Florida court orders 3 year old boy be circumcised against mother's wishes.

[Manfred Belheim]

Never said it's 'less bad'. Nice that you want to have a standing on it being bad by default though- even a move forward for a reason sometimes won't make the other move backward, but you moved anyway As for what is 'less bad' among the two... can't say that is very evident, but both are likely very bad and very terminal.

I haven't moved anywhere. In fact I haven't even stated where I personally stand on the question of circumcision, because it's entirely irrelevant to everything I'm saying. Stop being a smarmy git. Either circumcision is okay, or it isn't. Either inflicting pain on a child is okay, or it isn't. These are debates for another day and have nothing to do with whether or not a court should uphold a legal contract.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Well, i'll pass on googling that nice bit of cockneyism, however your point is still falling on its own, and thus doesn't need a push from me to have it collapse in the case that anyone else observing still has at least one eye open. Ie it is pretty strange to argue that the bulk of the issue is the court upholding a parental agreement, and not that the agreement is about a needless and (in his age with anesthesia) life-threatening surgery.

And without anesthesia? I would 'lol', but not really. A 3 year old boy having a bit of his genital area cut, while he is feeling the pain? Pass again.

 

[Tahuti]

Yes, basic human rights are so fundamentalist.

I have been circumcised and I do not think my 'basic human rights' have been compromised.

Perhaps it would be a good compromise to allow individual circumcised men the ability to have their parents prosecuted as long as circumcision will not automatically be prosecuted by government.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

^Well, i'll pass on googling that nice bit of cockneyism, however your point is still falling on its own, and thus doesn't need a push from me to have it collapse in the case that anyone else observing still has at least one eye open. Ie it is pretty strange to argue that the bulk of the issue is the court upholding a parental agreement, and not that the agreement is about a needless and (in his age with anesthesia) life-threatening surgery.

And without anesthesia? I would 'lol', but not really. A 3 year old boy having a bit of his genital area cut, while he is feeling the pain? Pass again.

I'm not a cockney, and if you're not going to google something that you don't know, you probably shouldn't then talk about it with any sort of authority.

Anyway, if these parents hadn't disagreed with each other, and if they'd just taken the decision between them to have their son circumcised without any contract being involved, would they have been legally allowed to do so? Even when he's 3 years old? If the answer is "yes" then you should be able to see how this then just becomes a court case about a contract and nothing more. If you have a problem with the answer being "yes" then that's a debate for another day (or thread).

If you disagree then if you could actually just refute the points I'm raising with some form of logic that would probably be best, rather than just resorting to condescension and pseudo moral high ground tactics.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is not a 'pseudo moral high ground' tactic. I would not wish it on anyone to suffer such a trauma. He runs a risk (the 3 year old boy) of either dieing due to the general anesthesia which is very hazardous in that age, or being pretty much a guinea-pig for an event which afaik is virtually not happening at all in America (or Israel i suppose), which is to have a 3year old boy go through a circumcision. I think it is a lot closer to a real worry, to fear that the kid may end up in a very very bad place as a direct result of all this. It shouldn't be news to anyone that children have been crucially (sometimes for years, or worse) traumatised by far less in those ages. Maybe that is not a risk worth taking.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It is not a 'pseudo moral high ground' tactic. I would not wish it on anyone to suffer such a trauma. He runs a risk (the 3 year old boy) of either dieing due to the general anesthesia which is very hazardous in that age, or being pretty much a guinea-pig for an event which afaik is virtually not happening at all in America (or Israel i suppose), which is to have a 3year old boy go through a circumcision. I think it is a lot closer to a real worry, to fear that the kid may end up in a very very bad place as a direct result of all this. It shouldn't be news to anyone that children have been crucially (sometimes for years, or worse) traumatised by far less in those ages. Maybe that is not a risk worth taking.

If the parents chose to do this between themselves, with no contract in place, would they be allowed to do so? Yes or no.

I don't know the answer, but I strongly suspect that if the court can enforce the contract then the answer is "yes", in which case you have a problem with the society/system that would allow that "yes" answer, and not a problem with the function of the court, which is what the news story is ultimately about.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying.