Male Genitalia Mutilation

[FreakyLocz14]

What about human sacrifice? Cannibalism? These are religious practices held by numerous faiths throughout the world.

I draw the line at any religious practice that harms a human being. Any practice that harms a human being without his or her direct consent is an unacceptable practice and should be disallowed by law. Parents should be no more allowed to circumcise their children any more than they should be allowed to break their bones. Once someone is legally allowed to consent to surgery themselves should be the point when someone is allowed to decide whether to undergo circumcision.

If the human scarafice or person being eaten consented to the activity, then yes. I feel that the right to live includes the right to end your life when you see fit.

 

[Mr. X]

This is one instance where I do not agree with religious freedom. This is a medical issue first and foremost, which has been turned religious. And since there is no sound medical reason for this horrible procedure, I think the government actually should intervene and make it illegal to mutilate a baby unnecessarily. This isn't a matter of medical advantage or disease prevention, this has no benefit to the child at all - it is selfish for parents to inflict this on a baby, and it should not be allowed.

While there is no proven medical benefits to this, there are also no proven medical risks besides those that are a risk of any medical operation.

Also, can you remember pain from when you were a baby? Bet you can't.

To Locz

And what if the religious practice is to eat people agenst their will? Do you support this? Also, what if the person gives his/her consent but is unable to comprehend what he/she just consented to?

 

[-ty-]

Well, religious beliefs should not be allowed to be exercise without any regulations. Over the year, many children have died b/c their parents do not believe God permits them to have blood transfusion, or worse yet, any type of surgery at all.

For example, I remember reading a story of about a 9 year old girl who had diabetes. She needed to go to the hospital; she was very ill with a high fever, and then she lost conscientiousness. The parents thought it was THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHT to decide to not seek medical attention. They prayed for her instead. The next day she was dead. This is not right; it is cruelty to a child. The same cruelty is exhibited through removing body parts, for religious preference.

Although some express that they are fine or enjoy being circumcised, I should have the right to decide that I do not want to be circumcised. Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The first amendment religious freedom rights have been construed to deny my rights; it is unconstitutional.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Well, religious beliefs should not be allowed to be exercise without any regulations. Over the year, many children have died b/c their parents do not believe God permits them to have blood transfusion, or worse yet, any type of surgery at all.

For example, I remember reading a story of about a 9 year old girl who had diabetes. She needed to go to the hospital; she was very ill with a high fever, and then she lost conscientiousness. The parents thought it was THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHT to decide to not seek medical attention. They prayed for her instead. The next day she was dead. This is not right; it is cruelty to a child. The same cruelty is exhibited through removing body parts, for religious preference.

Although some express that they are fine or enjoy being circumcised, I should have the right to decide that I do not want to be circumcised. Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. My right was denied; it is unconstitutional.

You have very little legal rights as a minor. You are under the complete ward of your parents until the age of majority. Your rights were not denied because you did not have those rights at the time.

I agree that regulation can take place. Safety and sanitation regulations are fine. An outright ban does not meet the strict scrutiny standard required for the government to interfere with the free exercise of religion.

 

[-ty-]

I did not have the right to a complete anatomy?

With that mentality, I guess female genital mutilation and tattooing should be allowed so that parents can exhibit "free exercise".

The two body-modifying procedures above are not permitted to be performed on infants, even with the consent of parents, because it forcibly changes the infants anatomy. In the U.S. however, there is a BIAS, not RIGHT, that male genital mutilation is acceptable.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I did not have the right to a complete anatomy?

With that mentality, I guess female genital mutilation and tattooing should be allowed so that parents can exhibit "free exercise".

The two body-modifying procedures above are not permitted to be performed on infants, even with the consent of parents, because it forcibly changes the infants anatomy. In the U.S. however, there is a BIAS, not RIGHT, that male genital mutilation is acceptable.

Religious tattooing is a contstitutionally protected.

And yes, parents have parts of their child's anatomy removed and altered all the time. Kids have their tonsils and appendixes removed every day, and now parents are beggining to have their genitals "mutilated", as your phraseology puts it, to get them sex change operations.

And male circumcision is currently a right, until legislation says otherwised and that legislation is reviewed by the courts.

 

[Oryx]

Religious tattooing is a contstitutionally protected.

And yes, parents have parts of their child's anatomy removed and altered all the time. Kids have their tonsils and appendixes removed every day, and now parents are beggining to have their genitals "mutilated", as your phraseology puts it, to get them sex change operations.

And male circumcision is currently a right, until legislation says otherwised and that legislation is reviewed by the courts.

Just throwing this out there...you often argue with someone saying a law should be changed using the law in question. You can't really argue that male circumcision shouldn't be banned because it's not banned.

Well you could, it would just make no sense.

Could you back up the claim that tattooing a baby isn't against the law as long as it's protected by religion please? I can't find anywhere that says something for or against it, but it seems like a gross oversight on the part of the government if they're allowing babies to be tattooed for religious reasons.

 

[-ty-]

Umm. Look at case law. A 7 year-old was forced to have a tattoo, and the father was sentenced to 6 years in prison. The tattoo artist was given 5 years.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/7yearold-tattooed-judge-c_n_306666.html
https://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7561882

Question that the judge had to assess:
"The question that a judge says she will decide Friday is whether placing a tattoo on a minor is a permanent and painful disfigurement worthy of the potential life sentence that comes with a mayhem conviction, or is it something less?"

Here is why she found him guilty:

These things must be done in order for someone to tattoo anyone.
"(E) A properly authorized consent form signed by the patron acknowledging that he or she has been informed in person and in writing, pursuant to section (2) of this rule, of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and that the patron agrees to the procedure in light of the foregoing. The informed consent form shall be retained on file in the tattoo, body piercing and/or branding establishment; (F) The signature of the practitioner attesting that the practitioner has reviewed the
completed form(s), has advised the patron in person and in writing of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and the date of the review." https://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/20csr/20c2267-5.pdf

The court deemed that the child was unable to know the risks of obtaining the tattoo, and that the forcible tattooing caused permanent and painful disfigurement.

BTW, just because it is LEGAL does not mean it is RIGHT. If we used that mind set, then laws would not be able to evolve over time. Was slavery right because it was legal before the mid 1800's?

Alright, I can explain why I refer to circumcision as genital mutilation:
The foreskin is anatomically part of the penis, just as much as a thumb is an anatomic part of the hand. By removing the thumb, one would call that mutilation of the hand. Same with the foreskin, it is mutilation of the penis.

Finally, the appendix and tonsils are removed for medical reasons as deemed by doctors, not parents. If a child had severe appendicitis, the parent cannot just decide, well you cannot have the procedure to have it removed.

Just throwing this out there...you often argue with someone saying a law should be changed using the law in question. You can't really argue that male circumcision shouldn't be banned because it's not banned.

Well you could, it would just make no sense.

Could you back up the claim that tattooing a baby isn't against the law as long as it's protected by religion please? I can't find anywhere that says something for or against it, but it seems like a gross oversight on the part of the government if they're allowing babies to be tattooed for religious reasons.

I agree; you beat me to the punch just as I was writing a response! As I said, laws cannot evolve if we just accept them as indefinite rights or wrongs.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Just throwing this out there...you often argue with someone saying a law should be changed using the law in question. You can't really argue that male circumcision shouldn't be banned because it's not banned.

Well you could, it would just make no sense.

Could you back up the claim that tattooing a baby isn't against the law as long as it's protected by religion please? I can't find anywhere that says something for or against it, but it seems like a gross oversight on the part of the government if they're allowing babies to be tattooed for religious reasons.

There is no federal prohibition on minors being tattooed. State and local laws vary, but such legislation almost always allows minors to be tattooed if they get parental permission.

 

[Oryx]

There is no federal prohibition on minors being tattooed. State and local laws vary, but such legislation almost always allows minors to be tattooed if they get parental permission.

You didn't answer my question. I asked about tattoos on babies, without the child's consent. If a 15 year old wants a tattoo and the parents want to consent, sure. If it's given before the child CAN give consent or without the child's consent, is it still legal? And please back up your answer. :x

 

[-ty-]

Yes, the thread is re-opened. Although there is not a law prohibiting the tattooing a minor, in some states, in all of the government regulations they state that the patron, or person being tattoo, needs to consent as well as the parents.

These things must be done in order for someone to tattoo anyone.
"(E) A properly authorized consent form signed by the patron acknowledging that he or she has been informed in person and in writing, pursuant to section (2) of this rule, of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and that the patron agrees to the procedure in light of the foregoing. The informed consent form shall be retained on file in the tattoo, body piercing and/or branding establishment; (F) The signature of the practitioner attesting that the practitioner has reviewed the completed form(s), has advised the patron in person and in writing of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and the date of the review."

The courts have interpreted the following to convict parents of FORCING children to get tattoos.

There have been several cases in which tattooing young children against their own will was found illegal. Perhaps the same mindset will be used to find that removing the foreskin is altering a sexual organ, and that the infant cannot understand the health risks nor consent.

Yes, the thread is re-opened. Although there is not a law prohibiting the tattooing a minor, in some states, in all of the government regulations they state that the patron, or person being tattoo, needs to consent as well as the parents.

These things must be done in order for someone to tattoo anyone.
"(E) A properly authorized consent form signed by the patron acknowledging that he or she has been informed in person and in writing, pursuant to section (2) of this rule, of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and that the patron agrees to the procedure in light of the foregoing. The informed consent form shall be retained on file in the tattoo, body piercing and/or branding establishment; (F) The signature of the practitioner attesting that the practitioner has reviewed the completed form(s), has advised the patron in person and in writing of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and the date of the review."

The courts have interpreted the following to convict parents of FORCING children to get tattoos.

There have been several cases in which tattooing young children against their own will was found illegal. Perhaps the same mindset will be used to find that removing the foreskin is altering a sexual organ, and that the infant cannot understand the health risks nor consent.

 

[Myles]

There is some proven evidence for some medical benefits of having the procedure. And there are proven medical problems too (some would say 'side effects'). Except for AIDS transmission, they are mainly minor though.

I don't see why you would be so adamant to illegalise it anyway. The disadvantages don't far outway the advantages or vice versa (unless you're in a third world country), meaning that the debate seems to be largely respect religious views vs appeal to nature.

Circumcision is roughly equivalent to tonsils or appendix removal rather than FGC. Are they mutilation?

For FGC (from WHO):

- The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
- Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths.

These things are not true for circumcision. They aren't equivalents.

 

[Mr. X]

The benefits and risks cancel each other out.

As for appendix removal, if that breaks and isn't removed you have a chance of dying. Not commenting on tonsils, but I still have both of mine.

Personally, I don't care either way. My view though is keep it legal but allow the person to make the decision when they can comprehend both the benefits and the risks.

Also, religion be damned. All that religion has done is cause wars, prevent scientific advancement, create a group of high ranking pedophiles, attribute to the creation of numerous terrorist groups, and a large amount of other unsavory things. While religion has done some, and I say some, good the negatives that it has caused far exceed whatever amount of good it has done.

Personally, I think religion should not play a part in politics at all. Things would be simplier that way.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

In some states, religious tattooing is an exception to the rule. It should also be noted that minors generally cannot give legal consent anything or sign a legally binding doccument. Any doccument or contract signed by a minor is invalid and unenforceable. The minor's parent or legal guadian must act on their behalf.

In the same fashion, we have laws prohibiting giving alcohol to minors; yet, minors may legally consume commmunion wine as part of a religious observance.

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution

You do understand that doing that to a baby is basically enforcing religion on him/her?

Also, do you know the difference between religion and ethnicity? I'm Jewish myself (ethnically), and see nothing antisemitic with that.

I've always been a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I support practices such as peyote use, animal sacrifice, and Sharia law.

Also, until a person is 18, their parents have full legal authority make medical decisions for them. That includes surgical procedures. I support the liberty of parents to be able to raise their children free from government interference.

Oh, and parents most of the time do it because of a religious commandment. They don't come from a medical point of view on it, but a religious one.

You're welcome to hold these beliefs, and to express them. Legislation banning all circumcision, especially without an exemption for religious purposes, is unconstitutional; however.

How about banning religious enforcement on a child?

Not sure why people are saying this is horrible, I've heard girls prefer a man that is circumcised.

What's the difference?

Religious tattooing is a contstitutionally protected.

And yes, parents have parts of their child's anatomy removed and altered all the time. Kids have their tonsils and appendixes removed every day, and now parents are beggining to have their genitals "mutilated", as your phraseology puts it, to get them sex change operations.

And male circumcision is currently a right, until legislation says otherwised and that legislation is reviewed by the courts.

Religious tattooing is religious enforcement as well.

Well then, parents should not have that right.
You know, you gave me a nice idea. Let's put 'em in a BlendTec blender.. um no wait, they wouldn't survive it. Let's mix them anyway.
Religion - gods and other fancy stuff.
Rules - You can do this and not that.
Your logic - Don't get me started.

Let's see what a wonderful drink we have here.
Fortify Magicka 100 for 9001 seconds
Chameleon 100% for 1337 seconds
Restore Health +20- wait, I've been playing too much Oblivion lately.

Well, don't say I misinterpreted you because that's exactly what you're sending, but with religion, a parent can do everything he/she pleases with his/her child. Let's go for sexual abuse, just because that's an excellent.. hmm, forgot the word, you should get it anyway.

And for the sex change thing - absolutely disgusting. That should be banned without question.

There is no federal prohibition on minors being tattooed. State and local laws vary, but such legislation almost always allows minors to be tattooed if they get parental permission.

Know what? Here's some magic words: damn your federal, constitutional, or any other government bodies you would bring up.

Yes, that's the best reply I could give you to that: 12 years old COD mic-screeching dude response. Actually, sometimes I think they are very fitting, and in this situation they fit perfectly. Good thing I deleted some of the things before I posted this message. I could've said more and reply respectively but I'm too damn pissed with seeing the same message written in a different fashion. Please, if it's legal, that surely does not mean it's right, or you shouldn't use your head in matters like these. If you can't really see how much tolerance of "religious freedom", or in my terms, religious enforcement you're tolerating then please... Nah, I'll pass on saying it. Not that it was that much of a cruel statement anyway. But it certainly wasn't a heartwarming one.

Your arguing with a brick wall. People so intwined into their beliefs will forgo all morals regarding the subject, and only answer upon specific parts of questions on the subject.

That said, Locz, if you ever have a son and choose to have him mutilated here is hoping that you get a terriable doctor to do so. Sadly, traumatic experiences are the only thing that can change a persons (sometimes wrong) beliefs.

Anyway, since you seem to enjoy defending anything remotely related to religion, give us your thoughts on this story.

https://www.infoniac.com/breaking/cult-toddler-killed-because-he-wouldnt-say-amen.html

Haha, extreme example. Good idea!

Oh, and an ending note freakylocz: Having tolerance is good. But knowing when there's a line you can't pass is important as well. And sorry if anything was offending here, I'm slightly pissed and what a coincidence, it was a fight between me and my mother over something religious. I also say that you're giving too much respect for religion. Way too much respect, actually. It doesn't deserve it. Freedom of religion is something to be kept to yourself, not to be forced (or a better term: shove down the throat) on your kids or whatever.

 

[Livewire]

I will remind you all, once, to behave yourselves.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from enforcing religious beliefs. It has no mention o private parties. I can, when I have children, raise them Catholic and require them to attend Mss every Sunday and I'd be within the law doing so. Everything in the Constitution restricts the government only.

Regarding religious tattooing, it seems like there is not much case law on it. We don't cite criminal convictions as case law, since those trial courts usally don't rule on the constitutionality of the law that the defendant was convicted under. That gets tested on appeal.

 

[-ty-]

We cannot provide each other with different perspectives if we use such a brazen tone. It will only make them ignore what we really want to say. Discredit the person's stance, but not the person.

I think that the issue at hand has been kinda narrowed to whether parents should be able to make life altering decisions in their children. But what about the doctors? DO you guys think that doctors have any ethical issues with male circumcision? Parents cannot young children breast augmentations, or other body modifying surgeries, unless of course there is a medical reasoning to do so like appendicitis. Should a doctor give a child a blood transfusion to save their life if the parents are strictly against blood-transfusions for religious purposes?

Again, we are all human and passionate about our opinions, try to direct that passion into something constructive. Research .edu, .gov, and online news sources, and state your case with the most objective stance. Thanks, in advance, to everyone!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

We cannot provide each other with different perspectives if we use such a brazen tone. It will only make them ignore what we really want to say. Discredit the person's stance, but not the person.

I think that the issue at hand has been kinda narrowed to whether parents should be able to make life altering decisions in their children. But what about the doctors? DO you guys think that doctors have any ethical issues with male circumcision? Parents cannot young children breast augmentations, or other body modifying surgeries, unless of course there is a medical reasoning to do so like appendicitis. Should a doctor give a child a blood transfusion to save their life if the parents are strictly against blood-transfusions for religious purposes?

Again, we are all human and passionate about our opinions, try to direct that passion into something constructive. Research .edu, .gov, and online news sources, and state your case with the most objective stance. Thanks, in advance, to everyone!

Doctors have a personal call to make regarding the ethics of circumcision. This is the same as doctors who perform abortions and assist with prison executions. While some people, and some doctors, find those things unethical, there are just as many who hold a different view.

 

[-ty-]

The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from enforcing religious beliefs. It has no mention o private parties. I can, when I have children, raise them Catholic and require them to attend Mss every Sunday and I'd be within the law doing so. Everything in the Constitution restricts the government only.

Regarding religious tattooing, it seems like there is not much case law on it. We don't cite criminal convictions as case law, since those trial courts usally don't rule on the constitutionality of the law that the defendant was convicted under. That gets tested on appeal.

This is case law as defined by the Bar Association.

"Case law is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts (called courts of first impression) which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis."

"Court of first impression (known as primae impressionis in Latin) is a legal case in which there is no binding authority on the matter presented. Such a case can set forth a completely original issue of law for decision by the courts. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction. In that situation, courts will look to holdings of other jurisdictions for persuasive authority."

All cases proceeded the court of first impression have followed suit with the case law. Although it is not binding it is persuasive authority, as a single case. The culmination of cases may proved to be much more persuasive. If I had my student WESTLAW during the summer, I might have more specifics to show.