Look, I am married to an uncircumcised man and have 3 uncircumcised sons. It was an issue I thought about a lot and made some educated decisions about.
But even I think you are WAY over the to on this one. Rape? Child abuse? This is crazy talk. I think circumcision is unnecessary, but parenting is all about making decisions every day Well meaning, good parents make decisions I disagree with all the time, and you know, that’s okay.
Recently, there was a baby boy born at the local hospital who was healthy but had no eyelids. They conveniently tried to use the circumcision skin to make some eyelids for him.
But he’ll be cock-eyed!
Yes, but think of the foresight he’ll have!
That one is so old you should be ashamed for posting it.
I was born in 1972 and AFAIK circumcising boys was just part of the standard procedure at the time (in Australia anyway), like cutting the cord or making sure the kid is breathing.
I have two small boys now who are uncircumcised, no particular reason apart from a dislike of any surgery that isn’t necessary to fix a specific problem - that conversation lasted about 5 seconds when the first kid was on his way:
Mrs Pope: “Should be get him circumcised?”
Me: “Meh. Do you really care?”
Mrs Pope:“Nope.”
Me: “Me either.”
The procedure wasn’t even mentioned in the lead up to the birth or during my wife’s stay in hospital. Presumably these days you need to make a special request.
I am unashamed. It’s an oldie but a goodie.
Look at the mother on your left. Now look at the mother on your right.
Both of them are sex offenders.
Just remember, for every mother out there, there’s a motherfucker.
And according to the OP, every guy who’s circumcised is a son of a bitch.
When trolls troll trolls, trolls troll forever
And when mothers circumcise trolls, motherfuckers fuck troll rapists.
Off topic but for the sake of accuracy Angela Merkel has not overthrown the Cologne judges decision - as the Head of Government of a liberal democracy she can’t overrule judges. She’s said she is opposed to it but it will need a higher court to overturn the decision.
ps She’'s no kids so probably not a rapist!
Foreskins to the left of me, rapists to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
If the OP has not tried to prosecute his own mother then he is just a fucking lieing, shit-eating, baby-raping, circumcising troll.
The OP should date Madonna
It’s taking longer than we thought…
I thought one was supposed to. Incorrect?
Compare it to theKim Tran case. Remember that one?
You would rightly say, “But those aren’t the same thing!” Not exactly, but let’s look at the differences and see if circumcision moves out of its orbit:
-The victim in the Tran case had half his penis cut off, way more than is lost in circumcision. Yup. At this point we are getting into more of an analogy with the most lurid cases of FGM. But what if the Tran case had amounted to a circumcision? What if she had the guy tied up, took a kitchen knife and only cut off his foreskin? Clearly she violates rules against trained medical staff performing circumcisions in this case, but still, do you think the police would have ignored it? Do you think the victim would have ignored it? I think if we adjust the Tran case to more closely resemble circumcision, it still winds up 1st degree sexual assault.
EDIT: Spontaneous submit. Continued in next post.
[quote=“Meyer6, post:124, topic:628278”]
-The victim in the Tran case is an adult. Yup. I’m concerned about infant circumcision. But in general, aren’t crimes committed against helpless children considered more severe than those committed against adults?
-The victim in the Tran case was handcuffed. Yup. But of course infants are helpless by their nature. This one is a wash, notable because this kind of thing seems to happen alot to helpless people and not much to willing people.
-Tampering with evidence? Let’s just ignore that.
-The relationship in the Tran case is lovers, not parent-child. Yup. I think this is your only argument, to show that the ‘sexual’ part of the first degree sexual assault charge derives from the relationship and not the nature of the crime. But of course giving birth is about as sexual as it gets, but then again… but someone is just going to make a poop joke in this forum.
-In the Tran case, the motive is vengeance or malice, not so in circumcision. Yup. And I’d be willing to concede that a mere barren, featureless vapidity for a motive might mitigate the crime to some degree. But would it absolve one of responsibility? Consider:
Officer: Sir, are you aware of how fast you were going back there?
Yokel Guy: derp… derp…derp…
Officer: OK, forget it. I am issuing you a ticket for speeding.
Isn’t that how it works? Unless the vapidity is excessive such that the officer asks the offender to step out of the car…
Ultimately I am saying that if we treated a just-born person as a real person with legal and human rights, and someone came along and chopped off some fraction of their penis without consent-or-a-medical rationale (or a religious one), we would rightly regard that as (at least) a case of first degree sexual assault.
There are other differences between the cases I’m sure, you are welcome to point them out and argue that circumcision should not share the same first degree sexual assault status as the Kim Tran case. That’d be refreshing, as I’m seeing a lot of denial-driven strawman bullshit being bandied about in this thread. I think you’d lose that argument, but I bet it won’t happen to begin with.
And of course as of today circumcision for no reason whatsoever is not on the books as a crime, so of course there can be no prosecution of anybody on my part. Or can there? Legally I’d go after the hospital and merely label your mother a sex offender. But time and money would prohibit, and maybe it could be settled.
HA!
That’ll be the day! I have been smothered by my schedule lately. I can’t get a freaking minute! I’m so busy I have literally skipped meals. I wish!!!
But one thing especially I do not have time for is to deliver the proper reproof to every instance of knavery as required by so many of the responses to this thread.
You need to put down the paint thinner.
I am not engaging in manufactured victimhood and have no motive toward that ‘status’. I don’t seek pity. If you aren’t bothered by this, ultimately that is your business. I do suspect if you viewed it in a certain (and certainly truthful) way you would certainly object to it, but your ‘rejection of victimhood’ could easily be the result of something like letting sleeping dogs lie, as any attempt to change the state of affairs would be futile anyway. I agree, the feelings you describe do not ‘automatically appear in circumcised men’; however, they can certainly arise without the subject ever buying a ticket to any I-need-attention conventions.
How’s that?
Then there’s AIDS Cure Is Back on Agenda
And there is always the circ wiki:
In a word: inconclusive.
Why are you in such a rush to perform an amputation on an infant for a disease that very well may be cured by the time the ‘patient’ even reaches puberty, especially considering that said benefit is itself questionable?
Long story short, I think Talmudic law and Sharia law deserve more respect than a lot of people display.
Long story short, the absence of justice in the world is a classical and perennial problem. People react in all sorts of ways, mostly futile if not foolish. Muslims and Jews however devised systems of laws, truly monumental steps in the history of resistance to injustice IMHO.
My position is a little convoluted. Do I approve of theocracy? Not really. Do I agree with all of the conclusions of Talmudic or Sharia laws? Obviously not. But these are ancient traditions and honorable, worthy attempts. It is apparently what is best to them and I am not going to contradict them on the validity of their religions. If sincere religious people submit their kids to circumcision for reasons deriving from religious law, I am not going to stop them. I am not the guy that replaces their rabbi or imam or what-have-you. And compared with these systems, modernity hasn’t been around very long. They have a lot of inertia, and not for no reason.
A lot of people criticize how these systems arrive at their conclusions, and I can see why. But it isn’t my place to revise such a thing for their practice. Look, today Muslims do not fight with the weapons they used over a millennium ago- today they use guns, rockets, fighter jets and so on in recognition of the ongoing conversation in that field. Eventually they may change their policy on circumcision on their own. I’m not going to be the one to force the issue for them.
But circumcision for no good reason? In that case I refer you to the thread title.
Circ isn’t rape. It may be worse if it isn’t justified. But that discussion can’t happen here.