treated like some sub class of human being by the people that supposedly care about us and what has happened to us....
as for what DD said, she was referring to the way that people are talking about having young boys circumcised, and out of you, me, fran, tenni and DD, only one of us has been in that situation... you, tenni, and fran are passing judgement on her and others.... and I am just thinking, this is why the majority of the site avoid threads like this....
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Aren't you both using shock tacticts when claiming Fran accuses parents of sexual molestation? Also with your claims of her making others feel sub-Human?
That's a bit OTT!
Fran is on the side of the infant males who have no reasonable need of circumsission, yet their parents force it on them knowing full well how medically unecasary it is. She can not stress that enough!
A cut cock is a deformed uncut cock. There's no two ways about it. It has been deformed. But cut cocks are not hidiouse or grotesque. That is the act of removing forseskin for the sole sake of the parent/guardians without consent nor medical benifit of the child. As Fran pointed out, same goes for adult non consenting nor needing circumcision too. That doesn't happen, coz that is against the law. Infants need equal protection, and that is what the thread is about.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Gear you are fighting a lost cause, Fran will tell you herself she sees it as molestation and that's all she will see. So kindly stop trying to keep the flames of this going. You have no idea what is like to be the parent of a child who has been molested, and I pray to the Goddess you never have to find out.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
no because I never accused fran of that.... I pointed out what most people think of when they hear the words molests and molestor.... by using the papal thread as a example of how the words molest and molestor are used, NOT sexual molestor..... and others have pointed out the same thing in other threads .... so implying that we are claiming that fran is accusing parents of sexual molestation, is actually you twisting what fran says which is MOLESTATION......
forcing circumcision on their children ? that implies that parents choose to act in a manner that is akin to inflicting intentional harm on a child.... yet when I countered that argument in another circumcision thread, with the rule of thumb that forcing surgery on a child, is forcing pain and suffering on a child, the argument against that, was no, because its done out of love, therefore its different...... try telling a child that surgery hurts less because you love them and you have removed their choice.... in essence you force them to have surgery.......
a cut cock is a cut cock, your need to call it a deformed cock is your need to see it as something less than a cock..... and I am half expecting you to say that you would never touch a deformed cut cock ... which can be a form of personal choice... but reads like a form of discrimination and like cut males are a form of leper.....
infants need equal protection, I agree, but there are not been a thread in the site, about circumcision, where cut males have not been labeled as deformed, mutilated etc...... gee feel the love.....
so much of the arguments against circumcision, involve put downs, offensive remarks and implications etc about people, parents and circumcised people.... and how we are some freak of nature, deformed etc....
seriously thats not serious and constructive argument against circumcision....its just insulting people and being rude and offensive......
as I have said in other threads, I will argue that medical circumcision is going to be a evil that will be a part of human life, and I will defend its use...... as for other forms of circumcision.... well thats up to those people, their beliefs and their culture...... who am I to dictate how others should live, when I fight for the right to live my life my way......however, I can fight against circumcision without having to lower my standards to the level of people that need to be degrading, insulting and judgmentally offensive, in order to express their opposition to circumcision....
if cut cocks are so *vile * to view... then I would suggest that anybody that dislikes cut cocks, do not have see with cut males, instead of having sex with them then complaining about the cut cock later..........
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Cut cocks and uncut cocks look the same when erect.
Men are erect most of the time.
And some men have such big heads that their foreskin cannot fit over it... And they look circumcises anyway.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
And I think that is enough for now...
- Drew :paw:
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I am going to re-open this thread. I might have jumped the gun a bit.
But please... is there a way to discuss the topic without lacing it with emotionally charged words? Perhaps we all pretend we are scientists... how would scientists debate this issue?
- Drew :paw:
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew
I am going to re-open this thread. I might have jumped the gun a bit.
But please... is there a way to discuss the topic without lacing it with emotionally charged words? Perhaps we all pretend we are scientists... how would scientists debate this issue?
- Drew :paw:
Indeed u did, Droosy Woosy... but ur big enough to see it so ty.. I shall have a few words to say since my name seems to have been dragged through the mud as a judgemental, vindictive, heartless, selfish, thoughtless, evil, nasty bitch.. but I shall be polite and wont rip into peeps as they have ripped into me.. but not 2day, Andrew dear... u will all just have to wait for my pearls of wisdom.. I have a nice romantic evening ahead and wont allow it to be spoiled tyvm:).
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew
I am going to re-open this thread. I might have jumped the gun a bit.
But please... is there a way to discuss the topic without lacing it with emotionally charged words? Perhaps we all pretend we are scientists... how would scientists debate this issue?
- Drew :paw:
Thank you lovely man.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DD
Gear you are fighting a lost cause, Fran will tell you herself she sees it as molestation and that's all she will see. So kindly stop trying to keep the flames of this going. You have no idea what is like to be the parent of a child who has been molested, and I pray to the Goddess you never have to find out.
I am attempting the opposite of 'fanning flames', by pointing out the obvious:- Words have different meanings in different contexts. They will not only have one meaning just coz you decide they do. The accusation of sexual molestation has not been made by Fran in this thread! YES it is a word more recognized for it's sexual context as in 'molested via sex' , and is a poor choice of words due to that common association. But now you know that she doesn't mean what you think, you can relax and not get offended?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDD
infants need equal protection, I agree, but there are not been a thread in the site, about circumcision, where cut males have not been labeled as deformed, mutilated etc...... gee feel the love.....
We agree that infants need protection, and that's what the thread is about.:)
Cut cocks being deformed,mutilated etc is another matter. There is nothing wrong with liking or even preferring cut cocks (on adults). They may be deformed, mutilated versions of what they would have been naturally, but that doesn't mean they are not attractive or even more attractive to some.
Owners of cut cocks need not worry, and I doubt many do.
This thread is concerned with their rights at infancy, and nothing to do with cut/uncut preferences of sexual partners in adulthood.
I personally prefer uncut, but being cut is no big deal to me as a sexual partner.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Blah, Blah, Blah, Potatoe, Patato.......Tomato, Tomoto......around and around this subject has gone for 5 pages, and everyone has voiced their same opinion over and over. Obviously this discussion is going nowhere, so we should all agree to disagree, and start a new thread, IMO.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
well drew you relock the thread, since its clear that the people that are so concerned about the health and wellbeing of other people, are not able to converse with others without using emotionally charged words and basically being offensive to the very people that they supposedly care about, until we grew up and stopped being children whose feelings mattered.......
you were generous enuf to reopen the thread to give people the chance to continue in the thread and debate the matter as intelligent mature adults, but the first two posts right after yours, show that its too emotionally charged for some people to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner, and but simply referring to people as cut or uncut, instead deformed, mutilated, molested etc etc....
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Long Duck Dong
well drew you relock the thread, since its clear that the people that are so concerned about the health and wellbeing of other people, are not able to converse with others without using emotionally charged words and basically being offensive to the very people that they supposedly care about, until we grew up and stopped being children whose feelings mattered.......
you were generous enuf to reopen the thread to give people the chance to continue in the thread and debate the matter as intelligent mature adults, but the first two posts right after yours, show that its too emotionally charged for some people to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner, and but simply referring to people as cut or uncut, instead deformed, mutilated, molested etc etc....
If it's yours and DD's intention to sabotage this thread by claiming offence with certain words, then you make it too obvious by constantly using those words yourselves. Nobody has used them as much as you two.
They are used by myself to explain their meanings to you both, yet you both reject the clinical definitions and enforce the absurd emotive ones.
So why don't we try having an adult discussion without using those words all together? Lets ditch the drama.:)
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gearbox
If it's yours and DD's intention to sabotage this thread by claiming offence with certain words, then you make it too obvious by constantly using those words yourselves. Nobody has used them as much as you two.
They are used by myself to explain their meanings to you both, yet you both reject the clinical definitions and enforce the absurd emotive ones.
So why don't we try having an adult discussion without using those words all together? Lets ditch the drama.:)
did you read what drew said... you had the chance to drop it after drew reopened the thread.....so why restart the issue as soon as you could, then blame other people ?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I'm not sure if someone else on this long thread has pointed out that this religious circumcision argument happened in California a year before the German decisions. The anti circumcision or intactivists as one stated were prevented from getting a law banning circumcision on the ballot
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/02/health...rcumcision-law
To add to this, here is a funny video on trolling which seems to apply to this thread imo. Oh my I hope that they are not offended by this. It is funny...you don't have to watch the entire three hours but it is funny... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPKRMIqbgjs
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
In the California case, the ballot proposal was stricken off on the grounds that it was preempted by state law. In the unlikely event that the ballot proposal had been passed by the voters, it would undoubtedly have been thrown out by the courts on First Amendment grounds.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamieknyc
In the California case, the ballot proposal was stricken off on the grounds that it was preempted by state law. In the unlikely event that the ballot proposal had been passed by the voters, it would undoubtedly have been thrown out by the courts on First Amendment grounds.
Yes, perhaps the same thing but it made reference to state wide rather than municipalities making varying laws on circumcision. The rules were to be uniform across the state.
Jamie
When you write "pre empted by state law", I got the impression that circumcision is legal but was there actually a state law before what Gov Brown did about circumcision? Or was it considered a medical procedure?
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I am not a California attorney, but my understanding is that state law or state regulations already governed this, and a local government ballot initiative cannot override state law, as the state can't do with federal law.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I'm trying to imagine what this would look like.LOL
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...27&version=ESV
I once worked on a cattle and sheep farm, and know what it looks like when they "mark" the lambs, balls all over the place.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamieknyc
Without getting deeper into a pissing match, I will only point out that this sort of thing is the reason why tens of millions of people from every country in Europe emigrated to America.
Really.
Better take a look at the real facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra..._United_States
You won't find Europe in the top 10.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
This thread is about the criminalising of all infant and child circumcision, particularly of that carried out in the name of a God in the light of the decision of a German court... this latter kind of circumcision, where it is not cultural or aesthetic, becomes even more controversial because it involves deeply held personal religious beliefs, and I understand why so many objected to the decision by the German court even if events are fast putting that decision into reverse, and also to my own personal point of view. Yet I have outlined why I think it was a right decision, just as the historical decisions to outlaw many practices by many religions, from witch burning, burning for heresy, to stoning to the lopping off of hands to the burning of widows on a funeral pyre were, in my opinion at least, also right decisions... they were considered barbaric and the wishes of religious leaders was over-ruled by the wishes of the state as human beings struggled to become more enlightened and tolerant in how they saw the world.
If we believe in secular societies, the wishes of the people, through the state, while they must seriously consider the wishes of each religion and the religious views and ideals of those religions' adherents, must consider the wishes of all of its people, of all religions and of none.. it is the duty of the state as protector of the people to protect its people from practices which are generally considered to be wrong, even to the extent of over-ruling custom, practice and often belief of any religion. It is this multi-religious aspect of any society, and the fact that, certainly in the modern era, there are often vast populations who have no religion, at least in part require religion to be subservient to the people through the state and the states elected representatives, and subject very much to the over-riding jurisdiction of secular and religious law..
The state should tread lightly upon religions, yet it must never allow any religion to dictate to it or its people when that people are so varied in religion and belief, and so must draw lines which stop religion, or the leaders and principle of a single religion from running society. The state should not dictate belief, but the state has a duty to decide law for all of its people and occasionally must reign in some of the worst practices of tat belief.. How else would we have abolished the many barbarisms which religions inflicted upon humankind in ages past? Some things were considered too heinous to be allowed to continue.. in western society, we do not allow female circumcision upon infants and the young for any reason other than medical.. are girls any better than boys that we have law against allowing them to undergo their own form of the procedure? Some say it is different, but it is not... it is parents deciding that a child will be surgically modified in some way at the behest of cultural norms and often with a religious overtone.. it is considered different partly because it is an African procedure and therefore so much less important than circumcision of boys and so is in its way considered to be infinitely more primitive and barbaric.. my argument is that it is also it is racist and sexist to allow one and yet not the other.. or as I prefer, to ban one and not the other.. child's right to decide what happens to his or her body when he or she is able to do so has been removed and decisions taken for religious and /or cultural reasons. We have no right to condemn one without condemning the other..
Some have concentrated on my use of the word "unmolested" to illustrate my intolerance of them as parents as I consider them molesters of their children.. this is not the case and have said so if u care to read back and have explained why but shall repeat it and expand upon it but that expansion too will create greater controversy but I can't help that for it is what I believe....... because of a cultural and often religious attachment to circumcision of infants, to some degree parents should accept complicity.. the primary responsibility and even greater complicity is on the one hand, that of the medical professional and institutions in the US certainly who advise and push it for in my opinion.. money and profit primarily.. and on the other those religious leaders and preachers who insist upon it as the will of god..the molesters are those who perform the circumcision procedure... the result of which is of course the mutilation of a perfectly healthy child's penis for no medical reason but for aesthetic, cultural or because it is the will of their religious leaders... I am aware that this is a controversial claim, but it is one in which I sincerely believe. I'd not say it to offend but to explain why I think it..
Every parent makes mistakes and I am no different.. in my opinion, parents who opt for their child to be circumcised have made a mistake, but I will not condemn them for it.. they believe it right and who has the gall to condemn a parent for doing what they believe is right for their child? They bear some responsibility but the primary responsibility is not theirs but the prevailing cultural, medical and religious attitudes which surround them. Battering hell out of children for their own good was once considered a good thing... as was forcing left handed children to write with the right hand and many were severely chastised simply for being left handed.. and historically worse... we have moved on and few believe that now.. and that is what I argue.. we have moved on.. this is not the ancient past.. we supposedly in the west at least live in a more enlightened age. There is no good reason to circumcise a healthy foreskin.. certainly not as a precaution, or even for good hygiene... if we lopped off every part of our body susceptible to serious disease we would not exist... or every part that was likely to become a little less than clean... and no one.. no one in my opinion, has the right to decide for an infant or a child too young to decide for themselves that healthy parts of their body, it doesn't matter which parts, should be removed without good sound medically pressing reasons. That should be the child's decision to make when that child is able so to do when able to absorb all the information and the risk involved, and there is risk.. babies and children do die, and do end up with serious physical and sexual problems because of circumcision even with the best medical care that society can provide..... it is an arrogance for anyone to be so presumptuous, be it parent, church, mosque or state..
If I may answer Darling Darling who claims that all I am interested in is the aspect of molestation of children.. not so.. that certainly, and the resultant mutilation.. but I have written far more about my objection to infant and child circumcision over the last few years in these forums than a simple objection to molestation and even mutilation however much I abhor them.. whenever we are operated on surgically we are mutilated to a greater or smaller degree... some mutilations are even thought to be aesthetically pleasing; breast implants and other cosmetic surgeries for instance.. yes, even circumcision. and people have opted for them for themselves based on information they have been able to absorb and decide accordingly.. my own breast surgery for cancer was necessary, and the subsequent patch up to me was necessary, even if I wouldn't have died as a result of not having the cosmetic part if the surgery was not done. But it was my decision take in the light of all information which I searched out and was provided with... and that is the crux... the decision of the person whose body part is in question... their rights.. rights which in my opinion we all have but which have some decide to remove from children often long before they could even walk or say mama...
If a child requires surgery for good sound medical reasons, and afterwards some cosmetic work done on whatever part of the body, then of course t is a parent's obligation to do the best for that child they can and so few would object to a parent taking that decision on the child's behalf because that child is not capable of understanding or communicating his or her wishes... such a decision is taken to deal with an existing medical problem is a completely different thing from authorising the removal of healthy part of the body because they had it done themselves as a child, on parental whim, or because culture, religion or medical profession says it should be done as a precaution.... Few if any of us would appreciate being told by church or state that we have to have a circumcision because that is how it must be... and being taken against our will, strapped down, often not sedated and having a not insignificant operation on our genitals... we are adults.. we have freedom of choice.. what we call free will.. can we not allow a child to grow and develop his or her own and make that choice for his or herself? None of us would like our rights of control over our own bodies removed.. so what right have any of us to remove the rights of another human being simply because religion, culture or parents think it best when there is no medical need? Do we really think so little of our children? And are religions so lacking in confidence in their believers that they are unable to trust those believers to do "the right thing" when they become mature and well informed enough to decide for themselves what to do about their foreskin? Where is their faith in their followers?
Of course how I am and what I believe according to some, makes me unfit to be a mother. That I care about children and care about children having rights over their bodies which parents should only assume pro tem when there is a pressing medical reason for that to be is somehow a crime in the eyes of some.. I am an adoptive mother and yet my knowledge of children and my belief in the rights of the child and the views I hold make me unfit to be a natural mother...I have been accused of not being fit for purpose in that regard by more than just people on this site, both because of my sexuality and the fact that I do not believe in God, but also because I am not a patriot and refuse to teach our children to be patriots and for a myriad of other reasons. I too get offended at times, but it is not against the law to offend, neither is it my right not to have people say offensive things to me. I am a quite happy for people to speak as they find and as they believe and so am I not to be accorded the same courtesy? Those who throw at us that they are offended by what we say or do, or what we believe are telling us to shut up and stay quiet and wish to restrict our freedom not just to speak but also to believe. I do not go out of my way to be offensive, contrary to what Duckie has tried to make out, but I admit occasionally to doing just as he says...it is not the norm but sometimes circumstances are such that it is the best way to proceed in my view, but whatever we believe and say someone is likely to take offence and that is an unavoidable aspect of living and of having the ability to think speak and act. It is an inevitable consequence of the freedom of speech.
When xsailor posted on this thread again (for very dubious and questionable purposes I may add) I said I didn't intend to get involved but I have allowed myself to be sucked in.. it happens.. after this post I will say no more but I do find it sad that some posters have both ignored and minimised the overwhelming bulk of the contributions I made and concentrated so much on one word.. it is an important word I accept but it is not the most important aspect of anything I or others have said. My opposition to circumcision of infant or young boys is far more than about molestation or mutilation.. these posters have almost trivialised their importance by emotive over emphasis as well as inaccuracies in what I actually said and used that aspect to garner support and distract from the wider case against infant and child circumcision.. their choice, and good luck to them with it.
There are many hostages to fortune contained in the words I have written for those who detest what I say to get stuck into.. there always are... that's how it goes... no doubt also for those who are broadly in the anti infant circumcision side of the debate... trust me.. in life I have crossed swords with a few of them for my views on infant circumcision.. but if we speak we set ourselves up for criticism and to be shot down in flames..I have tried to stay calm and rational, minimise any offence but know that to avoid offence is unlikely given the controversial nature of the subject matter and knowledge of some of the people on site and off.. but what I say is what I believe and none of what I have said is for any other purpose than to defend both the rights of the child and children themselves.
Sorry about the length.. but a lot needed said.. enjoy the day..
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
fran, you should pull your head out of your ass and realise that its not your opinion about things that is the issue... its what you are saying about other people that is the issue...... as rule two states ( and no I am not using it against you ) flame the idea ( circumcision ) not the people ( the circumcised, the parents, the medical professionals etc etc )..... we have feelings too....
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
It is this multi-religious aspect of any society, and the fact that, certainly in the modern era, there are often vast populations who have no religion, at least in part require religion to be subservient to the people through the state and the states elected representatives, and subject very much to the over-riding jurisdiction of secular and religious law..
Oops.. know I said I'd shut up... but this part should read "over-riding jurisdiction of secular rather than religious law". :)Soz.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
I think circumcision is a human made thing. It is even worse, when done on a woman. It does affect person's sexual life. I had a muslim lover, who was circumcised, and he had problems to cum, because wasn't so sensitive.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Long Duck Dong
fran, you should pull your head out of your ass and realise that its not your opinion about things that is the issue... its what you are saying about other people that is the issue...... as rule two states ( and no I am not using it against you ) flame the idea ( circumcision ) not the people ( the circumcised, the parents, the medical professionals etc etc )..... we have feelings too....
and that comment isn't inflammatory? "somebody" needs to look in a mirror. Your comment to Fran "what you are saying about other people" applies to you in this post... shame on you.
Drew's comment about flaming applies to posters, not third parties.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
We should make responding to this thread by quoting another person's comments forbidden, that forces you to think about the issue rather than start off by immediately attacking another person's credibility.
Don't tell me who personally is "right" or "wrong", tell me about your own personal experience or your own personal thoughts regarding circumcision. Based on your own response about your own experience I will make my own judgment. If the purpose is to solicit feedback then there are no wrong thoughts - but there may be points of view I haven't considered before.
If you cannot respond to the thread by considering the topic only, then maybe it's better not to respond.
Ritual circumcision makes me sad, but it is a fact of life. I know that over the years there is a whole history of medical "professionals" dabbling in "moralism" that contrived everything from the vibrator to the device that pierces the penis or sets off an alarm if a young man touches himself at night. I know that our culture is quite schizophrenic when it comes to sex but I am not still not prepared to condemn my parents for doing what they thought was normal and trying to make it so I fit in with the rest of the group.
As much as I don't like the idea of infants not having a voice I don't think the state should be involved in these sort of matters. When I am a parent then I will be able to decide what is best for my own child, in partnership with my spouse.
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Elain
I agree with your last sentence but have you not posted off topic as well? I will now in part post off topic to respond to your "procedural command".
It is called dialoguing and discussing when a person refers to what another person has written. The difference between some posts are that they are too emotive and personal about others.
The issue that you have posted is about communicating and not circumcision. Should I not refer to your "command" about what "we" should do? Should I phrase it in the personal and tell a story about when someone did X which has nothing to do with the thread topic because it reminds me of what you wrote?
NOPE. The thread is about "what should be done" or not done. One country bans circumcision and another country forbids the banning of circumcision as a law on the municipal level. Both are facts about differing societies dealing with circumcision.
Being emotive seems to be the intent of your proposal rather than logical and factual? That is not debating nor discussing. It is self disclosure but that self disclosure should relate to the topic such as an above post from someone who was intact and then cirucmcised as an adult. He was able to compare the two. His self discloure related to the topic. I think that we get enough emoting on this site..with the crisis threads about "bi boyfriends what should I do"..threads about "do you like your asshole stretched" etc. May we not have some intelligent posts and threads dealing with issues whether they be about bisexuality or some other socio political issue? Are they to be all about emoting and self disclosure?
It seems that some have difficulty debating without personalizing which is the point of rule 2. When will they learn to not make it personal attack rather than about the issue? When will they learn that if someone brings up a controversial idea and they get upset that they need to deal with the issue and not demand censorship. Emoting without fact is just emoting and has no real valid place in such a thread as this.
I agree with Peg about dealing with the idea and pointing out when someone personally attacks by writing such comments as "pull your head out of your ass". In a sense that is group moderation. In a sense drew seems to be realizing that there is a need for some moderation of the post behaviour.
The difficulty is when a poster slurs another poster not addressing what the poster has written. Rule 2 is about dealing with the ideas and not the person. The difference is about "who starts the slur and who merely refers to the slur with agreement or disagreement. If the thread becomes about the slur it fails. It can become a bit of a Catch 22.
I'm not sure about emoting as Elian is proposing.
Back to circumcision. ;) Neither of us have dealt with the facts and opinions of what darkeyes posted. I'm going back to the article itself and think about my own country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know that circumcision may be dealt differently.
Here is the quote from the article that we might want to compare our own country's laws and constitutions. In Canada's section 15 it deals with minority rights. I wonder what is in the German constitution that makes the court decisions the way it is but in the US the court went in a different direction?
"The court in Cologne decided that a legal guardian’s authority over a child does not allow them to subject them to the procedure, which the court called minor bodily harm, reports The Financial Times Deutschland."
-
Re: Religious Circumcision
Quote:
Originally Posted by
elian
We should make responding to this thread by quoting another person's comments forbidden, that forces you to think about the issue rather than start off by immediately attacking another person's credibility.
Don't tell me who personally is "right" or "wrong", tell me about your own personal experience or your own personal thoughts regarding circumcision. Based on your own response about your own experience I will make my own judgment. If the purpose is to solicit feedback then there are no wrong thoughts - but there may be points of view I haven't considered before.
If you cannot respond to the thread by considering the topic only, then maybe it's better not to respond.
Ritual circumcision makes me sad, but it is a fact of life. I know that over the years there is a whole history of medical "professionals" dabbling in "moralism" that contrived everything from the vibrator to the device that pierces the penis or sets off an alarm if a young man touches himself at night. I know that our culture is quite schizophrenic when it comes to sex but I am not still not prepared to condemn my parents for doing what they thought was normal and trying to make it so I fit in with the rest of the group.
When I am a parent then I will be able to decide what is best for my own child, in partnership with my wife.
I agree, Elian.. problem is we talk about personal experiences and are told we are wrong by people who can't possibly experience them to tell us we are wrong. I give up on this thread. Doesn't matter how you point out that words have power and the accusation by anyone to anyone of "molestation" will bring up certain contexts that can cost someone their livelihood without actually being accused and brought into court. Semantics aside, the flamers can just keep flaming, it makes the people who actually do put the health and welfare of their children as the uttermost in their minds look a whole lot better. Personally, I hate when someone pierces a babie's ears cause it looks nice. Doesn't mean I'm gonna accuse them of abuse or molestation or being a bad parent. It's just not a choice I would make. So keep on flaming guys. When Drew steps in I don't want to see a single word typed about the unfairness of the ban or censorship. Rules are clear, you can't follow them then get out of the sandbox with the big boys and girls.