It’s not. But it is, or should be, a discussion in a forum that has some interest in correct and fair representations of facts.
Is it that kind of forum? Do the people here have the ability to discuss this issue without resorting to phony implications of perverse sexual practice? Or is the reason they are “fucking upset,” because they think pedophilia is involved?
And, of course, an underlying issue here is whether or not the law seeking to ban the practice can be sustained. Seems to me the ability to discuss that sort of involves a court of law. Doesn’t it?
I always find it interesting which battles you find worthy of taking up the banner. People have given several reasons why they are upset, and you have taken one of the arguments to court, so to speak, as you have done so many times before when people have tried to talk about how they felt about an issue. Ethics, morals and legalities are not the same in every elses’ minds, Bricker, so when someone says that they think it is wrong for a grown man to put his mouth on an open wound on a baby’s penis, quoting a court ruling stating that it is legally allowed doesn’t necessarily show that you are right. it might show that you don’t know that you left the courtroom six blocks back.
They most certainly CAN be charged. Then they can argue that it is not sexual, which is open to interpretation. When someone happens upon you sucking a baby’s dick, you can say you aren’t enjoying it, but that’s not going to mean you get to keep doing it.
This is a stupid argument, and largely irrelevant to the actual legal case happening.
The court has said that this law is subject to strict scrutiny, which I think is the correct decision. This is a law that specifically addresses a single religion’s practice. Due to that pesky first amendment, the state has to show that there is a very good reason for this law that specifically targets one religious group. Specifically:
There must be a compelling government interest. Having fewer people die probably satisfies this, though there is no bright line for how risky it has to be for it to be considered to meet this criteria: a judge will have to decide that.
The law must be narrowly tailored. Again, no bright line, but law must actually address the compelling interest from part 1, but not be over-broad in doing so.
The law must be the least restrictive means of addressing the compelling interest from part 1.
Strict scrutiny is a high hurdle, but it’s not an insurmountable one. The appeals court did not address whether or not this law actually meets the criteria - it kicked that question back to the lower court. I’m not a lawyer (I understand Bricker is), but this law seems to have a better chance of meeting that hurdle than a lot of laws would. If they banned the practice, you would be more likely to fail the least restrictive means test: not everyone carries the virus, so it’s not like it’s a constant danger no matter what. But just requiring consent? At least the parents are informed of the danger, and can decide whether the risk is worth it themselves.
They can’t be charged. There is no probable cause to believe a mohel, conducting a centuries-old religious ceremony in front of dozens of witnesses, a ceremony that involves a single application of oral suction to a bloody wound, is doing it for sexual purposes.
It’s true that in general, if you are found sucking a baby’s dick, you would have a heavy burden to show it wasn’t sexual. But the case of a bris milah is not “in general.”
So far as I can determine, there has never been a criminal sexual assault charge leveled against a mohel based on his act of oral suction during metzitzah b’peh. Not one.
Why do you believe that a charge could be sustained?
There was nothing wrong with the phrasing that you objected to, because it was accurate. Alternate phrasing might be possible…phrasing that might hide that nature of the action being performed.
What part of the baby is he sucking? Is he sucking this part of the baby’s body with his open mouth? Does the part of the baby that he is sucking with his open mouth have an open wound?
A criminal law has to clearly communicate to people what conduct is prohibited. That’s a basic constitutional principle. An ordinance is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute.
A law that has existed for decades and permitted mohels to ply their trade cannot, constitutionally, suddenly be used to criminally charge those same mohels, because the law does not give them any notice that their conduct is prohibited.
But only one of those is both very dangerous to infants and also carried by a large percentage of the population. Only one of those has actually killed the kids in question, and continues to be a threat.
Remember: compelling government interest. No bright line, but a few people actually dying of a disease actually carried by a large percentage of the population is a lot more likely to meet that criteria than a list of “oh nos, these diseases have at some point been carried by saliva”
I’m not saying this law is a bad idea, or that it won’t be upheld. I’m just saying, is there anything wrong with actually talking about the legal protections that religions have in this country, and stop talking about something that is legally irreverent?
The portion of the penis where the foreskin (orlah) was just cut away.
Yes, although it’s deceptive to say he “is sucking.” The process is a single instance of applied suction. “Is sucking,” leaves the impression that it’s a continuous, repetitive process.
The SDMB is not interested in facts. Or accuracy. Stop trying. You’re in the wrong place. The people here valorize their deception, and have no interest in replacing ignorance with accurate discussion.
I think you’re understating the risk - cold and flu are both dangerous for infants, much harder to detect protect against.
I understand also that Cytomegalovirus is “had” by about 50% of adults, so it can’t be described as rare.
For me, I reject any possible religious reasoning and approach it from a purely medical point of view - would you let a plastic surgeon lick a wound clean?
Would you expect an EMT to suck a cut finger before putting on a bandage?
No? And such things are (I would think) already covered under existing laws.
This practise should not get a pass simply because it is religious.
If you simply MUST circumcise (which I don’t agree with) - at the very least do it in line with best accepted medical standards. Sucking an open wound doesn’t, and never will, meet that standard.