Could we see the end of circumcision in our lifetime?

[Goatfoot]

It is said that the majority of men in the world are intact. There was a time when circumcision was very common in many countries, but a lot of those countries have since given it up for the most part. In America it is still common but even here it appears to be on the decline. The question is, will there ever be a time when people will stop performing circumcision completly, and if so will it happen in our lifetime? By the way, I am not sure if this is the right section for this and if it isn't I apologise.

[Joseph]

I think this is the appropriate board...

I often wonder about this myself... it would be great to see a day in the US where male infant circumcision were finally viewed as the gross human rights violation that it is.

But I wonder too, is such a future even feasible?

They say old habits die hard. We live in a country in which circumcision has been a custom for at least a century. Would that it were finally law that doctors can't perform circumcision on healthy, non-consenting individuals, would doctors stop or would they secretly keep performing these under the table?

Would derelict circumcisions become too large to police, and enforce the law?

I'd like to see a future free of infant circumcision, if not in the world, at least in our country where it is supposed to be a "civilized democracy."

They say Rome wasn't built in a day... for now all we can do is educate, educate, educate.

[finman]

While female circumcision is illegal in the US it is still performed or children are taken abroad for their mutilation.

Maybe the same would happen with boys if male circumcision was illegal, with circumcision tourism becoming more common.:(

[Joseph]

You never know.

It's real easy for Americans to call it a "parents decision," when it can only be called that be cause insurance or medicaid pays for it, and because there are doctors willing to do it for cheap. All it takes is signing the consent form.

If parents have to fly somewhere to get it done, that's just more money that has to fly out of their pockets, and more effort, and maybe parents will just say "fuck it" and forget about it.

[finman]

As well as the obstacle of going abroad particularly with a baby or child and where healthcare may be of a lower standard than in the US, parents may reconsider the whole idea of it if it is not advised and not readily available or legal in the US.

[Goatfoot]

Well, I think that I read somewhere thar in certain European countries circumcision is now illegal to perform for non religous or non medical reasons. At any rate I think that the biggest obstacle to eliminating circumcision will be the religous groups that support it, in particular the jewish community. Jews have been practicing circumcision for thousands of years, so it will naturally not be easy to convince them to let it go. Of course, if people stop performing circumcision secularly then I think that there will be a greater chance of religious groups giving it up. The thing is, if it reaches a point where the majority of men in America are uncut then the pro circumcision group will lose a lot of it's best arguments. They won't be able to use the locker room argument, or the "women prefer it" argument. Not only that, but it will also be harder to convince people of circumcions so called medical benefits. For example, in Europe where circumcision is very uncommon, people are generally a lot more skeptical of the medical benefits. People come up with all of these excuses for supporting genital cutting, but one of the main reasons it is so strongly supported is simply because it is common. If it becomes uncoomen than it will be a lot easier to convince people that is not needed and harmful.

[tony12345]

I don't think the Jewish community (or Islamic for that matter) will ever give up circumcision. Circumcision for them is so strongly identified as part of their religion, it would be like asking a Christian to stop baptisms. To even suggest not to practice circumcision would be taken as an insult.

Most of my doctors are Jewish, and I would never bring up the issue of restoration with them for fear that they would somehow hold it against me and not give the same level of care.

[Joseph]

I think that we need to focus on ending the secular, non-medical infant circumcision that goes on in hospitals.

The Jews might cling to tradition, but that is not medicine's problem, and it shouldn't prevent intactivists for exposing it for the pseudo-scientific medical fraud that it is.

I also wouldn't let the Jewish situation be dis-heartening; quite a few Jews are speaking out against the practice. Some of the most vocal people happen to be Jews themselves! Leonard Glick. Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, Dr. Ronald Goldman... HOWARD STERN!? HELLO!? {Dean Edell,...}

Don't get me wrong. Sometimes I feel down in the dumps about this. But then I look back and look at all what has happened since Marylin Milos decided to turn things around and I realize much progress has been made.

Don't lose heart guys... stiff upper lip...

:)

[cobra]

I wish there was a way to hit hospitals in the pocket book. That is the only thing that would get their attention. If we could simply sue them-- even knowing we would not win due to current laws-- at least it would cost them money in lawyers fees, time and hassle, not to mention bad publicity for them. Wouldn't they at least have to hire a lawyer and go digging through their old records to find signed release forms? The issue would not be winning a lawsuit-- just hassling them enough so that circumcision is no longer profitable for them. Anyone know a restoring lawyer who would be willing to sue for petty revenge? :D

[rtnt]

Hospitals should beable to be sued over circumcisions for lots of reasons. They should beable to be sued for doctors giving one sided, misleading information to parents on circumcisions, for doctors giving wrong and harmful information on how to take care of foreskins, for doctors not knowing how to fix foreskin problems without circumcision, and for doctors not being competent to give parents advice on circumcisions because they don't know what circumcisions cut off and they don't know how to take care of foreskins. Very few hospitals have been sued over unbotched circumcisions. But hospitals deserve to be sued over circumcisions, and there are a lot of very anti-circumcision lawyers, so in the future hopefully a lot of hospitals will be getting sued over circumcisions.

[Joseph]

They should beable to be sued for doctors giving one sided, misleading information to parents on circumcisions, for doctors giving wrong and harmful information on how to take care of foreskins, for doctors not knowing how to fix foreskin problems without circumcision, and for doctors not being competent to give parents advice on circumcisions because they don't know what circumcisions cut off and they don't know how to take care of foreskins...

Doctors who cunningly went to the pro-circ parent for consent...

[rtnt]

Parents are largely to blame for baby boys being circumcised. But it is common for doctors to tell parents that the baby will feel little if any pain even when no pain relief is used, for the doctors to say circumcision has no effect on sexual function, and for the doctors to say there are all kinds of great benefits of circumcisions, but to not mention any of the harms and risks. With parents who refuse circumcision, it is common for doctors to tell the parents that the foreskin needs to be forcefully retracted to clean underneath. It happens a lot where a little boy 'has' to be circumcised because the foreskin wouldn't separate from the glans, or when a little boy 'has' to be circumcised for a problem that could have been easily fixed without circumcision. Hospitals and doctors have been getting away with those things scott free. It seems to me that hospitals and doctors should beable to be sued for those things, then those things would be stopped, and that would help lower the circumcision rate in the U.S.

[Joseph]

Parents are largely to blame for baby boys being circumcised. ...But it is common for doctors to tell parents that the baby will feel little if any pain even when no pain relief is used, for the doctors to say circumcision has no effect on sexual function, and for the doctors to say there are all kinds of great benefits of circumcisions, but to not mention any of the harms and risks. With parents who refuse circumcision, it is common for doctors to tell the parents that the foreskin needs to be forcefully retracted to clean underneath. It happens a lot where a little boy 'has' to be circumcised because the foreskin wouldn't separate from the glans, or when a little boy 'has' to be circumcised for a problem that could have been easily fixed without circumcision. Hospitals and doctors have been getting away with those things scott free. It seems to me that hospitals and doctors should beable to be sued for those things, then those things would be stopped, and that would help lower the circumcision rate in the U.S.

This highlights why it's DOCTORS who are fully to blame.

Who wields the scalpel here? Who should actually KNOW better? Doctors or parents?

If doctors were so sure, why even consult the parents?

Because they know they need to convince and dupe them into signing the consent forms, that's why.

Will you listen to that. Doctors begging, LYING for parents to sign the consent forms.

And in some cases, ignoring one parent over the one who wants their son circumcised.

Doctos aren't stupid. They are fully aware of what they are doing.

They are sly, crafty mother-fuckers and for this sole reason men and fathers/mothers who didn't want their children circumcised should be able to sue the pants off of them.

[Billybobbed]

Doctos aren't stupid. They are fully aware of what they are doing.
They are sly, crafty mother-fuckers and for this sole reason men and fathers/mothers who didn't want their children circumcised should be able to sue the pants off of them.

You have said everything in a nutshell Joseph.

[finman]

rtnt, these are the defences of the doctors, either that they do not know what they are doing is wrong or just following years of practice, for example phimosis always means circumcision.

The Jewish argument is not totally relevant. As said earlier, if all circumcisions except Jewish ones stopped that would mean the majority of circumcisions stopped. Jews are a very small percentage of the world's population and there are Jews who will not circumcise. However, Moslems make up a far greater percentage.

The argument is similar to the one where rape is used to support abortion. If all abortion stopped except for rape victims who become pregnant (and are better off having the baby anyway, even if it is adopted) abortion would be very rare.

[greg_b]

Parents are largely to blame for baby boys being circumcised. But it is common for doctors to tell parents that the baby will feel little if any pain even when no pain relief is used, for the doctors to say circumcision has no effect on sexual function, and for the doctors to say there are all kinds of great benefits of circumcisions, but to not mention any of the harms and risks. With parents who refuse circumcision, it is common for doctors to tell the parents that the foreskin needs to be forcefully retracted to clean underneath. It happens a lot where a little boy 'has' to be circumcised because the foreskin wouldn't separate from the glans, or when a little boy 'has' to be circumcised for a problem that could have been easily fixed without circumcision. Hospitals and doctors have been getting away with those things scott free. It seems to me that hospitals and doctors should beable to be sued for those things, then those things would be stopped, and that would help lower the circumcision rate in the U.S.

If doctors give parents incorrect and biased information, then they are to blame, not parents. No one can be expected to make a good choice if your information is faulty or incomplete.

Regards

[rtnt]

I think doctors are most to blame for baby boys being circumcised, but I think parents are at least partially to blame also. Instead of parents just blindly trusting their doctor that circumcision will do their son all kinds of good and no harm, parents should do thorough research on the internet or from books, and they should beable to see for themselves that it would be wrong to let their baby son be circumcised with all the information there is now about how harmful and unnecessary circumcisions are.

When I was born there wasn't hardly any information available about circumcisions, so I don't hold it against my parents for letting me be circumcised. But when I was born if there was an internet then with all kinds of information about circumcisions and foreskins, and if my parents still let me be circumcised as a baby, then I would hold it against my parents so much for letting me be circumcised that I would disown them.

[J4rstr]

Most of my doctors are Jewish, and I would never bring up the issue of restoration with them for fear that they would somehow hold it against me and not give the same level of care.

I think this'd be reason enough for me, at least, to look for other doctors.

J

[Americut]

Anyone know a restoring lawyer who would be willing to sue for petty revenge? :D

Funny you ask. Not "restoring lawyers" but this was the first time I really heard of child right's attorney's that specialize in circumcision cases. This was at the end of an article Finman linked to in a thread in the lobby. I havn't read into it but if you want to, there you go:

"should you be inspired to sue your circumcising doctor and hospital where you were whacked, contact Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC)
2961 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 USA.

URL: http://www.arclaw.org/

Tel. 510-848-4437

Email: svoboda1@flash.net.

These dedicated lawyers are very interested in making the medical establishment pay for their butchery. To put it in their words, "The medical profession will confront a challenge to this inhumane disfigurement of baby boys' genitals from an organization of legal professionals which it cannot afford to ignore." "

[peterpink]

There is a growing number of entries on the Sueeasy website for circumcision class actions.:)

http://www.sueeasy.com/class_action_detail.php?case_id=258

The comments make interesting reading.

[rtnt]

At Opposingviews there's a poster by the name of bagpiper who used the ARC to successfully sue his doctor and his parents for circumcising him when he was a baby. He says that anyone who wants to sue for being circumcised as a baby should contact the ARC, and the ARC would happily take their case. Him and William Stowell(I think I have that name right) are the only males I've ever heard of though who successfully sued for being circumcised when they were a baby, maybe there are others though.

U.S. doctors and hospitals are getting away with horrible medical fraud with circumcising baby boys. So with males who want to sue their doctor and hospital for circumcising them when they were a baby, it seems like they should have a very strong case. In the future I hope that the ARC and other lawyers will become much more successful with sueing for babies being circumcised, and put a stop to doctors lying to parents so they can circumcise their babies.

[Goatfoot]

I wonder if suing for circumcision might ever become common. If it ever did then that would be a huge blow to circumcision. If parents and doctors thought that there was a chance that the kids might grow up and sue them then I think that they would be less eager to cut their kids.It doesn't seem like these cases get a lot of media coverage though.

[1Taoist]

Why is everybody talking about who is to blame?

Toward the topic of this thread...

Circ will never end. Just like auto-asphyxiation will never stop, nor will violence against abortion doctors, and even just plain rape. Some things are just here, and as long as there are people lacking intelligence, there will be these things.

Outlawing circ isn't gonna make people "fly to other countries to get it done", they'll get it done right fuckin here. This is no different than abortion: make it illegal and it'll just get done illegally, at far worse cost. My guess is, you make circ illegal and people will do it underground and the unsanitary conditions may cause disaster not unlike Africa- HIV will become a by-product.

Making it illegal for any way other than religion...everybody will claim religion. And you'll get angry circumcisions- people saying their freedom is being taken away and all sorts of other convolutions. We don't need religion in the mix. It's already being used against necessary abortion.

Its a nice idea- getting rid of it -but it ain't possible. It's just too much a part of peoples worst ignorance.

[Joseph]

Why is everybody talking about who is to blame?

Uh, so we can DO something about it?

Circ will never end. Just like auto-asphyxiation will never stop, nor will violence against abortion doctors, and even just plain rape. Some things are just here, and as long as there are people lacking intelligence, there will be these things.

You know what else isn't going to end, Tao?

People wanting to work for a good cause. We'll always be around too.

You know what's worse than noisy human rights activists? Someone who calls himself "Taoist" but has the nerve to complain about the presence of activist groups. A Taoist realizes certain things will always be around and then SHUTS UP, because he knows it's better just to let things that have always been around BE.

Outlawing circ isn't gonna make people "fly to other countries to get it done", they'll get it done right fuckin here. This is no different than abortion: make it illegal and it'll just get done illegally, at far worse cost. My guess is, you make circ illegal and people will do it underground and the unsanitary conditions may cause disaster not unlike Africa- HIV will become a by-product.

No, circumcision IS different than abortion; abortion was legalized, and women continue to fight for it under the banner "my body, my choice." It's why FEMALE circumcision is outlawed, and that's why nobody, not even DOCTORS can do it. So maybe it might happen underground. So should murder, rape, child abuse, etc. all be legalized because "hey!" it's going to happen "underground" anyway? Not very logical thinking.

Making it illegal for any way other than religion...everybody will claim religion. And you'll get angry circumcisions- people saying their freedom is being taken away and all sorts of other convolutions. We don't need religion in the mix. It's already being used against necessary abortion.

FGM is illegal, and not even religion can be used to legitimize it. African Tribesmen or Sunni Muslims can't claim their "freedoms are taken away." Not in this country. Not when it violates the freedoms of the individual. And quit comparing apples to oranges. Abortion is supposed to be a personal choice, something non-consenting minors do not have, and something that pro-choicers AND pro-lifers are supposed to be fighting to protect.

Its a nice idea- getting rid of it -but it ain't possible. It's just too much a part of peoples worst ignorance.

Even FGM continues, despite it being illegal in the US. Even if circumcision were finally outlawed in the US, it would continue, and no-body is denying this. But I don't think it's such a bad thing to want to blow circumcision as pseudo-medicine out of the water.

FGM still continues, but people in civilized countries view it for the needless mutilation that it is. It will never be included as curriculum in "medical studies." We can dislodge male infant circumcision from Western medicine and outlaw it as such, at least in this country; I think it would be a good thing to work for, and I definitely think this is possible in our lifetime.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."~ Edmund Burke

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~Margaret Mead.

At any rate, welcome back.

[admin]

Even if circumcision were finally outlawed in the US, it would continue, and no-body is denying this.

I wouldn't deny that, but this is not a victimless crime like pot smoking or prostitution. There is absolutely no moral ambiguity that I can see. It must be made illegal.

-Ron

[greg_b]

Even if you cannot get rid of it by making it illegal, you will very likely cut way down on it.

RIC has a very unique characteristic that many other debated things do not. Our Medical community says it is the parent's decision, without saying that there are strong legal and moral arguments against it. By making it illegal, the medical community will not be able to hide their collective head in the sand anymore.

Let's see, if it is illegal then doctors will not be able to say it is the parent's decision. Instead they will have to say they cannot do it because it is illegal. Insurance companies will not be able to fund it.

Sure, there will be some who will do it anyway, but for the majority of people who are doing it because they are afraid of the possible consequences and have received inadequate information upon which to make a good decision, they will now have an easy argument against it.

Sounds like it will certainly help to me.

Regards

[Joseph]

Some people are arguing that it already IS illegal by virtue of the 14th ammendment: The FGM law has to apply to BOTH sexes.

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/bond/01.html

Not to mention it's medical fraud to reap profit from a procedure that is not medically necessary, esp. when imposing it on non-consenting individuals.

[admin]

Some people are arguing that it already IS illegal by virtue of the 14th ammendment: The FGM law has to apply to BOTH sexes.
I'd say the 14th ammendment means only that the FGM law must be struck down.

Circumcision IS already illegal because it is warrantless unlawful restraint, reckless maiming, and amputation with no diagnosis of defect or pathology, with no attempts at less-destructive alternatives.

-Ron

[Goatfoot]

If circumcision were illegal then I think that very few people would do it, especially if there would be a consequence of jail time. I think that it is possible that if there are enough intact people walking around then eventually it will be the same as in Europe or Australia, where most people would never consider circumcision. I think that its possible that if people stop performing circumcision secularly then eventually jews and muslims might start thinking twice about it.

[cobra]

Circumcision should not be criminalized, but it should definitely be restricted to males over the age of 18 who can consent to the procedure themselves. Not someone's parents, nor their religious leaders, nor their spouses. Only the man the penis belongs to. Anything else is a human rights violation of the most extreme magnitude.

That being said, adult men who want to have themselves circumcised should go right ahead and do it. Here's a pen, dummy. Sign your sexual enjoyment away. It's no different than piercing and tattooing the body.

I see Taoist's point. It brings to mind a "performance artist" who publicly circumcised himself as a form of extreme art. He did it right in front of a gala group of laughing, drinking socialites. It was nauseating. On the plus side, it's a performance that he could only do one time. No repeat showings. Idiot.

I say restrict it, and let's get some lawsuits going. If doctors start getting sued, it will come to a screeching halt.

[1Taoist]

All of this logic flies in the face of reality.

Male circ is not considered comparable to FGM in this country. If you can change that, then you'll get somewhere.

And this reverse logic is the opposite of wisdom people use to LEGALiZE pot and abortion. If social and legal history shows us that ILLEGAliZING things makes them a.) more prevalent, b.) more mis-used, and c.) more dangerously traded, where in the hell are you getting the logic that it's gonna be the other way around for this? It's a social phenomenon that people do the opposite of what's in their best interest in all sorts of ways, and telling them they can't only makes them do it more.

The reason this matter is not like murder and all sorts of other bad things that ARE illegal is because there is no clearly identifiable loss. When we can get EVERYONE to agree it is a loss, then it will be. Maybe.

RIC is a unique thing. Do you want to outlaw circ, or just RIC? Identify that. Cuz if you're gonna give a woman the right to do something to the child in utero, you're taking away rights once she has birthed it. Makes sense, but where do you draw the line? You guys feel passionate but your real obstacle isn't circ, it's consciousness. When this society is ready to stop abusing itself and mutilating itself and killing itself...maybe it will consider circ wrong. Until then, it's right in line with the way people are.

Many people feel we need to stop killing animals for food. Makes sense. But it just ain't gonna work for people on this planet. I realize it ain't the same, as in there is no need for circ, but just using that to show how people can take positions against things that are indeed questionable.

My point is that the legal issue isn't the problem or the solution. It's consciousness. When consciousness shifts enough to drop this practice to the point of real obscurity, there won't need to be a law but there can be. What I'm saying is, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, the time to put a law in place is when you really don't need one, generally speaking. When not enough people wanna do this- like FGM. It's east to make that illegal cuz not many even consider it.

[1Taoist]

Again- alcohol was made illegal once, and that fell because nearly EVERYBODY drinks (to some extent). And there was money in regulating and legalizing it.

Circ (and especially RIC) will continue to be done cuz there's money in making it legal and nearly everyone considers it. But since the numbers are dropping, the money involved must be too.

The religious aspect is simply insolvable. We're never gonna get rid of the insane things people do in the name of religion, including murder. Even laws don't stop it.

[Goatfoot]

Nothing lasts forever. Eventually everything either changes or goes away. I don't see any reason why circumcision would be the exception to this rule. It is true that circumcision has been practiced for a long time, but the world is chinging now. People have access to a lot of information that they didn't before. At any rate I don't have any problem with a consenting adult who decides to get himself circumcised, even though I don't think it is a very wise decision. The obvious problem is people doing it to babies and children that can't consent.

[Joseph]

Male circ is not considered comparable to FGM in this country. If you can change that, then you'll get somewhere.

That's kind of the plan.

And this reverse logic is the opposite of wisdom people use to LEGALiZE pot and abortion. If social and legal history shows us that ILLEGAliZING things makes them a.) more prevalent, b.) more mis-used, and c.) more dangerously traded, where in the hell are you getting the logic that it's gonna be the other way around for this? It's a social phenomenon that people do the opposite of what's in their best interest in all sorts of ways, and telling them they can't only makes them do it more.

You make the same mistake of comparing apples to oranges here. Pot and abortion are related to the rights of the individual and what s/he can do to his body. Circumcising a non-consenting individual can hardly be called that.

If social and legal history shows us that ILLEGAliZING things makes them a.) more prevalent, b.) more mis-used, and c.) more dangerously traded, where in the hell are you getting the logic that it's gonna be the other way around for this? It's a social phenomenon that people do the opposite of what's in their best interest in all sorts of ways, and telling them they can't only makes them do it more.

This argument continues to not make sense. How is circumcision like using or selling pot? Circumcision is necessary for the health of the child HOW? Murder and rape would be less prevalent if it were legalized? I just can't see it bro.

The reason this matter is not like murder and all sorts of other bad things that ARE illegal is because there is no clearly identifiable loss. When we can get EVERYONE to agree it is a loss, then it will be. Maybe.

But there is clear identifiable loss. The loss of normal, healthy genitals, not to mention the loss of individual human rights. Getting everyone to agree; that would be our objective, and yes, I think it's feasible, at least in the Western world where we're supposed to be "civilized."

RIC is a unique thing. Do you want to outlaw circ, or just RIC? Identify that. Cuz if you're gonna give a woman the right to do something to the child in utero, you're taking away rights once she has birthed it. Makes sense, but where do you draw the line?

I'm all for the MGMBill. Check it out at MGMBill.com. I'm not against circ if it's done for medical purposes, and/or if someone just wants it; as in the feminist quip, "my body, my choice."

I've said this on other threads, but it doesn't make sense for neither pro-choicers or pro-lifers to be pro-circ; "pro-choicers" would be hard-pressed to show why "choice" is only afforded to ONE SEX, while pro-lifers need to tell us why they're for the "sanctity of life," but not the sanctity of the body.

The line is drawn at medical necessity: if it's necessary, doctors do it. If it's not necessary, doing and collecting money for it is medical fraud. Medical fraud is already illegal and doctors need to be prosecuted by angry circumcised men.

You guys feel passionate but your real obstacle isn't circ, it's consciousness. When this society is ready to stop abusing itself and mutilating itself and killing itself...maybe it will consider circ wrong. Until then, it's right in line with the way people are.

And consciousness, Taoist, is what I believe we're trying to raise

My point is that the legal issue isn't the problem or the solution. It's consciousness. When consciousness shifts enough to drop this practice to the point of real obscurity, there won't need to be a law but there can be. What I'm saying is, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, the time to put a law in place is when you really don't need one, generally speaking. When not enough people wanna do this- like FGM. It's east to make that illegal cuz not many even consider it.

I quite disagree. Nobody waited for there to be "consciousness" to stop slavery or fight for women's rights. No one's waiting for "conscioussness" to make gay marriage legal. Nothing ever got done sitting around just hoping problems went away. Consciousness needs to be raised, but people also need to take action, especially when laws already forbid circumcision, not to mention they prohibit doctors from profiting from quackery.

It's already illegal, it's already against the law. Doctors and hospitals can already be taken to court; on this too does consciousness need to be raised.

But I don't think consciousness is the real problem; people quite know circumcision is useless, but insist on performing it anyway. The REAL problem is willful ignorance, and just as the price of ignoring a cliff is falling off of it, there needs to be consequence for not heeding timely warning. I think the more people become conscious, the more men become conscious of the mutilation on their bodies, the more they will aim to sue doctors and hospitals.

But the laws must be there and enforced. Awarenss of this will be raised too as more and more men take to the courts. I do believe this can be achieved within our lifetime, with a little work and courage.

[Joseph]

Again- alcohol was made illegal once, and that fell because nearly EVERYBODY drinks (to some extent). And there was money in regulating and legalizing it.

Circ (and especially RIC) will continue to be done cuz there's money in making it legal and nearly everyone considers it. But since the numbers are dropping, the money involved must be too.

The religious aspect is simply insolvable. We're never gonna get rid of the insane things people do in the name of religion, including murder. Even laws don't stop it.

Again, circumcision can't be compared to "crimes" such as alchohol, marijuana and abortion.

It is more like robbery, rape and murder. I doubt these will drop if they are ever legalized.

[greg_b]

The religious aspect is not insolvable. Our society has case law that prevents religion from going against state laws, especially with regard to the rights of children. Not saying it would be easy to outlaw RIC in the current state of knowledge and acceptance, simply pointing out that it is not insolvable.

And yes, we need to seperate RIC from adult circ in this discussion. Completely different issues. My comments are specific to RIC.

Regards

[Joseph]

I think what Tao is refering to, meaning just religious justification, will always be there.

And no, you can't argue against it. Faith is by definition belief in the irrational. Thus, religious justification for circumcision cannot be contended with rationally.

This doesn't mean the state has to appease everything under the guise of "religion," and it definitely doesn't mean it's a doctor's duty to obey the mandate of others' religion; his duty is to MEDICINE, not religious rite.

[admin]

Again- alcohol was made illegal once, and that fell because nearly EVERYBODY drinks (to some extent). And there was money in regulating and legalizing it.

Circ (and especially RIC) will continue to be done cuz there's money in making it legal and nearly everyone considers it. But since the numbers are dropping, the money
But prohibition of a victimless activity is always stupid and destructive.

The law must have no tolerance for a human rights abuse.

-Ron

[cobra]

As much as some would think otherwise, we live in a sexually repressed culture that still wrestles with alot of religious dogma. The single most touted reason we circumcise as a culture is that it makes the penis "cleaner". This is an irrational belief. We have access to water and washcloths. However, translate "cleaner" to "less sinful" and you begin to grasp our pernicious insistence of circumcision. By reducing sexual sensation, thus making sex more of a mechanical procreative act, we eliminate two things which our culture finds distasteful: male emotion and indulgence in pleasure.

My wife once stated that she thought sex was supposed to be both pleasurable and painful, and that my restoring was wonderful because it eliminated the pain aspect for her. It was an eye-opening revelation for her, and an event that turned her from pro-circ to intactivist rather quickly.

Viewing modern pornography, you often see the circumcised performers copulating very violently, with very little sense of pleasure or emotional connection to the partner. Indeed, much of it seems actually antagonistic, with behavior that is intended to be painful, humiliating and harmful.

Our society is sick with sexual angst and emotional repression and circ is just one of the side effects. We need to treat the disease, not the symptom. American men need to embrace their male passions instead of pushing them away, and stop feeling guilty about sex. We have to become more than just worker drones.

Circumcision is the ultimate form of sexual oppression (short of total castration or emasculation) because it removes the physical capacity for full sexual experience. It is sexual repression expressed in the flesh. It makes me sad to think of the millions of men who have been denied the joy of a natural and full male orgasm, simply because we are afraid of and embarrassed by our penises.

[1Taoist]

mountain of threads later..

Murder and rape are not that common. And loss of life is easier to understand than the value of foreskin to the average person. Where rape and murder is more common, there are less laws against it.

[1Taoist]

And as far as consciousness goes YES that's exactly how gay marriage is doin it, and other forward causes. The consciousness is shifting first, which is leading to acceptance. It's actually the OPPONENTS of these causes that wanna make them illegal. They think laws will keep people from expanding consciousness, but it won't. Laws invariably reduce consciousness, which is why people break them- their consciousness is either expanding or contracting.

[1Taoist]

Funny how Joseph says the end goal is to sue these doctors. That's fool's talk. And calls to question your distorted commitment. Same "punnishment is the answer" mentality that lead to the murder of late-term abortion doctor Tiller.

No wonder you think consciousness isn't the problem.

[1Taoist]

And just for the sake of clarity, and as an example of confused and contradictory logic: alcohol is not a "crime", and neither is abortion. Marajuana is illegal, and try to explain why alcohol is legal and pot is not, when the further is far worse. Abortion is legal, but many think it should be a crime. But ask them if they want to throw women in jail who get them, and they say no. They want it illegal, but not enforced.

Many think pot should be legal so we can make $ and regulate it. But there isn't as much money in pot cuz it's natural, and can be grown by people. Beer and liquor are a pain in the ass to make, and easy to make bad. Thus they legalize that. Pot is actually good for us, and they make more money keepin it illegal.

None of these things are "crimes" per say, yet...ironically...RIC is. And it's legal.

[1Taoist]

And Ron: nowadays, many consider alcohol abuse a victimization of society, as do many family members who've lost loved ones to those who abuse it.

[finman]

that lead to the murder of late-term abortion doctor Tiller

The gunman should get a medal for killing that serial killer, maybe saving many lives.

How can we protest at the taking of a baby boy's foreskin yet happily accept the taking of his life (foreskin and all!), then go on to talk of hypocrisy in others?

[Joseph]

And as far as consciousness goes YES that's exactly how gay marriage is doin it, and other forward causes. The consciousness is shifting first, which is leading to acceptance. It's actually the OPPONENTS of these causes that wanna make them illegal. They think laws will keep people from expanding consciousness, but it won't. Laws invariably reduce consciousness, which is why people break them- their consciousness is either expanding or contracting.

No, the gay movement is also seeking to change the laws; make it reflect what its supposed to. Opponents are trying to keep this from happening "legally." Look at California.

Like gay marriage, the 14th amendment is already supposed to protect children. But it doesn't.

[Joseph]

Funny how Joseph says the end goal is to sue these doctors. That's fool's talk. And calls to question your distorted commitment. Same "punnishment is the answer" mentality that lead to the murder of late-term abortion doctor Tiller.

No wonder you think consciousness isn't the problem.

Could you cut and paste where I say I think the end-goal is to sue the doctors? That's YOUR distorted view of my commitment.

I have always said the end-goal is to dislodge male infant circumcision from our American medical system. And I have always said that suing doctors is an action people need to take; a means to that end. Please get it straight.

And there you go comparing apples to oranges again. There really is a difference between taking someone to court and taking the law into your own hands.

Could you please cut and paste wherever I said people need to go to synagogues and hospitals and shoot doctors and mohels?

I never said I thought "consciousness isn't the problem," I actually agreed with you there, dork!

[Joseph]

And just for the sake of clarity, and as an example of confused and contradictory logic: alcohol is not a "crime", and neither is abortion. Marajuana is illegal, and try to explain why alcohol is legal and pot is not, when the further is far worse. Abortion is legal, but many think it should be a crime. But ask them if they want to throw women in jail who get them, and they say no. They want it illegal, but not enforced.

Many think pot should be legal so we can make $ and regulate it. But there isn't as much money in pot cuz it's natural, and can be grown by people. Beer and liquor are a pain in the ass to make, and easy to make bad. Thus they legalize that. Pot is actually good for us, and they make more money keepin it illegal.

None of these things are "crimes" per say, yet...ironically...RIC is. And it's legal.

Yet you fail to explain how smoking a joint, or willfully going to get an abortion, or drinking a beer is like taking a boy and cutting into his genitals.

The line is crossed when you want to do something to someone else. It's why there are laws against buying beer and cigarettes for minors.

Just like I don't think there's a problem with beer or cigarettes if a grown adult does them, I don't think there's a problem if a grown man wants a circumcision.

It's taking an unwitting boy and circumcising him that's a problem, and I say there needs to be laws agains that.

[Joseph]

The gunman should get a medal for killing that serial killer, maybe saving many lives.

How can we protest at the taking of a baby boy's foreskin yet happily accept the taking of his life (foreskin and all!), then go on to talk of hypocrisy in others?

I'm going to make a confession here; I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I also find abortion in the 3rd trimester, esp. healthy children who have no problems or who don't pose any actual threat to the mother, to be sheer infanticide. I say Tiller was guilty of infanticide, confessed by his own lips.

I'm not for abortion anymore than you are, fin, but we have to realize that Tiller's was a murder as well.

I will have to say that I recognize Tiller's death as a murder, "but I understand," in Chris Rock's words.

I don't think murder is ever the answer, as I've said I believe in fighting circumcision with due process like lawsuits and raising awareness. But as in the Tiller/3rd term abortion case, you can't ask me to feel sympathy if I ever hear that some angry circumcised man took a gun and shot Brian Morris, Edgar Schoen, Robert Bailey, or some other champion of infant circumcision.

I wouldn't feel pity for those shot. I'd have to say my overpowering feeling would be one of "good riddance."

But it would still be wrong, and whoever shot these men if it ever came to that, would be guilty of murder, and should be charged as committers of such...

[finman]

Wilfully going to get an abortion...is like taking a boy and cutting into his genitals. The line is crossed when you want to do something to someone else.

Yes, one damages the boy for life, the other takes his life. So which is the more serious crime?

If you say it is the mother's choice to have her baby killed, why not the mother's choice to have him circumcised? Or her with her baby daughter for that matter?

And don't forget the agonising death of the baby does not really matter as babies do not feel pain as we all know on this forum (sarcastic comment)

[Joseph]

Yes, one damages the boy for life, the other takes his life. So which is the more serious crime?

If you say it is the mother's choice to have her baby killed, why not the mother's choice to have him circumcised? Or her with her baby daughter for that matter?

And don't forget the agonising death of the baby does not really matter as babies do not feel pain as we all know on this forum (sarcastic comment)

Well, to be honest, I have always said that neither the pro-choice nor the pro-life camp can be in favor of circumcision.

Pro-choicers would be hypocritical for advocating a woman's right to choose, but not a man's, as a defenseless child.

And pro-lifers need to explain why they're for the "sanctity of life," but not for the sanctity of the boy's body and his individual human rights.

I'd have to say that I slant against abortion, and you are right, killing a child would be a serious, if not more serious crime than having him circumcised.

But we also have to recognize that a woman has rights over her body too. If she doesn't want to have a child, and it's early on in the pregnancy when the child isn't really viable, why not? What if it's a rape?

Where I draw the line is somewhere in the 2nd trimester, when the child could survive outside its mother's body. To me, killing a child that might as well exist outside its mother's body is infanticide. At that point, why must the pregnancy necessarily terminate in killing the child? Saving the child would terminate the pregnancy AND allow the child to survive, but it doesn't seem pro-choicers like that idea...

The abortion debate is a very hard one, I think, and I know because I have tried take a middle ground, still ending up on the other side, if even slightly.

And, I think it's a bit beyond the scope of this thread, and this needs to be moved to the faith boards or something.

For now, we need to agree that neither pro-choicers or pro-lifers should be arguing in favor of circumcision, as it shoots BOTH movements in the foot.

[1Taoist]

Well, nothing like abortion to bring out the irrationality in people.

Giving someone a medal for walking up to a doctor and shooting him in front of children is the only way to make yourself as bad as the shooter. Perhaps worse. The only difference between you and him is he actually does the deed. You appropriate it from a distance. That is a legal form of murder. Nice work Fin.

And anyone who thinks late-term abortions are just done to "perfectly healthy children", like women are just lazy and don't get around to gettin rid of what's inside them, is woefully ignorant. Sadly ignorant. Criminally ignorant.

Fortunately, in this matter, cooler and smarter heads prevail, and continue to keep this a legal op for very serious reasons. Any remarks or responses sensationalizing late-term abortions is a deliberate attempt to ignore medical facts in service of personal inflammation. The fact is any doc or hospital can do these procedures- they just don't simply for political reasons. They don't want the fallout.

That isn't opinion. It's fact.

I'm sad, finman, that you've jumped the shark. There are very few people in this world as faulty-minded to mistake a lunatic for a hero- but wait...the entire German population did it in the '30's.

Just goes to show why circ will NOT stop in this lifetime, probably. Cuz people just don't get the wrongs they think are right. What a catastrophe.

And Joseph- I will cut and paste you nicely.

[1Taoist]

But I don't think consciousness is the real problem; people quite know circumcision is useless, but insist on performing it anyway. The REAL problem is willful ignorance

There's one.

[1Taoist]

I think the more people become conscious, the more men become conscious of the mutilation on their bodies, the more they will aim to sue doctors and hospitals.

But the laws must be there and enforced. Awarenss of this will be raised too as more and more men take to the courts. I do believe this can be achieved within our lifetime, with a little work and courage.

and that"s the other. Pretty black and white, douche. Nice consistency. And in the same paragraph, even.

[Joseph]

And anyone who thinks late-term abortions are just done to "perfectly healthy children", like women are just lazy and don't get around to gettin rid of what's inside them, is woefully ignorant. Sadly ignorant. Criminally ignorant.

I need to find the quote, but I was certain that Tiller himself admitted to this, if not one of his workers.

IF, late-term abortions happen to perfectly healthy children, I'm against that. I'm totally for late-term abortion if and when there is a problem, like say the child's organs are growing outside its body, there's a hole in his head etc.

But that goes for any medically necessary procedure. I'm for circumcision if its necessary, against it where its not, which is in like 100% of newborn children.

Looking the otherway while a doctor profits from medically unecessary procedures, like circumcisions, and, I say, the killing of newborn children as they exit their mothers' bodies, is, to me, "criminally ignorant."

There's no easy way to tell whether ar late-term abortion was actually necessary, however, because of the "privacy between the mother and the doctor." That's very similar to using "parental rights" to justify male infant circumcision; it deliberately ignores the third person present; the individual himself.

I'm FOR there being more than one law-abiding doctor approving late-term abortion, SCREW a "woman's right" at that point, as at that point the child has the right to live.

It looks like tiller committed many 3rd term abortions giving himself approval so that he didn't have to consult any other doctor. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe because other doctors would disagree? I'm sorry, no. I cannot feel sorry for this man's death. Tiller's killer shouldn't be forgiven, but neither should Tiller. I'm with the crowd that is glad he's dead. Given his own medicine of late-term abortion.

Fortunately, in this matter, cooler and smarter heads prevail, and continue to keep this a legal op for very serious reasons. Any remarks or responses sensationalizing late-term abortions is a deliberate attempt to ignore medical facts in service of personal inflammation. The fact is any doc or hospital can do these procedures- they just don't simply for political reasons. They don't want the fallout.

If by "cooler" and "smarter," you mean spineless worms, I'm afraid you are right; they do prevail. No one wants to come out and condemn late-term abortion for the same reason nobody wants to condemn circumcision; they're all afraid of being labeled. Oppose abortion in any way, and you're a cheauvinist pig. Oppose circumcision, why, you are as bad as Hitler.

I think the op needs to be legal when and if it's necessary, the same with circumcision. Killing a baby as its being born isn't "sensationalism," it's what's happening. No minimizing you do can ever change that.

I'm sad, finman, that you've jumped the shark. There are very few people in this world as faulty-minded to mistake a lunatic for a hero- but wait...the entire German population did it in the '30's.

I'm not sure what's worse; labeling Tiller's killer a hero, or labeling Tiller himself a hero. Which lunatic would it be more faulty-minded to label a "hero?" He who killed one man? Or he who systematically and unabashedly killed 60,000 children? Under the guise of "medicine?" And the banner of "Women's rights?" If this man performed not only necessary abortions, but unnecessary ones as well, wouldn't be he guilty of medical fraud? Not to mention murder? And how would this be different that doctors that lie about boys having problems in order to legitimize their circumcisions?

Just goes to show why circ will NOT stop in this lifetime, probably.

It goes to show NOTHING.

For some unexplained reason, you Taoist, seem to revel in the fact that circumcision will not end anytime soon, and this wouldn't be the first time you've implied these sentiments. I've always wondered why you're even here, restoring. Are you for real? Are you really restoring? Did you actually buy Ron's product? Or are you pro-circumcisionist in restorer's clothing?

Circumcision will probably not be outdated in our lifetime, but I'm quite certain the circumcision of newborns will. Not probably, it's GOING to happen. It happened very quickly in the UK, it's happened in other countries, and I see no reason why it couldn't in the US, where it was supposed to have happened FIRST.

Cuz people just don't get the wrongs they think are right. What a catastrophe.

The catastrophe is legitimizing mutilation of non-concenting individuals, and the murder of newborns as they exit their mothers' womb. I don't think that can ever be called "right," ever. That is, unless, you call it something else, like the killing of "fetus," or something that's easier to kill than an individual PERSON.

Don't get me wrong. Tiller's killer is guilty of murder. That doesn't absolve Tiller if he's guilty of what he is accused of; the murder of countless children.


And Joseph- I will cut and paste you nicely.

Actions speak louder than words.

Please cut and paste ALL of what I say, not just what you think is convenient, thanks.

[1Taoist]

And regarding the conundrum of late-term, the reason they have to make it legal is because sometimes it's NECESSARY. Plain and simple. The law isn't to allow babies to be scuttled, it's to allow doctors to save women and solve real problems without incurring legal problems. And a woman needs to have that option. The fact that hospitals and docs won't do this even for real medical emergency underscores the power of the irrational fallout from lunacy. The truth is there is no way to have it both ways. And for most rational people, between the choice of the life of a living person or the life of a not-yet-born life (in such situations), the choice is a clear one- the one here lives. And we lower our head for the one that didn't make it. And that typifies the context. Everything else is just a derivative of that.

All things being fine, everyone believes a viable baby should not be scuttled. Under any condition deemed personal. That's easy. What isn't easy is when real medical disasters are met with political opposition and fanaticism, making these unfortunate complications more complicated. Dr Tiller only did what nobody else wanted the flack for doing; he did the ugliest work nobody else wanted to touch. And he didn't enjoy it. He did what somebody had to, and will continue to have to do.

Someday, god forbid, you're ever in the situation...only then will you understand. And probably want the option you condemn.

Just because a handful of psycho women walk into a clinic at 9 mos and want to abort doesn't make it a rule. It is only the exception. ANYTHING LEGAL WILL BE ABUSED. That is a rule.

But, thankfully, we don't make laws on exceptions. We tolerate them in service of the genuine and unfortunate, which in this case require laws to protect against the other exceptions- the ones who try to kill those doing what they deem necessary with their body and the life in it. And those laws aren't working. The minute you support murder for what you "think" is murder, you're on the wrong side of the law, and in a zero-sum status.

Funny, we deem someone who kills a pregnant woman a double-homicide, but if she goes and kills the baby inside her herself it is not murder cuz it's her own body. If it's her own body, then it's a form of suicide, which IS against the law. So shall we prosecute her for suicide? If we do, it'll be the first person we have ever done that to.

Even in the case of attempted-suicide, which is against the law, she'd be the first to be prosecuted. It's an odd law; one which we just cannot prosecute.

The law is there for other reasons, mostly in regards to insurance.

See how complicated it is.

[Joseph]

You made TWO claims. The first, that I say the end-goal was to sue doctors. I need to see a quote for that please?

About consciousness, I'm not sure if you're just deliberately attacking my failure to gramatically express myself, or if you're really just that stupid.

Obviously I think consciousness is important, and what I was saying is that the lack of it isn't the problem, because by now people are fully aware of circumcision as a violation of human rights, but are willfully deciding to ignore this.

The end-goal isn't to have men sue their doctors, the end-goal is to have people acknowledge circumcision as a violation of human rights. Suing would be a means to that end, not the end itself.

The consciousness is there, but consciousness without action is consciousness without action.

It's not enough that people "know" something is wrong, they need to know that it's wrong, AND they need to stop doing it.

Knowing rape, mutilation and/or murder does not let the rapist, mutilator and/or murderer off the hook in a court of law.

[1Taoist]

Well, Joseph, let's hope nobody deems what you do deserved of late-term abortion, and sprays the wall with your head.

[Joseph]

Tao,

I'm not against necessary medical procedure; as in circumcision, its necessity needs to be proven.

It can't just be hidden in the "privacy of the mother and the doctor" because in the 3rd trimester in the 7th, 8th or 9th month, there is a 3rd individual present.

If there is no other way, then I'm for it.

But 60,000 unborn children? ALL of them deformed or a "danger to the mother?" Really?

I'd like to know whether Tiller was actually for women's rights, or whether he was just an entrepreneur like child circumcisers and sellers of circumcising devices.

[Joseph]

Well, Joseph, let's hope nobody deems what you do deserved of late-term abortion, and sprays the wall with your head.

EXACTLY.

Now you're getting it.

If it's OK to do it inside the womb, why not OUTSIDE the womb?

Tiller's death was no less a murder than sucking the brains out of a child about to be born.

[1Taoist]

About consciousness, I'm not sure if you're just deliberately attacking my failure to gramatically express myself, or if you're really just that stupid..

No. YOU'RE really that stupid.

Obviously I think consciousness is important, and what I was saying is that the lack of it isn't the problem, because by now people are fully aware of circumcision as a violation of human rights

Really? Doesn't seem like it to me.

but are willfully deciding to ignore this.

Right. You're making -100% sense.

The end-goal isn't to have men sue their doctors, the end-goal is to have people acknowledge circumcision as a violation of human rights.

Didn't you just say that's already the case??

Suing would be a means to that end, not the end itself.

Nice split, cunt-hair.

The consciousness is there, but consciousness without action is consciousness without action.

Thanks for that. I was unclear.

It's not enough that people "know" something is wrong, they need to know that it's wrong, AND they need to stop doing it.

You are a genius. Really.


If anybody can make sense of this magna carta, you get a pizza.

[Joseph]

The law isn't to allow babies to be scuttled, it's to allow doctors to save women and solve real problems without incurring legal problems. And a woman needs to have that option. The fact that hospitals and docs won't do this even for real medical emergency underscores the power of the irrational fallout from lunacy.

I think the law needs to allow for necessary medical procedure. There shouldn't be a problem if it can be proven that something is medically necessary. If hospitals and docs won't handle a real medical emergency, then I agree, there is a problem. I agree, there needs to be room for this.

The truth is there is no way to have it both ways.

Says who? Have doctors worked equally in finding ways to save both mother and child? Or have they spent all their time looking for better ways to kill an unborn child?

It's related to circumcision in that, doctors look for more and more ways to legitimize circumcision as a medical practice, instead of actually looking for solutions to problems men might be suffering.

And for most rational people, between the choice of the life of a living person or the life of a not-yet-born life (in such situations), the choice is a clear one- the one here lives. And we lower our head for the one that didn't make it. And that typifies the context. Everything else is just a derivative of that.

Really? This was the case in all 60,000 abortions Tiller did? How can I be sure?

All things being fine, everyone believes a viable baby should not be scuttled. Under any condition deemed personal. That's easy. What isn't easy is when real medical disasters are met with political opposition and fanaticism, making these unfortunate complications more complicated. Dr Tiller only did what nobody else wanted the flack for doing; he did the ugliest work nobody else wanted to touch. And he didn't enjoy it. He did what somebody had to, and will continue to have to do.

Well I need to see records. I need to see that every 3rd term abortion he performed was actually necessary, and he didn't just look to legitimize his business.

If its an actual medical disaster, ALL doctors need to learn to how to perform this. But I think it needs to be well established that this is the only way to go. It sounds like, though, Tiller got away with killing perfectly healthy children. Check this out:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=92185

If what this story accounts for is true, then there is sabotage. No. This can't be forgiven.


Someday, god forbid, you're ever in the situation...only then will you understand. And probably want the option you condemn.

I have considered this option. But I think by this time you know that I agree; IF and when something is medically necessary, I agree that it must be done.

One of my family members had to have an abortion because she was suffering an ectopic pregnancy. There was really no other way.

I don't think you understand that I am FOR abortion when necessary.

Just because a handful of psycho women walk into a clinic at 9 mos and want to abort doesn't make it a rule. It is only the exception. ANYTHING LEGAL WILL BE ABUSED. That is a rule.

It's true. But doctors need not participate in such business. At that point a woman has a different problem, doesn't she. Couldn't the pregnancies in such women be terminated by taking the living child out and allowing it to live?

A woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, sure. Maybe she should be allowed to for whatever reason she chooses.

But must that pregnancy necessarily end in abortion?

But, thankfully, we don't make laws on exceptions. We tolerate them in service of the genuine and unfortunate, which in this case require laws to protect against the other exceptions- the ones who try to kill those doing what they deem necessary with their body and the life in it. And those laws aren't working. The minute you support murder for what you "think" is murder, you're on the wrong side of the law, and in a zero-sum status.

I think you might be talking to Fin on this. I don't think Tiller's killer should be absolved of anything. Murder is murder andhe is just as guilty.

Funny, we deem someone who kills a pregnant woman a double-homicide, but if she goes and kills the baby inside her herself it is not murder cuz it's her own body. If it's her own body, then it's a form of suicide, which IS against the law. So shall we prosecute her for suicide? If we do, it'll be the first person we have ever done that to.

Yeah. That IS funny. Double-homicide if someone kills a pregnant woman, not a homocide if the woman kills her own child. I'm not sure how that would be a form of "suicide," though, as it would clearly be homicide. If she kills a baby just before its born, how is that any different than killing it just as soon as it is? It's not suicide in ANY case, it's homocide. If a pregnant woman actually tried to commit suicide, would that also count as "attempted homocide," seeing as we would call the murder of a pregnant woman a "double-homocide?"

Even in the case of attempted-suicide, which is against the law, she'd be the first to be prosecuted. It's an odd law; one which we just cannot prosecute.

But would she be prosecuted as attempted suicide AND homocide? :-)

The law is there for other reasons, mostly in regards to insurance.

See how complicated it is.

And here I thought laws existed for the protection of citizens.

My, it IS complicated.

I admit.

[Joseph]

Sorry, Tao, 'fraid the following doesn't really amount to any kind of argument:

No. YOU'RE really that stupid.

Really? Doesn't seem like it to me.

Right. You're making -100% sense.

Didn't you just say that's already the case??

Nice split, cunt-hair.

Thanks for that. I was unclear.

You are a genius. Really.

If anybody can make sense of this magna carta, you get a pizza.

If my life depended on getting pizza for understanding your arguments I'd starve to death.

[Joseph]

I'd like to apologize for digressing. This really isn't the avenue. It's just something that I honestly feel really bad about, and as in circumcision, something I'm passionate about... well, not THAT passionate, I try to be politically correct and walk around eggshells on this, but if the right button is pushed...

Let's come back to the original topic.

Bottom line:

Perhaps circumcision will not end in our lifetime, but what we CAN achieve is the ellimination of it from modern medicine. It's already on its way.

The bottom line is, doctors aren't supposed to be reaping profit by performing non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals. As a doctor's duty is to MEDICINE, religion and what parents think is secondary.

It's feasible, and I think we're going to make it happen during our lifetime.

If you doubt it, Tao, that's fine. But there's no reason to come on here and spew personal insults because we do not share your view.

As always, I beseech thee, respect and be respected.

[admin]

Funny how Joseph says the end goal is to sue these doctors.

I think expensive legal action will go a long way to reducing circ rates.

1Taoist, I haven't read through all this, but if criminalization is not a good thing and civil action for damage done is not a good thing, is reducing the number of circumcisions a good thing at least?

-Ron

[admin]

I wonder if it's possible to have an internally consistent set of thoughts encompassing genital mutilation and abortion.

I believe in human rights and minimizing suffering. Chiefly I'd like to see global population decline to minimize suffering for future generations. But we're not going to achieve population reduction through abortion.

I know "act of god" ends 5 times as many pregnancies in the US as human intervention does and so I dismiss any argument made claiming to speak for what a god wants. I think a woman can not be forced like cattle to carry a child - not even a moment longer than suits her. She has rights surpassing those of the potential person inside her, and yes this is a unique case where its dependence on her gives her a special right take steps that would lead to the dependent person's death.

That said if a pregnancy can be ended without killing the dependent person, why not let it live? Many states have laws now that permit a parent to abandon a child, with the law's intent being to protect the children from abuse or murder at the hands of frustrated parents. Even in the face of such laws, a woman who wants to stop carrying an inviable child has a choice - kill the child while its in her or deliver it and let it suffer until its demise. I don't like the second choice and if I was ever in that position I would be greatful to have the first choice as a legal option.

Now why on earth have we ever tolerated haphazard abortion savagery involving scissors and stirring of brains? Is it to get around well-intentioned laws about what can and can't legally be killed, and how? The barbarism of it has never been a compelling argument for me regarding abortion, capital punishment, or circumcision. We have ways to do horrible things well and pretty much painlessly - if they're going to be done. It's certainly easy enough to kill a pet in what looks like a painless way. And we could stick to cutting babies' foreskins only after 6 months - as the seemingly intactivist Australian medical policy calls for - when thorough pain management is more feasible. It's still wrong to take healthy normal sexual parts without consent.

To me, the arguments against barbaric practices must not center on the barbarism, for taking that out of the equation does not make the act right. The argument must make the case that the act should not be allowed at all.

-Ron

[Joseph]

I know "act of god" ends 5 times as many pregnancies in the US as human intervention does and so I dismiss any argument made claiming to speak for what a god wants.

"Act of god" also ends many lives, such as those who die in natural disasters. I think that we will both agree that there is a distinct difference in a spontaneous death and a deliberate homocide.

I dismiss any argument made claiming to speak for "what god wants," as I don't believe in such a figure. But I don't think you have to believe in a god-figure to think that an act is wrong. (ergo, why I don't think circumcision can be legitimized through religion.) Generally, I think killing someone who is innocent is wrong.

I think a woman can not be forced like cattle to carry a child - not even a moment longer than suits her. She has rights surpassing those of the potential person inside her, and yes this is a unique case where its dependence on her gives her a special right take steps that would lead to the dependent person's death.

I might be able to agree with this, but you also ask:

That said if a pregnancy can be ended without killing the dependent person, why not let it live?.

Which is exactly what I say. If a woman no longer wishes to accomodate the child growing within her, fine. If it's early on, then there would be no choice but to kill the inviable child. I suppose if it's done the earlier, the better, since the child isn't able to live outside its mothers' body. But if it can live, IE, if it's in the third trimester, why not have the doctor safely extract the child and have somebody who wants it take it in? I have heard that there are waiting lists for people who want children but cannot have one of their own, so they would like to adopt a newborn. Why can't this be a solution?

Many states have laws now that permit a parent to abandon a child, with the law's intent being to protect the children from abuse or murder at the hands of frustrated parents. Even in the face of such laws, a woman who wants to stop carrying an inviable child has a choice - kill the child while its in her or deliver it and let it suffer until its demise. I don't like the second choice and if I was ever in that position I would be greatful to have the first choice as a legal option.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. There is a difference in abandoning a healthy, born, or unborn viable child and in wanting to terminate the pregnancy of an inviable child.

I agree, if the child is inviable, then the legal choice should exist to terminate the pregnancy early instead of allowing such a child to be delivered and kept alive until it dies. Some of these children are grotesque deformities, such as a child whose organs are growing outside its body, or who have holes in their heads etc.

But I think that's different than killing a healthy, normal child that might as well be born. As much as I respect a woman's choice to no longer carry that child, I think that at such a point the child should be safely extracted and given to somebody that wants it. At the risk of sounding cheauvinist, I can't see that as anything else than infanticide.

Now why on earth have we ever tolerated haphazard abortion savagery involving scissors and stirring of brains? Is it to get around well-intentioned laws about what can and can't legally be killed, and how?

I believe so. The scissors and stirring of brains happens inside the mothers' body to preserve the fiction that the child isn't "born" yet. But this changes if the same action happens outside its mothers' body.

The barbarism of it has never been a compelling argument for me regarding abortion, capital punishment, or circumcision. We have ways to do horrible things well and pretty much painlessly - if they're going to be done. It's certainly easy enough to kill a pet in what looks like a painless way. And we could stick to cutting babies' foreskins only after 6 months - as the seemingly intactivist Australian medical policy calls for - when thorough pain management is more feasible. It's still wrong to take healthy normal sexual parts without consent.

To me, the arguments against barbaric practices must not center on the barbarism, for taking that out of the equation does not make the act right. The argument must make the case that the act should not be allowed at all.

I hope that you agree that the barbarism is an important part of the equation, albeit an unnecessary one.

I agree. The argument that circumcision can be made painless with this or that contraption, or with this or that drug doesn't make it any better to do. If the same argument can't work for FGM, then it cannot work for male infant circumcision.

You've seen the recent contraption I posted in the news. Would that doctors came up with a way to kill a 3rd term child without having to crack its skull open and suck out its brains, I would still think it was wrong.

Let's linger just a little bit on the argument that a mothers' rights supercedes the rights of the individual within her; what if doctors found a way to circumcise a child in-utero? You know? Since its not outside its mothers' body? Would that we were to one day succeed in making people realize circumcision violates the rights of the individual, could it be argued that since a mothers' rights supercedes that of the individual within her, then she could have a doctor go in there and circumcise the child before it's born?

Ron, I know there are points that we are going to be at odds with... I hope we could still have intelligent discussion, agree to disagree and focus on ending circumcision.

[1Taoist]

Ron: I do think reducing circ would be great. But it's not at a place to be effectively illegalized. Making something illegal is the last step- after everyone pretty much doesn't do it. Like murder, per say.

Like you said about not focusing on the barbarism: screaming that we need to illegalize things and sue everybody is exactly that- focusing on barbarism.

The age-old argument between Lucifer and God is described as:

"Lucifer says the people must be controlled or they will do the wrong things. God said no, they must have free will and learn to do the right things. Lucifer rebelled, and dedicated his angels to tempting us and proving to God we shall fail under free will. But even if Lucifer engages us in this way- helping us create our own destruction, he helps us- because we learn to do things better gradually. Which means the real obstacle is too much too soon, not our tendency to destroy. And this is the function of time: to bring us along without destruction."

Mythology helps us idealogically, but we still have a real world to contend with here and now.


Circ, I don't think, can ever end cuz it's part of what's wrong propelling the world toward what's right. It will always exist as what isn't right. What we can hope for, even in our lifetime, is to raise consciousness, side-step business, marginalize ignorance, and promote benefit, which may indeed send circ off the map largely- and mainly -in America. When it's a choice that isn't chosen, that's when we've won.

Just like abortion.

[1Taoist]

Here's another way to look at it: marriage is a legal partnership. One major cause of divorce is infidelity. We're abiding by the law by being monogamous. We call it "faithful", though, not for religious reasons but for literally the reason that we can't enforce a law that makes people be monogamous. Once again...because a lot of people aren't. Can't make somethin illegal that a lot of people do. So...people sue for money and assets as a way to punnish their spouse. Divorce is such a costly endeavor that many don't even do it- and don't cheat either. No-fault divorces are hugely expensive, almost to the point of discouraging not infidelity but marriage altogether.

We can't make infidelity illegal, even though it does real harm in some cases, largely to children.

[greg_b]

Infidelity is illegal.

[1Taoist]

Show me any court that has prosecuted anyone for this, Greg.

[1Taoist]

Only in some states is it identifiable as fault, and legal grounds for divorce. Only in context of divorce is it illegal, and in such case it is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

States that have fault-divorce statutes tend to have anti-sodomy laws as well. Blow-jobs are illegal.

[greg_b]

1Taoist, you said, "We can't make infidelity illegal..."

I merely pointed out that "we" as a society have already done so in many states. You statement is incorrect.

I also think that this has resulted in legal proceedings, and more importantly, does reduce the incidence. But I am not interested in feeding your argument machine, simply not worth the time for me.

If you want to change your statement to something like "making it illegal has not been effective in reducing the incidence of infidelity", and give references to support your idea, I will perhaps continue a little longer, because it is mildly interesting to explore it. But without that, I have said what I feel is important for this issue.

Regards

[1Taoist]

I'm not sure who's supposed to have a conversation with someone who dictates parameters of worthiness for discussion.

For the sake of clarity...nearly half of states in the US have adultery laws on the books but are never enforced. Those that have em are simply in the process of repealing such antiquated statutes. If you live in one of these states, show me any example of someone being prosecuted, and we'll talk about it.

But I'm not holding my breath.

If you're one of those people that operates on such antiquated thinking, and derives some perverse satisfaction from having an unenforced law around so you can technically feel "justified", well, you're one of those people. Even in such states it's a petty crime. Like jay-walking. That isn't the kind of illegality we're talking about here, Greg B.

Rape is a crime and it is enforced.

Pot possession is considered a crime and is enforced.

Laws that say you can't put a penis in your mouth are stupid, and not enforced.

Infidelity between two consenting adults may be technically some form of illegality somewhere in a dusty manual, but if all you're interested in, under your own conversational parameters, is being technically right...help yourself.

You are. Nice day.

[greg_b]

Thanks. So if I understand what you are saying, you have changed your statement from

"we cannot make laws against infidelity" to

"laws against infidelity are not effective and states are busy repealing them because of this"

I do not see any support for that statement, so it sounds like your opinion.

My opinion is that the laws are effective, but I cannot say how effective. However, based on what I have read, my sense is that there are segments of the population that do choose to refrain from infidelity due to the potential legal repercussions.

Stalemate.

Cheers!

[1Taoist]

Why exactly are you speaking for me?

No. That's not a statement I would make and no you are wrong. This isn't opinion. It's fact. Get educated.

States are repealing these stupid laws because that's why they're never enforced- they're dumb. And we are a society that doesn't criminalize infidelity ANYMORE because the act itself (sex between consenting adults) is not illegal. Try and think this thing thru, dude.

You obviously think the only way to keep people (yourself included) from having sex outside marriage is by making it illegal. That just makes it more appealing. And you lack such personal self-control that you need an external law to keep your dick in the right hole? May be. Some of us don't.

Infidelity is not smart, nor safe, nor accepted. But it's one of those complicated sad things that just happen over a course of a lifetime which need not be criminalized and punnishable by jail. Fortunately, more sane heads are prevailing in our society. I don't suppose you support stoning of a woman who has had relations outside her sad, brutal marriage, do you? I wonder. Sounds like it.

Another reason, my friend, we don't enforce these laws is due to violence against women. States that criminalized women who cheated branded them whores and subjected them to severe mistreatment, not unlike Muslim countries. It's what the book The Scarlet Letter is about.

Our society accepts men that cheat, but when women do, that is just unacceptable. And infidelity laws were put in place because of this. It has a history of misogyny. An attempt to control women, not guys like you.

This, in a nutshell, is why they aren't "effective". And society has moved past such ignorance and disenlightenment. Well, most of it anyway. Those who know something about social policy.

And lastly, what happens when a man or woman, pressured into a loveless arranged marriage falls in love with someone else? Their heart suffers, that's what. Cuz they will have relations, but will incur the wrath of everyone, and why? Because in the past women were unable to get out of loveless marriages when the man controlled everything, and to take on the legal problem of divorce on top of the illegality of infidelity would crush women like a stone. It was the American form of stoning.

Yeah, infidelity laws work. Way to go.

[1Taoist]

It wasn't until a few years ago that the sodomy laws in Texas were overturned, and still exist in some states. It was illegal to have oral sex as well as anal. Do you think those laws work also?

Do you agree with outlawing sexual behavior between consenting adults?

Do you want the government looking in your bedroom window?

Do you want them deeming what you do sexually in context of your marriage criminal?

And last time you checked, if American marriages end in divorce 50% of the time, and infidelity is generally the cause...isn't it interesting that divorce is highest in the states with infidelity laws on the books??

Anyone else livin in the 21st century care to weigh in?

[1Taoist]

And....

What happens when you criminalize a mother of a houseful of children, or the dad who supports them? Does their criminal status help these kids? Especially if he or she goes to jail?

?

[greg_b]

No worries, I am happy to stop "talking" to you. I don't think the conversation will get anywhere.

Cheers!

[1Taoist]

It got you to stop talking. That's somethin.

[Joseph]

>ahem<

Coming back to the subject...

I can see circumcision coming to an end in our lifetime.

Circumcising healthy non-consenting individuals is medical fraud, and it needs to be exposed as such.

It needs to be made criminal offense, and angry men need to sue.

The reason doctors keep getting away with this is because they are protected by statutes of limitations, and really, they've got nothing to fear.

With their protection, not even the very circumcised men can protest as adults.

Would that there be consequences, doctors would think twice.

I am 100% that we'd see circumcision eliminated from our American Medical system, as it will be seen as a liability.

Insurers nor the state would cover it, and with people having to pay out of their own pockets, that too will cause a decrease in circumcision.

A major dramatic decrease, after all, is what we're aiming for.

I'd say legal battles would be the way to go.

We just need to pave the way.

Those interested should be active at mgmbill.org

[1Taoist]

There's that lawsuit thing again. Still a means to an end for you.

I appreciate your thought of this, but your ignorance of the realities of litigation is really the only reason you present this. You think you sound smart, but you don't. And I don't care what legal fringe lawsuit you site as "see, so and so did it". People sue all the time for stuff. Don't mean it changes nothin'.

Try talkin to real attorneys on the matter. See what they say.

It ain't gonna go down like that. Not only is circ not gonna end in our lifetime, it ain't gonna get reduced or marginalized by fantasy litigation dreamed up by some fanatic on a computer in his mom's basement. Sorry to say.

Time to grow up and understand how the world works. But hey- if you can find a young Matt Damon who wants to "take on the establishment", good luck. Will make a good movie. Call it "The Foreskinmaker".

Circ is gonna get marginalized by education, not litigation.

[Joseph]

No no no.

Not an end, a means!

A whip. Something to slap doctors upside the head.

Something needs to rock the boat. Talking will only get you so far.

We need male Rosa Parkses to refuse to sit at the back of the bus.

Everyone knows that being allowed to sit at the back of the bus wasn't the point; it was a means to get the main point across: give us equal rights.

I don't think it's that unrealistic. Lots of litigation is based on past court orders and precedents. Roe vs. Wade for example. If it happened for Stowell in the US, and for Tinari in Canada, then I think it could take off. It's just that for some reason, men aren't that motivated. I really think it's because they know they don't have a chance.

But this could change!

There's already lawyers at Arclaw. Svoboda. Lewellyn. Etc. THEY'RE real attorneys, right?

You might have your doubts, and you're entitled to them. But I'm also entitled to believe that it can be done.

I really think it can!

BTW, I don't appreciate being reduced to a poor 40 year old who lives with his parents because of my beliefs. I happen to live on my own, I have a decent job and I pay my own rent, utilities, including internet, and even so I managed to buy the very computer I'm typing this on.

I don't disrespect you for having your doubts.

Could you please knock off the personal insults?

Thanks.

[greg_b]

Nothing says it has to be either education or legal action.

That is too simplistc in my mind. Legal action may work at some level or in some cases, as it already has. Education is effective with some people and situations. Being an example can be another. Participating in public demonstrations another.

No one size fits all.

Regards

[Joseph]

Yeah, totally!

It'd be foolish to think legal action ALONE will have any effect.

We need to educate, demonstrate, litigate, the whole 9 yards.

[Fboi]

IMHO the baby cannot say whether he wants to be circumcised or not. Therefore it's child abuse and is illegal. Circumcision is a crime.

Sorry to sound all heavy handed there, but I do really feel strongly about it.

[1Taoist]

What we're talking about is actual illegality, not perceptual illegality. You can define abortion as murder if you want, but it don't matter if the law says it ain't.

[Fboi]

What we're talking about is actual illegality, not perceptual illegality. You can define abortion as murder if you want, but it don't matter if the law says it ain't.

True. But law isn't always right or a refection of the social conscience.

[Joseph]

Speaking of dumb laws...

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/west-virginia

"It is legal for a male to have sex with an animal as long as it does not exceed 40 lbs."

"A person may be placed in jail for up to six months for making fun of someone who does not accept a challege."

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/north-carolina

"The mere possession of a lottery ticket is illegal in North Carolina and may result in a $2,000 fine."

"Persons in possession of illegal substances must pay taxes on them."

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama

"It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile."

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/south-carolina

"It is perfectly legal to beat your wife on the court house steps on Sundays."

Just because the law says something, doesn't mean it's always right. Some laws need to be made, others changed, others abolished. ~Joseph

[Fboi]

Haha good post, Joseph!

So it's legal to have sex with a chicken then? EWwwwww:eek::D

[Joseph]

This one's gonna be REAL bad... but...

Those chickens are FUCKED...

:D:o:p:):rolleyes:;)

[finman]

So it's legal to have sex with a chicken then?
Not in WV if the chick weighs more than 40lb.

[1Taoist]

Yeah, thanks for all that Captain Obvious.

[Yunus]

It is very hard to end the circumcision (non-religious reason only) as long as the genital mutilation cult still exist in the earth.Their lies make the circumcision rate increased.

The intact & restoring males must cooperate each other to end the circumcision.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[(CG)]

I think RIC will probably end in our lifetime. Of course, that depends how old you are right now. The reason I offer is perhaps a little odd. It has to do with a changing paradigm, a changing world view, a change in how human beings see their interaction with nature and the environment. In the 1960s and 1970s, human beings became much more sensitive to environmental issues, broadly speaking, and a much higher respect for nature. This change in world view continues to accelerate. In other words, humans are becoming less and less willing to modify nature, and more and more willing to respect nature. This spills over into RIC. These are shifts, however, that manifest themselves over decades, and not years.

Circumcision for religious or medical reasons is a different story. Those motivations do not fit into the larger pattern.

My 25¢ worth. Your mileage, as always, may vary. :)

[1Taoist]

People are less inclined to alter nature??? Are you fucking kidding? I don't know what planet you live on, but mine is LOaded with fake titty and Botox. And we're altering nature on top of the alter that's already happened to us.

[1Taoist]

Less and less willing to modify nature??? People cut their leg bones and stretch em to be taller, get electrically-transplanted pubic hair, nose cheek chin and eye alterations, face-lifts that look like they been in a car accident, laser liposuction, tatooed eyeliner, eye-lash implants, and how bout the guy on here who sewed ball-bearings into his shaft skin so his cock looks like a Rob Zombie movie, penis pumpers who turn their dick into an elephant's trunk, tummy-tucks that displace their belly button to somewhere south of their hips, and restorers who seek overhang that drapes their cock like a grim reaper hood.

Yeah. We're less willing to alter nature.

Welcome to opposite universe, where people claim the exact opposite of reality. And we're less willing to be racist now that we have a black prexy.

[Someone mundane]

Less and less willing to modify nature??? People cut their leg bones and stretch em to be taller, get electrically-transplanted pubic hair, nose cheek chin and eye alterations, face-lifts that look like they been in a car accident, laser liposuction, tatooed eyeliner, eye-lash implants, and how bout the guy on here who sewed ball-bearings into his shaft skin so his cock looks like a Rob Zombie movie, penis pumpers who turn their dick into an elephant's trunk, tummy-tucks that displace their belly button to somewhere south of their hips, and restorers who seek overhang that drapes their cock like a grim reaper hood.

Yeah. We're less willing to alter nature.

Welcome to opposite universe, where people claim the exact opposite of reality. And we're less willing to be racist now that we have a black prexy.

Lol... Just, lol.

Well, if it helps any... Restoration works because, and only because; nature just so happens to have a convenient design where cellular division is concerned. It's not like we're redesigning things entirely on the microscopic level to enable it.

[Yunus]

Only the Jews & Islam performed circumcision on the human body especially for males.

[(CG)]

I laugh with the Taoist! That was absolutely great! Fantastic! Good call! Seriously, man, that was good! And that is coming from the guy who is your target! Man, I needed that today!

Taoist, you are so right. There are quite a few going down that road! However, I also think that all the people doing all that crap are a pretty small part of the larger pool of humanity. Yeah, it all gets a lot of air time on TV and what not, but your everyday, average, normal person is not running down the street for Botox. They just aren't.

When it comes to RIC, the parents I know are going against it. I won't say where I live, but it is a fact. And the reason they are doing it is because nature knows what it is doing. And, if we want to survive on a limited planet with limited resources, we have to start paying attention to nature. That's all I wanted to say. Today, nature has a lot more cache than it did 50 years ago. And, that is changing how people think and act.

Yeah, Hollywood is full of crazies trying to get us to buy into their stupid world. But, I think in 10 years, Hollywood may find itself on the outs. People are waking up.

Taoist, you make sure to stay on this forum. You are a breath of fresh air, and when you see BS, you call it. Great. I may not agree, but that's OK. I've got a thick skin, and I am glad to report that a lot of it is actually growing on the end of my ...

Well. You know.

Cheers.

[1Taoist]

I hear ya.

Maybe you're right, but I gotta say Botox and fake titty are poppin up everywhere. ALMost every wife I know does Botox.

The thing that gets me, and makes me contest your theory, is the principle of fake titty- BIG ASS titty. Some fakes maybe most, LOOK absolutely fake. And...strangely...a lot of guys prefer that look- that rounded BAM! titty. I don't. But for some reason a lot actually like it. Maybe cuz it's cartoon, NOT reality.

Kinda like women who "prefer/like" cut men.

There is an aspect to us that does NOT want nature, but something super-nature. And circ is part of that. As is C-10, or this crazy overhang so many dudes/douches talk about.