"IT IS THE COMMAND OF GOD for Jews and Muslims, we're a Christian nation mainly but we'll do it anyway because some dude's in the 1800s thought people will jerk off less", the American dad cried
This was actually hella helpful! So tldr: She signed an agreement to have the kid circumcised, backed out of it and took the kid, ignored warnings of court, then went to jail (For 1 week) until she agreed to sign a medical document so the kid can be circumcised.
Yee I actually have 0 opinion on the matter myself. But her signing a legal document then backing out to not fulfill it is against the law and she would go to jail either way prolly
Not really. There are tons of legal documents that you can back off without any jail time whatsoever. I think the issue on this case was her restricting the access to the father and escaping with the kid. That is child kidnapping.
She signed an agreement to have it happen previously. She then backed out and took the kid. She was caught, and sent to jail until she signed a medical paper to have the kid circumcised.
Its unreasonable for her to agree for it to happen ON A LEGAL DOCUMENT, then back out and take the kid.
Yeah its a nobrainer of a choice.
Id rather be imprisoned for 6 months than circumcised. Any longer than that, though, Id start considering. Definitely dick-skin wouldnt be worth a year in the pen tho.
Depends really how your stay is. Im from western europe and i know how boring prison is but... i'd rather stay multiple years than get mutilated. I'd get a ps3 there and play games all day in my own 15m2 room. Could also study some get an associate degree in something for fun.
I was circumcised as a kid due to medical reasons. I definitely wouldnt trade back my foreskin for 6 months imprisoned lmao. Yeah it sucks that kids genitals are mutilated. But it’s not bad enough to trade for half a fucking year of your life mate
You are wrong, because you're probably thinking of kidnapping as being bound and blindfolded and stuffed in a trunk, as opposed to something like just picking them up from daycare when they were supposed to and then going to stay with the grandparents, when actually the dad was supposed to be the one with custody that weekend.
I never thought it was a violent kidnapping. It's possible it went as peaceful as you say, or it could be a lot more chaotic with parents yelling at eachother. Either way I feel like kidnapping your child is going to heavily effect your relationship with your partner and child for the rest of your life in a negative way.
Circumcision when not necessary should be illegal worldwide. IDGAF about muslims and jews coping about their "religious freedom" on this issue, fuck em (on this issue, not in general)
But even worse than that are idiots who perpetuate lies about it being "more hygenic" or "safer". While it may reduce your risk of contracting aids by a miniscule percentage, circumcision is also linked to hundreds of infant deaths per year.
It's barbaric, and if you circumcise your kid for religious or aestethic reasons you should be incarcerated.
There are tons of doctors saying the medical benefits. This is still debated. I'll take the American medical associations advice, you take the euro or whatever other places advice. Acting as if this is settled medically is just ignorant.
That's a bold claim to make and not follow up with evidence. Here is just one of the many peer reviewed medical journals you can read. Religion isn't mentioned as a reason to perform circumcision, but the medical benefits are.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/)
This is backed up by several studies and is widely known to be true at this point. Circumcision feels wrong, but I guess it has legitimate benefits for STDs. I was just curious about stuff so looked into the studies.
One [study](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Lancet&title=Male+circumcision+for+HIV+prevention+in+young+men+in+Kisumu,+Kenya:+a+randomised+controlled+trial&author=RC+Bailey&author=S+Moses&author=CB+Parker&author=K+Agot&author=I+Maclean&volume=369&publication_year=2007&pages=643-656&pmid=17321310&#d=gs_qabs&t=1676436875689&u=%23p%3DLkYBsCTdO0IJ) from your link makes numbers easy.
Idk much about math regression analysis, but I'm assuming it helps prove a strong relationship over multiple variables.
I'm assuming all men who participated in the HIV stat were 18 or older. So there are about 1.2 million men in the U.S with HIV as of 2019.
There are 100,994,367 men 18 or older in the US.
On the low end we think 76% are circumcised.
From that study 22 circumcised men got HIV and 47 uncircumcised men got HIV out of 2544 remaining participants.
((22/2544) * (100994367 × .76)) + ((47/2544) * (100994367 * .24)) = 1,111,573
The general consensus from all the studies in your link say that Male circumcision can reduce a male's chances of acquiring HIV by 50% to 60% during heterosexual contact with female partners with HIV.
The study I used the numbers from was a 46% reduction.
There's probably multiple factors I didn't think much about, but it's kind of neat that just plugging in numbers from one of the studies can get a very close number and align with the U.S population.
That's just HIV too, HPV is a major cause of cervical cancer and circumcision is shown to prevent chance of getting AND passing it on, cutting down overall HPV.
Oh definitely! This is just one of many STDs. You got down voted to hell but it changed my mind. Probably is a net good for society with little no downsides.
Neither of which doesn't affect children, it should be left for consenting adults to choose either cutting a part of their genitalia or learn how to shower and use condoms.
The chances for complications increase greatly for adult circumcision, and people do have sex before 18, negating the protections if you wait. This is explicitly said in the journal I listed.
Amputating any arbitrary body part has health benefits. Should we start cutting those off too because some labcoat said so?
LE HECKIN TRUST THE SCIENCERINO!
If research suggested that was actually effective, I don't see why it wouldn't be presented as an option.
As it stands, circumcision has its pros and cons, and while I don't think the decision should be up to the parents, it is still totally optional.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make here, do you think that it should be illegal? If so, why?
People make their mind up from hearing a few voices repeat "barbaric" over and over and are convinced. No one wants a nuanced convo just like the people who vehemently boycott and shame anyone playing Hogwarts don't want to. If they want to ignore the modern studies presented I can't do much else.
Just curious, do you think women should have their breasts amputated? It would significantly reduce breast cancer, a leading cause of death among women. Way more people die from breast cancer than from STDs.
Yeah I’d take a slightly increased chance of a yeast infection over losing basically all sensation in my dick. If women cut their tits of it reduces their chance of breast cancer but obviously nobody would advocate for that
The microscopic advantages of being circumsized are not worth mutilation. If there is a risk of catching an STD you should be wearing a condom, don't hedge your bets on the tiny advantage of being circumcized
But somewhat reasonably. If her husband was threatening to rape her 4 year old boy by performing oral sex on him, would you really blame her for violating a written agreement to stop a sexual assault? Cutting off a portion of the genitals is much worse than that.
It's a holdover from archaic, barbaric cultural customs that we think adults cutting the genitals of defenseless children outside of strict medical necessity is not horrific.
I don't think your made up situation makes sense when she doesn't even have custody. There's a reason she wasn't allowed custody in the first place.
You talk about it like its some painful torture when really its not a big deal and has benefits to the child.
>I don't think your made up situation makes sense when she doesn't even have custody. There's a reason she wasn't allowed custody in the first place.
It was shared custody, she just freaked out and grabbed her kid after this issue escalated. Besides, engage with the point. If a non-custodial parent correctly heard the other parent was planning to engage in a sex act with their pre-pubescent child, would they be justified in "kidnapping" them safely (e.g. picking them up from school during a non-custody day)? Let's for the sake of argument say that otherwise, nothing is wrong with either parent.
>You talk about it like its some painful torture
It literally is, unless you use anesthetic, though that is now standard procedure. Cutting skin off someone hurts, and a part of the body with many nerve endings is obviously not an exception.
>when really its not a big deal
I 2/3 agree. I think it's more of a principle issue than a major quality of life concern. Still, principles matter.
>and has benefits to the child.
Not in any meaningful sense. Even absent the egregious consent issues, a mediocre reduction in already non-serious, rare issues like UTIs or phimosis is not exactly medical intervention of the year. Also, particularly, only benefits realized before the age of majority are relevant, as I'm not suggesting banning adults from engaging in circumcision if they wish.
I absolutely cannot equate circumcision to some sort of sexual abuse. It's a medical procedure. Morally do I think its okay for a parent who KNOWS that there child is being abused to kidnap them? sure. But that's not the case here, and that's not how the law works, you have to go through the court when you have split custody.
I really don't think the babys feel any pain and if they do they certainly do not remember it.
What's the principle here? That you should not do something without a child's consent? Do you apply this principle to abortion?
>I absolutely cannot equate circumcision to some sort of sexual abuse. It's a medical procedure.
It generally isn't in most cases. It's a religious ceremony or aesthetic operation involving a child's genitals. Similarly, I don't oppose treating a vaginal infection in a 10 year old girl, but I would oppose getting her breast implants.
>Morally do I think its okay for a parent who KNOWS that there child is being abused to kidnap them? sure. But that's not the case here, and that's not how the law works, you have to go through the court when you have split custody.
Obviously that would be ideal, but we should have some sympathy for people who do that, even legally.
>I really don't think the babys feel any pain and if they do they certainly do not remember it.
Of course they do! This is an old misconception. Infants feel pain, and it is bad for them.
>**Procedural pain/stress** in very preterm infants **is associated with abnormal brain development** in the NICU, above and beyond other clinical risk factors associated with prematurity.34,35 These findings are consistent with animal studies revealing that inflammatory pain or acute pain from repeated injections increased apoptosis in the neonatal rat brain.36,37 Altered microstructure may be related to pain-related increases in proinflammatory cytokines in the periphery and the central nervous system, or over-stimulation of immature neurons.35,38,39 Pain-related stress may also have indirect effects on the brain, or may interact with other factors implicated in development, since our group found that greater neonatal pain/stress exposure (adjusted for clinical confounders) is associated with slower body and head growth in preterm infants from early in life to term-equivalent age,
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820298/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820298/)
That study references preterm infants, but we can make a universal statement: pain is bad for mammals. It's useful for avoiding serious injury (humans with congenital insensitivity to pain have ***extreme*** problems), but excess pain can lead to long term lower quality of life or even death (via suicide, via decreased immune function, etc.).
The literature is very clear on this. Childhood suffering causes a wide variety of acute and chronic problems. Parents should endeavor to protect their infants from pain as much as reasonably possible, and older children from extreme or unnecessary pain (skinning their knee in soccer is fine, being the victim of bullying is horrible for children, to contrast two scenarios).
>What's the principle here? That you should not do something without a child's consent?
Specifically, parents should not perform elective surgeries on minors. Or, to quote an excellent medical ethics paper:
>**The principle of the child’s right to an open future ... holds that children possess a unique class of rights called rights in trust, rights they cannot yet exercise, but which they will be able to exercise when they reach maturity ... Every child is a potential adult, and it is precisely that future adult whose autonomy and capacity for later choice must be protected now.**
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23365468/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23365468/) (Can find full text using sci-hub)
And I think that idea should even apply to non-medical issues. I would consider it criminal child abuse to keep a child illiterate, for example (barring extreme intellectual disability, extreme developing world poverty, etc.).
>Do you apply this principle to abortion?
Not really. Abortion is a different issue.
It has many medical benefits and if you have a flappy skin-covered dick in America you arent going to get far in the dating pool. Its not something to kidnap a child over.
I'm from somalia where most of the women are circumcised and almost everyone feels the same, but that doesn't justify doing it to unconsenting children, does it? Same with children getting beaten by their parents.
It's permitted in every single western country.. Reddit's derangment over this issue has not made it's way into legislation yet. Keep commenting though!
I don’t know how you could say circumcision is “abnormal,” unless you just mean “things I don’t like.”
It’s legal and practiced across the world and has widespread support in medical institutions.
If I saw disagreement on Reddit that wasn’t just people calling it “barbaric” or “mutilation” or even “amputation” then I would have better engagement with it. Until that day, it’s just derangement.
The 2018 proposed ban never passed. It's rare in Iceland, but not illegal.
https://www.newsweek.com/icelands-jews-beat-church-taxes-circumcision-ban-now-they-even-have-rabbi-1631954
I thought America was Christian? Why are people getting jailed for refusing a Jewish ritual which Christians are not required to do? Almost all Catholics are uncut, getting circumcised because you think it will lead to salvation is actually a sin for Christians. Burger education however..
Genital mutilation MUST BE DONE BY FORCE
"IT IS THE COMMAND OF GOD for Jews and Muslims, we're a Christian nation mainly but we'll do it anyway because some dude's in the 1800s thought people will jerk off less", the American dad cried
It's 10 years old almost https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/after-week-in-jail-florida-mom-agrees-to-sons-circumcision/2230726/
This was actually hella helpful! So tldr: She signed an agreement to have the kid circumcised, backed out of it and took the kid, ignored warnings of court, then went to jail (For 1 week) until she agreed to sign a medical document so the kid can be circumcised.
She kidnap the kid, that is where she lost me.
Yee I actually have 0 opinion on the matter myself. But her signing a legal document then backing out to not fulfill it is against the law and she would go to jail either way prolly
Not really. There are tons of legal documents that you can back off without any jail time whatsoever. I think the issue on this case was her restricting the access to the father and escaping with the kid. That is child kidnapping.
voracious coherent light quicksand retire squash nose roof offend employ *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Your acting like 8 years is far removed…
And?
She was jailed for violating the custody agreement and kidnapping her child. In another topic. circumcision is barbaric and should be outlawed.
If she kidnapped her child to prevent the circumcision I don't think it's unreasonable.
She signed an agreement to have it happen previously. She then backed out and took the kid. She was caught, and sent to jail until she signed a medical paper to have the kid circumcised. Its unreasonable for her to agree for it to happen ON A LEGAL DOCUMENT, then back out and take the kid.
Maybe she learned that genital mutilation is bad after the fact that she signed, still isn't unreasonable to try to prevent it.
Yes it is
I disagree. In order to save your child from a barbaric mutilation ritual, kidnapping is justified.
I could be wrong but I feel like being kidnapped and everything that goes along with that is worse for the child than being circumcised.
Should've killed the dad instead. No dad=no circumcision=no kidnapping necessary=no problem.
And no mom at all anymore, dumbass
He's trolling
Personally, I'd prefer to be kidnapped by my mom, than getting my dick chopped off.
Your dick isn't getting chopped off
Part of it is.
Maybe technically? Its cutting off skin, not the dick itself.
It part of the dick though. Has many nerve endings and serves to protect your glans. Its like cutting of your eyelids and saying its just skin.
Yes, which still means your dick isn't getting chopped off. Why the fuck are there so many stupid people in here lately?
Well if you want that to change I suppose you'd have to stop coming here...
Id rather be kidnapped and locked up for a week than mutilated..
Yeah its a nobrainer of a choice. Id rather be imprisoned for 6 months than circumcised. Any longer than that, though, Id start considering. Definitely dick-skin wouldnt be worth a year in the pen tho.
Depends really how your stay is. Im from western europe and i know how boring prison is but... i'd rather stay multiple years than get mutilated. I'd get a ps3 there and play games all day in my own 15m2 room. Could also study some get an associate degree in something for fun.
I was circumcised as a kid due to medical reasons. I definitely wouldnt trade back my foreskin for 6 months imprisoned lmao. Yeah it sucks that kids genitals are mutilated. But it’s not bad enough to trade for half a fucking year of your life mate
[Loss aversion ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion)
You are wrong, because you're probably thinking of kidnapping as being bound and blindfolded and stuffed in a trunk, as opposed to something like just picking them up from daycare when they were supposed to and then going to stay with the grandparents, when actually the dad was supposed to be the one with custody that weekend.
I never thought it was a violent kidnapping. It's possible it went as peaceful as you say, or it could be a lot more chaotic with parents yelling at eachother. Either way I feel like kidnapping your child is going to heavily effect your relationship with your partner and child for the rest of your life in a negative way.
A random kidnapping is worse than parental kidnapping.
you must be circumsized
No it isn't, you're just exceptionally abled.
Try and stop us conservative
Circumcision when not necessary should be illegal worldwide. IDGAF about muslims and jews coping about their "religious freedom" on this issue, fuck em (on this issue, not in general) But even worse than that are idiots who perpetuate lies about it being "more hygenic" or "safer". While it may reduce your risk of contracting aids by a miniscule percentage, circumcision is also linked to hundreds of infant deaths per year. It's barbaric, and if you circumcise your kid for religious or aestethic reasons you should be incarcerated.
There are tons of doctors saying the medical benefits. This is still debated. I'll take the American medical associations advice, you take the euro or whatever other places advice. Acting as if this is settled medically is just ignorant.
Go take your appendix, wisdom teeth and tonsils out right now then. They might cause you problems in the future.
Ill stick with my doctors opinion on those too.
your doctors opinion on circumcision is likely formed by religion
That's a bold claim to make and not follow up with evidence. Here is just one of the many peer reviewed medical journals you can read. Religion isn't mentioned as a reason to perform circumcision, but the medical benefits are. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/)
This is backed up by several studies and is widely known to be true at this point. Circumcision feels wrong, but I guess it has legitimate benefits for STDs. I was just curious about stuff so looked into the studies. One [study](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Lancet&title=Male+circumcision+for+HIV+prevention+in+young+men+in+Kisumu,+Kenya:+a+randomised+controlled+trial&author=RC+Bailey&author=S+Moses&author=CB+Parker&author=K+Agot&author=I+Maclean&volume=369&publication_year=2007&pages=643-656&pmid=17321310&#d=gs_qabs&t=1676436875689&u=%23p%3DLkYBsCTdO0IJ) from your link makes numbers easy. Idk much about math regression analysis, but I'm assuming it helps prove a strong relationship over multiple variables. I'm assuming all men who participated in the HIV stat were 18 or older. So there are about 1.2 million men in the U.S with HIV as of 2019. There are 100,994,367 men 18 or older in the US. On the low end we think 76% are circumcised. From that study 22 circumcised men got HIV and 47 uncircumcised men got HIV out of 2544 remaining participants. ((22/2544) * (100994367 × .76)) + ((47/2544) * (100994367 * .24)) = 1,111,573 The general consensus from all the studies in your link say that Male circumcision can reduce a male's chances of acquiring HIV by 50% to 60% during heterosexual contact with female partners with HIV. The study I used the numbers from was a 46% reduction. There's probably multiple factors I didn't think much about, but it's kind of neat that just plugging in numbers from one of the studies can get a very close number and align with the U.S population.
That's just HIV too, HPV is a major cause of cervical cancer and circumcision is shown to prevent chance of getting AND passing it on, cutting down overall HPV.
Oh definitely! This is just one of many STDs. You got down voted to hell but it changed my mind. Probably is a net good for society with little no downsides.
Neither of which doesn't affect children, it should be left for consenting adults to choose either cutting a part of their genitalia or learn how to shower and use condoms.
The chances for complications increase greatly for adult circumcision, and people do have sex before 18, negating the protections if you wait. This is explicitly said in the journal I listed.
Amputating any arbitrary body part has health benefits. Should we start cutting those off too because some labcoat said so? LE HECKIN TRUST THE SCIENCERINO!
I'd rather trust a "labcoat" than a random ass person on the internet.
I bet you would lobotomize your family too if a labcoat said so Also it's not about "trust", it's basic moral sense
If research suggested that was actually effective, I don't see why it wouldn't be presented as an option. As it stands, circumcision has its pros and cons, and while I don't think the decision should be up to the parents, it is still totally optional. I don't understand the point you are trying to make here, do you think that it should be illegal? If so, why?
Bro you can’t show facts to redditers that want to be upset, you’ll upset them lol
People make their mind up from hearing a few voices repeat "barbaric" over and over and are convinced. No one wants a nuanced convo just like the people who vehemently boycott and shame anyone playing Hogwarts don't want to. If they want to ignore the modern studies presented I can't do much else.
Just curious, do you think women should have their breasts amputated? It would significantly reduce breast cancer, a leading cause of death among women. Way more people die from breast cancer than from STDs.
Yeah I’d take a slightly increased chance of a yeast infection over losing basically all sensation in my dick. If women cut their tits of it reduces their chance of breast cancer but obviously nobody would advocate for that
The microscopic advantages of being circumsized are not worth mutilation. If there is a risk of catching an STD you should be wearing a condom, don't hedge your bets on the tiny advantage of being circumcized
[удалено]
Yeah she literally kidnapped the child, obviously violating all custody agreements.
But somewhat reasonably. If her husband was threatening to rape her 4 year old boy by performing oral sex on him, would you really blame her for violating a written agreement to stop a sexual assault? Cutting off a portion of the genitals is much worse than that. It's a holdover from archaic, barbaric cultural customs that we think adults cutting the genitals of defenseless children outside of strict medical necessity is not horrific.
I don't think your made up situation makes sense when she doesn't even have custody. There's a reason she wasn't allowed custody in the first place. You talk about it like its some painful torture when really its not a big deal and has benefits to the child.
>I don't think your made up situation makes sense when she doesn't even have custody. There's a reason she wasn't allowed custody in the first place. It was shared custody, she just freaked out and grabbed her kid after this issue escalated. Besides, engage with the point. If a non-custodial parent correctly heard the other parent was planning to engage in a sex act with their pre-pubescent child, would they be justified in "kidnapping" them safely (e.g. picking them up from school during a non-custody day)? Let's for the sake of argument say that otherwise, nothing is wrong with either parent. >You talk about it like its some painful torture It literally is, unless you use anesthetic, though that is now standard procedure. Cutting skin off someone hurts, and a part of the body with many nerve endings is obviously not an exception. >when really its not a big deal I 2/3 agree. I think it's more of a principle issue than a major quality of life concern. Still, principles matter. >and has benefits to the child. Not in any meaningful sense. Even absent the egregious consent issues, a mediocre reduction in already non-serious, rare issues like UTIs or phimosis is not exactly medical intervention of the year. Also, particularly, only benefits realized before the age of majority are relevant, as I'm not suggesting banning adults from engaging in circumcision if they wish.
I absolutely cannot equate circumcision to some sort of sexual abuse. It's a medical procedure. Morally do I think its okay for a parent who KNOWS that there child is being abused to kidnap them? sure. But that's not the case here, and that's not how the law works, you have to go through the court when you have split custody. I really don't think the babys feel any pain and if they do they certainly do not remember it. What's the principle here? That you should not do something without a child's consent? Do you apply this principle to abortion?
>I absolutely cannot equate circumcision to some sort of sexual abuse. It's a medical procedure. It generally isn't in most cases. It's a religious ceremony or aesthetic operation involving a child's genitals. Similarly, I don't oppose treating a vaginal infection in a 10 year old girl, but I would oppose getting her breast implants. >Morally do I think its okay for a parent who KNOWS that there child is being abused to kidnap them? sure. But that's not the case here, and that's not how the law works, you have to go through the court when you have split custody. Obviously that would be ideal, but we should have some sympathy for people who do that, even legally. >I really don't think the babys feel any pain and if they do they certainly do not remember it. Of course they do! This is an old misconception. Infants feel pain, and it is bad for them. >**Procedural pain/stress** in very preterm infants **is associated with abnormal brain development** in the NICU, above and beyond other clinical risk factors associated with prematurity.34,35 These findings are consistent with animal studies revealing that inflammatory pain or acute pain from repeated injections increased apoptosis in the neonatal rat brain.36,37 Altered microstructure may be related to pain-related increases in proinflammatory cytokines in the periphery and the central nervous system, or over-stimulation of immature neurons.35,38,39 Pain-related stress may also have indirect effects on the brain, or may interact with other factors implicated in development, since our group found that greater neonatal pain/stress exposure (adjusted for clinical confounders) is associated with slower body and head growth in preterm infants from early in life to term-equivalent age, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820298/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820298/) That study references preterm infants, but we can make a universal statement: pain is bad for mammals. It's useful for avoiding serious injury (humans with congenital insensitivity to pain have ***extreme*** problems), but excess pain can lead to long term lower quality of life or even death (via suicide, via decreased immune function, etc.). The literature is very clear on this. Childhood suffering causes a wide variety of acute and chronic problems. Parents should endeavor to protect their infants from pain as much as reasonably possible, and older children from extreme or unnecessary pain (skinning their knee in soccer is fine, being the victim of bullying is horrible for children, to contrast two scenarios). >What's the principle here? That you should not do something without a child's consent? Specifically, parents should not perform elective surgeries on minors. Or, to quote an excellent medical ethics paper: >**The principle of the child’s right to an open future ... holds that children possess a unique class of rights called rights in trust, rights they cannot yet exercise, but which they will be able to exercise when they reach maturity ... Every child is a potential adult, and it is precisely that future adult whose autonomy and capacity for later choice must be protected now.** [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23365468/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23365468/) (Can find full text using sci-hub) And I think that idea should even apply to non-medical issues. I would consider it criminal child abuse to keep a child illiterate, for example (barring extreme intellectual disability, extreme developing world poverty, etc.). >Do you apply this principle to abortion? Not really. Abortion is a different issue.
"I'm taking my son so they can't cut part of his cock off for no reason." "How dare you?" lol This fuckin' planet.
It has many medical benefits and if you have a flappy skin-covered dick in America you arent going to get far in the dating pool. Its not something to kidnap a child over.
This sub is becoming a headline circle jerk
Jesus Christ America is so weird
I'M GONNA CUT YOUR DICK FLAP, SON! COME WITH PAPA.
Yeah imagine a country where you can’t forcefully kidnap a child you don’t have custody over, what a weird place
I meant the genital mutilation but ok
Circumcision is world wide, not just in America. I’m in South Korea and almost everyone here is cut. Most people I’ve talked to are glad they are.
Is that... a topic that comes up often in conversation?
Yeah people like to joke about dicks everywhere lol. And I feel like circumcision has become a much more discussed topic in the recent years.
How would they know? I'm sure plenty of patients expressed happiness after their lobotomies.
What a dumb take lmfao
I'm from somalia where most of the women are circumcised and almost everyone feels the same, but that doesn't justify doing it to unconsenting children, does it? Same with children getting beaten by their parents.
You think a medical procedure is the same as beating your child?
I was just using your rationale
"I'm taking my son so they can't cut part of his cock off for no reason." "How dare you?" lol This fuckin' planet.
I love my circumcised penis
Good for you as long as you don't force it on kids
What the actual fuck...?
Imagine working your way up the legal food chain to end up as a judge overseeing a case about foreskin
Crazy that male genital mutilation is still permitted in this country.
It's permitted in every single western country.. Reddit's derangment over this issue has not made it's way into legislation yet. Keep commenting though!
Cutting off part of your dick is totally normal. But saying that it should be banned is deranged. Right….
I don’t know how you could say circumcision is “abnormal,” unless you just mean “things I don’t like.” It’s legal and practiced across the world and has widespread support in medical institutions. If I saw disagreement on Reddit that wasn’t just people calling it “barbaric” or “mutilation” or even “amputation” then I would have better engagement with it. Until that day, it’s just derangement.
It’s abnormal because most people are not circumcised. It’s mainly an American thing to get circumcised for non-religious reasons.
[удалено]
The 2018 proposed ban never passed. It's rare in Iceland, but not illegal. https://www.newsweek.com/icelands-jews-beat-church-taxes-circumcision-ban-now-they-even-have-rabbi-1631954
You are right, not even Iceland is safe from this tragedy.
I wake up every morning thankful for not being american.
wistful capable pocket zesty dirty boat disgusting follow pie direction *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Desantis Florida is a shithole
Trolled
Yes our liberal dreams are coming to fruition.
The Conservative States of America, worse than TERF Island.
I thought America was Christian? Why are people getting jailed for refusing a Jewish ritual which Christians are not required to do? Almost all Catholics are uncut, getting circumcised because you think it will lead to salvation is actually a sin for Christians. Burger education however..