# Judge rules that law against female genital mutilation Unconstitutional



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

https://www.wxyz.com/news/judge-dismisses-several-charges-in-female-genital-mutilation-case

After it was discovered that some of Dearborn, MI Muslim children had their genitals surgically mutilated, charges were brought against the parents and the female Muslim doctor that did the surgery. It has been difficult to determine how common this practice is, due to religious secrecy.

Today, a judge has determined the law against female genitalia mutilation was too broad, so the charges must be dropped. Muslims, and everyone else, in the United States will be able to have their 8 year old daughters surgically "altered" as a part of that sects religious beliefs.

I haven't heard one way or the other if Medicaid will cover this procedure.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I like the decision. It was over reach by Congress and should be decided at the state level.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I like the decision. It was over reach by Congress and should be decided at the state level.


Cool, like in the 1950, where women went to other states for their abortion. But now parents can shop states to have their 8 year old daughters mutilated. 

I never once thought that Shira Law could get a foothold in the US, despite the large population of Muslims in Dearborn and surrounding areas. But just a touch more apathy and it'll be law of the land. Historic stuff.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Cool, like in the 1950, where women went to other states for their abortion. But now parents can shop states to have their 8 year old daughters mutilated.
> 
> I never once thought that Shira Law could get a foothold in the US, despite the large population of Muslims in Dearborn and surrounding areas. But just a touch more apathy and it'll be law of the land. Historic stuff.


I am not for this but we allow genital mutilation of male babies all the time.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Cool, like in the 1950, where women went to other states for their abortion. But now parents can shop states to have their 8 year old daughters mutilated.


A large portion of the country believes Rowe vs Wade was a state issue and that the Supreme Court created law with their decision. 

The judge in this case didn't rule on female genital mutilation, but on the Constitutionality of a law passed by Congress. 

Just because people feel strongly about an issue doesn't give Congress the authority to regulate it by passing a law.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> ..........
> 
> Just because people feel strongly about an issue doesn't give Congress the authority to regulate it by passing a law.


Now that is a interesting statement. Strongly felt issues seems to be what laws are all about.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

painterswife said:


> I am not for this but we allow genital mutilation of male babies all the time.


I would argue that there is a significant difference between removing excess skin which can accumulate unhealthy materials and removing a functioning part as is the case here.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> A large portion of the country believes Rowe vs Wade was a state issue and that the Supreme Court created law with their decision.
> 
> The judge in this case didn't rule on female genital mutilation, but on the Constitutionality of a law passed by Congress.
> 
> Just because people feel strongly about an issue doesn't give Congress the authority to regulate it by passing a law.


I agree. It would be nice to have the Constitution actually followed in a thousand other things as well.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Minneapolis has the largest Somali community in the US. We have had this issue of people going to Michigan for this surgery on female children. 

This ought to be illegal, no freedom of religion BS. Part of the surgery in the removal of the clitoris. Girls who have this done can never experience the full pleasure of sex. They are too young to make this decision. If they want the surgery after they turn 21 then it's their choice. This is not comparable to circumcision of boys. It does not effect boys the same way.

Banning this surgery should be the battle cry of the woman's movement. There's never a feminist around when you need one.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

I have no idea the definition or better worded scope of said mutilations and what they involve...…….pretty much because I never cared to find out what the crazies are doing and partly because I don`t care...…


However, now we have the crazies here, a long side our own home grown crazies, so it is going to have to be dealt with, sounds like some crazy cult stuff and since it is going on here it needs to fall inside the scope of our current laws.


Can a US citizen of any belief have that done to a child under current law...…..is it even a legal medical procedure that licensed medical professionals would perform ?

Or is this some back alley stuff...….not that anyone cares/follows or enforces current laws anyway...…..


----------



## tiffanysgallery (Jan 17, 2015)

What happened to a Doctors Medical Code of Ethics... 

Has this country lost the standards of conduct which define the honorable behavior of physicians...

Abuse is abuse. This procedure is not protecting children, the patients, but causing injury to them for non-medical reasons. 

This is a human rights issue and such be addressed as such.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Well they call it genital mutilation, but it is a surgical procedure and I do see the similarities to circumcision from just a theoretical moral standpoint. parents do make all sorts of choices for their children, medically and otherwise, so see no reason they shouldnt for this either I suppose. and honestly don't care what muslims do to their children for religious purposes or otherwise. I am for Parents raising their children and not the gov. (Or a bunch of "*" in the community) though that is for sure.

"The document entitled "The Practice of Female Circumcision among Bohra Muslims" was written by R. Ghadially, a women's studies teacher from India who underwent the procedure as a child.

" ... My mother took me to the house of a woman in our Bohra mohalla. Except for the lady, no one was at home. I was told to lie down on my back on the floor and spread my legs. It hurt me bad and brought tears to my eyes. The whole thing was over in a matter of minutes. As I grew up and became aware of my sexuality I realized the purpose of circumcision is to discourage masturbation. It limits the possibility of sexual pleasure from the stimulation of the clitoris. The circumcision exposes the nerve endings and direct contact makes the area hypersensitive and painful to prolonged touch."
"
Now, in this story the procedure is done by evidently just some person, and I do believe we have medical practice laws in the U.S. to prevent that, or to prevent it being done in poor locations that are unsafe/unsanitary, but well that is a different thing.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Misogynist will defend mutilating, abusing, and degrading women. That's part of being misogynist.
The current regressive climate in the US has made for some strange bedfellows, who will forever be known by the company they keep.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> Now that is a interesting statement. Strongly felt issues seems to be what laws are all about.


They are, but jurisdiction is the key to this issue.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bob M. said:


> Now, in this story the procedure is done by evidently just some person, and I do believe we have medical practice laws in the U.S. to prevent that, or to prevent it being done in poor locations that are unsafe/unsanitary, but well that is a different thing.


 Nope. In this case a female, Muslim medical doctor did the surgeries.

Interesting viewpoint, Bob. I wonder where you draw the line on what parents can do to their children. Genital mutilation is fine, leave the parents alone. Is molestation fine, too? Can a parent tattoo a curse word across their child's forehead? At what point is it abuse?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Clem said:


> Misogynist will defend mutilating, abusing, and degrading women. That's part of being misogynist.
> The current regressive climate in the US has made for some strange bedfellows, who will forever be known by the company they keep.


So it is the white guy's fault.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bob M. said:


> Well they call it genital mutilation, but it is a surgical procedure and I do see the similarities to circumcision from just a theoretical moral standpoint. parents do make all sorts of choices for their children, medically and otherwise, so see no reason they shouldnt for this either I suppose. and honestly don't care what muslims do to their children for religious purposes or otherwise. I am for Parents raising their children and not the gov. (Or a bunch of "*" in the community) though that is for sure.
> 
> "The document entitled "The Practice of Female Circumcision among Bohra Muslims" was written by R. Ghadially, a women's studies teacher from India who underwent the procedure as a child.
> 
> ...


At least your nonsense is readable now.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I will go along with allowing it as long as both parents who would do such a thing to a child are, well, retroactively aborted.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

HDRider said:


> So it is the white guy's fault.


Not hardly my fault if you read something and don't understand the words. But, in a free country, you are free to interpret anything any way you want, and publicly identify yourself by displays of such.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Clem said:


> Not hardly my fault if you read something and don't understand the words. But, in a free country, you are free to interpret anything any way you want, and publicly identify yourself by displays of such.


Ambiguity breeds misinterpretation


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

BS. Nothing ambiguous in my statement, nor anything condemning you. If you choose to jump when somebody says "misogynist" that's up to you. Buy, I'm an old white guy, so trying to shift "misogynist" to "white guy" is pathetically disingenuous.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

HDRider said:


> Ambiguity breeds misinterpretation


ya but it is usually just ignorance on the readers fault. I certainly have next to no difficulties at all reading and comprehending what pretty much anyone else says or writes, certain others" seem to not be able to understand if someone doesn't indent a paragraph or put it into perfect American Text book format. 



haypoint said:


> Nope. In this case a female, Muslim medical doctor did the surgeries.
> 
> Interesting viewpoint, Bob. I wonder where you draw the line on what parents can do to their children. Genital mutilation is fine, leave the parents alone. Is molestation fine, too? Can a parent tattoo a curse word across their child's forehead? At what point is it abuse?


The first thing to under stand is almost nothing is really black and white.I think everyone agrees things/laws are somewhat specific because we wish a fairness in society not based on merely personal interpretation by each individual thus allowing bias, but We have rules and regulations that are still never black and white. Can a Parent tattoo a swear word across the forehead of their child? can they allow a child to do it to themselves? can they tattoo a non swear word? Can they take them in to get a immunization shot then find out 10 yrs later that shot is bad for them? Can they feed them romain lettuce, even though the CDC has made a declaration to throw it all out? If they do and the child gets sick or dies are they then able to be charged with murder? good questions.....


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Muslims also marry their eight year old daughters off to adult men. Murder their own daughters if they refuse to marry who they are told to, or if they date a boy not approved my the parents. Should this be a States issue as well?
If I formed a cult and said it was against my religion to pay federal taxes, I bet the feds would be knocking on my door. But these nut jobs can mutilate their children?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

muleskinner2 said:


> Muslims also marry their eight year old daughters off to adult men. Murder their own daughters if they refuse to marry who they are told to, or if they date a boy not approved my the parents. Should this be a States issue as well?
> If I formed a cult and said it was against my religion to pay federal taxes, I bet the feds would be knocking on my door. But these nut jobs can mutilate their children?


So do extremists of other religions. It is child abuse, and they will be punished for their crimes. 

I'm not saying that genital mutilation isn't heinous and a crime, just that it can't be punished under an unconstitutional law.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> just that it can't be punished under an unconstitutional law.


What if it was an unconstitutional law than banned AR-15 rifles? Would your opinion on unconstitutional still apply?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

muleskinner2 said:


> What if it was an unconstitutional law than banned AR-15 rifles? Would your opinion on unconstitutional still apply?


You changed my quote to represent your opinion, that's unethical. Can you comment on the entire quote?

The topic is unconstitutional law and female genital mutilation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> But these nut jobs can mutilate their children?


 Why not most Americans seem to feel it’s their right. 

I’ve never understood how parents can mutilate or allow children to mutilate themselves. 
Pierced ears , circumcision , tattoos,branding , toungue splitting ,breast reduction or augmentation , are just the build up. Where is the line between them and female circumcision ,limb removal and eye gouging ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

People use religion to justify many things. Mutilation, indoctrination, health care, education or lack thereof and many other things. Where do we constitutionally draw the line with what they can and can not do in the name of religion?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Why not most Americans seem to feel it’s their right.
> 
> I’ve never understood how parents can mutilate or allow children to mutilate themselves.
> Pierced ears , circumcision , tattoos,branding , toungue splitting ,breast reduction or augmentation , are just the build up. Where is the line between them and female circumcision ,limb removal and eye gouging ?


Disabling or removing a functioning body part would be a good benchmark.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> What if it was an unconstitutional law than banned AR-15 rifles? Would your opinion on unconstitutional still apply?


A law that bans AR-15 IS likely unconstitutional according to 2nd Amendment. I don't remember seeing genital mutilation in there anywhere.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

IndyDave said:


> Disabling or removing a functioning body part would be a good benchmark.


You'd like to think so.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> A law that bans AR-15 IS likely unconstitutional according to 2nd Amendment. I don't remember seeing genital mutilation in there anywhere.


Where is the law against murder in the constitution?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> So do extremists of other religions


Sorry, I am not an expert on all religions. Could you tell me which other religions marry eight year old children, mutilate little girls, and strap bombs to little kids?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Why not most Americans seem to feel it’s their right.
> 
> I’ve never understood how parents can mutilate or allow children to mutilate themselves.
> Pierced ears , circumcision , tattoos,branding , toungue splitting ,breast reduction or augmentation , are just the build up. Where is the line between them and female circumcision ,limb removal and eye gouging ?


Your right, there is no shortage of nut jobs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

muleskinner2 said:


> Sorry, I am not an expert on all religions. Could you tell me which other religions marry eight year old children, mutilate little girls, and strap bombs to little kids?


The extreme of most religions have done similar in the past, or secretly now.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> You changed my quote to represent your opinion


I did not represent my opinion, I asked you a simple question. If questioning you is unethical, then that would be the very least of my sins.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> Sorry, I am not an expert on all religions. Could you tell me which other religions marry eight year old children, mutilate little girls, and strap bombs to little kids?


Do we get to decide whether the religion is right because I could say a bunch about the Christian religion? Do you want to go there?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Do we get to decide whether the religion is right because I could say a bunch about the Christian religion? Do you want to go there?


I consider any religion to be a form of mental illness. If it is five times a day, or once a week, gathering in a large ornately decorated building, and mumbling incantations to a nonexistent being can't be the sign of a stable mind. And you are free to go anyplace you choose.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> A law that bans AR-15 IS likely unconstitutional according to 2nd Amendment. I don't remember seeing genital mutilation in there anywhere.


Inconstency is the issue. We just had a court rule the mutilation law unconstitutional by virtue of the constitution not granting the federal governmentauthority over the matter. Strangely enough, this ruling is diametrically opposed to Roe v. Wade so far as the constitution also having no provision regarding abortion. In the case of the Second Amendment, the disregard of the constitution is even more egregious so far as the federal government is deeply entrenched in fashioning restriction that the constitution expressly forbids.

For constitutional purposes, I would consider this ruling correct. That said, it would be absolutely equal and parallel with Roe if the courts were to "find" a right for parents to do this to their children somewhere in the spaces between the lines of the constitution.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> The extreme of most religions have done similar in the past, or secretly now.


So, it's ok now because some nut job did it in the past? Not a very strong argument.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

muleskinner2 said:


> So, it's ok now because some nut job did it in the past? Not a very strong argument.


I never said it did. In my opinion, religion has ruined more lives than any other thing on earth. 

I said that the no one religion is any better than another, extremists in any religion have done horrendous things in the name of their god.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> Sorry, I am not an expert on all religions. Could you tell me which other religions marry eight year old children, mutilate little girls, and strap bombs to little kids?


Female genital mutilation is done by Christians as well. Look it up.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Clem said:


> Where is the law against murder in the constitution


Perhaps the founding fathers felt that a law regulating murder should be left up to the states. As in all forms of murder are a homicide, but not all homicides are murder.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

fireweed farm said:


> Female genital mutilation is done by Christians as well. Look it up.


I failed to find any references aside from the time of bloodletting and leeches being used for medicinal purposes.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

fireweed farm said:


> Female genital mutilation is done by Christians as well. Look it up.


So, I never said that one form of mental illness was any better than another. Extremists are always able to convince themselves that what they are doing is right, legal, or ordained by god. That does not make them any less crazy. If there is any distinction at all, it might be that some are less evil than others. But right now, today Islam is leading the pack.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

muleskinner2 said:


> Perhaps the founding fathers felt that a law regulating murder should be left up to the states. As in all forms of murder are a homicide, but not all homicides are murder.


Yet since the Constitution, there are several federal laws against murder in various circumstances.
As would be surmised by my quoting a post in my post, my comment was is direct rebuttal to another comment. To (very) briefly summarize, if there is no mention of female mutilation in the Constitution, or Bill of Rights, and no mention of murder either, would the OP be OK with the judge declaring the federal laws against murder to be unconstitutional? Do you suppose he is really a constitutional lawyer, so well versed in the matter that he actually does know better than lawmakers?
Or is it possible that congressmen either are lawyers, or have lawyers advising them, and the judge likes to consider himself a maverick or something?
Who knows all that? the other poster? you? Certainly not me. Oh, wait, I do know the part about congressmen having knowledge about or access to law..


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> I failed to find any references aside from the time of bloodletting and leeches being used for medicinal purposes.


Failed to find any reference? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation
Although it predates Islam by centuries,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation#cite_note-10* the practice is found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities.[9] It is not required by most forms of Islam—indeed, many Muslim scholars have declared it unIslamic[10]—but it is viewed as obligatory by the Shafi'i version of Sunni Islam.[11] FGM also exists within Christian and animist groups.[9] It has been found among Coptic Christians in Egypt, Orthodox Christians in Ethiopia, and Protestants and Catholics in Sudan and Kenya.[12] The only Jewish group known to have practised it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia.[c]*


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Clem said:


> Yet since the Constitution, there are several federal laws against murder in various circumstances.
> As would be surmised by my quoting a post in my post, my comment was is direct rebuttal to another comment. To (very) briefly summarize, if there is no mention of female mutilation in the Constitution, or Bill of Rights, and no mention of murder either, would the OP be OK with the judge declaring the federal laws against murder to be unconstitutional? Do you suppose he is really a constitutional lawyer, so well versed in the matter that he actually does know better than lawmakers?
> Or is it possible that congressmen either are lawyers, or have lawyers advising them, and the judge likes to consider himself a maverick or something?
> Who knows all that? the other poster? you? Certainly not me. Oh, wait, I do know the part about congressmen having knowledge about or access to law..


The founding fathers did not ban murder in the Constitution. Nor did they declare it to be a protected right, so the federal and or state governments are free to pass laws on the subject. And no, of the many sins I am guilty of, being a lawyer isn't one of them.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

fireweed farm said:


> Failed to find any reference?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation
> Although it predates Islam by centuries,* the practice is found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities.[9] It is not required by most forms of Islam—indeed, many Muslim scholars have declared it unIslamic[10]—but it is viewed as obligatory by the Shafi'i version of Sunni Islam.[11] FGM also exists within Christian and animist groups.[9] It has been found among Coptic Christians in Egypt, Orthodox Christians in Ethiopia, and Protestants and Catholics in Sudan and Kenya.[12] The only Jewish group known to have practised it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia.[c]*


Ok, I missed a couple. As I said, the most recent examples outside Islam I had found were from a time when accepted medical practices were downright barbaric by modern standards and even then in western cultures it was only practiced as a cure for a malady with the intention of curing illness, no matter how wrong-headed the belief that it was in fact a cure.

You will notice that I deliberately phrased my previous post to account for re potential that my knowledge of the subject may well be incomplete.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

You're missing the point. 
ETA: Not in Constitution, yet there are federal laws addressing it. 


Clem said:


> *Yet since the Constitution, there are several federal laws against murder in various circumstances.*
> .......





muleskinner2 said:


> The founding fathers did not ban murder in the Constitution. Nor did they declare it to be a protected right, so the federal and or state governments are free to pass laws on the subject. And no, of the many sins I am guilty of, being a lawyer isn't one of them.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Clem said:


> You're missing the point.


That happens a lot. I never claimed to be the sharpest tack in the box.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I would point out that murder, among other "local" issues are within the jurisdiction of the federal government constitutionally within the District if Columbia, diplomatic missions, and military reservations.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Disabling or removing a functioning body part would be a good benchmark.


 No problem with tats , brands , piercings , tongue splitting and Reductions and augmentations ?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> No problem with tats , brands , piercings , tongue splitting and Reductions and augmentations ?


Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between vanity, and plain old stupid.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

fireweed farm said:


> indeed, many Muslim scholars have declared it unIslamic


So, even the scholars can't agree. Imagine that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> I consider any religion to be a form of mental illness. If it is five times a day, or once a week, gathering in a large ornately decorated building, and mumbling incantations to a nonexistent being can't be the sign of a stable mind. And you are free to go anyplace you choose.


 I don’t believe Gods church does that. 
Cults might but there’s only one church of Christ and we don’t do that.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t believe Gods church does that.
> Cults might but there’s only one church of Christ and we don’t do that.


We all believe, what we believe.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between vanity, and plain old stupid.


 Would any of these practices be legal if you tried to do them to another adult ?
Wouldn’t that be a good standard ?
Kids don’t get a choice and adults don’t choose for others ?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> Sorry, I am not an expert on all religions. Could you tell me which other religions marry eight year old children, mutilate little girls, and strap bombs to little kids?


Several christian religions marry off their young children, mutilate their kids.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

coolrunnin said:


> Several christian religions marry off their young children, mutilate their kids.


Educate us on which ones, Please.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Would any of these practices be legal if you tried to do them to another adult ?
> Wouldn’t that be a good standard ?
> Kids don’t get a choice and adults don’t choose for others ?


In my opinion, anyone who did any of these things to a child, should be flogged, branded, and then hung. I once saw a nursing infant with six rings in her right ear. I couldn't see the left ear so I don't know if there were more. When I asked the mother about this, she said it was her baby and she could do what she wanted with it. I walked away. How do you even respond to someone like this, without ending up in jail.

If I ever saw a child with a split tongue, I am afraid I would end up in jail.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

haypoint said:


> https://www.wxyz.com/news/judge-dismisses-several-charges-in-female-genital-mutilation-case
> 
> After it was discovered that some of Dearborn, MI Muslim children had their genitals surgically mutilated, charges were brought against the parents and the female Muslim doctor that did the surgery. It has been difficult to determine how common this practice is, due to religious secrecy.
> 
> ...


This issue should have been left up to State Courts. But I am sure that a lot of people were screaming that the government should "do something", so they did. And now they have discovered that just doing something isn't as easy as it sounds. Maybe they will get it right the second or third time around. Hey, it could happen.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

muleskinner2 said:


> This issue should have been left up to State Courts. But I am sure that a lot of people were screaming that the government should "do something", so they did. And now they have discovered that just doing something isn't as easy as it sounds. Maybe they will get it right the second or third time around. Hey, it could happen.



Well 23 states currently do not a law banning it.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> No problem with tats , brands , piercings , tongue splitting and Reductions and augmentations ?


You have to start someplace.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> If I ever saw a child with a split tongue, I am afraid I would end up in jail.


It may make you feel better to know every split tongue if seen has been the choice of the person afflicted against the parents wishes. 
But these persons are getting older and may soon pass their choices on tho their kids.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

mutilation, or rights of passage/etc...all judgement calls really. heck i think it is retarded for certain peoples to put the hoops in their lips or ears, but its their thing and their culture...and their business. People used to get married all the time at ages 8/etc. this was back in the day when religion was at its full fervor too. I'm not for it, but I'm also not so sure it actually harmed anyone in and of itself. I believe there are still states that allow marriage at the age of 14 even now. Can anyone actually say with a straight face, such marriages actually do more damage than so many of the marriages we have as adults currently? if they can, then they are just ignorant, because marriages by adults often get very damaging, so it isn't the age itself per say that is the issue. now en days marriage is rapidly getting completely out of date , ad well, I'm certainly not so sure that is a good thing either.
Does this surgery even harm the person it is done to at all? If it is done by a competent doctor,I am not so sure,but I have to say I do not know and havent looked into it. In any case, I know it has been going on for a long time, and hasn't really effected me any, so don't really care much, and I'm not all about running other peoples lives like so many others seem to be.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Clem said:


> Where is the law against murder in the constitution?


What does that have to do with anything? I responded to him comparing something in the Constitution to something not in the Constitution, which imo is not a valid comparison.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> What does that have to do with anything? I responded to him comparing something in the Constitution to something not in the Constitution, which imo is not a valid comparison.


It is valid in the contrast between a constitutional violation in overreach versus flagrantly violating perfectly clear text. If the congressweasels and courts will do the latter, they won't bat an eye at the former.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> In my opinion, religion has ruined more lives than any other thing on earth.


I think alcohol holds that title.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No problem with tats , brands , piercings , tongue splitting and Reductions and augmentations ?


Most of those are restricted to adults, not forced on unwilling minors.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think alcohol holds that title.


Well, you could segue from alcohol to praying to the porcelain god to get your religion.


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

Pure child abuse, but then again, many don't care cause they are cool with dismembering and sucking out a child in the womb.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most of those are restricted to adults, not forced on unwilling minors.


 I think they ruled a couple of those are ok for minors in the gender fluid crowd to do or have done with parents consent....


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

Bob M. said:


> Does this surgery even harm the person it is done to at all? If it is done by a competent doctor,I am not so sure,but I have to say I do not know and havent looked into it. In any case, I know it has been going on for a long time, and hasn't really effected me any, so don't really care much, and I'm not all about running other peoples lives like so many others seem to be.



I've read, if the equivalent was done to a male, it would be like taking off the head of the penis.

No, you can find a link.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

As I have stated before, and will again, when comparing female "circumcision" to male circumcision as an equivocator. Ask what the outcomes are and if one party regrets it being done to them without their consent vs. the other. 

Regarding the constitutionality of the law struck down, it would take a bit more research before anyone here could state an informed opinion, in my opinion. Have any of you read the statute and the testimony and the full judicial opinion?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

A bit of information on this from WHO. On the same page is the health risks involved

*Procedures*
Female genital mutilation is classified into 4 major types.


*Type 1:* Often referred to as *clitoridectomy*, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals), and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
*Type 2:* Often referred to as *excision*, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without excision of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva ).
*Type 3:* Often referred to as *infibulation*, this is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora, sometimes through stitching, with or without removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy).
*Type 4:* This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
Deinfibulation refers to the practice of cutting open the sealed vaginal opening in a woman who has been infibulated, which is often necessary for improving health and well-being as well as to allow intercourse or to facilitate childbirth.

http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> I think they ruled a couple of those are ok for minors in the gender fluid crowd to do or have done with parents consent....


Nothing permanent can be done to transitioning minors, even with parental consent.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I don't think anyone supports female genital mutilation. If so, please point it out prior to getting your collective panties in a wad. Please?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Health impacts.

*Key facts*

Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.
More than 200 million girls and women alive today have been cut in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia where FGM is concentrated (1).
FGM is mostly carried out on young girls between infancy and age 15.
FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths. In many settings, health care providers perform FGM due to the erroneous belief that the procedure is safer when medicalized1. WHO strongly urges health professionals not to perform such procedures.

FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

*Procedures*
Female genital mutilation is classified into 4 major types.


*Type 1:* Often referred to as *clitoridectomy*, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals), and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
*Type 2:* Often referred to as *excision*, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without excision of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva ).
*Type 3:* Often referred to as *infibulation*, this is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora, sometimes through stitching, with or without removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy).
*Type 4:* This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
Deinfibulation refers to the practice of cutting open the sealed vaginal opening in a woman who has been infibulated, which is often necessary for improving health and well-being as well as to allow intercourse or to facilitate childbirth.

*No health benefits, only harm*
FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies. Generally speaking, risks increase with increasing severity of the procedure.

Immediate complications can include:


severe pain
excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
genital tissue swelling
fever
infections e.g., tetanus
urinary problems
wound healing problems
injury to surrounding genital tissue
shock
death.
Long-term consequences can include:


urinary problems (painful urination, urinary tract infections);
vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections);
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.);
scar tissue and keloid;
sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction, etc.);
increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths;
need for later surgeries: for example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks;
psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.);
health complications of female genital mutilation.

Health complications of female genital mutilation
http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

macmad said:


> Pure child abuse, but then again, many don't care cause they are cool with dismembering and sucking out a child in the womb.


When you get pregnant it's your choice to do what you want with the pregnancy. Not pregnant? None of your business.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Ya well, I've seen plenty of nut obs compare President Trump to Hitler, and he is nothing really comparable to hitler at all, so...... People evidently feel the need to embellish things when they know if they were actually more honest , they really wouldn't have a point.
Upon looking into it a little more, evidently there are different types of female circumcision done. it ranges from even simple symbolic pricking with a needle, to removing the clitoris hood/etc, so it doesn't compare at all to cutting the head off of a penis.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Irish Pixie said:


> When you get pregnant it's your choice to do what you want with the pregnancy. Not pregnant? None of your business.


says you, but that baby is also made by the man involved, not just the woman. So I say I do and should also have a say. debatable on how much of one, but the real bottom line is, if you do not agree to the ramifications of having sex, then don't have sex. Woman give permission and acknowledge the possibility of the ramifications, same as the man does. and if she can decide to have a baby when we do not want to, then turn around and sue us for monetary compensation and responsibility, then that means we are thus also actively responsible in the situation too.
I am fine with pro-choice, and especially in the cases of rape/etc. but it is not at all just the womans right to decide imo.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bob M. said:


> Ya well, I've seen plenty of nut obs compare President Trump to Hitler, and he is nothing really comparable to hitler at all, so...... People evidently feel the need to embellish things when they know if they were actually more honest , they really wouldn't have a point.
> Upon looking into it a little more, evidently there are different types of female circumcision done. it ranges from even simple symbolic pricking with a needle, to removing the clitoris hood/etc, so it doesn't compare at all to cutting the head off of a penis.


Maybe read a bit more. It removes the females ability to feel arousal.

http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

Immediate complications can include:


severe pain
excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
genital tissue swelling
fever
infections e.g., tetanus
urinary problems
wound healing problems
injury to surrounding genital tissue
shock
death.
Long-term consequences can include:


urinary problems (painful urination, urinary tract infections);
vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections);
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.);
scar tissue and keloid;
sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction, etc.);
increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths;
need for later surgeries: for example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks;
psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.);
health complications of female genital mutilation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bob M. said:


> says you, but that baby is also made by the man involved, not just the woman. So I say I do and should also have a say. debatable on how much of one, but the real bottom line is, if you do not agree to the ramifications of having sex, then don't have sex. Woman give permission and acknowledge the possibility of the ramifications, same as the man does. and if she can decide to have a baby when we do not want to, then turn around and sue us for monetary compensation and responsibility, then that means we are thus also actively responsible in the situation too.


Nope, not how it works. My body, my choice. It's pretty simple. When men can get pregnant they'll have a choice too.

ETA: Men have a choice as well- don't have sex or use your own form of effective birth control. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

heh not how it works currently legally perhaps...but then again some of us do not depend on the law to handle our lives for us either, so good luck with that. and one day that may change legally as well. but ya you are right, that isn't how it works legally at this time.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bob M. said:


> heh not how it works currently legally perhaps...but then again some of us do not depend on the law to handle our lives for us either, so good luck with that. and one day that may change legally as well. but ya you are right, that isn't how it works legally at this time.


Abortion will never end, ever. If it's made illegal, there will be dead women. It doesn't matter about those woman tho, does it? Dirty whores, right? Serves them right to die of blood loss or infection, doesn't it?


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

I read it fine, still not the same as cutting the head off of a penis, and also not how ALL female circumcisions/types are done. I do agree the more drastic ones that are done seem barbaric, but the minor ones that are done are just not a issue, though none of it is a issue to me anyways as I stated before. perhaps people should be able to sue their parents for damages done to them as a child more easily...because they can actually do that now...but yet, i do not hear of any of these woman who have had this done to them doing so.... Personally I think children should be able to sue their parent for forcing them to be in a enclosed vehicle with them while they are smoking when they become adults.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think anyone supports female genital mutilation. If so, please point it out prior to getting your collective panties in a wad. Please?


And I was wrong. There does seem to be one member that doesn't think that female genital mutilation is a bad thing.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion will never end, ever. If it's made illegal, there will be dead women. It doesn't matter about those woman tho, does it? Dirty whores, right? Serves them right to die of blood loss or infection, doesn't it?


No one cares about them because they themselves are making their own retarded choices, when there are options available. they can have the baby and then give it up for adoption/etc. Once again, if you choose to do something like have sex, then you choose to be involved in the consequences. and the consequences should be heavy for anyone who makes any choice that affects others irresponsibly. I am not sure why you feel the need to call them dirty whores. They are just simply people who made a choice. everyone makes choices.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> And I was wrong. There does seem to be one member that doesn't think that female genital mutilation is a bad thing.


Yeah, seems that way.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

no really said:


> Maybe read a bit more. It removes the females ability to feel arousal.
> Immediate complications can include:


you do notice where it says 'can' and does not say 'does' right? you got the part where it says there are in fact different degrees of the procedure right? Do you understand the relevance of those points?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bob M. said:


> you do notice where it says 'can' and does not say 'does' right? you got the part where it says there are in fact different degrees of the procedure right? Do you understand the relevance of those points?


I understand them a bit more than you do it seems. Have you talked to women and girls that have been through this? I have, have you read the reports, both medical and psychological, and lastly have you seen the pictures? I have. Get over it you are dead wrong in your assumptions.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

You have talked with woman who have had for instance just the needle pricks as the act of symbology, read the reports both medical and psychological, and seen the pictures, and what exactly did they say? tell us all how traumatized they were, by all means. I have no doubt, that there are instances where very wrong things were done, but as you pointed out yourself there are different degrees of female circumcision, and then again there are also just plain nutcases who do all sorts of things messed up. should botox or all plastic surgeries be illegal since we all know there are also situations where that has went horribly wrong and butchers have done terrible things as well? I am not sure you have the ability to actually understand what is being said here, but maybe have someone else explain it if not...... One thing that is not nor never has been said at all is that there have not been issues with such things that are and have been barbaric, or that I agree with it being done, so clearly you and the pixie are not understanding something.

Not all the procedures are type 4 procedures, by the classifications you posted. the lesser type of procedure is in fact just removing part of the clitoris hood. and the symbolic needle pricking isn't even anything at all. and the WHO estimates well over 200 million woman have had this done, and it has been done for well golly i do not know probably a thousand years, and those who have had it done then decide to also do it to their children so evidently are not against it even after they have experienced it themselves.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

In any case, as Pixie said "Nope, not how it works. It's pretty simple." the law was struck down by a judge who deemed it unconstitutional. No doubt specifically for the reasons I have been saying, not all such things are barbaric and it is their right to have their culture among themselves and their cultural practices.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bob M. said:


> You have talked with woman who have had for instance just the needle pricks as the act of symbology, read the reports both medical and psychological, and seen the pictures, and what exactly did they say? tell us all how traumatized they were, by all means. I have no doubt, that there are instances where very wrong things were done, but as you pointed out yourself there are different degrees of female circumcision, and then again there are also just plain nutcases who do all sorts of things messed up. should botox or all plastic surgeries be illegal since we all know there are also situations where that has went horribly wrong and butchers have done terrible things as well? I am not sure you have the ability to actually understand what is being said here, but maybe have someone else explain it if not...... One thing that is not nor never has been said at all is that there have not been issues with such things that are and have been barbaric, or that I agree with it being done, so clearly you and the pixie are not understanding something.
> 
> Not all the procedures are type 4 procedures, by the classifications you posted. the lesser type of procedure is in fact just removing part of the clitoris hood. and the symbolic needle pricking isn't even anything at all. and the WHO estimates well over 200 million woman have had this done, and it has been done for well golly i do not know probably a thousand years, and those who have had it done then decide to also do it to their children so evidently are not against it even after they have experienced it themselves.


Question for you, why is it done?


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

thought you talked with all these woman who had it done...and you never thought to ask them? I don;t know nor care, honestly. I don't do it. I can only imagine their reasoning. I have heard it is for various reasons, even things like to prevent masturbation, or to remove the enjoyment of sex which some believe is actually a type of sin/lust/etc. (Even catholic churches believe that to a large extent, sex is for procreation, not lust or enjoyment some believe.) I can understand that i suppose, but not my religion so to each their own. that is why it is their culture and not mine. personally I have no real use for muslims as it is, but that doesn't mean I do not respect their ability to do their thing, as long a it doesn't involve dragging anyone else into their bs, or me that is. and I'm not their champion either. I'm a conservative. I believe that if you have poop to handle then it is up to you to handle your own poop.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bob M. said:


> thought you talked with all these woman who had it done...and you never thought to ask them? I don;t know nor care, honestly. I don't do it. I can only imagine their reasoning. I have heard it is for various reasons, even things like to prevent masturbation, or to remove the enjoyment of sex which some believe is actually a type of sin/lust/etc. (Even catholic churches believe that to a large extent, sex is for procreation, not lust or enjoyment some believe.) I can understand that i suppose, but not my religion so to each their own. that is why it is their culture and not mine. personally I have no real use for muslims as it is, but that doesn't mean I do not respect their ability to do their thing, as long a it doesn't involve dragging anyone else into their bs, or me that is. and I'm not their champion either. I'm a conservative. I believe that if you have poop to handle then it is up to you to handle your own poop.


Thanks for being honest. 

And yeah, I knew exactly why it was done. I asked you to see if you knew, LOL.. Since it seemed you were not very well informed on the topic. 

As to the pricking of the clitoris, that was a proposal put forward by the AAP to try to mitigate the damage being done by the procedure. It was not received well or used by the groups that routinely practice FGM. 

Another question do you oppose abortion or child abuse?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nothing permanent can be done to transitioning minors, even with parental consent.


 Maybe not where you live...….that's not what the courts have ruled out here.....in the liberal treasonous country of California we don`t pay too much attention to federal rules or the constitution.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think anyone supports female genital mutilation. If so, please point it out prior to getting your collective panties in a wad. Please?


The Muslim parents that take their daughters to a surgeon and the female Muslim doctor that does the mutilation. The numbers of little girls that are subjected to this barbaric practice is shrouded in secrecy and we may never know how common it is.

But, hey, at least they aren't Christians.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> When you get pregnant it's your choice to do what you want with the pregnancy. Not pregnant? None of your business.


Really ? That’s the standard ?
Unless you are being raped or aborted it’s none of YOUR business , you know just going by your standard.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Redlands Okie said:


> Now that is a interesting statement. Strongly felt issues seems to be what laws are all about.


Yeah, but there is supposed to be Constitutional authority for laws.

Not saying that there always IS . . . just that it is supposed to be.

Many laws (even some civil rights laws) were not really Constitutional, but the people and the courts felt strongly about them. 

Personally, I am a huge fan of the Tenth Amendment and a strict constructionist regarding the Constitution.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Really ? That’s the standard ?
> Unless you are being raped or aborted it’s none of YOUR business , you know just going by your standard.


I wonder what the exit polling numbers look like for those little abortees?


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

no really said:


> Thanks for being honest.
> 
> And yeah, I knew exactly why it was done. I asked you to see if you knew, LOL.. Since it seemed you were not very well informed on the topic.
> ~
> Another question do you oppose abortion or child abuse?


I'm pretty much always honest, and straightforward. I do not have discussions to win them, though I often do, I have discussions to further understanding which also includes me when using others as a sounding board. I think you are mistaking having a discussion on a forum with many as some sort of crusade against me personally when you repeatedly request specific answers and opinion from me directly. and I also think they are loaded fake questions when you ask things such as do I oppose child abuse....so I won't bother answering nor waste my time on you, you simply are not genuine in or to this discussion evidently and this discussion nor any really is definitive on me,ad hominem.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bob M. said:


> I'm pretty much always honest, and straightforward. I do not have discussions to win them, though I often do, I have discussions to further understanding which also includes me when using others as a sounding board. I think you are mistaking having a discussion on a forum with many as some sort of crusade against me personally when you repeatedly request specific answers and opinion from me directly. and I also think they are loaded fake questions when you ask things such as do I oppose child abuse....so I won't bother answering nor waste my time on you, you simply are not genuine in or to this discussion evidently and this discussion nor any really is definitive on me,ad hominem.


Too bad and I was just starting to understand who you are LOL..


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Bob M. said:


> I'm pretty much always honest, and straightforward. I do not have discussions to win them, though I often do, I have discussions to further understanding which also includes me when using others as a sounding board. I think you are mistaking having a discussion on a forum with many as some sort of crusade against me personally when you repeatedly request specific answers and opinion from me directly. and I also think they are loaded fake questions when you ask things such as do I oppose child abuse....so I won't bother answering nor waste my time on you, you simply are not genuine in or to this discussion evidently and this discussion nor any really is definitive on me,ad hominem.


I haven't seen @noreally do any ad hominem attacks. You simply picked the wrong hill to die upon. Female genital mutilation has no positive outcome for its victims. You can argue the constitutionality of the law preventing it. But, you went down a different path. The children subjected to it are being victimized, irreversibly. This isn't a live and let live, religious debate. This is a children are being irreversibly harmed and mutilated debate. And it isn't happening in some nation that without recourse, it is happening here and if you don't think female genital mutilation isn't child abuse, we have no frame of reference for civilized debate.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

ha...no you weren't. that is a silly statement to make, don't kid yourself. maybe a little more about me,o, especially since you knew nothing about me at all not more than a few weeks ago but no one on a forum is going to understand who anyone else is from the forum, it would be easy to take that as a insult thinking someone could possibly be so shallow and simple to get.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Hiro said:


> I haven't seen @noreally do any ad hominem attacks. You simply picked the wrong hill to die upon. Female genital mutilation has no positive outcome for its victims. You can argue the constitutionality of the law preventing it. But, you went down a different path. The children subjected to it are being victimized, irreversibly. This isn't a live and let live, religious debate. This is a children are being irreversibly harmed and mutilated debate. And it isn't happening in some nation that without recourse, it is happening here and if you don't think female genital mutilation isn't child abuse, we have no frame of reference for civilized debate.


first no one said anything about ad hominem 'attacks' and second you really need to follow a discussion correctly imo, because this one isn;t anything about it being child abuse or not, nor was it when it was created, nor is or has anyone to my knowledge least of all me claimed it was, or was not child abuse....so ya..."we have no frame of reference for civilized debate." because you are just grasping at irrelevant aspects.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Reread post 103


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I might be missing some examples but why would any one do a medical procedure to a child that does not improve the child’s current or future health ? Perhaps those procedures should wait till their adults and can decide for themselves.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Hiro said:


> Reread post 103


ok...and exactly what is it that you believe it says that you wish to point out specifically?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bob M. said:


> first *no one said* anything about ad hominem 'attacks'


Then you don't understand the meaning of the terms you use.


> _*Ad hominem*_ (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for _*argumentum ad hominem*_, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead *attacking* the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]





Bob M. said:


> *you knew nothing about me at all not more than a few weeks ago* but no one on a forum is going to understand who anyone else is from the forum


I seem to remember several were thinking you had been here before.
You remind me of a couple of people who have come and gone.

If you think it's not possible to understand a lot about people by watching them on the internet, you'd be mistaken.

Time will tell. Patterns don't change.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

well congratulations, you can cut and paste only what you wish to show about something bias, and not the full definitions in a attempt to somehow uphold you being right, when you just simply are not. No one said ad hominem could not be a attack. what was said, was that no one was saying ti was a attack. you can post that one aspect of it, with the word 'attack' in it all you want and it won't negate 1)that no one said anything about ad hominem attack, which is different than a discussion ad homenim or logic ad hominem and 2)There are other aspects to ad hominem than specifically attacking. I might add 3) would also not change the truth of it being a ad hominem attack, merely claiming no one said anything about it being one.

*ad hominem*
adjective

ad ho·mi·nem | \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem,    -nəm\
*Definition of ad hominem *
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 *: *appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an _ad hominem_ argument

2 *: *marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made


Bearfootfarm said:


> I seem to remember several were thinking you had been here before.
> You remind me of a couple of people who have come and gone.
> 
> If you think it's not possible to understand a lot about people by watching them on the internet, you'd be mistaken.


No one said anything about understanding 'a lot' about a person, you might want to learn to up your comprehension levels. You remind me of a lot of people also....hardly a indication of you being them. The truth is, if there are going to be 50% above average there are also going to be 50% below average in intelligence and comprehension also...The only real sad part is, those who are 50% below often do not have the abilities of comprehension required to realize it nor the intelligence to actually verify it for themselves in other ways outside using only their flawed personal comprehensions or intelligence. Others 'thinking' I am someone they probably also thought they knew is irrelevant to me being or not being them. I have not been here at this forum prior to this time of me being here. period. Claiming that I am/have, would be just another ad hominem and/or distraction attempt.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

btw, are you Hiro, or did you just think they were incapable of sustaining their argument on their own and decided to do what you thought evidently was help them with it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> Maybe not where you live...….that's not what the courts have ruled out here.....in the liberal treasonous country of California we don`t pay too much attention to federal rules or the constitution. :snip off topic video:


I can't find where California courts have allowed permanent transitioning treatment to a minor as you have stated as fact. Can you link one please?


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Redlands Okie said:


> I might be missing some examples but why would any one do a medical procedure to a child that does not improve the child’s current or future health ? Perhaps those procedures should wait till their adults and can decide for themselves.


You mean like circumcising little boys? 

Or aborting fetuses?

By the way, I'm not strongly in favor of (or strongly opposed to) circumcision, abortion, or female genital mutilation. I just like consistency in the application of laws.

You know, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Redlands Okie said:


> I might be missing some examples but why would any one do a medical procedure to a child that does not improve the child’s current or future health ? Perhaps those procedures should wait till their adults and can decide for themselves.


 Muslims or at least some of them think this procedure DOES improve the child’s health and future prospects.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Muslims or at least some of them think this procedure DOES improve the child’s health and future prospects.


The same could be said for blowing themselves up in the process of killing "infidels", so should we accept that too?


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

I'm confused

Spanking my kids means I am 'abusing' them

But removing my daughter's means of a source of pleasure BEFORE she knows what it is, is OK.

Something is terribly skewed


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I don't see anywhere in this thread where anyone has expressed the opinion that they are okay with female sexual organ mutilation.

Discussing the legal and constitutional aspects of a law is very different. Religion and health are both aspects of this discussion.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Seems that mixing religion and healthcare for any reason is not a good idea. Government involvement not much better often times.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Someone mentioned circumcision....from a medical stand point, while it is the parent's choice, unless you teach your boy to clean and do so well, they often times do have problems with hygiene and health. The older the man who has not been circumcised and may need one to stop the repeat of whatever problem or infections he is getting, the harder it is on them and the more pain they experience.

Female mutilation I don't agree with nor do I agree with why it is done. Many 3rd world countries would argue that we have no business telling them what to do with their children, while others would argue it enhances the experience, though for who is very debatable. Same countries who believe that having sex with a virgin child/young girl will "cure" them of AIDS.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Circumsion is not medically nessasary so it is the same as female circumsion with regards to laws and being constitutional.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Circumsion is not medically nessasary so it is the same as female circumsion with regards to laws and being constitutional.


It is necessary if you don't want your son to get any nasty infections. An uncircumcised male can reinfect a woman with a yeast infection, with other STD's, etc....Does it have to be done? Again, up to the parents...and yes it IS medically necessary...

https://www.emedicinehealth.com/foreskin_problems/article_em.htm

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/mens-health/in-depth/penis-health/art-20046175

http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/camille1/


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Should be interesting to see how this is stopped according to the laws. 

Male circumcision is a mainly religious practice that has its basis built on hygiene. Like not eating pork.
It reduces urinary tract infections, penile cancer and balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin). Just as importantly it reduces the risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners. Sure it would not be necessary if men actually did know how to clean themselves properly with a foreskin - every time they urinate or have sex but that never happens.

Female circumcision is also a religious practice but for a very different reason. Control of women. Maintaining virginity so that the woman is more valuable for marriage as well as enhancing male sexual pleasure - while reducing the woman's and also ripping her apart during births. Not to mention that there are minimal hygiene benefits. In fact women are more susceptible to HIV infections.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Grey Mare said:


> It is necessary if you don't want your son to get any nasty infections. An uncircumcised male can reinfect a woman with a yeast infection, with other STD's, etc....Does it have to be done? Again, up to the parents...and yes it IS medically necessary...
> 
> https://www.emedicinehealth.com/foreskin_problems/article_em.htm
> 
> ...


No it is not. Just as you teach them to wipe their butts properly, you teach them to wash properly.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

painterswife said:


> No it is not. Just as you teach them to wipe their butts properly, you teach them to wash properly.


If you really believe they clean each and every time properly well...that is on you....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Grey Mare said:


> If you really believe they clean each and every time properly well...that is on you....


Just admit it is not medically nessasary. There are billions of men not circumsized.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Grey Mare said:


> It is necessary if you don't want your son to get any nasty infections. An uncircumcised male can reinfect a woman with a yeast infection, with other STD's, etc....Does it have to be done? Again, up to the parents...and yes it IS medically necessary...
> 
> https://www.emedicinehealth.com/foreskin_problems/article_em.htm
> 
> ...


Yet generations of most men in other countries, and ours have no problems....


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

https://matthewtontonoz.com/2015/01/05/why-is-circumcision-so-popular-in-america/
As Gollaher ruefully notes, “The ultimate popularity of circumcision depended not on convincing normal men to undergo the ordeal of surgery, but on targeting a group of patients who could not object
Infant circumcision proved to be the perfect solution. By 1920, neonatal circumcision performed by doctors in hospitals was standard procedure in America (105).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bob M. said:


> you can cut and paste only what you wish to show


That doesn't change the accuracy of what it says. Even the definition you posted calls it an "attack".



Bob M. said:


> *No one said *ad hominem could not be a attack. what was said, was that *no one was saying ti was a attack*


Repeating your error multiple times won't correct it.

You used a term that *means* "an attack", while claiming you were somehow being singled out.


Bob M. said:


> some sort of crusade against me personally





Bob M. said:


> *I have not been here* at this forum prior to this time of me being here. period.


What else would a sock puppet say?
You wouldn't be the first to tell that lie, so saying it proves nothing at all.
Only time will tell.



Bob M. said:


> *No one said* anything about understanding 'a lot' about a person, you might want to learn to *up your comprehension levels*.


I said it. You quoted it.
You keep trying to deny the obvious.



Bob M. said:


> Claiming that I am/have, would be just *another ad hominem* and/or distraction attempt.


Maybe it's you who is having trouble with "comprehension":



Bob M. said:


> btw, *are you Hiro*, or did you just think they were incapable of sustaining their argument on their own and decided to do what you thought evidently was help them with it?


Hiro isn't the one needing help with comprehension.
Whether or not I am Hiro is yet another obvious fact you seem to not be able to figure out on your own.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

BS.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Circumsion is not medically nessasary so it is the same as female circumsion with regards to laws and being constitutional.


Calling it "mutilation" has nothing to do with law.
It's just you being you.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Quoting articles about whether or not uncircumcised men blahblah is just like pasting articles about gardening.
Nothing you will read is like actually gardening. Like the guys who claim to get bushels of potatoes from one plant in stacked tires. It's scientifically impossible. Grow some and find out, never mind what you read on the internet.
And a woman spouting knowledge of what uncircumcised men experience is absolutely hilarious. Grow one and find out. Or else admit you don't know anything about what you're saying.
First hand experience with a subject is the only way to go. Like that old saying, "money talks, BS walks". Except it's experience, not money.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't change the accuracy of what it says. Even the definition you posted calls it an "attack".


You are aware of how definitions work right? if something has multiples of those things we call numbers in front of it (and often letters too),that indicates there are multiple definitions for it....and thus shows that when someone refers to it, they can be using one definition and yet not the other, right? So, no merely beause4 one of those definitions you showed says 'attack' does not in any way mean anyone mentioned ad hominem attack. because they didn't. sorry. Of course you get that, you are just trying to act stupid and be contrary.....right? I hope for your sake anyways.....if not, please take the time to understand how such things work, its true I promise you. Deal with it. and no, it isn't a case of time will tell at all. it is what it is. time may tell how foolishly long it takes you to get a clue, but regardless it is still what it is now and during that time even if it takes you or others years because of lack of grey matter or ability. Deal with that also, cause it is just the way it is.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

It feels like somehow there are 2 different conversations going on here. I'm seeing one and a half of them, on some sort of rotating basis whereby I see 3 of 4 posts, but always different ones.
Whatev..
At any rate, BobM, if anybody knew you were a former ember, I have no doubt they'd either:
A: go running to moderators
or
B: keep quiet. 

So, everything else is speculation.
At one time, the thing was to accuse every new member of being "Stickywitch" a former member who must have rubbed everybody the wrong way at one time.
The current rules apparently allowed all previously banned members to return. So, nobody got anything to stand on anyway, except trying to make you feel unwelcome.
My personal opinion is that most of these guys are jealous because you rub more people the wrong way than they do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bob M. said:


> You are aware of how definitions work right?


Yes.
I'm also aware of "common use" definitions.
Your disjointed rambling won't change anything I've said.



Bob M. said:


> So, no merely beause4 one of those definitions you showed says 'attack' does not in any way mean anyone mentioned ad hominem attack. *because they didn't*. sorry.


You keep denying what was said, thinking the result will be different this time.
It's pointless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Clem said:


> The current rules apparently allowed* all* previously banned members to return. So, nobody got anything to stand on anyway, except trying to make you feel unwelcome.


It's always been against the rules to return without going through the proper procedures.

The current rules never "allowed all" (or any) to return with different names or to have multiple accounts.

Some have been banned under the current rules too.

Ironically, the first one I saw who mentioned the possibility was one very experienced at being a sockpuppet here.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Bob M. said:


> btw, are you Hiro, or did you just think they were incapable of sustaining their argument on their own and decided to do what you thought evidently was help them with it?


I can sustain arguments if I so choose. Just like I could go wrestle with that pig in the mud down the road.....well , you know the rest of that story. Your post is still there, as are the ones before it. You can attempt to reframe them however you like.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)




----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

There is a difference between you being able to do something or not, and someone else thinking you can do something or not. I see no reason why you would feel you should reply claiming you could. I also think you have that mistaken, as the person who posted said messages I do not 'attempt' to frame anything. I say it and then have the ability to point out what it entails. period. especially when it doesn't say any such thing as others 'attempt' to frame it as. See how that works? There is no real debate here about it. it simply is how it is. The attempt at framing it how both of you tried to do using syntax, or your choice of definition even has just plainly failed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bob M. said:


> The attempt at framing it how both of you tried to do using syntax, or your choice of definition even *has just plainly failed*.


You're entitled to that *opinion*.
The facts indicate seem to indicate it's incorrect.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

I didnt read all through this stuff. My way would be to simply prohibit ALL elective surgery for those under 18. No "circumcision" male or female. No breast augmentation. No purely cultural vanity cosmetic surgery until the individual is old enough to give consent. Things like a hare lip or other such birth defects, best taken care of as young child, would be exempted. Cutting the foreskin off a penis or doing a clitorectomy (partial or full) is NOT correcting a birth defect. Neither is giving a child a tattoo or piercing. When the child is a legal adult, if that individual then wants these procedures, more power to them. Nobody else should have the right to make these decisions for the individual.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I can guarantee if this was a procedure adopted by some Christian sect, the left would be demanding it stop immediately. For some reason many are always eager to give Muslims a pass on anything.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> I can guarantee if this was a procedure adopted by some Christian sect, the left would be demanding it stop immediately. For some reason many are always eager to give Muslims a pass on anything.


Nope. It's a Constitutional law thing, not a religion thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> I can guarantee if this was a procedure adopted by some Christian sect, the left would be demanding it stop immediately. For some reason many are always eager to give Muslims a pass on anything.


Christians are doing this.

Get the facts right. Not one person on the left here is supporting it right now. You should understand the discussion before making false statements.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Christians are doing this.


I must have missed your link to the source of that information.
Could you please post it again?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. It's a Constitutional law thing, not a religion thing.


But, you are often advocating to usurp the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd amendment. So, don't start taking a Constitutional stand on this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Not one person on the left here is supporting it right now. *You should understand the discussion* before making false statements.


As should you:



> *poppy said*: ↑
> I can guarantee *if* this was a procedure adopted by some Christian sect, the left would be demanding it stop immediately.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> But, you are often advocating to usurp the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd amendment. So, don't start taking a Constitutional stand on this.


I didn't take a Constitutional stand on this, the judge did.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't take a Constitutional stand on this, the judge did.


Do you support the folks that want to restrict gun ownership, that is protected by the constitution?
Do you support the Judge that ruled a law protecting little girls from having their lady parts carved on is unconstitutional?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Do you support the folks that want to restrict gun ownership, that is protected by the constitution?
> Do you support the Judge that ruled a law protecting little girls from having their lady parts carved on is unconstitutional?


You really have not read the entire thread have you?

Show where she supported female mutilation


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I must have missed your link to the source of that information.
> Could you please post it again?


I already did on this or the mirroring thread in dark room


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *You really have not read* the entire thread have you?
> 
> Show where *she supported female mutilation*


You really didn't read what he posted.
He didn't say what you're trying to imply.

You love to tell people *they *can't "comprehend" when you are often that person.
This is what was said:


haypoint said:


> Do you support *the Judge*





fireweed farm said:


> I already did on this or the mirroring thread in dark room


You seem to have totally misunderstood the question.
Maybe you can figure it out.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Grey Mare said:


> It is necessary if you don't want your son to get any nasty infections. An uncircumcised male can reinfect a woman with a yeast infection, with other STD's, etc....Does it have to be done? Again, up to the parents...and yes it IS medically necessary...
> 
> https://www.emedicinehealth.com/foreskin_problems/article_em.htm
> 
> ...


BS. I am not circumsized and never had an infection in my life. Neither did my father or grandfather, etc. Do you circumcise your dogs, cats, cows? Did God just design male humans incorrectly. 

Jews and some other cultures instituted male circumcision to differentiate their males from other males. Jews circumcise babies and any males that adopt Judaism. Some cultures circumcise adolescent males to initiate and recognize them as adult members of the tribe. The pain being a test of their manhood.

REmember when circumcision became part of these cultural traditions, these people didnt know what a germ was. It had NOTHING to do with hygene anymore than tattoos or decorative piercings. Just cultural side dressing.

In this country it wasnt done for hygiene, it was done by control freaks that thought it would reduce male masturbation which of course makes all human males into to perverted sex addicts or so the reasoning goes. When somebody started laughing at this reasoning while standing there holding the can of bacon grease...., and since it was a quick and very profitable procedure, they came up with this hygiene nonsense. By way young human males that arent circumcised, the foreskin doesnt retract. Force it in order to use a steel wire brush to clean the nasty imagined infections and you HURT the kid. This is perfectly natural. The body takes care of all this without community involvement. When is last time you actually saw an uncircumcised kid with a foreskin infection? LIKE NEVER???? If there is infection it would be from some idiot trying to force the foreskin back and using a wire brush on it.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

haypoint said:


> *Do you support the folks that want to restrict gun ownership, that is protected by the constitution?*
> Do you support the Judge that ruled a law protecting little girls from having their lady parts carved on is unconstitutional?


I'll jump into that one. I advocate melting down every firearm, piece of ammo, missile, etc. globally, and destroying all equipment used in the manufacture of the same.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

colourfastt said:


> I'll jump into that one. I advocate melting down every firearm, piece of ammo, missile, etc. globally, and destroying all equipment used in the manufacture of the same.


So, you want the Constitution to be violated? You don't want to live in a country with the rights to own firearms? You realize that restricting gun ownership or banning all guns will result in milions of guns held in the hands of criminals? You have seen criminals target "gun-free zones" to shoot people?
Since eliminating weapons in the US will only embolden the rest of the world to enslave you, your views are a threat to this country.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

colourfastt said:


> I'll jump into that one. I advocate melting down every firearm, piece of ammo, missile, etc. globally, and destroying all equipment used in the manufacture of the same.


May God bless you and your deadbolt and your local sheriff.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

colourfastt said:


> I'll jump into that one. I advocate melting down every firearm, piece of ammo, missile, etc. globally, and destroying all equipment used in the manufacture of the same.


Sadly, your opinion will generate insults and threats.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to that *opinion*.
> The facts indicate seem to indicate it's incorrect.


You really dont get it do you? is it really that hard to understand that no, it is not 'Opinion' . I am the one who wrote what was being called into question, genius. there is no others opinion of me saying it or not saying it based on one possible definition or not that matters. only mine, and therefor it ceases to become a opinion, it is a statement of fact. period. Not really that difficult to comprehend here.... What was insisted upon, incorrectly is that I 'had' to be saying what their limited understanding of something was, and that is just plainly not the case and was shown to not be the case. Others can only state their interpretation of which definition I was referring to, sorry both of you misinterpreted it, but that is on you, its a free country you are allowed to misinterpret and lack understanding all you want though, as I've seen many enjoy proving on a regular basis.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

colourfastt said:


> I'll jump into that one. I advocate melting down every firearm, piece of ammo, missile, etc. globally, and destroying all equipment used in the manufacture of the same.


No insults from me but that would sure interfere with my hunting and protection here on the border.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

not to mention law enforcement and defending our country as a whole...some people just get something in their heads without thinking it through I think. luckily, so far, those people are not the ones who make the decisions, and they should never be allowed to either. but like others, they can advocate for whatever they want to. It is just up to the rest of us to tell them they don't get what they want and stop them.

anyone can make a firearm, fairly easily really. heck you can print them off on 3d printers. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I know this is true because I for one will be one of the ones who will have them even if they are outlawed.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

HermitJohn said:


> BS. I am not circumsized and never had an infection in my life. Neither did my father or grandfather, etc. Do you circumcise your dogs, cats, cows? Did God just design male humans incorrectly.
> 
> Jews and some other cultures instituted male circumcision to differentiate their males from other males. Jews circumcise babies and any males that adopt Judaism. Some cultures circumcise adolescent males to initiate and recognize them as adult members of the tribe. The pain being a test of their manhood.
> 
> ...


Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I have been in the nursing profession, and now will BE a nurse, for a long time, and yes I HAVE seen several men, and one teenager, who got a very nasty infection and had to be circumcised.

As for the foreskin not going back, your partially correct. It doesn't go very far when they are babies, but as they grow there is more room for it to move and be pulled back. Just because you or your kin haven't had an infection doesn't mean other men haven't had one, just means you and they probably cleaned it a lot better than most other men. I was showing MEDICAL FACT that yes, there are risks....you are entitled to your narrow minded view and "fact", but just cause it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/137/5/e20154340.full.pdf

How about the Journal of Infectious Diseases? 

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/197/6/787/919021

Overall, HPV DNA prevalence ranged from 6% in semen to 52% in the penile shaft. The prevalence of any HPV infection in the glans/corona was significantly higher in uncircumcised men (46%) than in circumcised men (29%) (odds ratio [OR], 1.96 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.02–3.75], adjusted for demographic characteristics and sexual history). Uncircumcised men also had an increased risk of oncogenic HPV infection (adjusted OR, 2.51 [95% CI, 1.11-5.69]) and infection with multiple HPV types (adjusted OR, 3.56 [95% CI, 1.50–8.50]). Among uncircumcised men, HPV prevalence in the foreskin (44%) was comparable to that in the glans/corona, and type-specific positivity was observed between the 2 sites (κ=0.52)

*Conclusions: *Uncircumcised men have an increased risk of HPV infection, including with oncogenic HPV, specifically localized to the glans/corona, possibly because of its proximity to the foreskin, which may be particularly vulnerable to infection.

Or do you prefer Johns Hopkins? 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/new...dd_billions_to_health_care_costs_experts_warn

In a report to be published in the_ Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine _online Aug. 20, the Johns Hopkins experts say the added expense stems from new cases and higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers among uncircumcised men and their female partners. They say the study is believed to be the first cost analysis to account for increased rates of multiple infectious diseases associated with lower rates of male circumcision, including HIV/AIDS, herpes and genital warts, as well as cervical and penile cancers. Previous research focused mostly on HIV, the single most costly disease whose risk of infection is decreased by male circumcision, a procedure that removes foreskin at the tip of the penis, hindering the buildup of bacteria and viruses in the penis’ skin folds.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bob M. said:


> You really dont get it do you?


Yes, I get that you misunderstood the most common use of "ad homenim".
Repeating yourself isn't going to change that.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Grey Mare said:


> Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I have been in the nursing profession, and now will BE a nurse, for a long time, and yes I HAVE seen several men, and one teenager, who got a very nasty infection and had to be circumcised.
> 
> As for the foreskin not going back, your partially correct. It doesn't go very far when they are babies, but as they grow there is more room for it to move and be pulled back. Just because you or your kin haven't had an infection doesn't mean other men haven't had one, just means you and they probably cleaned it a lot better than most other men. I was showing MEDICAL FACT that yes, there are risks....you are entitled to your narrow minded view and "fact", but just cause it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
> 
> ...


Real life works for me. And no, I dont pull back my foreskin and scrub vigorously after urination. Jeesh, never heard of anybody doing that. Healthy body takes care of such automatically. Seriously without lot more detail of what the people ate or how healthy they were, its meaningless. People living on crap diet in unhealthy conditions simply going to get more infections. How about how careful they were about who they had sex with. Or whether they have sex. How about we compare 1%'rs, circumcised to uncircumcised? You know those people with 15 mansions and all the luxury they can stomach? And two valets to go with them to the toilet and wipe their rear for them. Comparing homeless people to middle class or upper income people is apples to oranges. Claiming that makes it universal, is silly. Again from your studies we dont know, do we? You are making generalizations without paying enough attention to details. The devil is always in the details. Its like these silly studies one month saying alcohol is universally bad and next month saying you need to drink red wine or something and not drinking any alcohol is bad. Hmm, who paid for these studies, they couldnt have a financial interest, could they? Meaningless clickbait. And what about the financial interests of those making these studies. Infant circumcision takes moments and is EXTREMELY PROFITABLE. That has nothing to do with it? And so what if a handful of men have to have circumcision as adults because of poor diet or health conditions. Isnt that preferable to universal circumcision of infants? Maybe we should cut off ends of everybody's fingers so they wont get hangnails?


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

HermitJohn said:


> Real life works for me. And no, I dont pull back my foreskin and scrub vigorously after urination. Jeesh, never heard of anybody doing that. Healthy body takes care of such automatically. Seriously without lot more detail of what the people ate or how healthy they were, its meaningless. People living on crap diet in unhealthy conditions simply going to get more infections. How about how careful they were about who they had sex with. Or whether they have sex. How about we compare 1%'rs, circumcised to uncircumcised? You know those people with 15 mansions and all the luxury they can stomach? And two valets to go with them to the toilet and wipe their rear for them. Comparing homeless people to middle class or upper income people is apples to oranges. Claiming that makes it universal, is silly. Again from your studies we dont know, do we? You are making generalizations without paying enough attention to details. The devil is always in the details. Its like these silly studies one month saying alcohol is universally bad and next month saying you need to drink red wine or something and not drinking any alcohol is bad. Hmm, who paid for these studies, they couldnt have a financial interest, could they? Meaningless clickbait. And what about the financial interests of those making these studies. Infant circumcision takes moments and is EXTREMELY PROFITABLE. That has nothing to do with it? And so what if a handful of men have to have circumcision as adults because of poor diet or health conditions. Isnt that preferable to universal circumcision of infants? Maybe we should cut off ends of everybody's fingers so they wont get hangnails?


You apparently didn't read what I posted, must be nice to be willfully ignorant isn't it? However, I am glad that you are "clean" and have had no issues....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Neither did my father or grandfather, etc.


It's not the sort of thing you announce to everyone, so it's very possible you just don't know if they ever had one or not.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

"In the UK, around one-third of men were circumcised just before the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948. But the newly-created NHS ruled that circumcision was not medically necessary, and therefore would not be covered. Rates plummeted after that, says Gollaher.

About 9% of men in the UK are now circumcised according to WHO figures (other estimates are slightly higher)."

If there was any actual correlation between circumcision and the shotgun list of ailments described above, then the percentage of British men affected would be 9 times greater than the percentage of men affected in the US. If there was actually any correlation.
Clearly any statistic of that intensity would be well known, and really easy to link to.

If I was in the eyelid cutting business, I'd go to all lengths to point out that with your eyelids clipped off, you wouldn't be getting that pesky eyelash under the eyelid thing. Heck, I'd even give that a name, so it could be more easily demonized.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Clem said:


> If there was actually any correlation.


There's still no correlation between circumcision and FGM either.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Grey Mare said:


> You apparently didn't read what I posted, must be nice to be willfully ignorant isn't it? However, I am glad that you are "clean" and have had no issues....




Seems everybody's "ignorant" except you


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Grey Mare said:


> You apparently didn't read what I posted, must be nice to be willfully ignorant isn't it? However, I am glad that you are "clean" and have had no issues....


 Um you seem to be delivering a lopsided set of statistics. 
How many circumcised males have you seen with a penile infection ?


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Hmmmm. If we pulled kids' permanent teeth at an early age, they would never have cavities.

If we removed their testicals at an early age, they would never get testicular cancer.

If we removed females' breasts at an early age, they would never get breast cancer.

If we removed females' ovaries at an early age, they would never get ovarian cancer.

Now I'm beginning to see how removing little boys' foreskin protects them and improves their health as they get older. A body part can't cause a problem if it's not there.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Bob M. said:


> You really dont get it do you?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, I get that you misunderstood the most common use of "ad homenim".
> Repeating yourself isn't going to change that.


exactly, you just don't get it. I knew the other definition for it, and no one is required to use "the most common use of" anything, and no matter how many times you do not get it, you'll still be wrong, because it is clear, I wasn't using that definition of it, so no one said anything about a ad hominem attack, merely because you lacked the knowledge of there being another definition or of me using that other definition is your inadequacy. Unlike when I pointed out specifically using two completely separate words with two different meanings, then claiming you said one when you clearly said the other. I hear back a ways it wasn't common for people to actually finish grade school, I imagine you're a lot older than I am, so we all understand it isn't probably your fault. Your parents probably did the best they could in giving you knowledge, and I'm sure you worked very hard attempting to gain it yourself.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not the sort of thing you announce to everyone, so it's very possible you just don't know if they ever had one or not.


 But yea, point taken, people dont tend to announce to their family that they have an infection in their foreskin. But then how many women brag about their vaginal infections? How many circumcised men brag to their families about getting VD. Maybe they just go to a free clinic anonymously. My point the data is pretend to try and sell an unnecessary service. Poster promoting this unnecessary procedure does realize there is a bigger world population than Israel and USA? That vast majority of human males are not circumcised? And far as I have heard there is no epidemic of diseases described. 

Seriously this is a mucous membrane. Healthy mammals including humans generally have no problem with infection. Instead of promotion of cutting off of body parts so they dont get infected, better to help provide healthier food and living situations. The body has its way of cleaning mucous membranes via secretions. If I have to explain that to a supposed medical professional, then so be it. In other words its a scam to make money circumcising babies. And since nobody buys into the preventing masterbation arguments anymore, they came up with slanted data about hygiene. Those adult males with some unusual problem that requires their foreskin be cut off, great. If there turns up a medical necessity, then give them some anesthesia and whack away as required ON THOSE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS. But cutting foreskin on everybody just to prevent a few problems on few men is stupid. And for those that want to do this as elective surgery for decorative or cultural reasons when they are 18, great, go for it. Its then the individuals adult decision about his own body. Making this decision for a child is abuse. Short of some very unusual birth defect that requires it. Never heard of such, but hey it could happen I suppose. I am not against repairing birth defects on children while they are children, but an intact foreskin is no more a birth defect than a woman having a clitoris. Jeesh, should be obvious.

As for women worried about uncircumcised men giving their darling daughters cancer or something, then tell them to only have sex with Orthodox Jewish men, just to be sure.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

NRA_guy said:


> Hmmmm. If we pulled kids' permanent teeth at an early age, they would never have cavities.
> 
> If we removed their testicals at an early age, they would never get testicular cancer.
> 
> ...


We could just cut off the entire penis along with the testicles. That should solve lot of the worlds problems including global warming. Didnt Bob Barker used to say it made for happier healthier pets? Should make for happier healthier humans too.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Some great info about the history of circumcision, and the many superstitious excuses given. A fun, enlightening, and very educational read.
Kinda longish, depending on your reading speed, I'd think 5 minutes tops. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

You put up Wikipedia? BAHAHAHAHAHA and you actually believe what is written there? Oh wow...thanks for the laugh...


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Everything there is referenced, if you understand how footnotes work. Better references than your own, btw, because they're not from an industry newsletter promoting the industry scam.

Incidentally, the "BAHAHA.." thing suits you to a Tee. Reminds me of a saying


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Clem said:


> Everything there is referenced, if you understand how footnotes work. Better references than your own, btw, because they're not from an industry newsletter promoting the industry scam.
> 
> Incidentally, the "BAHAHA.." thing suits you to a Tee. Reminds me of a saying


Yup. The entire article is cited extensively.

cite
/sīt/
_verb_
past tense: *cited*; past participle: *cited*

1.
quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
synonyms: quote, reproduce More


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Hey! Maybe a lobotomy at an early age would benefit some folks and prevent problems when they become adults.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

It is amazing how parties can cite the history of something as gospel, yet ignore any controlled scientific studies. But, other cited history is fantasy. Everyone looks at things through their own prism. Male circumcision is only comparable to female genital mutilation by the area of the body. There are possible health benefits to the male. There are few side effects. There is no health benefit for FGM and huge side effects. How are they comparable?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Grey Mare said:


> You put up Wikipedia? BAHAHAHAHAHA and you actually believe what is written there? Oh wow...thanks for the laugh...





Hiro said:


> It is amazing how parties can cite the history of something as gospel, yet ignore any controlled scientific studies. But, other cited history is fantasy. Everyone looks at things through their own prism. Male circumcision is only comparable to female genital mutilation by the area of the body. There are possible health benefits to the male. There are few side effects. There is no health benefit for FGM and huge side effects. How are they comparable?


It is comparable in that it is unnecessary mutilation of the sex organs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Hiro said:


> It is amazing how parties can cite the history of something as gospel, yet ignore any controlled scientific studies. But, other cited history is fantasy. Everyone looks at things through their own prism. Male circumcision is only comparable to female genital mutilation by the area of the body. There are possible health benefits to the male. There are few side effects. There is no health benefit for FGM and huge side effects. How are they comparable?


Has anyone truly compared them? Other than needless surgery, there is no comparison.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> It is comparable in that it is unnecessary mutilation of the sex organs.


Well, don't get one on yours. Like I said earlier, I don't believe to many males that have had that decision made for them regret that it was. You can start a poll, if you would like more evidence than my belief.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Well, don't get one on yours. Like I said earlier, I don't believe to many males that have had that decision made for them regret that it was. You can start a poll, if you would like more evidence than my belief.


I don't think you are getting the point. Where and who gets to decide the line between what is allowed and what is not allowed to be done? Are you allowed to decide for someone based on religious reasons to mutilate your child's sex organs? The Constitution say make no law regarding religion. Both female and male circumsion is done by many for religious reasons when there is no nessasary medical reason for either. Can you deny one when you don't deny the either?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bob M. said:


> I wasn't using that definition of it


More repetition.
The context doesn't allow for any other definition.
But you keep repeating it, and maybe soon it will change. 



painterswife said:


> It is comparable in that it is unnecessary *mutilation* of the sex organs.


It's not even remotely comparable to FGM. 
You just like buzzwords.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I don't think you are getting the point. Where and who gets to decide the line between what is allowed and what is not allowed to be done? Are you allowed to decide for someone based on religious reasons to mutilate your child's sex organs? The Constitution say make no law regarding religion. Both female and male circumsion is done by many for religious reasons when there is no nessasary medical reason for either. Can you deny one when you don't deny the either?


I got the point long ago. 

You and a couple of special other people are trying to make a specious comparison and conflating FGM with male circumcision. I do not accept the premise you and others keep taking as fact that they are both just sexual organ mutilation. I do know that I made that decision for my son, as my father did for me. I, once I knew that I would be in the position to make that decision, educated myself about the pros and cons. It ended up being a simple decision, but not an easy one. And, it wasn't for religious reasons. It was because I examined the research and came to a conclusion that the benefits outweighed the risks. You know, kind of like the flu shot. And numerous other decisions that responsible parents make for their children....should I homeschool them, should I vaccinate them, should I permit them to play with the kids of the drug addicts down the road, should I allow them unrestricted access to homesteading forums, should I allow the an HPV vaccine on an a non-sexually active 13 year old, or heck do what I just did and go play pool in the basement with them.....normal parenting decisions.

And, as a side note, I find that the two females that are so proactive to think it is a Constitutional issue to abort a fetus, believe it also worthwhile arguing that FGM is just fine and dandy and male circumcision is somehow not terribly ironic.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> I got the point long ago.
> 
> You and a couple of special other people are trying to make a specious comparison and conflating FGM with male circumcision. I do not accept the premise you and others keep taking as fact that they are both just sexual organ mutilation. I do know that I made that decision for my son, as my father did for me. I, once I knew that I would be in the position to make that decision, educated myself about the pros and cons. It ended up being a simple decision, but not an easy one. And, it wasn't for religious reasons. It was because I examined the research and came to a conclusion that the benefits outweighed the risks. You know, kind of like the flu shot. And numerous other decisions that responsible parents make for their children....should I homeschool them, should I vaccinate them, should I permit them to play with the kids of the drug addicts down the road, should I allow them unrestricted access to homesteading forums, should I allow the an HPV vaccine on an a non-sexually active 13 year old, or heck do what I just did and go play pool in the basement with them.....normal parenting decisions.
> 
> And, as a side note, I find that the two females that are so proactive to think it is a Constitutional issue to abort a fetus, believe it also worthwhile arguing that FGM is just fine and dandy and male circumcision is somehow not terribly ironic.


Nope. Don't tell us that we think FMG is fine and dandy. That is a lie to bolster your opinion. So that you understand, I am discussing the fact that we allow male circumsion for religious regions but don't want to allow female circumsion for the same reasons.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Nope. Don't tell us that we think FMG is fine and dandy. That is a lie to bolster your opinion. So that you understand, I am discussing the fact that we allow male circumsion for religious regions but don't want to allow female circumsion for the same reasons.


You are missing my point, as I may be missing yours. Your premise is incorrect, imho. Male circumcision is not just for religious reasons. Female genital mutilation is.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> You are missing my point, as I may be missing yours. Your premise is incorrect, imho. Male circumcision is not just for religious reasons. Female genital mutilation is.


Tell that to your Jewish friends who perform circumsion during a religious ceremony.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Tell that to your Jewish friends who perform circumsion during a religious ceremony.


You going to round them up soon? Do you hear yourself?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> You going to round them up soon? Do you hear yourself?


You really like to make wild assumptions. My Jewish family would laugh you right out of the room. Guess you have never arrended a Brit milah.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

NRA_guy said:


> Hey! Maybe a lobotomy at an early age would benefit some folks and prevent problems when they become adults.


and by prevent problems you surely mean for the rest of us who usually have to deal with the ignorance right? The saying of ignorance is bliss, would indicate that it isn't any problem for themselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Has anyone truly compared them? Other than needless surgery, *there is no comparison*.


You know someone compared them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You really like to make wild assumptions. My Jewish family would laugh you right out of the room. Guess you have never arrended a Brit milah.


I bet you never arrended one either.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Did anyone hear something in here? I didn't think so. Never mind.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Nope. Don't tell us that we think FMG is fine and dandy. That is a lie to bolster your opinion. So that you understand, I am discussing the fact that we allow male circumsion for religious regions but don't want to allow female circumsion for the same reasons.


There was only one poster that indicated that he thought FGM was OK, and it wasn't either of us. 

There is nothing fine and dandy about FMG, it's heinous and done for control. Both circumcision and FMG are done as ceremonies in certain religions. That's just fact. 

FMG is unlawful, the original article indicated that the Dr. and parents will be charged under child abuse laws, as they should. The law they were to be tried under was found to be unconstitutional. Perhaps the poster should try reading it again?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Interesting how we strive to be tolerant of other people and we stray farther and farther from our long time established values.

I think 50 years ago, parents that set up and oversaw the chopping up of their daughter's genitals would lose custody and perhaps go to prison. At the very least a doctor carving up a little girl's female parts would lose their license and face prison.

Could our attempts to be enlightened inadvertently caused the loss of our moral compass?


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

f you mean"our" to include me, no I don;t think so. if you mean you, well I am not sure if you have lost your moral compass or not, I don't know you. It isn't 50 yrs ago, it is now, still. the only thing that is really being said is the judge found this specific charge or charges against them being used is too far reaching and unconstitutional....this is no way means they will not be charged with other laws, or be allowed to do it. There are many ways to charge someone with doing something, and many laws that overlap ad could apply that are perfectly constitutional.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

“ FIRST DO NO HARM “


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> “ FIRST DO NO HARM “



What LAW is that and who decides what ''harm'' is?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hippocratic oath. not a law.
Webster. decided what it was.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I don't think you are getting the point. Where and who gets to decide the line between what is allowed and what is not allowed to be done? Are you allowed to decide for someone based on religious reasons to mutilate your child's sex organs? The Constitution say make no law regarding religion. Both female and male circumsion is done by many for religious reasons when there is no nessasary medical reason for either. Can you deny one when you don't deny the either?


I agree. The legal issue arises when a religious practice conflicts with another Constitutionally protected right. Then the courts get to decide which controls.

Remember that Puritans used to dunk and otherwise dispatch witches as a standard religious practice.

On the other hand, some Indian churches have been allowed to use peyote for years, but not LSD and marijuana, as sacraments.

And Sikhs, both students and staff, have worn their kirpans (knives) at school for years. School administrators and the law recognized that this is an exception to state and federal zero tolerance weapons policies, which strictly prohibit guns and knives—even pretend ones—anywhere near a school. (Administrators and law enforcement officials routinely punish—often with criminal charges and expulsion—Boy Scouts who brought knives to school, kids who merely wrote stories about weapons, and others who broke the rules by accident.) 

And, my favorite, Mormons are not allowed to have multiple spouses.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

NRA_guy said:


> And, my favorite, Mormons are not allowed to have multiple spouses.


 I’ve always wondered why that was any of the governments business.
Then I met a Mormon with 12 wives.
Now I think it’s to help reduce insanity!
Poor guy.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

NRA_guy said:


> I agree. The legal issue arises when a religious practice conflicts with another Constitutionally protected right. Then the courts get to decide which controls.
> 
> Remember that *Puritans used to dunk and otherwise dispatch witches as a standard religious practice*.
> 
> ...


Your partially right...they also use to drown and burn "witches" who were nothing more than midwives or woman who practiced homeopathy and would cure or heal someone with plants and tinctures they made. Back then their charlatan of doctors, who thought bleeding a person, using turpentine, or other midevil practices was much better, but didn't "heal" or "cure" the person, but this woman did....it was nothing more than fear mongering and ignorance.


----------

