First of all, what a weird case to try to compare to circumcision. I actually don’t remember that case or know much about it, but I’d say the fact that these people were lovers and not parent-child does change the situation substantially. Giving birth is not sexual except in the sense that reproduction is an end result of sex, and if you want to go down that route we’d have to say that pretty much everything is sexual, since reproduction is pretty much central to the human condition. Attempting to describe the relationship between parent and child as sexual or equate it with a sexual relationship is quite a stretch.
An assault like the Tran case clearly has the intention of punishing the victim for some kind of sexual indiscretion (Lorena Bobbitt cut of her husbands penis because he had tried to rape her earlier that night, IIRC). No matter how strongly you feel about circumcising a baby, I can’t imagine that anyone could argue that the parent was attempting to punish their baby for some kind of transgression the baby had committed. Do you believe that intent matters not at all? Do you think that if you assaulted someone and chopped their leg off, you’d get charged with exactly the same crime as a doctor who mistakenly amputated a patients leg (say due to misdiagnosis of a non-cancerous tumour or something)? The intent of the doctor was totally different than the intent of the assaulter.
Circumcision is not typically done without consent. The parents consent to the procedure for their child - parents can consent to many medical procedures for their kids. If you want to complain about circumcisions that are truly done without any kind of consent, I can get behind that.
I’m not sure why you think I’d be unable to respond to your point. Anyways, I don’t see any strawmen in this thread - and just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re in denial.
The flaw in your analogy is that newborns are not legally allowed to make decisions on surgery. If a 2 year old has operable cancer that will, if left untreated, kill her within 5 years, she is not the one who gets to say no to the surgery, because the law does not believe she understands the stakes involved. She does not meet the legal requirements to give informed consent. Her parents are allowed to overrule the child and order the surgery against the child’s wishes, because they are believed to be more aware of the long-term effects of the decision, and deemed to be able to give informed consent on the child’s behalf.
Likewise, ignoring the issue of the newborn actually being able to communicate whether or not he wants a circumcision, his parents have the final decision, because newborns are legally incompetent, and cannot offer informed consent. That’s the law. His parents are authorized by the state to make legal and medical decisions on his behalf, because he is unable to understand and appreciate them. It’s been the law since the beginnings of civilization. The exact opposite of illegal, which is what the term sex offender means.
In other words:
You have absolutely no legal grounds to refuse a circumcision as a newborn. You can argue that that’s wrong, which is a stupid thing to argue given the limited mental abilities and cognitive functioning of newborn children, but you cannot argue that it is illegal, because the law is what it is. There quite literally is no crime here, because it is specifically written into the law to prevent children from making stupid decisions about things they literally cannot understand.
Show me a newborn that meets the legal definition of informed consent, and I’ll give you your argument.
And this, is the ultimate irony in your argument. You decry circumcision as barbaric and cruel, and a sexual crime. But you have an asterisk for those who do it for cultural reasons. What if every single circumcision in this country happens for cultural reasons? What if your mother had you circumcised because she believes in the Talmudic traditions? Is she still a sex offender? You create a loophole in your argument that a 747 could fly through. You decry it in one sentence, and support it in another. Pick a side, and stick with it, don’t try and backtrack to avoid offending people. It shows a lack of integrity. And if you’re not doing it to avoid offending people, then your argument is simply not thought through well enough to cover all cases. It is an incomplete thesis.
Well there are proponents of something called “orgasmic birth” where you actively try to give yourself the greatest orgasm you’ve ever had in the process of delivering. Personally, I’m not buying it but hey…whatever floats yer boat.
erm, it is sexual reproduction. In the sense of, “what sex is for (mostly)”. Being born is uniquely sexual- how can it not be? It certainly isn’t asexual reproduction. :rolleyes:
I wasn’t circumcised for Talmudic reasons, which amounts to most I know about the motives. For people to assert categorically that it was not done for punitive reasons or with punitive intent (especially if the true motivator of the intent is some 3rd party actor with some sick reason for wanting to multiply circumcisions in the population) amounts to an appeal to woo via clairvoyance.
I can’t believe you don’t understand why I would not take this up with Judaism or Islam. Let me put it back to you in legal terms: that is not my jurisdiction. You can argue that my jurisdiction is so small as to not exist, but insofar as those traditions go, I really am not going to stand up on a soapbox and tell the Ayatollah how to run his busines and expect his followers to be cool with that.
In this culture, however, mothers and fathers are allowing amputations on their otherwise healthy newborns for practically no reason whatsoever! Point this out and everyone freaks out and starts hurling accusations and getting snippy. At least you don’t get this problem with Muslims or Jews- they can at least tell you why it was done. I have some harsh words for people who would allow something so severe without any thought, but that probably just traces back to my personal feelings about bullshit.
Not legally a sex offender? Not under our code, but I don’t think anybody is really thinking about the policy. It isn’t worth doing, it amounts to an assault- I don’t see why people are surprised to frame it as a sexual assault, aside from denial of what it is we’re fucking talking about- so that some douchebag can get a check from Medicaid. Why keep doing it?
But you are correct, it is an incomplete thesis. The thread got dropped into the pit, so some of the points I am not bringing up here. This thread mostly addresses the unabashedly punitive response to circumcisers, probably the only response capable of achieving real results in the actual world absent something like, oh I don’t know, withdrawing Medicare/Medicaid subsidization for the procedure.
Oh man, it’s good you put that link in, cuz NO ONE on this board knows what clairvoyance means.
So you don’t think it’s your business what the Jews or Muslims do, but god dammit those Christians and Atheists are all sexual predators.
Is that right? Cuz that’s what it sure sounds like in this paragraph. You think that your jurisdiction (which you’re right, does not exist) is too small to pass judgement on Judaism and Islam, but is big enough to pass judgement on Christianity and Atheism? You won’t tell the Ayatollah he’s a sexual predator, but you’ll scream it in the Doctor’s face, and the face of every parent who has their child circumcised, because they’re not doing it for “acceptable” reasons in your baseless assumption?
Again, lack of integrity. Either a rule holds true for everyone, or it’s a worthless affectation.
Cite that they do it for no reason whatsoever. You don’t get to just decide why people are doing it without evidence, based entirely on your own assumptions.
If you had any aversion to bullshit, you would have avoided posting such an obviously confrontational thread with such an attention-whoring title.
People are surprised you label it sexual assault because other people know that not everything penis related is sexual. We’ve advanced beyond Freud, and realize that holding in urine doesn’t mean we want to jerk off.
This completely ignores all the medical evidence in favor of circumcision, like the 30-60% reduction in HIV infection for heterosexual men, prevention of phimosis, balanoposthitis, protection against urinary tract infections, and various cancers.
But that doesn’t matter, cuz circumcision is wrong.
And surely you’ve realized by now that the tone of the argument has less to do with your argument itself (which is still simplistic and too general to be useful) than it does about how you present yourself. Act like a pompous know-it-all, and people treat you like one. If you were to ever restart this thread with a less combative, defiant tone, you’d actually get some pretty constructive dialog. And I’d even be willing to contribute without mockery, too. But starting a thread with a title like this is just stupid if you want constructive dialog.
My parents are the sickest of them all, then…they not only circumsized my little brother, they had special cards made and sent them to all their friends.
Seriously. My father was a graphic artist and he designed birth announcements for all of us. My brother was the first boy after several girls. His card showed a picture of my father’s face, close-up with an expression of shock…and the caption was $25 bucks for a circumcision???
You don’t have to be a member to have a sig. Otherwise, be my guest. It’ll make you look like a dumbass, but go ahead.
(Did you note where I said “conception”? You’re already “produced”, you just have to be taken out)
It is a different thing when Jews do it. I am pretty sure the same holds for when Muslims do it, I am not completely sure, but I am not addressing Muslims with this thread as I do think Islam is a valid reason to circumcise one’s child if one sincerely intends to raise them in that fashion.
Christians don’t have their own religious law- Corinthians (1? 7?) prohibits it. And besides, one of the themes of Christianity is that one need not do every damn fool thing in the OT. So I feel entitled to call them out, but especially Americans who circumcise their children for foggy reasons. I don’t think the medical reasons amount to a justification. At. All. :mad:
I apologize but there is a limit to how much I will say about it in this thread. The final thread on the topic ought to answer the question to your satisfaction.
Depends on whether or not everyone is doing the same thing.
Cite common sense for yourself! The medical reasons amount to a judgement against the child. The authorities claim the foreskin is dirty; it MUST be removed. No way this child can care for it- apparently the child is stupid or something. The foreskin will attract STDs; it MUST be removed. No way this child can wear a condom- apparently the child is stupid or something. And apparently also some kind of slut or whore.
So. The (one week old!) child is a dirty, stupid whore, and therefore its foreskin MUST be removed. Yes, I call that, “no reason whatsoever”. Also punitive if not tortuous. If you don’t like it, I guess you can fuck off.
The bullshit is the continuing acceptance of circumcision. The law is a 3rd party. Part of my (and many of yours) penis is missing. My parents take part in the blame. There’s your stop. The law comes after and tries to separate the two, a repeated avenue of denial in this issue.
The foreskin has an especially sexual function, though all its functions are not sexual. To target it, and it alone, for amputation amounts to a sexual assault. I am sorry you don’t like that. Who are you trying to protect?
If there is a medical necessity, I am sure you can demonstrate it for every individual case. If you are talking about statistics it starts to sound like you are accusing me of being a whore. In which case you can fuck off. Look at some wiki quotes:
You’re arguing with a lot more people than just me. You need to re-examine your faulty position if you can’t mount a better argument than this fucking bullshit.
I don’t have a choice about how I present myself; they chopped half my dick off. So I guess you ought fuck off until you come around.