Trouble in Oregon

Post Reply New Topic

I dunno, I am not an expert on child whatever laws. I know that some parents try to maintain control past 18 though, but they have less legal ability at that point.

We probably would not not. The extremeness would be a factor, as would the fact that Islam is less a part of our culture than the Judeo-Christian notions of acceptable deformity.

Every child on this planet, without exception, has the right to not be mutilated. And the rest of us have the responsibility of enforcing that right. Medically necessary surgeries exempted.

Now when the child reaches the age of 21 and not before, and if competent witnesses attest to the fact that the young adult isn't being forced into it, they may elect to mutilate themselves.

Prior to consenting adult age of 21, the minor must be considered worthy of deserving protection from others including parents who would force them into such procedures against the minor's will. And even if the child claims that they want the procedure, they should be told to wait until the consenting adult age of 21.

Both male and female circumcision of minors (under 21) should have been dispensed with when humanity emerged out from the dark ages. Why isn't this considered brutal savagery? Obviously it should require a consenting adult to give permission for the procedure to be performed on him/her self. Anything less is ridiculously unreasonable and unnecessarily sadistic.

Is sadism ever necessary? Certain medically necessary surgeries, procedures and treatments might qualify as sadism. But they are considered to be necessary. If it were at all possible, those also should require a consenting adult. And the child's opinion should be heavily weighted, given the child is old enough to speak for him/her self.

And of course, this right is one that has been systematically violated for centuries, and that somehow magically emerged out of nowhere because of some spiritual enlightenment that our anti-spiritual culture generated.

Hmm... and I never asked for a responsibility either. However, here is a question: if medically necessary surgeries are exempted, are those surgeries also mandated? Then if all medical care of a child is to be controlled by the whims of society, then who owns the right to the child? If society does, then doesn't this create a lot of power for social control? If the parents do, then how come society has a right to enforce these demands.


21 seems arbitrary. Does this go in line with ear-piercings as well? What if I am 18 and want a tattoo?


And all of this is born of rights? Wow, those metaphysical entities are legalistic.


Why during the dark ages? Because you assert so? If it is wrong, then why not before then? What is brutal savagery other than a cultural dictum other than the one you hold to? But of course, it wasn't unreasonably and sadistic before the dark ages.

What is necessary? Necessary is a term bandied about by people who never examine what necessity really is, and what the purpose of human existence really is. I think that the term is overused, and should only be used in the conditional sense rather than the artificial absolute sense.

Awesomelyglorious, you make some valid points one of which I will deal with.

Tatoos usually aren't forced upon minors and they're probably in a separate category from circumcisions. I have pierced ears and don't consider it a form of mutilation (some do). Nevertheless ear piercings, other body piercings and tatoos shouldn't be forced upon minors either.

It wouldn't be the end of the world if teenagers had to wait til they're 21 to get body piercings and tatoos if that's what they want.

Usually not, usually are a separate category. I consider pierced ears and other piercings to be a form of mutilation, personally, I am mildly disturbed by ear piercings and sometimes find myself striving to look away from them due to how perverse I see them as being.

No, but it wouldn't be the end of the world no matter what law we impose.

Circumcision is supposed to happen on the 8th day after birth. This kid is greater than 9 years of age. Let him decide. BTW, I'm uncircumcised and I'll follow 1 Corinthians 7:18 unless I get married and my wife wants otherwise.

again and again, what about the actual kids involved in the matter? what's their say?


it's sexual mutilation. a sick perversion that is still pervasive in society.

you're cutting off part of a child's penis with circumcision.


if you cut off any other part of a child, you'd be locked up and killed in jail for messing with kids.

http://www.apologia.com/circumcision.html

For the nine year old, let him decide.

AG, I assure you that the health care community examines long and thoroughly the issue of 'necessity' on an ongoing basis. Just as a 'for example,' the 'necessity' of a health insurance company often does not jibe with the 'necessity' of an HCP.

LKL, I really do not care about what debates the health care community has, unless they critically examine all presuppositions, the debates are meaningless. To be honest, I understand that there are debates, there are always debates, and in issues with competing interests, these debates must exist, however, that does not mean that the basic presuppositions of the debaters can be considered as justified to any individual in existence. These debates are more reflective of whether a mainstream provider of health care financial resources, and a mainstream provider of health care services, will agree that the provisions of health care for a mainstream audience are correct in the views of that mainstream, and thus you are showing that our cultural notions conform with themselves. Whoopi freakin' doo! I am more concerned with questioning the basic cultural assumption that both parties hold implicitly more so than anything else. Whether or not there is debate over a concept does not mean that the debate is sufficient, as Christian theologians debate over God all of the time, but the presupposition that God exists is never denied no matter how many alterations are made to the concept of God.

most nine year olds haven't even discovered their penis yet rather less up for making such decisions as lopping off a chunk of flesh from it.

i say no circumcision before the age of 22.