Male Genitalia Mutilation

[FreakyLocz14]

That's silly; the government can and should be able to step in in situations of child abuse. I fail to see how circumcision doesn't fall under the banner of child abuse.

Being familiar with California law, I can assure you that circumcision does not fall under the banner of child abuse here.

 

[-ty-]

Sorry, but your side does carry the burden of proof. When you are sued on a free exercise claim, you will be required to justify your circumcision ban by strict scrutiny.

You will need to show:
1) That there is a compelling government interest
2) That your law is narrowly tailored in addressing that interest
3) That your law is the least restrictive means on the free exercise of religion posdible in adressing that interest

Failure to satisfy all three of those requirements means that the ban is unconstitutional.

Alright, obviously, there is a bias in the reasoning. You believe that is wrong for parents to be able to amputate the pinky toe (which is not needed for balance at all), nipples on males (not needed), and earlobes (not needed), but it is alright for them to remove foreskin? That's all I am going to say; I don't believe parents should be able to modify a child's body b/c pf their religious beliefs. They should only remove body parts if it is a health threatening condition. With unnecessary surgery comes great risk, and permanent disfigurement, disfigurement in which the child did not choose, but must live with for the rest of their life. I know several people who have had botched circumcisions, including myself. It left scarring and dryness as a result. I know others who have tears in their frenulum, and other who have had growths at the site of incision as the skin tries to repair itself. These results of botched surgeries do affect sexual functions; they cause pain, desensitizing, tearing and discomfort. I, and many others just wanted our anatomies to be intact.

1) Therefore, this is a compelling state interest. There should not be ANY unnecessary surgeries performed, unless their is consent from the individual, because it puts the patient at unnecessary risk that affect sexual functions. I am not saying that foreskin is providing sexual functions; I am saying that the surgery may inhibit sexual functions. Seeing that there is little evidence proving circumcision to be beneficial, there are surgical risks. You should be able to put yourself at that unnecessary risk, but not others. It is medically unethical.

2) This is a narrowly addressed issue.

3) It would be excessive if consenting individuals were banned from anatomy-altering procedures that put the individual at unnecessary risk. But for a person who cannot give consent a ban like young girls and boys, circumcisions should not be performed b/c of the risks.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Alright, obviously, there is a bias in the reasoning. You believe that is wrong for parents to be able to amputate the pinky toe (which is not needed for balance at all), nipples on males (not needed), and earlobes (not needed), but it is alright for them to remove foreskin? That's all I am going to say; I don't believe parents should be able to modify a child's body b/c pf their religious beliefs. They should only remove body parts if it is a health threatening condition. With unnecessary surgery comes great risk, and permanent disfigurement, disfigurement in which the child did not choose, but must live with for the rest of their life. I know several people who have had botched circumcisions, including myself. It left scarring and dryness as a result. I know others who have tears in their frenulum, and other who have had growths at the site of incision as the skin tries to repair itself. These results of botched surgeries do affect sexual functions; they cause pain, desensitizing, tearing and discomfort. I, and many others just wanted our anatomies to be intact.

1) Therefore, this is a compelling state interest. There should not be ANY unnecessary surgeries performed, unless their is consent from the individual, because it puts the patient at unnecessary risk that affect sexual functions. I am not saying that foreskin is providing sexual functions; I am saying that the surgery may inhibit sexual functions. Seeing that there is little evidence proving circumcision to be beneficial, there are surgical risks. You should be able to put yourself at that unnecessary risk, but not others. It is medically unethical.

2) This is a narrowly addressed issue.

3) It would be excessive if consenting individuals were banned from anatomy-altering procedures that put the individual at unnecessary risk. But for a person who cannot give consent a ban like young girls and boys, circumcisions should not be performed b/c of the risks.

I'm studying law and I can tell you that you failed the test. First, you didn't even attempt to answer number 2. Secondly, you've failed to demonstrate a compelling interest. Banning an unnecessary medical procedure just because there may be some risk like there is with any medical procedure is not a compelling. It might be a legitimate interest, but it's bout a compelling interest. Number three doesn't ask for your reasoning; only that you show that there no other possible method that it less restrictive on religion.

 

[Myles]

Being familiar with California law, I can assure you that circumcision does not fall under the banner of child abuse here.

Some of the people in this topic are lobbying for California law to say that yes, it is child abuse. So that statement is kind of irrelevant. But it still seems to have been repeated over the last five pages.

 

[-ty-]

I'm studying law and I can tell you that you failed the test. First, you didn't even attempt to answer number 2. Secondly, you've failed to demonstrate a compelling interest. Banning an unnecessary medical procedure just because there may be some risk like there is with any medical procedure is not a compelling. It might be a legitimate interest, but it's bout a compelling interest. Number three doesn't ask for your reasoning; only that you show that there no other possible method that it less restrictive on religion.

1) Compelling state interest is not explicitly defined with a set of criteria. I have stated that it is compelling because you put a child at risk for no medical purpose Here was the compelling state interest for Female Circumsion - that the practice "often" results in physical and psychological harm and that it violates the human rights of those who undergo it, the same can be said for male circumcision. We really do have a bias in the U.S about the difference of Female genital mutilation and Male Genital Mutilation, first off I will list what the surgeries entail:

Cutting? Both
Of the genitals? Both
Of babies? Both
Of children? Both
Without consent? both
At parents' behest? both
Removing erogenous tissue? both
Supposedly beneficial? both
Justified by aesthetics? both
Justified by supposed health benefits? both
Justified by religion? both
Justified by sexual effects? both
Justified by custom? both
Justified by conformity? both
Effects minimised by its supporters? both
Performed by its adult victims? both
Extremely painful? both
Can cause harm? both
Very severe damage? both
Anesthesia? Both
Can cause death? both
Legal in Western countries? Only female circumsion.

If the above things make a compelling interest of FGM, then the same can be said for MGM. IN Africa, and other third world regions, FGM has been exercised to an further extreme than the surgeries performed in the U.S.

Also, the usage of anesthesia puts an infant at a MAJOR RISK! With each time a child is administered anesthesia, it increases risks. The study also says that the risks without the procedure (life-threatening conditions) often outweigh the risks of anesthesia. Parents should not be able to put their child at this unnecessary risk of developing major health problems due to anesthesia.

"Studying a group of more than 5,000 children born between 1976 and 1982 in Olmstead County, Minn., researchers tracked the number of operations each youngster underwent before age 4, as well as his or her scores on reading, writing and math tests, administered once a year from elementary school through high school. Infants who had just one exposure to anesthesia showed no greater risk of having learning problems by age 19, but those with two or more exposures had a 60% increased chance of developing a learning disability compared with babies who had not had any operations. Three or more exposures to anesthesia by age 3 doubled children's risk of having difficulty in thinking, speaking, spelling or performing math calculations by the end of high school."


2) Is very self-explanatory. The government cannot create broad laws covering several interests. To spell it out, the ban would be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of not forcing unnecessary surgery, including those requiring anesthesia, on infants and children.

3) Apparently I do not have to have an explanation for the third criterion.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

1) Compelling state interest is not explicitly defined with a set of criteria. I have stated that it is compelling because you put a child at risk for no medical purpose Here was the compelling state interest for Female Circumsion - that the practice "often" results in physical and psychological harm and that it violates the human rights of those who undergo it, the same can be said for male circumcision. We really do have a bias in the U.S about the difference of Female genital mutilation and Male Genital Mutilation, first off I will list what the surgeries entail:

Cutting? Both
Of the genitals? Both
Of babies? Both
Of children? Both
Without consent? both
At parents' behest? both
Removing erogenous tissue? both
Supposedly beneficial? both
Justified by aesthetics? both
Justified by supposed health benefits? both
Justified by religion? both
Justified by sexual effects? both
Justified by custom? both
Justified by conformity? both
Effects minimised by its supporters? both
Performed by its adult victims? both
Extremely painful? both
Can cause harm? both
Very severe damage? both
Anesthesia? Both
Can cause death? both
Legal in Western countries? Only female circumsion.

If the above things make a compelling interest of FGM, then the same can be said for MGM. IN Africa, and other third world regions, FGM has been exercised to an further extreme than the surgeries performed in the U.S.

Also, the usage of anesthesia puts an infant at a MAJOR RISK! With each time a child is administered anesthesia, it increases risks. The study also says that the risks without the procedure (life-threatening conditions) often outweigh the risks of anesthesia. Parents should not be able to put their child at this unnecessary risk of developing major health problems due to anesthesia.

"Studying a group of more than 5,000 children born between 1976 and 1982 in Olmstead County, Minn., researchers tracked the number of operations each youngster underwent before age 4, as well as his or her scores on reading, writing and math tests, administered once a year from elementary school through high school. Infants who had just one exposure to anesthesia showed no greater risk of having learning problems by age 19, but those with two or more exposures had a 60% increased chance of developing a learning disability compared with babies who had not had any operations. Three or more exposures to anesthesia by age 3 doubled children's risk of having difficulty in thinking, speaking, spelling or performing math calculations by the end of high school."


2) Is very self-explanatory. The government cannot create broad laws covering several interests. To spell it out, the ban would be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of not forcing unnecessary surgery, including those requiring anesthesia, on infants and children.

3) Apparently I do not have to have an explanation for the third criterion.

A compelling interest is something like national security, economic security, major public health concerns, etc. Your interest isn't compelling.

Since you can't argue number three, you law is unconstitutional.
It looks like the courts are seeing things my way.

 

[-ty-]

A compelling interest is something like national security, economic security, major public health concerns, etc. Your interest isn't compelling.

Since you can't argue number three, you law is unconstitutional.

NOT COMPELLING?! The fact that anesthesia has been proven by the medical community as very dangerous for the development of infants? That's not a major health concern?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

NOT COMPELLING?! The fact that anesthesia has been proven by the medical community as very dangerous for the development of infants? That's not a major health concern?

The issue at hand is male circumcision, not anesthesia. Nice straw man argument, though.

 

[-ty-]

A compelling interest is something like national security, economic security, major public health concerns, etc. Your interest isn't compelling.

Since you can't argue number three, you law is unconstitutional.

NOT COMPELLING?! The fact that anesthesia has been proven by the medical community as very dangerous for the development of infants? That's not a major health concern?

And wait a second, didn't you tell me that I didn't need an explanation for the third term? After I stated my reasoning for the third criterion the first time, you stated that I didn't need to give a reasoning. I will re-iterate that it would be excessive to ban unnecessary surgeries when the patient consents to having the procedure. however, it would be least restrictive to just put a ban on surgeries that do not have the consent of the individual. FGM has proved to satiate this criteria as well, you are allowed to have a circumcision at 18 once you are able to consent, but parents cannot consent to the procedure.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

NOT COMPELLING?! The fact that anesthesia has been proven by the medical community as very dangerous for the development of infants? That's not a major health concern?

And wait a second, didn't you tell me that I didn't need an explanation for the third term? After I stated my reasoning for the third criterion the first time, you stated that I didn't need to give a reasoning. I will re-iterate that it would be excessive to ban unnecessary surgeries when the patient consents to having the procedure. however, it would be least restrictive to just put a ban on surgeries that do not have the consent of the individual. FGM has proved to satiate this criteria as well, you are allowed to have a circumcision at 18 once you are able to consent, but parents cannot consent to the procedure.

You are avoiding point three with another straw man. The question has nothing to do with who should give consent.

 

[-ty-]

The issue at hand is male circumcision, not anesthesia. Nice straw man argument, though.

Male Circumcision entails using anesthesia, it's a part of the procedure. It's not a straw man argument. Especially because you have not stated anything to debunk it.

Anesthesia is just an ADDITIONAL argument that states the risks of the surgery. Do you think that it is not a health concern to expose children to anesthesia for no medical purpose?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Male Circumcision entails using anesthesia, it's a part of the procedure. It's not a straw man argument. Especially because you have not stated anything to debunk it.

Anesthesia is just an ADDITIONAL argument that states the risks of the surgery. Do you think that it is not a health concern to expose children to anesthesia for no medical purpose?

Anesthesia is not used in a Jewish bris.

 

[-ty-]

You are avoiding point three with another straw man. The question has nothing to do with who should give consent.

Now I guess I have to give you a piece of legislation rather than just give a few points:

1) the practice of male genital mutilation is carried out by members of certain cultural and religious groups within the United States;
``(2) the practice of male genital mutilation often results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the men involved;
``(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional;
``(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of male genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any single State or local jurisdiction to control;
``(5) the practice of male genital mutilation can be prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution or under any other law; and
``(6) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I, the necessary and proper clause, section 5 of the fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the treaty clause, to the Constitution to enact such legislation.''

Anesthesia is not used in a Jewish bris.

I didn't account for how barbaric some practices are.

Well anyway, that is a straw man. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS - "There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants."

They also state that the risks of not using anesthesia are worse than the risks of using anesthesia, although it too has major risks.

 

[Black Ice]

seriously i know if i had a flap of skin hanging over my dick it would be that much harder to get a woman.

is this seriously an argument

i mean what's wrong with waiting until you're not a baby anymore and you have your own choice?

infant circumcision is becoming less popular and san francisco banned it.


edit: was wrong about the sf thing

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Now I guess I have to give you a piece of legislation rather than just give a few points:

1) the practice of male genital mutilation is carried out by members of certain cultural and religious groups within the United States;
``(2) the practice of male genital mutilation often results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the men involved;
``(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional;
``(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of male genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any single State or local jurisdiction to control;
``(5) the practice of male genital mutilation can be prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution or under any other law; and
``(6) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I, the necessary and proper clause, section 5 of the fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the treaty clause, to the Constitution to enact such legislation.''



I didn't account for how barbaric some practices are.

Well anyway, that is a straw man. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS - "There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants."

They also state that the risks of not using anesthesia are worse than the risks of using anesthesia, although it too has major risks.

Your legislation doesn't explain how it is the least restrictive means possible on religion. And nice antisemitism, there.

 

[-ty-]

Your legislation doesn't explain how it is the least restrictive means possible on religion. And nice antisemitism, there.

I am antisemitic because I think that surgeries performed without anesthesia are cruel, and cause psychological damage according to the AAP?

Also, that legislation is from Female Genital Mutilation statute, and that section was pertinent to the least restrictive means criteria.

 

[Myles]

Is that general anesthesia or local anesthesia that's a problem? Because local is what they use for infants.

 

[Black Ice]

Oh. Haven't checked this thread in a while and I probably ignored your post or something. That decision still shouldn't be taken as a support for it though.

I find it kinda funny that the judge was a woman.

 

[groteske]

There is an interesting study on here: https://frank.mtsu.edu/~ccrooks/4600/MALEGENMUT.pdf

"The physical and sexual harm reported by respondents (whom were circumcised) included:

(1) progressive sensory deficit in the glans (61%);
(2) excess stimulation required to reach orgasm, leading to sexual dysfunctions and orgasmic difficulties (40%)
(3) prominent scarring (33%);
(4) insufficient shaft skin to cover the erect penis (27%);
(5) erectile bowing/curvature from uneven skin loss (16%);
(6) pain and bleeding upon erection (17%);
(7) painful skin bridges (12%); and
(8) physical anomalies that included beveling deformities of the glans and meatal stenosis (20%)

That list clearly refers to males who were consciously circumcised later in life, not as infants. Of course there are going to be complications the later the surgery is performed. I've never, ever heard any male complaining about required "excess stimulation," LOL

A friend of mine had a circumcision at age 17, and described the procedure as both the best and worst thing he's had to do. For years before the surgery he harbored resentment towards his parents for not circumcising at birth.

I honestly don't understand the desire of keeping the entire foreskin, besides the increased sensitivity (which, as a male during sex, isn't necessarily a good thing; virgins need not comment on this). IMO, as a straight female, it's extremely unappealing to look at.

 

[-ty-]

That list clearly refers to males who were consciously circumcised later in life, not as infants. Of course there are going to be complications the later the surgery is performed. I've never, ever heard any male complaining about required "excess stimulation," LOL

A friend of mine had a circumcision at age 17, and described the procedure as both the best and worst thing he's had to do. For years before the surgery he harbored resentment towards his parents for not circumcising at birth.

I honestly don't understand the desire of keeping the entire foreskin, besides the increased sensitivity (which, as a male during sex, isn't necessarily a good thing; virgins need not comment on this). IMO, as a straight female, it's extremely unappealing to look at.

Yes, you are correct, this is a before and after study.
It says in need of excess stimulation, it does create more stimulation; this is a sexual dysfunction.

But you are forgetting that just b/c you find the procedure more aesthetically pleasing it doesn't mean that a child should be forced to have it, especially with the risks. Many heterosexual men think that breast augmentations are aesthetically pleasing as well, but you don't see anyone forcing their kid to get one, lol.

Be advised, this link will bring you to site analyses very common abnormalities that occur after circumcision at birth including pictures.
https://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html
Many of these abnormalities cause pain and sexual dysfunction. Similar to that of FGM.

This is a compelling state interest, the AAP reports that 4.7% of surgeries require additional surgeries to correct complications of the surgery. Men's health reports complication in surgeries occur in 3-5 percent of surgeries, this doesn't include the later effects of adhesion and skin bridging that disrupt sexual functions which they estimate is at 17%. I do not understand why so many people have a bias when it comes to MGM but not FGM. Both are cruel and unnecessary treatments.