Finally, some common sense being demonstrated in Kali...

[tyme]

Who's to say the tribal ritual didn't develop from the tribe's experience with the same issues of infection so that the ritual served the function of encouraging the procedure?

How about a different approach: defund routine infant circumcision.  It damned well shouldn't be covered by Medicaid, and it shouldn't be standard in private insurance either.  Make people pay extra for it, and fewer people will think it's worth it.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2234965184&topic=15502

@cs&d
That list at your second url would be similar for FGM, as Zahc laid out.  The MO of both forms of branding seems to be "mutiliate infants as much as possible while preserving basic sexual function".  With IVF, the "basic sexual function" goalposts could be moved so far that prostate removal could be justified as well.  Circumcision boils down to being a personal choice and preference, and that's simply not something a parent can decide on behalf of a child unless there's some unusual pressing medical risk.

[Perd Hapley]

  Perhaps guys are "funny about sharp things" in the genital area because a piece of it was cut off way back when in pre-verbal memory?

I can tell you I am darned "funny" about it, and I have NO prior experience therewith.


Comparisons between circumcision, FGM and facial tattoos illustrate the futility of attempting to achieve a culture-neutral, hyper-rationalist, uber-secularist state. Culture and religion are a part of a nation and must (will, should) inform its politics and laws. Attempts to get around this are like attempts to cut reason off from its philosophical or religious suppositions. It results in nihilism.

[tyme]

So basically you want the U.S. laws relating to infant mutilation/branding to be monocultural?

[zahc]

Yes; since I'm not a moral relativist that believes that certain things are moral for certain cultures, I believe there are things that are universally immoral; I believe that there are things that are unambiguously human rights volations, and having a monoculture of defending said human rights is ok with me. I also think that US laws should be a monoculture with regards to legality of firearms, freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, regardless of cultural factors.

Besides, it's a state law. Not a federal law. I would oppose such a federal law. 

[MicroBalrog]

Comparisons between circumcision, FGM and facial tattoos illustrate the futility of attempting to achieve a culture-neutral, hyper-rationalist, uber-secularist state. Culture and religion are a part of a nation and must (will, should) inform its politics and laws. Attempts to get around this are like attempts to cut reason off from its philosophical or religious suppositions. It results in nihilism.

This is true. But San Fran has a different culture from, say, Random City, Missouri.

Let me repeat: I do not [like Zahc, tyme, and some other posters] believe that there is a universal, hard line on what procedures it should be legal for parents to have done to their children. The children do not have - because they're children - a universal right to be free from medical procedures, but neither do the parents have an unlimited right to choose them. This is a good thing. The state can legalize some procedures if it thinks they are 'good' (like vaccinations) or ban others if they think they are 'bad' (like female circumcision, where even the non-crippling forms are prohibited). This is done through the process called 'democracy' and is left best to localities.

My philosophy tells me you should be free to do whatever you want unless you harm another human being. A child is another human being. It is not the undivided property of its guardian. THe question is not whether parents have 'rights' per se but how to best safeguard the rights of all individuals. Sometimes letting the parents choose is best. Sometimes the state must intervene.

[280plus]

oopsy. wrong thread... 

[freakazoid]

Besides, it's a state law. Not a federal law. I would oppose such a federal law.  

What the difference if it is the state imposing a law or the federal government, besides the number of people it affects?

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 14, 2010, 01:58:52 PM
the adults i know who have been circumsized
Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 14, 2010, 01:58:52 PM
it was fairly traumatic to them as adults.

You mean adults who had it done as an adult and not after birth?

[Tallpine]

What the difference if it is the state imposing a law or the federal government, besides the number of people it affects?

Defined, limited powers, and the Tenth Amendment.

[Perd Hapley]

So basically you want the U.S. laws relating to infant mutilation/branding to be monocultural?

FAIL. I don't know about you, but I don't base my political opinions on my own personal desires.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

What the difference if it is the state imposing a law or the federal government, besides the number of people it affects?

You mean adults who had it done as an adult and not after birth?

yea in their 40's and 50's

[280plus]

It is a very painful recovery as an adult. The prevailing wisdom has always been it COULD give you trouble later in life and if it does you'll be in a world of hurt so why not get it done at birth and prevent all that.

I'm tossed myself betweeen, "Gee, I wonder what it would have been like to be unsnipped and hmmm, maybe it was a good thing they did." Neither of which I will ever know.