If I were a doctor knowing this story I would not agree to do the procedure because it's a compelled signature. How can I know I wouldn't be sued years later for going along with the coercion?
This article buries the lead so hard that it doesn't even appear in the story. This isn't about it being illegal to raise an uncircumcised son or something.
The parents signed a contract as part of their separation. One stipulation of said contract was that the child get circumcised. Apparently he had phimosis. The mother signed off, then kidnapped the child and ran away. So now she's being held until the circumcision under breach of contract.
It doesn't matter what a contract says, courts take breach of contract very seriously. This is being made out to be a case of foreskin-hungry monsters victimizing an innocent woman who dindu nothin, but it's actually about a meth head who signed away her son's rights and then changed her mind when it was way too late and tried to "correct" the mistake by being hostile and uncooperative. The only reason she's not being held without bail due to felony kidnapping is because she's a woman.
Kids don't get phimosis, it is literally trying to diagnose a child with underdeveloped genitals. The foreskin naturally separates from the glans as a part of normal development. If it's still adhered after puberty, then you can treat it, which almost never requires surgery btw.
Even then, at some point if the kid finds it uncomfortable and wants to go through with the circumcision then that's his choice. They shouldn't do it to innocent babies.
This just doesn't happen. Mentally stable individuals don't want doctors to cut off healthy parts of their bodies. You can see this in countries like Finland where the adult circumcision rate is less than .01%
Right I'll believe some rando on the internet instead. You're not really giving a solid argument there.
It'd have been better to point out that a doctor said it wasn't necessary in the original article rather than telling me not to believe an article with no evidence beyond "trust me, bro"
That is totally ignorant. Uncircumcised boys get phimosis when the foreskin isn’t cleaned and properly taken care of. It can become quite painful and infected. A person I know had this happen and she’s not even a meth head.
Do you know what phimosis is? Circumcising is typically the treatment for it. If the mom took proper care phimosis wouldn’t necessarily have happened. But look at her frail skin picked body…..
I mean, I feel like you shouldn't be able to sign a contract guaranteeing a mutilation to begin with and any court trying to uphold it delegitimizes itself by doing so regardless of the legality of a contract on its own. I can't have a divorce contract stating I would only rape my child once a week, then have a court only jail me once I do it twice.
Circumcision is not illegal so the courts can enforce it, rape is illegal so they can't.
It's like if your kid has 6 fingers you can say well I'll give up my parental rights if you agree to get his sixth finger sawed off. Kid was born with 6 fingers so chopping one off is mutilation, but it's legal to do and at least in America most people would rather their kid have only 5 fingers.
Got it, glad the government saying "this is legal" means its totally okay and should be allowed to be enforced and happen. I'm sure you apply this standard totally fairly.
at least in America most people would rather their kid have only 5 fingers.
Good to know you support the trans rights. Since after all, mutilating a child is totally okay to you on such flimsy things as "we'd prefer it." Just lop those tits and dicks off then.
"Phimosis is the inability to retract the prepuce after puberty due to a narrow preputial opening. Although the diagnosis of phimosis is often made in childhood, in most cases, it is just an excuse to justify circumcision." - Ricardo Gonzalez and Barbara M. Ludwikowski. Handbook of Urological Diseases in Children. World Scientific Publishing Co., 2011. P. 135.
The problem is the court may well be putting a contract ahead of what is in the boy's best interests.
I do not understand why they simply did not take custody away from the mother (if she's endangering her child by not treating his disorder - or for the kidnapping) and then the father/state could approve the procedure. Why jail?
Well you see, Florida has a lot of a certain kind of person in it. A kind of person who enjoys wearing small hats and writing up contracts. And that kind of person gets very, very angry when you break said contracts. So they use their influence, of which they have none and it is illegal to claim otherwise, to get breach of contract elevated to one of the highest crimes in the land.
I'm often reminded by the short but amusing Seinfeld bit about circumcision. Almost totally irrelevant to any ethical discussions, but it does raise questions regarding the aesthetics to some degree.
Aye, like that's why I didn't consider it an especially serious point on the subject. Albeit, a mildly amusing one.
More seriously though, I suspect a fair portion of complacency on the subject stems from how widespread and pervasive it's been in Western culture for so long, and how seldomly it's going to come up as a concern to the average circumcised man who's never experienced the difference.
If I were a doctor knowing this story I would not agree to do the procedure because it's a compelled signature. How can I know I wouldn't be sued years later for going along with the coercion?
He should just say that he was doing so to prevent covid, as god knows how many doctors should've been sued but weren't for that whole ordeal.
Huh.
What are the odds?
Seems god wants to put him out of his misery.
14 out of 88
This article buries the lead so hard that it doesn't even appear in the story. This isn't about it being illegal to raise an uncircumcised son or something.
The parents signed a contract as part of their separation. One stipulation of said contract was that the child get circumcised. Apparently he had phimosis. The mother signed off, then kidnapped the child and ran away. So now she's being held until the circumcision under breach of contract.
It doesn't matter what a contract says, courts take breach of contract very seriously. This is being made out to be a case of foreskin-hungry monsters victimizing an innocent woman who dindu nothin, but it's actually about a meth head who signed away her son's rights and then changed her mind when it was way too late and tried to "correct" the mistake by being hostile and uncooperative. The only reason she's not being held without bail due to felony kidnapping is because she's a woman.
If the kids phimosis actually required treatment and she refused she's not exactly "protecting" him.
Kids don't get phimosis, it is literally trying to diagnose a child with underdeveloped genitals. The foreskin naturally separates from the glans as a part of normal development. If it's still adhered after puberty, then you can treat it, which almost never requires surgery btw.
Even then, at some point if the kid finds it uncomfortable and wants to go through with the circumcision then that's his choice. They shouldn't do it to innocent babies.
This just doesn't happen. Mentally stable individuals don't want doctors to cut off healthy parts of their bodies. You can see this in countries like Finland where the adult circumcision rate is less than .01%
Where were we talking about healthy parts?
🤔
It is not an exact number, but the rate is near 0.
It says, right in that article, that kids get it starting between ages 5-7.
The article is incorrect about that information. Don't believe everything you read, especially when the source is the American medical community.
Next you're going to tell me that the covid shots aren't safe and effective!
Right I'll believe some rando on the internet instead. You're not really giving a solid argument there.
It'd have been better to point out that a doctor said it wasn't necessary in the original article rather than telling me not to believe an article with no evidence beyond "trust me, bro"
Here, enjoy reading. Lots of credible sources cited.
That is totally ignorant. Uncircumcised boys get phimosis when the foreskin isn’t cleaned and properly taken care of. It can become quite painful and infected. A person I know had this happen and she’s not even a meth head.
Can confirm. That shit is painful.
Do you know what phimosis is? Circumcising is typically the treatment for it. If the mom took proper care phimosis wouldn’t necessarily have happened. But look at her frail skin picked body…..
I mean, I feel like you shouldn't be able to sign a contract guaranteeing a mutilation to begin with and any court trying to uphold it delegitimizes itself by doing so regardless of the legality of a contract on its own. I can't have a divorce contract stating I would only rape my child once a week, then have a court only jail me once I do it twice.
Circumcision is not illegal so the courts can enforce it, rape is illegal so they can't.
It's like if your kid has 6 fingers you can say well I'll give up my parental rights if you agree to get his sixth finger sawed off. Kid was born with 6 fingers so chopping one off is mutilation, but it's legal to do and at least in America most people would rather their kid have only 5 fingers.
Then we’d be having a conversation about forced plastic surgery for facial scar removal.
Got it, glad the government saying "this is legal" means its totally okay and should be allowed to be enforced and happen. I'm sure you apply this standard totally fairly.
Good to know you support the trans rights. Since after all, mutilating a child is totally okay to you on such flimsy things as "we'd prefer it." Just lop those tits and dicks off then.
Make it illegal as it should be. You don't think it should be illegal, like rape?
The problem is the court may well be putting a contract ahead of what is in the boy's best interests.
They wouldn't be courts if they didn't put the law above public interest.
I do not understand why they simply did not take custody away from the mother (if she's endangering her child by not treating his disorder - or for the kidnapping) and then the father/state could approve the procedure. Why jail?
Well you see, Florida has a lot of a certain kind of person in it. A kind of person who enjoys wearing small hats and writing up contracts. And that kind of person gets very, very angry when you break said contracts. So they use their influence, of which they have none and it is illegal to claim otherwise, to get breach of contract elevated to one of the highest crimes in the land.
In short, they're making an example of her.
Eradicate circumcision and you fix a lot of problems with America and then by extension the world.
why is it even legal to perform this surgery on a child?
it'd be antisemitic otherwise
What more proof do you need that the US legal system is based on Jewish law rather than English common law?
Seems he went to the Ikari Gendo school of fathering.
Jewish?
I'm often reminded by the short but amusing Seinfeld bit about circumcision. Almost totally irrelevant to any ethical discussions, but it does raise questions regarding the aesthetics to some degree.
aesthetics according to (((porn))), goyims were finding mates fine for thousands of years without circumcision.
And I like to remind people, you can retract the foreskin if you want the glans to be exposed, and it will overall look much better and healthier.
Aye, like that's why I didn't consider it an especially serious point on the subject. Albeit, a mildly amusing one.
More seriously though, I suspect a fair portion of complacency on the subject stems from how widespread and pervasive it's been in Western culture for so long, and how seldomly it's going to come up as a concern to the average circumcised man who's never experienced the difference.
Since when are circumcisions performed in courthouses?
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Sppech