Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[backpacker]

Court: Mom Can't Sue Over Circumcision

Here's link to the article:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...SION?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

What are your thoughts?

I think checking a box a prenatal form doesn't constitute consent, especially since only one parent filled out the form and it was done sometime before the procedure.

 

[Orlandude]

Re: Court: Mom Can't Sue Over Circumcision

How political! Baer is doing nothing more than taking legal fees from these people to advance his anti-circumcision agenda and website. I would agree that checking a box doesn't constitute consent. This should not be in the appellate courts. No surprise Baer lost. The finger of blame should be directed at the state of Minnesota for allowing this very personal decision, that should provide the consent of both parents, to be relegated to a block on a form. Really stupid. In my state, as well as many others, BOTH parents must consent on a totally separate release document. Minnesota needs to wake up and attorneys like Baer should have their license scritinized by the Minnesota Bar Association. The guy is a sleazebag.

 

[Alpha1851]

Re: Court: Mom Can't Sue Over Circumcision

In my state, only one parent needs to give their consent not both. I wonder if the crt would've ruled differently if the child was actually injured (not just b/c the mother didn't like the way it looked)or if it the circumcision violated their religious beliefs? Also, the article is missing other vital information such as whether the Doc. discussed the risks associated w/ circumcision w/ the parent before performing the procedure.

 

[BluesDog]

Re: Court: Mom Can't Sue Over Circumcision

Hmmm... maybe "worldwide genital integrity" is a cause I can get behind

 

[TygreBryte]

Re: Court: Mom Can't Sue Over Circumcision

Hmmm... maybe "worldwide genital integrity" is a cause I can get behind

It does seem like the kind of thing folks should get a say in.

It's at least as important as believers' baptism, dontcha think?

 

[Alpha1851]

Re: Court: Mom Can't Sue Over Circumcision

^The mother did "check" the box so it's not like she didn't have a say. It's just an article...we don't have the form in front of us and we didn't hear the doctor consultation. Maybe the form was very detailed, maybe it was literally just a box. Maybe the doctor gave fantastic, intricate instructions, maybe he didn't. Who knows.

What was the full case name? I can't pull it up using Nelson as one of the party names, Minn state appl crt, and Baer as the atty. Any clue?

 

[evil_danger]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

I don't get it, he was voilated but hes bragging that hes a complete man.

Well I like my extra skin and the thought of someone hacking it off makes me physically sick.

 

[RationalLunacy]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

Bris by hijack.

 

[evil_danger]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

What's to keep a government from using recent data showing circumcision is associated with lower risks of HIV infection to justify enacting laws requiring that all males be circumcised?

No comment, just gonna sit back and watch this one.

 

[Apollo]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

That's one way to look at it.
Or, you could say it's another example of religious fanatics run amok, forcing other people to live according to their beliefs.

Sure it isn't cultural? The only religion I can think of that asks for circumsision is Judaism. And I don't think they are jewish?

 

[Jaime]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

muslims also do it.

 

[Apollo]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

Quoted from one of the articles:
A youth said to be his son argued that problems had afflicted their family, which he blamed on their father’s refusal to be circumcised.

That sounds like a pretty religious justification to me.

Ummm, how do you get religion out of that? You can easily get a cultural problem out of it too.

You know, like in ancient Japan where the womans feet were binded as children.

The problems afflicted on the family could be a lot of different things.

 

[josher]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

This does spring from religious belief, but it is nativist/tribal religion

Even in African societies which are largely Chrisitan or Muslim, nativist religious practices still hold sway.

At about the age of 12, young men are sent into the wild (in the company of older men) to face an ordeal which ends with circumcision and/or other body mutilations. Then they are men.

If they don't go through the ordeal, in many people's eyes they aren't real men, and their families are seen as outcasts. They suffer discrimination from their society.

All of this is rooted in nativist/tribal religious belief.

 

[levenshulme31]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

At the risk of being labelled a cultural imperialist, this medieval shit is fucked up.

 

[Dduder]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

If this were happening to girls, there would be feminist outcries bordering on madness, the American embassador would be recalled from said country(ies), and there would be trade embargos and even military action to force them to stop. But since it's done to boys...no one gives a shit. And yes, clitorodoctomy is more severe than male circumcision, but even the versions of female circumcision that are analogous to male circumcision, like excision of the clitoral prepuce, are deemed unacceptable and countries that practice it suffer severe economic and even military penalties from the West to stop it, but when it's done to boys it is "healthy" and "upholding sacred traditions"(like in the case of Jewish Brit Milá).

 

[Dduder]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

Actually, the articles in the OP discuss grown men being abducted off the street and forcibly subjected to circumcision. This discussion is not about baby boys.

That's even worse, because at least in the case of baby boys you can use the argument that parents have the right to make decisions regarding their children's lives. It's a very weak argument, especially considering that the law does not give parents the right to do the same to the genitalia of their daughters, which makes it a double-standard, but in the case of grown men it is simply a completely undefensible violation of their right to their own bodies. It is aggravated physical assault, plain and simple.

 

[evil_danger]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

That's even worse, because at least in the case of baby boys you can use the argument that parents have the right to make decisions regarding their children's lives. It's a very weak argument, especially considering that the law does not give parents the right to do the same to the genitalia of their daughters, which makes it a double-standard, but in the case of grown men it is simply a completely undefensible violation of their right to their own bodies. It is aggravated physical assault, plain and simple.

Wait... I don't see how there is a double standard, at least with male circumcision there is a viable debate as to the possible benifits. Female circumcision have no practical benifits what so ever.

 

[josher]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

^^Many Africans and other indigenous peoples would say that is simply western imperialist thinking.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

^ Yeah like western imperial medicine or science.

Different cultures lead humanity forwards in different ways and respect for cultural diversity is one thing.

But political correctness, if it ever was, isn't an absolute virtue and is no foundation to justify savage rituals, that maim and kill people, any more than it justifies the abusive oppression of women and gays.

Plus, obviously, you don't have to be a westerner to see forcible circumcision as fucked up shit.

 

[Dduder]

Re: Circumcision Vigilantes in Uganda

Wait... I don't see how there is a double standard, at least with male circumcision there is a viable debate as to the possible benifits. Female circumcision have no practical benifits what so ever.

First of all, it is not true that there are potential benefits. Scandinavian men, who are mostly intact, have lower rates of penile cancer and meatus ulceration than American men, who are mostly circumcised.

And the reason why it is a double-standard is because girls are protected from having part of their genitals cut off, but boys are not. Even if there were medical benefits, none of them would justify violating a little boy's right to keep part of his body. If there were medical benefits to circumcision, the boy should decide whether the potential benefits are worth it when he becomes a man. This is not a life and death issue. If a little boy had cancer of the prepuce or an untreatable infection in it that might result in death if the prepuce is not amputated, then yes, it would be justified to circumcise him. But circumcising a little boy because there is a one in three thousand chance that he might get cancer in the foreskin 40 years latter is not justifiable.