|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Wilf on 03:53 AM February 19th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I would be surprised if the boy's right to uninterrupted sexual development, a reproductive right that men ought to share with women, is respected. But I have my doubts.
As I have written previously, the decision to circumcise cannot be morally neutral, as significant numbers of fully-informed, impartial rational persons oppose the procedure. It cannot be strongly justified, in the sense that amputating a limb to save a life is strongly morally justified: all fully-informed impartial rational persons would publicly allow this necessarily disabling. This means that the strongest possible moral argument (not invoing religion) in favor of involuntary circumcision can prove at most that it is weakly justified, and therefore subject to moral consequences. Civil disobedience is in a similar category: those who do it know they are breaking the law and that significant numbers of fully-informed impartial rational persons oppose their protest. Significant numbers likely agree as well. But because significant numbers are opposed, there must be consequences for civil dosobedience.
I have been pro-choice for all of my adult life. But pro-choice advocates often speak of the right of a person to their own body. I believe that reproductive right ought to be applied in a gender neutral way, impartially. Men have so few reproductive rights--the right to keep it in their pants. Surely they deserve the right to uninterrupted sexual development, along with women. But if pro-choice advocates do not support a reproductive right for men so meager in comparison with the reproductive rights women enjoy, then I would support the repeal of Roe v. Wade, on the grounds that if men cannot have the right to their own bodies, than neither should women.
And there is, for me, no moral wrong in taking this position, since, as far as I can tell, the moral question of abortion is undecidable (except for certain religious persons) and must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. And it is in this arena that such political bargains, of the kind I am proposing, can be, and ought to be proposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:23 AM February 19th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The Fathers' rights as a Parent, the Childs' right to not be mutilated at the desire of his mother. Interesting court case. Personaly I don't believe that circumcision should be practiced unless it is necessary, as in some cases I have heard for deformity reasons it is. Let the religions brainwash their Male Children and let them make their own decisions when they are of age. Let the doctors work more hours to pay for their new cars instead of snip, snip. Also, let's get the government off of our bodies, and out of our minds.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 10:24 AM February 19th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
In the US circumcision came into "fashion" around the beginning of the 20th century or a little before that. The rationale was to prevent insanity and physical deformities like a telescoping spinal column??? caused from the vile act of masturbation.
It now has become a surgical habit and should be stopped.
It is against medical ethics to perform preventive surgery like removing a perfectly healthy appendix or healthy breasts to prevent breast cancer. There is no real health reason to perform circumcision on children's penises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 01:36 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
is that no one has asked the boy's opinion in all this. He is, afterall, 8 years old! He knows what circumcision is, though probably not all the details and risks. He should be presented with the (non-sexual?) pros and cons and a graphic description of the operation. Dragging an unwilling and/or uninformed 8 year old into this mutilation would not only be traumatic, it would be tragic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SpikeRants on 01:44 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly hope the judge considers the fact that the boy will remember this, as opposed to when he's a newborn and has no recollection of it.
However, as to why the boy is not asked? He's a minor, and therefore is not legally able to make his own decisions. BUT, he SHOULD be asked whether he wants it or not, regardless of whether his opinion counts LEGALLY or not. He is, after all, a life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 12:09 PM February 21st, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Not much of a chance of that... from the site:
"He [the Judge] also also ordered them not to discuss the case with their child."
I see it this way, if at 7 you are legaly able to be charged with a crime, you should, at that point, be able to have some say in the way your body will be for the rest of your life.
--Demonspawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SpikeRants on 01:45 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Did anybody else notice the picture of the baby being mutilated? The look of abject terror on his face should speak volumes to any parent wanting to do this to their child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see, if the mother thinks that circumcision is such a great idea and a boon to her son's future health, then let her volunteer to have it done to herself, as well.
Let her be strapped down to a table and her clitoral hood cut from her body.
"Oh no!" says the mother. "That's different!"
Ah yes. A mother who is willing to let her son get mutilated, but not herself.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 01:57 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely right napnip. It's always different and incomparable when done to women. I'm sick of hearing it. If men cannot have just a fraction of the reproductive rights that women enjoy, which for men would mean the right to uninterrrupted sexual development, which women already have, then why shouldn't we oppose their right to their own body? It's a fair political trade: you want the right to your body, then the least you could do is support our right to our own body. I'm proposing this political trade off as someone who has been a pro-choice advocate his entire adult life, and as someone who is utterly disgusted with the double standard. I say that if pro-choice advocates do not support a man's right to his own body, a measly, tiny fraction of the reproductive rights women currently enjoy, then I would proudly stand by the pro-life advocates and support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
Some things doctors won't tell you about circumcision:
* One thing doctors virtually never mention: circumcision is scrotal reduction. The skin deficit from circumcision has to be made up from somewhere; the skin has to come from the scrotum and the tougher pubic area, which lacks the properties of the foreskin. The demarcation line between shaft skin and scrotal skin is moved unnaturally up the shaft, and there is less skin for the scrotum. This freuently causes penoscrotall webbing, also known as the turkey-neck deformity. Another reason why many men complain about non-specific testicular pain. The creeping scrotal skin also drags hairs into the vagina during intercourse.
* The loss of half of the penile skin often means loss of length; a quote from a restoring man online: "...I think if you were cut too tight you might have a couple inches of penis up inside of you, that the tight cut will not let out. Restoring pulls this out and you have more dick...." Often the gain is around an inch. For some people it's more, and others less.
* Not to mention the combination of cornification of the glans, and the loss of thousands of specialized stretch receptors, which often results in reduced control and substandard orgasms, only because there is nothing to compare it with, most men don't know what they might be missing. Many restoring men report the surprising and unexpected occurrence of "whole--body orgasms" after restoring a little while.
It's long since time for men to stand up for their birthright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 03:50 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
The number of circumcised infants who develop infections and a few actually die. I have a cousin who developed a severe infection.
Also, a couple of infants in Atlanta not too long ago had their entire genitalia mutilated by a circumcision appliance that cut the foreskin off and electrically cauterized the bleeding wound. Something malfunctioned in this appliance and it shorted out and burnt off the infant's penises. They of course are now being raised as females.
Circumcision is bad medicine....period. Don't do it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:03 PM February 22nd, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
When I went to college in the early nineties I majored in psychology. One of the classes that I took had as examples of Human sexuality the botched circumcism jobs of two Males. They were both raised as females, and made to be lab rats. It was sickening actually. I hadn't heard of the recent mutilization. It really has to stop doesn't it? Specifically the attitude of the system towards the People they are sworn to protect...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 01:14 AM February 22nd, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
...anyone else do a double take when it mentioned "In the 1900s..."
It makes them sound like centuries ago, even though we were all in them not too far back...
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
