tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post6831018069051972739..comments2024-01-17T13:16:10.378-08:00Comments on Joseph4GI: FLORIDA UPDATE: Father Intent on Circumcising 4-yo Son Seeks to Legally Paralyze MotherJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-91819086020271030852015-03-27T16:14:50.367-07:002015-03-27T16:14:50.367-07:00Me, personally, I don't think circumcision is ...Me, personally, I don't think circumcision is "right" at any age, unless it's medically indicated, or unless a grown person wants it, given all the facts.<br /><br />I think the Norwegians are stuck between wanting to adhere to modern medicine, medical ethics, human rights, AND not appear "anti-Semitic" given the history of the Holocaust.<br /><br />Given these things, this is probably the best solution they could come up with.<br /><br />Let's hope Denmark has more balls to do what's right.<br /><br />Back to Chase, I'm trying to come at it from the point of view of most Americans.<br /><br />Right now, the situation is such that almost nobody sees a problem with cutting off part of the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting *male* newborn, almost everyone sees a problem with forcing a sentient toddler (Chase is a bit older than this stage IMO) to have elective, non-medical surgery. Gather from what I've read in news comments sections, online forums and Facebook posts, most people think it's "too late" at this stage.<br /><br />Quite possibly the most common quip used to justify mutilating an infant newborn is that "he won't remember." Well, at 4, yes he will. (Actually, even a newborn can't remember, he will always be reminded that something is missing every time he goes to the restroom, masturbates or has sex, but let's move on.)<br /><br />Of COURSE it's idiotic to think it "might not be too late" at an earlier age, but I think things need to be taken step by step.<br /><br />First off, the child is old enough to have his own thoughts now about his own body. He is fully aware and conscious of his own body. The judge appears to simply refuse to acknowledge this fact.<br /><br />Perhaps he has convictions that will not allow him for a single moment to consider the idea that forcibly cutting a healthy, non-consenting minor is ever wrong.<br /><br />Precisely "It wasn't too late then, and it's not too late NOW" must be the logic in his head right now.<br /><br />Parents must have the power to forcibly have their children circumcised anywhere between the ages of 0 and 18, and there must never be any precedent that challenges this.<br /><br />This idea that "It's my child, I can cut him if and whenever I want" must be challenged.<br /><br />In America, it's hard to challenge this when the child is 0, and will actually most likely never remember.<br /><br />4 is a little different, and the challenge needs to be made.<br /><br />Once this is challenged, America will probably be able to move on to newborn circumcision.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, newborn circumcision ought to be challenged; it is our main cause, but I think Chase's case is not the avenue.<br /><br />Right now, I think the most important thing saving Chase.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-32312463771354153662015-03-27T10:26:15.641-07:002015-03-27T10:26:15.641-07:00The judge should have taken a good look at the fac...<b>The judge should have taken a good look at the fact that the subject in this case is a grown, healthy 4-year old, and told the father it's simply too late.</b><br /><br />Of course, that implies that it <em>might</em> not be too late at some younger age. Obviously, the point is that a 4-year old is more sentient than, say, an infant. But, then, how barbaric does that make the argument for cutting infants? Get them "fixed" while they're still your playthings!<br /><br />I'm reminded of <a href="http://www.thelocal.no/20150310/norway-hospital-carries-out-first-ritual-circumcision" rel="nofollow">this article</a> about the first "ritual" circumcision carried out by a hospital in Norway under new rules whose purpose is to move such rituals under the auspices of modern medicine. The hospital makes this caveat:<br /><br />Dr Tysland said that Sørlandet was only offering ritual circumcision to boys under four weeks old, as otherwise the child would require an expensive general anaesthetic.<br /><br />What is magical about 4 weeks? Why is it suitable to use just a local aneasthetic on a 3-week-old infant, but not a 4-week-old infant?<br /><br />The magic is that it's dangerous to use a general anaesthetic on an infant, so modern Norwegian medicine has identified that when surgery is indicated for an infant, that surgery should only take place at least at the 4th week, when the infant's physiology has presumably been shown to have a much better chance of coping with the general anaesthetic.<br /><br />That is, Norwegian medicine has clearly identified circumcision as a surgery <em>requiring</em> a general anaesthetic.<br /><br />So, let's follow the twisted logic:<br /><br />"Under modern Norwegian medicine, the hospital <em>should</em> require ritual circumcisions be performed under a general anaesthetic at least 4 weeks after birth."<br /><br />"The Muslims will agree, but... the Jews require circumcision on the 8th day!"<br /><br />"Well..... shit...... I guess the Americans only use a local anaesthetic—or even nothing at all, if you can believe it! So, we'll just do that for the Jews, but require more humane general anaesthesia for the less... <em>problematic</em>.... communities."<br /><br />"But, that will make Muslim circumcisions far more expensive than Jewish circumcisions, because the general anaesthetic costs so much!"<br /><br />"You know what? <em>FUCK IT!</em> Nobody gets modern medicine. They won't fucking remember it any way, right? It's no skin off <em>my</em> knob."Tom Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12994425531096864789noreply@blogger.com