vote on banning male circumcision - Only In California

[CarmelHP]

 

[rjstew317]

 

[Fletch]

 

[rambone]

You misunderstand what I'm trying to do. By defining the parameters of the argument, I can understand what the argument is really about. I can't tell where people are coming from.

If you say the government should stay out of circumcision, you could be saying one of many things. By defining the limits, even if they're broad, I can understand what you're arguing.

We can't get to the greys until we found out where the black and white begins and ends.

Makes sense. I agree that punishing "child abusers" is a legitimate function of government. What constitutes abuse, is the gray area.

Should the government stay out of female circumcision? Let's say the full circumcision practiced in some countries, clitoris, labia, and partial closing of the opening so intercourse is rendered not just pleasure free, but painful.

You don't think government has a legitimate interest in regulating that?

I don't know. It honestly does turn my stomach to think about it. I'm still thinking about this. I could probably be convinced a ban is appropriate, however some of the other bans proposed in this thread are far more slippery-slope, and cause me some reluctance. (ETA: See my next post)

Circumcision, on the other hand, serves no positive purpose in children

My concern is that the line would get pushed too far. First circumcision, next baby earrings?

If a religion sprouted which encouraged foot-binding, would that be OK too?

Another good example. I'd consider it more disfiguring than circumcision. Just my opinion.

Ultimately, unless parents have ALL rights to a child's body (making enslavement, molestation & murder acceptable), then body modifications for little to no reason shouldn't be acceptable either.

I don't think it can be an all or nothing argument... Unless you are in favor of banning earrings and other more innocent things too. Personally that becomes way too Nanny State for me.

Its a slippery slope -- its just the nature of this subject.

 

[rambone]

What are the criteria for child abuse via medical procedures (or lack thereof)?

Should the government EVER be involved between you and your kids? Should you be able to do anything to them with no government interference?

Yes, there are some instances. And no, I don't think parents have the right to do anything under the sun. We're in agreement that "child abuse" should be punished. Where is the line? How do we handle this when it comes to medical procedures? Its been the subject of heated debate a few times.


I think it would be appropriate to debate the question, "What are the criteria for child abuse via medical procedures (or lack thereof)?" Fit this model to male/female circumcision, baby earrings, foot-binding, neck-rings, withholding medicine, over-medicating, vaccinations aka russian roulette, signing your child up for paid Pharma drug trials, religious rights, parental rights, etc.

I think this is important. What are the criteria?

• Pain?
• Consent of the child?
• Quality of life of the child?
• Purported benefits of the procedure?
• Purported side-effects of the procedure?
• Some degree of necessity of the procedure?
• Avoiding a certain "recommended" procedure?
• Ability of the family to pay for it?
• Wants of the parents?
• Traditions/customs?
• Approval of your doctor?
• Approval of some medical panel?
• FDA approval?
• The arbitrary consent of the 51% majority?

What makes an abusive parent? I see so much overlap between one controversial procedure to the next, that I feel one ban could easily lead to many others. I would favor free-market solutions and limited government involvement if at all possible.

I will say this, Congressman Rambone wouldn't spend an ounce of energy advocating any new laws and restrictions. We need to be repealing things.

 

[rjstew317]

what I've noticed in this thread is that the only people in favor of governmental intervention are those that oppose circumcision. nobody that has argued for it has said it should be mandatory, on the contrary, they have stated that it should be an informed decision made by the parents.

 

[Fletch]

what I've noticed in this thread is that the only people in favor of governmental intervention are those that oppose circumcision. nobody that has argued for it has said it should be mandatory, on the contrary, they have stated that it should be an informed decision made by the parents.

I'm not a fan of government intervention, I'm just trying to be logically consistent. I think it's weird to say that inappropriate sexual contact with an infant is reason enough for prison, but chopping off bits of an infant's genitalia isn't.

 

[rjstew317]

I'm not a fan of government intervention, I'm just trying to be logically consistent. I think it's weird to say that inappropriate sexual contact with an infant is reason enough for prison, but chopping off bits of an infant's genitalia isn't.

but didn't you advocate for the parent in another thread, where her decision lead to the child's death? when I brought up the child's right you somewhat dismissed that as an argument
you have been given specific examples of first had experience of the benefits of this procedure yet you choose to dismiss them without solid evidence of the reason to not do it, other then your preference.
your comparison is not even in the same ball bark.

 

[Fletch]

but didn't you advocate for the parent in another thread, where her decision lead to the child's death? when I brought up the child's right you somewhat dismissed that as an argument

To what right of the child's are you referring? My position is that children have a right not to be aggressed against; this right springs automatically from the property rights they hold in their own bodies. Parents are at best temporarily assigned those rights until the child demonstrates the ability to manage those rights on their own. All rights are property rights, and that includes the rights of the parent over their own bodies. The time for society in the form of government to step in is when one person's property rights have been forcibly violated by another.

From what philosophical basis of rights do you proceed?

you have been given specific examples of first had experience of the benefits of this procedure yet you choose to dismiss them without solid evidence of the reason to not do it, other then your preference.

It can't be undone. That's my reason. Anything that can't be undone should be left for the child to decide when it is old enough, barring some life-threatening problem (as with appendicitis, for example). "I'm too chicken**** to teach my son to wash his penis" is not a valid answer, IMO.

your comparison is not even in the same ball bark.

Why not? The argument goes that infants won't remember any of that anyway, so it's no big deal, psychologically speaking (not saying I buy that, but that's the argument). Assuming a particular instance of molestation results in no permanent damage, why would you want to punish for that, but not for permanent mutilation?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Unless you are in favor of banning earrings and other more innocent things too. Personally that becomes way too Nanny State for me.

Its a slippery slope -- its just the nature of this subject.

I mentioned in a previous post:

I wouldn't pierce a child's ears, put plates in their lips, cut their penis or clitoris, bind their feet, force them onto an unnatural vegan diet, etc.

I don't know about legislating against a child vegan diet...but the rest of those are body modifications which can occur against a child's consent. I would never put unnecessary holes into a child...even earrings.

As I eluded to earlier, I believe that if a child has any rights to their bodies (i.e. cannot legally be enslaved, molested, or murdered), then parents have no right to make useless, permanent modifications. Would it be OK for parents to have their 4 year old daughter's clitoris pierced? What if there was anecdotal evidence that it helped to prevent bed-wetting?

 

[Fletch]

I don't know about legislating against a child vegan diet...

I'd be inclined to defend the vegan diet as a legitimate choice.

 

[rjstew317]

Fletch, this is what you posted in response to a question i posted asking "what about the child's right to live and grow"
\
you responded with

"We don't live in a society where children have rights as individuals. If the child had stated that he wanted to continue the treatment despite his problems with it, I would certainly agree that the mother did something wrong.
Unfortunately, there is no indication that the child did, or that he even knew what was going on, given that he was "severely autistic, nonverbal, and developmentally delayed". If we're going to take up for him on behalf of his potential, we probably ought to remember that he didn't have much."


comparing child molestation to a medical procedure with proven benefits is a stretch at best, and frankly is beneath your intellect.

 

[rjstew317]

I'd be inclined to defend the vegan diet as a legitimate choice.

you do realize an infant requires more nutrients, then a vegan diet allows, to survive?
this couple found out the hard way with the death of their child

 

[E5RANGER375]

Yes, I can see what you mean. Let me put this into perspective from someone with experience... I have more hands on experience in the penis world and can say that there is a little difference in nerve response to circumcised vs non-circumsized. That being said that's only average... as some people are not affected at all, and generally the effect is only minimal. In my world it makes no difference. There is absolutely no doubt that circumcision helps fight all kinds of VD's, and hygiene helps but it doesn't cover it all. Why don't they have it done as adults? Because more nerve endings, blood flow, and development occurs there as you get older. Adult circumcision can be an almost crippling experience, but when done as a youth minimal pain, and minimal recovery time. Some gay people prefer one way or another and sometimes gay men get it done... most take a week off of work, and are in tons of pain. So if YOU ARE thinking its a good idea get it done young, and if you don't want to likely you will be fine anyway about it. And the biggest part... if you go to San Francisco the boys will like you both ways LOL LOL LOL

DO WHAT!?!?!?!?!

 

[Fletch]

Fletch, this is what you posted in response to a question i posted asking "what about the child's right to live and grow"
\
you responded with

"We don't live in a society where children have rights as individuals.

This is a statement of current conditions, not my own philosophy. My preference is for children to have property rights in their bodies.

If the child had stated that he wanted to continue the treatment despite his problems with it, I would certainly agree that the mother did something wrong.

This, while unclear, proceeds from my assertion that children do have property rights, but they are unrecognized. However, it is a flawed argument from this perspective because the mother has property rights of her own and owes the child no medical care.

The problem that I have to wrestle with here is my understanding of the nature of rights vs. what is recognized in society as rights. In our society, children have no real rights as individuals -- they do not posses the right to say "no", which is the only sort of right worth talking about. They instead have parasitic, positive "rights" against the productivity of their parents. This is then mangled into a conflation of rights, privileges, and responsibilities that parents have toward their children, with "right" and "wrong" chosen randomly or arbitrarily in any given circumstance.

Thus, parents have "rights" to choose their children's medical care, but only up to this point or that. Then we flip it around and say they have the responsibility to choose their medical care, but only if that care is in accordance with what the majority believes is good or helpful, and necessarily agreeing to gamble on whatever risks the majority would like them to gamble on, and no others.

What evolves is a muddy mess where parents can get away with the worst kinds of evil, so long as they are majority-approved kinds of evil, and are punished for anything that the majority believes is evil, whether it is or not.

Unfortunately, there is no indication that the child did, or that he even knew what was going on, given that he was "severely autistic, nonverbal, and developmentally delayed". If we're going to take up for him on behalf of his potential, we probably ought to remember that he didn't have much.

And this is a frank, if brutal assessment of the child's potential. I've got a relative in permanent care, who will essentially live out her life in pain and alone. It is a sad thing to acknowledge that she will never be self-supporting or contribute to society in any meaningful way, but it's the truth. People make decisions for her all the time because she has demonstrated no ability to make them for herself. She doesn't even demonstrate awareness that the decisions exist. She is a ward of the State, as the boy in the other thread was almost certainly on his way to being. Is it somehow more humane that some day a faceless bureaucrat will pull the plug on her, with only an actuarial table for guidance, rather than a parent who presumptively cares at least a little about how much suffering she's enduring at the time?

comparing child molestation to a medical procedure with proven benefits is a stretch at best, and frankly is beneath your intellect.

Frankly, I'd rather I had been molested by the doctor than circumcised. At least that way I'd still remember nothing and have no permanent disfigurement as a result, and the choice about circumcision would be mine to make.

If circumcision is so wonderful, uncircumcised men will seek it out. That's the thing about it... you can always decide to do it, but you can't decide to undo it.

 

[Fletch]

you do realize an infant requires more nutrients, then a vegan diet allows, to survive?
this couple found out the hard way with the death of their child

Just because people are vegans doesn't mean they're not morons. I participated in a vegan forum for a time, and this case or one like it came up for discussion. This may come as a shock to you (and the couple in the article), but it turns out that breast-feeding is completely vegan.

 

[rambone]

I don't know about legislating against a child vegan diet...but the rest of those are body modifications which can occur against a child's consent. I would never put unnecessary holes into a child...even earrings.

As I eluded to earlier, I believe that if a child has any rights to their bodies (i.e. cannot legally be enslaved, molested, or murdered), then parents have no right to make useless, permanent modifications. Would it be OK for parents to have their 4 year old daughter's clitoris pierced? What if there was anecdotal evidence that it helped to prevent bed-wetting?

I like your logical consistency, but if you are prepared to ban earrings, the other implications go a little too far for my preference. I know you don't advocate Nanny State, but I think this kind of stuff takes us that way.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I like your logical consistency, but if you are prepared to ban earrings, the other implications go a little too far for my preference. I know you don't advocate Nanny State, but I think this kind of stuff takes us that way.

I understand your point about the Nanny State. I don't know what should be particularly legislated against & what shouldn't...but doctors performing infant circumcisions can easily be legislated against & enforced. Giving a 2 year old prison tattoos of group sex scenes...not so much.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

My wife is pregnant, its a boy, I am in no way religious, but we are getting him circumcised.

Two reasons, hygiene and appearance. The penis isn't exactly pleasant to look at as it is, keeping the turtle neck on there just makes it that much worse lol.

Btw I dont care what anyone else thinks.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

The penis isn't exactly pleasant to look at as it is, keeping the turtle neck on there just makes it that much worse lol.

AFAIK, an erect penis looks the same either way...

Btw I dont care what anyone else thinks.

How very open-minded of you...wait, if you don't care what others think, why are you in this subforum?