The Commerce clause?!? How about basic human rights? FFS
You have the system that you have it seems incoherent to expect otherwise unless you change to centralization. The ruling seems to be based in the reading of your law as it is and your constitutional arrangement.
It is better to have the rule of the law than the ad hoc derogations just because of outraged feelings.
As there is zero support, it should be easy to pass the laws at the local levels then. I am sure you will not have challenge to pass the laws.
That’s a steep hurdle, to change laws in every location. If there are pockets not covered, parents can just take their daughters there for a little family trip. This is barbarism and should be covered by existing child abuse laws.
Actually there are laws against child abuse in every state–and this fits the definition.
The problem with calling it child abuse is that male circumcision is legal, and remarkably similar (even identical) to some forms of female genital cutting. This makes it vulnerable to challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The Federal law was struck down on other legal grounds, but any State level law is that protects the sexes unequally is vulnerable to such a challenge. We as a society are going to have to make a choice very soon: do we protect both boys and girls, or do we protect neither? Because we can’t protect one and ignore the other.
Yep. That’s the trouble with claiming health benefits. As explained in this article, Does Female Genital Mutilation Have Health Benefits? The Problem with Medicalizing Morality
It’s extremely, extremely dishonest to say “Type 1a isn’t so bad”, and neglecting types 2 and 3, which may involve one or all of clitoral amputation, removal of the outer and inner labia, and surgical narrowing of the vaginal entrance.
Every part that causes pleasure is removed, leaving just enough of a scarred hole to permit (painful) sex.
Male circumcision is archaic and probably unnecessary, but as a man I know it’s caused me zero trauma or inconvenience in my sex life. FGM, as often practiced, renders sex painful and childbirth more risky. It is a fucking abomination.
I think what he’s trying to say is “we know that types 2&3 are harmful, but type 1 has the same name and it’s just like male circumcision, so make circumcision is harmful.”
Which is also dishonest, but it’s still a different statement.
I missed the edit window, but meant to write
You don’t know that. As a man who was not circumcised, it’s painfully obvious to me that you are clinging to a delusion that you find psychologically necessary. It would almost be funny if it weren’t so very, very sad.
So you’re saying that any circumsized men who are happy and content with their bodies are delusional?
He might have been attempting some of that well-known Slinc bone-dry sarcasm.
AND once again we can’t talk about a female issue, because of course, the MALE issue is more important.
(FUCKING YET AGAIN: Is it NOT possible to discuss the two issues separately? NOT to imply one is more important, but just because we don’t want to talk about BOTH of them???)
Sonofabitch, more dick talk. I wish the lot of you dicks would take your dicks in hand and go talk about your dicks in a thread about dicks.
edited to add: Sorry-didn’t see your post, Guinastasia.
Depends on what you mean by “delusional”. They’re not delusional about being content, but they might about not having as satisfying a sex life as they could have. Seriously, even forgetting about men whose sex life has been significantly impaired by circumcision, it’s difficult not to think that other circumcised men who say they’re content are nevertheless missing out on something, since they both have lost a highly innervated organ, and have a calloused glans. On the face of it, making the assumption that this has no effect whatsoever on their sensations is at the very least extremely counter-intuitive.
This is off topic, I’m sorry for contributing to the hijack.
I don’t know if this has been brought up yet, but in Burkina Faso, where the operation is illegal, botched FGM operations put 50 girls in the hospital.
Nope. The two issues are totally related, and people want them to be separated because otherwise they have to face cognitive dissonance. They’d rather keep condemning FMG as an unacceptable assault on girls’ bodily autonomy on one hand (because other, barbaric, people do it), while being able to keep ignoring people who point at the fact that circumcision is an unacceptable assault on boys’ bodily autonomy (because they do it, and they can’t be barbaric, can they?).
You can argue that FMG (or at least some form of it) have usually more serious consequences than circumcision, but they’re the same issue : people trying to find any excuse they can think of to justify mutilating children genitals in the name of tradition. Trying to keep the two issues separated is a tactic (maybe not by you, but by defenders of circumcision most certainly) to avoid having to face the fact that they support on one hand what they condemn on the other. I reject your (and theirs) premise that they are different issues.
Fuck you.