Hansel,
>If I had to make a decision today for a baby, I’d say it’s not worth it because the evidence either way is equivocal. But I’m re-evaluating that because, in my experience, zealotry is usually a substitute for credibility in any movement.<
Isn’t that an interesting position. No one’s ever even studied the physiology of the foreskin and Hansel has to think about if it’s a good idea to do it or not. Then, someone stands up and points out that it’s not a good idea for a million reasons and that convinces Hansel that it is a good idea to circumcise a baby. People will find any way to rationalize that circumcision is a good thing. They will find any way to rationalize that there own circumcision isn’t that much of a problem (if it wasn’t you know they wouldn’t behave toward the subject as they do). They will rationalize that they didn’t allow their children to be harmed so egregiously. Well, here we are in American society. Obviously, we’re doomed.
You have just proven that you understand nothing at all about the Constitution. The conclusion you draw would only be accurate if the “someone” in your hypothetical was acting as an agent of the federal government.
The Constitution does not prevent me from killing you. I am prohibited from doing so by state law. The Fifth Amendment only prohibits the federal government from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Since I am not the federal government, the Fifth Amendment does not apply to me. The analogous clause in the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the states. Since I am not a state, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to me either.
I agree that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government, or for a state, to mandate circumcision. But the argument would arise as much from the First Amendment as from the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.
Enugent,
> Nice try, but the Fifth Amendment controls what the government may do to you. For example, it would be unconstitutional for a legislature to pass a law saying that all babies must be circumcised before leaving the hospital (that one would probably also be a violation of religious freedoms).<
Actually, you have it reversed. It is the First Amendment that only protects us from the government. However, they have some way of interpreting some other amendment in order to have the First Amendment protect Americans from each other also. I'll let legal scholars explain how that works. So, you're right, if a baby is forcibly circumcised in order to join a religion, that is a clear violation of the baby's First Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment doesn't say anything about it applying only to Congress as the First Amendment does. The Fifth Amendment is suppose to protect you from any attack like someone walking up to you and cutting part of you off. If there was no state law to protect you, you should be able to depend upon the Fed.'s to protect you (laugh).If no one’s ever studied the physiology, from where come all of your medical terms for the various bits?
Hmm. No, that’s not at all what I said.
Like it or not, there are actual arguments to be made for circumcision. You haven’t disputed Cecil’s claim that, of the 60,000 cases of penile cancer in America since 1935, less than 10 were circumcised, except to express skepticism that the number of circumcision-related deaths is underestimated, which doesn’t refute Cecil’s statistic at all.
I didn’t say that I thought circumcision is a good idea. I said that your zealotry makes me extra skeptical of your arguments because, in my experience, the sort of emotional certainty that you display masks a lack of convincing evidence.
If you take a deep breath, you might catch the hint I’m offering about what it would take to convince me (and others here) of your arguments. Lucidy, not zeal.
We are if people of your thoughtfulness are making public policy and passing laws.
Hang on. I’m basking in the irony of trying to make the point that being lucid is better than being zealous, and then fucking up the spelling.
Lucidity, not zeal. There we go.
Oh, please. Let the record show that I am in law school, and I suspect that I know slightly more about this issue than you do. I’m sure the several lawyers on this thread will back me up in pointing out that this is total baloney.
There is no federal law against assault (or even murder or rape). You are protected solely by state laws.
The “legal scholars” (I guess I almost qualify, as I’m a second-year law student) will tell you that you’re completely and utterly wrong. Nothing in the Bill of Rights (or, in fact, the entire Constitution) creates positive law constraining individual citizens. The Constitution delinates the relationship between the federal government and the states, and binds only them. The people are beneficiaries of the Constitution but are not bound in any way by it.
The reason why I can’t run up and chop off someone’s foreskin without his consent is that doing so constitutes mayhem (or some similiar offense) under the criminal law of every state as well as the criminal law Congress has adopted to regulate federal territories. It’s also mayhem under the underlying common law of England which informs, if not directly controls, legal rights in the United States. If a state were to, for some reason, repeal the relevant criminal law and abrogate the common law offense, there would be no recourse under federal law unless you could characterize the act as a civil rights offense under the appropriate federal statute (which is questionable).
The fact that we have had to adopt specific laws forbidding female genital mutilation (even with the substituted consent of the parents) indicates that such an act is not illegal without such statutes. If consentual female genital mutilation is not prohibited by the constitution, neither is consensual male genital mutilation.
Not to mention that the person that Jack is responding to in that post IS a lawyer, and is one of the most knowledgeable folks on the board when it comes to legal concepts.
I’m getting to the point where every third or fourth post in this thread elicits a belly laugh, and that was one of them.
Oh, and Jack? For the record, I’m a woman, my partner is snipped, and I LIKE those quick, long strokes that you were maligning so horribly.
Damn simulposts. My comments were meant for ENugent.
What the hell are you all doing up so late on a Friday, anyway? We should all be in bed, having unsatisfying sex.
Thanks, Drain Bead. Personally, I’m in my (law) office, trying to get this )(*&%%)&%$ patent application written so that I will still be allowed to take my vacation next week. How about you?
so, basically-
ci- ci- ci- circle jerk!
Let me guess: You read Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 3001: Final Odyssey, wherein Frank Poole, born in the 20th Century, now living in the 30th, finds that women do not like his circumcised member and learns that circumcision is no longer practiced.
It was fiction, JDT. Sorry to have to tell you this.
Poole did find true love, however. (IIRC, she was a member of The Society for Creative Anachronism.)
After reading this several times, I’m glad I don’t have a foreskin anymore. It all sounds so… icky.
Please explain these apparently contradictory statements.
I had said: “She noted in the book that circumcised men are less likely to spread HIV because the tip of the circumcised penis thickens and is therefore less likely to tear or otherwise be damaged and thus expose the circulatory system to the virus.”
Jack replied:
Yes, thank you for pointing out the obvious. The book is still at work, and I’m not, so it would have been difficult for me to quote directly. If I thought you would take her point seriously, I would offer to find it and post the exact words on Monday.
And guess who I would rely on? Some blowhard with less than 30 posts on a message board, or a woman with a PhD and an MD who studies viruses for a living? Hmmmm… Tough call.
Little doubt according to who? You? ROFL!
My neighbors were having a very loud party, complete with live band. Really BAD live band. As I mentioned to Brian, it sounded like a cross between John Cougar Mellencamp and Pakistani karaoke. It was inescapable, and thus kept me awake. Which was a pisser, since I had to be up ass-early this morning to make it to a mandatory work meeting that means next to nothing to me because I’m leaving the job in December. But anyway, last night caused me a great deal of sleep loss, which of course led me to make incredibly bad jokes that nobody got but Satan, but he laughed for about five minutes after reading that “unsatisfying sex” comment, so I guess it was all worth it in the end.
All this teaches me is that when I’m forced to deal with rapidly increasing amounts of lunacy, I should probably get a decent amount of shut-eye first.
Thank you. Okay, so we’ll disregard about 2/3 of the papers you reference showing negative consequences to circumcision.
Hm. None of the circumcized men I know hate their parents for getting them snipped.
And you know, somewhere I seem to recall the statistics being that some 60% of American boys are currently being circumcized. So… um…if I give birth tomorrow and I have my son circumcized, then, well, he’ll be in the majority, won’t he? So he won’t feel like an oddball or an outcast.
Which is not to say that I’m either giving birth tomorrow or planning on having my child circumcized, btw. Just a hypothetical.
Oh, now you’re an expert on medical conditions for people you know nothing about, eh? Boy, you’re just a bloody FONT of knowledge.
Boy, in addition to being an expert on penises, you’re an expert on every sort of medical condition known to man! We are truly GRACED to have such a scintillating mind among us!
I don’t know what his condition was. I am a psychologist, not an M.D. I must assume that, being a reasonably intelligent, rational, and well-educated human being, he consulted with those who **ARE MEDICAL EXPERTS ** on his condition before deciding to undergo this painful and traumatic surgery.
Felice
Hey, JDT, I gotta question for ya: If, in the future, we find boys born without foreskins on a regular basis, because of, you know, evolution, would you be willing to accept nature’s latest “design” and “intention”? Or would you advocate fixing nature’s “mistakes”?
Columnist Dan Savage and his SO (they’re gay, BTW) adopted a baby boy. He was young enough to be circumcised. The argument on what to do hinged on the taste of a cut penis compared to the taste of an uncut one. (Dan prefers the taste of the cut. Not being gay, I shall have to take his word on it.)
What did they do to their precious boy? Nothing. Aren’t you relieved?
Interesting points:
-
Dan claims only half the boys in North America are getting cut.
-
He calls anti-circumcison people “crybabies.”
-
He refers to the foreskin as “mud flaps.”
Felice,
>Thank you. Okay, so we’ll disregard about 2/3 of the papers you reference showing negative consequences to circumcision. <
I didn’t say that anesthesia would definitely solve the behavioral abnormalities of babies who are circumcised. In any event, the behavioral abnormalities of neonatally circumcised adults are far more serious and I doubt if anesthesia would help there.
> Hm. None of the circumcised men I know hate their parents for getting them snipped. <
Maybe they are in denial. Maybe they don't really know what a circumcision is (many circumcised men have never even seen an intact penis).
> somewhere I seem to recall the statistics being that some 60% of American boys are currently being circumcised. So…um…if I give birth tomorrow and I have my son circumcised, then, well, he’ll be in the majority, won’t he? <
Yes, but there are an ever-growing number of normal boys around and it's going to raise questions in people's minds (in California, they no longer allow kids to shower together because of this problem, IMHO). In my opinion, in the western states, kids born today are already at the critical mass where there will be no hiding this inflicted deformity. What a sad situation for these boys. Why was this necessary? We should all ask ourselves that.
> Oh, now you’re an expert on medical conditions for people you know nothing about, eh? Boy, you’re just a bloody FONT of knowledge. <
I am familiar with the medical conditions that an intact penis can suffer. The only condition that MAY require circumcision is something abbreviated BXO (circumcised penises get this too, though). All of the other common conditions of the intact penis are easily treatable without circumcision. I'll bet your friend had a common problem and that his circumcision was totally unnecessary.
> I don’t know what his condition was. I am a psychologist, not an M.D. I must assume that, being a reasonably intelligent, rational, and well-educated human being, he consulted with those who ARE MEDICAL EXPERTS on his condition before deciding to undergo this painful and traumatic surgery.<
Yes, this was his mistake. A common mistake to be sure. American medical doctors are taught that all babies should be immediately circumcised. American medical texts don't even deal with the foreskin. American Urology texts only show pictures of circumcised penises. When interns go through their ob-gyn training, they do circumcisions (imagine that, practice surgery on somebody's genitals). If an intact American has a problem with his penis, he should contact NOCIRC for advice on how to tell his doctor how to treat his problem. Or, he should fly to a European nation (not England, though) for treatment.Way back on page one, Jack Dean Taylor wrote:
Later on page one, he writes:
I don’t know about you, but I can go barefoot quite easily. How on earth can you reconcile these two statements without your head exploding in a fog of cognitive dissonance?
What are you saying? That a cut man SHOULD hate his parents for it? Do you think it’s ever all right to hate someone?
I’m gonna ask the question that this POV begs: Are you circumcised? If so, do you hate your parents for it?
Oh, you have GOT to provide evidence for this. It’s funny, but I’ve lived in California since 1989, and I have never heard of this.
Spell it out, please. No abbreviations of something that you have never before mentioned, if you don’t mind.
What are they supposed to practice on? Ken dolls?
First-class, business or economy? And who pays for the ticket?
for shits and giggles…Google says that BXO is Balanitis Xerotica Obliteran