Trouble in Oregon

Post Reply New Topic

mutilation of a baby's body should never be legal.

There are so many men trying to stretch their foreskins back! The reason for circumcision is a health one, there is a higher rate of penile cancer in uncircumcised men, this is not due to the foreskin as such, it is caused by men not cleaning behind it properly. Therefore once again the answer lies in education not religion. Why do people think that because this mutilation is to be carried out on religious grounds we should allow it. If this was not a religious issue that father would probably be locked away by now. Leave the kids penis alone you superstitious nuts. With judaism many things that had a practical reason 2000 years ago have become religious imperitives, kosher is another one, like circumcision it was originally all about health. Time to move on folks we generally dont live in tents anymore and our sanitation is just a little better than when these rules were thought up

Part of the problem with this is that the father does not appear to be acting in what he believes is the child's best interest - he's forcing his own interest upon the child will-he or nil-he. He's converted to Judaism and wants his son to be Jewish, too, regardless of whether his son has also made the conversion.

Parents simply cannot force their children to believe something. They can raise them as best they can, but at some point the kid starts having a mind of its own. If the son does not believe in Judaism now, then slicing off part of his privates isn't going to convert him; he'll just grow up to be a non-jew who feels that judaism is responsible for mutilating his body. Not exactly the best PR for the Jewish faith.

I would hope that the courts would find an unbiased child psychology expert to interview the kid in private and find out what the kid really believes and really wants.

I'd side with atheists on this one.
The child's father

Then change it

Yeah I so agree make some noise, protest, threaten to fire your state senator while protesting down main street.

is it that hard to put soap to a rag?


also, i think the penile cancer thing might be a myth..i dunno, it's certainly one of those topics where a lot of misinformation gets spread around to support the mutilation as still being relevant.

I'm not an atheist. I am an agnostic. And AwesomelyGlorious claims to be an atheist and he's arguing for the father's right to circumcise his child.

AG isn't arguing on atheist principles, he's arguing on articles of law. Whether or not the law contradicts his personal beliefs is irrelevant, since his beliefs are not in contention here, but rather the extent of US law. I'm sure he'll explain it to you momentarily using many more words.

I was aware of that, silly man, since I can read and comprehend other people's views. greenblue implied all atheists opposed the man's circumsional rights over his son. AG is an atheist and AG does support the man's circumsional rights. Therefore greenblue was confused and so are you.

Last edited by corroonb on 23 Aug 2008, 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

You're implying that AG isn't an atheist because he supports the letter of the law rather than following his personal opinion. I'd tell what I really think about your reading comprehension, but the mods here have a thing about imagined insults.

I was suggesting that greenblue was incorrect in stating that all atheists supported this man. AG is an atheist. AG does not support this man. Either AG is not an atheist or greenblue is incorrect.

Only a lunatic would suggest this has anything to do with god's existence.

Let's see, if I followed my own personal opinion, here are the conclusions I would reach:

1) This person, by forcing their religion upon their son in such a manner, after some ability to come to a somewhat cogent, independent opinion can exist, is not the nicest fellow.

2) Parents however, have a right to treat their children however they want only mitigated by what other people are not willing to put up with, or what children can do to escape their fates. The reason being is that I do not think that there is a perfectly neutral way to treat a child, so the best that can exist is some parental right over the child.

What is your opinion of corporal punishment? Should parents be allowed to beat morals into their children?

Corporal punishment is illegal in Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Ukraine,Uruguay, Venezuela and New Zealand.

It should be allowed, and I think that disallowing it is rather invasive, but then again, I was raised with some level of corporal punishment.

How does one distinguish between an acceptable level of corporal punishment (violence) and abuse?

Isn't this relative to the person administering the violence regardless of what is "a culturally acceptable level"?

How does one determine "a culturally acceptable level" if one wishes to use corporal punishment?