California again?

oy vey

Anti-fascism...the new Fascism
I think you can skip to the left so far, you're leading on the right...

I don't see it surviving a legal challenge. The procedure itself means nothing to me, but I see it as a family matter.

I'm wondering what could be the possible defense of this proposed law?

I used to love San Francisco - the culture, the beauty, the quirkiness of it all. Quirky doesn't even begin to describe it now. Maybe it's time to ban San Francisco.

You know...I can hear people reacting in the same way to every child protection law you ever helped enforce.

And then someone chimes in with "It's a family matter." Yep...just like DV, marital rape, sexual abuse, female genital mutilation etc.


I can see perfectly reasonable arguments for not allowing genital mutilation of boy babies...especially when it is done as I gather it is at Jewish brises, (is that the word?)by non-medical folk without benefit of anaesthetic.

Logically, what is your reason for this reaction?

I can see an argument using degree of harm inflicted, but anyone who thinks babies are not caused serious pain by such a "procedure" performed without anaesthetic (and who in hell wants to anaesthetise a baby just for some religious loonyness?)

If a boy wants to have it done later for religious or hygiene or some other reaqson...cool.

Personally, were I California, I'd not touch this shibboleth with a barge pole...but I think your reaction is over the top,

Why is govt getting involved in this kind of thing? That's the insanity.

Why?

Government often gets involved when people wish to assault each other...especially when the assaultee is a tiny baby.


I mean...how would you react if some bearded fella appears from the desert and begins a cult where some god allegedly says all babies are supposed to have the tip of their left little finger cut off, without anaesthetic (or with, fer crissake...does anyone understand the risks of anaesthesia?)

You'd be saying: "It's INSANE for anyone to try and stop this!!! How DARE Government get involved!!!" ???

Really, would you?

Willies are MORE sensitive, I am led to believe, than little fingers....

The government has no business intruding in anything personal, ie. religious, unless the issues transgress our laws.

And that is not assault. That's a religious practice. So unless you're actually sacrificing a baby on an altar, they will survive.

Not that I agree with this practice, because I don't. Just saying the govt should keep their noses out.

Why?


And please define assault.

Here is one definition:

2. assault - a threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped

I would be interested in how you will differentiate cutting off one part of a body from cutting off another.

What has religion to do with it?

If you defend this you ought to defend

a. Cutting off girls' clitorises and sewing up their labia majora.

b, Cutting off the tip of a baby's little finger on religious grounds.

Do you give an assault pass to all religions or just Judaism?

That is utterly circular.

California has, apparently, just made it transgress the law there....why the quibble?

This is the only response I'm going to make to you. Cutting off a bit of skin is not an assault in my opinion. They are following their religion and it's not that big a deal... And how do you know what different doctors do? Some do anaesthestize the area. Cutting off clitorises is not religion-based. Get your facts straight before you overreact.

Just because you're a child advocate does not make you an expert (as you like to project) on everything, child-based or not. People can have different opinions, cultures, etc and it's OKAY even if YOU don't approve. YOU are not the final arbiter, regardless of what you think.

far be it for me to opine here but I will. I don't have a position of the merits of circumcision pro or con. I don't think men in general do have an opinion being that we only have knowledge of ourselves in whatever state we happen to find ourselves. Circumcision has become standard procedure in the USA over the past 100 years essentially by the medical establishment. There have been isolated flareups about it but nothing of consequence. There is virtually no public/medical discourse/education about the subject leaving the general public ignorant of the issue. Thus, my complaint regarding california (San Francisco specifically) to make this a ballot initiative leaves "voters" to mandate for or against, by law, a medical procedure is ludicrous in an of itself.

I agree it should not be a political issue, for all the reasons you stated, and more. I did not have my son circumcised (I saw no need), but several friends of mine had their sons circumsized for religious or sanitary (ha) reasons - that's what happens... when you're under someone else's influence, you get circumsized, you get baptized, you have to do a bar or but mitzvah... you're not in control. But at least the govt is not deciding yet another thing for you. And at some point, you get control over your own life (to a degree).

But to consider taking off 1 mm of skin an assault (attack) is over the top LOL

When my son was born, he left the hospital uncircumcised. There were aunts and the like who did all they could to force me to have it done. Some of my brothers were circumcised, some not. I don't see that it makes so much difference, so long as it is done by a doctor. Outlawing it will, like abortion, put it in the hands of the non medical. And that's where I would draw the line.

How am I over-reacting when it is YOU who is calling people insane?

I am simply questioning your right blithely to decide that one thing is allowable violence, and anyone who questions that it is a religious or family matter is insane, while similar acts of violence would result in criminal proceedings.

What does a religious basis have to do with what is acceptable to do to babies?

What I am disagreeing with is the hysteria of yours and Dys's response when neither of you has made a credible argument to support your position.

For instance, re the anaesthesia, I know some people have it done with anaesthesia. What is the difference between cutting off the tip of a finger of a baby for religious reasons WITH anaesthesia? Where is the meat of your argument? The reason why it's ok to do one thing and not another. Your religious argument only stands if you say that ANY religion can go about chopping off whichever mi9nor bits of babies that desire.

Why the attacks upon me? I haven't labelled anyone as insane.

As I said earlier, personally, while I consider the practice of infant male circumcision ludicrously cruel, I wouldn't be crusading for it to stop when there are so many terrible abuses that there are not resources to do anything about.

Get over it and quit being a drama queen. Cutting off a bit of skin is not an attack nor is it violence. You need a friggin reality check.

And what is or was my 'hysteria'? So far you are the only one resorting to hysteria and drama. And what 'attacks' on you? Where? When?

Give me a freaking break. Please take your freaking meds.

Well, you are closer to California than I am, but your claim for American ignorance surprises me. I haven't heard accusations of insanity around it over here, but it is an issue thoroughly debated by parents...and we have gone from a country where a woman my age can go through life having seen almost no uncircumcised male penises to one where I believe most little boys do not lose their turtle neck.

Still, if you insist Americans are more ignorant...


That, however, does not make an iota of difference re whether the procedure is a horrid thing to do to a little kid for no good reason, however. Nor can I see how it justifies you calling people insane.

How do you defend it being a "medical" procedure? Just because a senseless ritual has been frequently performed by doctors doesn't make it a reasonable medical procedure. Similarly, just because vets used to cut off dogs' tails and ears because people wanted them to doesn't make it a veterinary procedure. That's illegal here now, by the way.

How is it insane for people to vote on it? Haven't many issues about child cruelty ended up being voted about, when parties have made various pieces of child protection legislation part of their platform, which people get to decide on by voting?

Look, as I said, I think infant male circumcision is ludicrously cruel, but it is not something I get personally especially agitated about...I was and remain simply bewildered by your, and then Mame's, level of emotion when I still haven't seen either of you come up with a decent argument.

Seems to me this is a repeat of our argument about laws generally.

My position is, and remains, that this is a disagreement where to put a line re child abuse, not whether there is a line, and I'd have thought people could discuss the line without calling people insane and thinking being asked to justify a position rationally is some sort of superiority complex.