(October 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm)Whateverist Wrote: And as someone who has 'suffered' standard, Murican male genital mutilation .. it isn't so bad.  I'm sure I didn't enjoy it when it happened but it doesn't bother me now and I've suffered no disappointment in its use in more than fifty years of sexual sport and practice.  So I still maintain that male circumcision is an area where the law can reasonably permit tribal preferences to prevail.  I'm not telling the jews they can't call in the mohel to initiate their newborn son and I'm not telling Cath-y she is wrong to do it to her male child if that is what she and her husband choose.  I may wince, but I don't think how I feel about it is anything which should deter them from living life on their own terms.

Quote:All I know is a person I care about was carrying a child which died before birth. Don't really give a fuck what anyone else wants to call what she was carrying. The phrase "carrying a child" in standard usage fits to a T.

-would you tell a parent that they cannot mutilate their daughters genitalia?  

How -could- you suffer disappointment, you have no point of comparison....ad is that really a very good justification for genital mutilation?  I probably wouldn't have been as impressed with the sex you've had, for example.  Not to say it wasn't awsome, rowdy, sweet, and all of the above or whatever it is that it strikes you as.  Just that I'd have felt more than you did.  How are you, in this, different from a female apologist for the cultural tradition of genital mutilation...who takes the stage to shame and disregard others into silence?

Losing a child, at any point in the pregnancy, is heartbreaking.  You don't have to tell me that.  My wife and I lived it, tried again, and got lucky with our last, as you might've remembered.  He had a little bit of trouble himself..again as you may remember..from my tortured posts between visits to the NICU.  In fact, no one, anywhere in the world, will ever be able to shame me into holding my tongue over anything, by referring to the loss of a child...which I've suffered on every conceivable level, unborn, and newborn...still living, and dead. All you know, in this regard..is common knowledge and entirely irrelevant. So stow it.

-that said, no hard feelings, never are, lol.

(October 9, 2016 at 1:08 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 9, 2016 at 3:24 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Personhood may be a legal term, that's not all it is, though. Personhood may also be used outside of its legal connotation to be discussed as an idea, whether casually or philosophically.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the nature of the English language.  Few words avoid multiple usage.  No one is forbidden any other usage just because it fails to apply as a legal term.

All irrelevant really. In comparison to circumcision, abortion is way more complicated in that there is a conflict that is challenging to resolve without really inconveniencing/harming one of the parties involved. Should an unwanted pregnancy be allowed to be ended if the mother cannot handle it (especially before it is too late to get it done)? Or should women just suck it up and stay pregnant for all nine months against their will?

Now where is this sort of dilemma when it comes to infant/child circumcision?

IMO, abortion should only be allowed when there is a significant risk to the mother's health. Otherwise, she should've been more careful and knew the risks going in. Her not wanting to "inconvenience herself" or the child not becoming an orphan is not justification enough for us to murder our young like that. It just simply isn't and it makes me sick that anyone thinks it is.

We should probably start a new thread about it, though.

(October 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 9, 2016 at 12:52 am)Aroura Wrote: Abortion is a terrible thing we allow because the consequences of restricting it are worse.

There are no terrible consequences to leaving a kidsmall sex organs intact. Though, initially circumcision practices began to prevent what less knowledgable folk though was disease caused by masterbation and premarital sex, a fair trade if true. Turns out it wasn't true. So harm is done for no real personal or societal benefit. That is the real argument being made.

Abortion is clearly harmful, no one argues that it isnt, but as a society we have judged the benefits to be greater than the harm.

In short, apples and oranges.

And as someone who has 'suffered' standard, Murican male genital mutilation .. it isn't so bad.  I'm sure I didn't enjoy it when it happened but it doesn't bother me now and I've suffered no disappointment in its use in more than fifty years of sexual sport and practice.  So I still maintain that male circumcision is an area where the law can reasonably permit tribal preferences to prevail.  I'm not telling the jews they can't call in the mohel to initiate their newborn son and I'm not telling Cath-y she is wrong to do it to her male child if that is what she and her husband choose.  I may wince, but I don't think how I feel about it is anything which should deter them from living life on their own terms.

Oh, I know.  My hubby is also cut, and sex is plenty fun for him.  I agree it seems a small amount of harm, at least if done where it is socially normal and many others are also cut. 
I'm just saying, there is no medical reason for doing it.  I mean, there are all sorts of things we might do to kids that are just a little harmful, no big deal in the long run, but if there is no measurable benefit, why continue the practice?  I don't think the goverment should legislate it, but I do advocate new parents educate themselves more, and not just make the choice because it was done to one of them.  It is a declining practice, even in the US, and someday you might be putting your kid in the minority.

Plus, I'm not telling Cathy anything.  She's great, but this discussion, this time, isn't about her.  It's about circumcision in general.  And we should feel free discuss it, as long as we aren't being rude or trying to shut others down.

(October 9, 2016 at 1:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm)Whateverist Wrote: And as someone who has 'suffered' standard, Murican male genital mutilation .. it isn't so bad.  I'm sure I didn't enjoy it when it happened but it doesn't bother me now and I've suffered no disappointment in its use in more than fifty years of sexual sport and practice.  So I still maintain that male circumcision is an area where the law can reasonably permit tribal preferences to prevail.  I'm not telling the jews they can't call in the mohel to initiate their newborn son and I'm not telling Cath-y she is wrong to do it to her male child if that is what she and her husband choose.  I may wince, but I don't think how I feel about it is anything which should deter them from living life on their own terms.

Quote:All I know is a person I care about was carrying a child which died before birth.  Don't really give a fuck what anyone else wants to call what she was carrying.  The phrase "carrying a child" in standard usage fits to a T.

-would you tell a parent that they cannot mutilate their daughters genitalia?  

How -could- you suffer disappointment, you have no point of comparison....ad is that really a very good justification for genital mutilation?  I probably wouldn't have been as impressed with the sex you've had, for example.  Not to say it wasn't awsome, rowdy, sweet, and all of the above or whatever it is that it strikes you as.  Just that I'd have felt more than you did.  How are you, in this, different from a female apologist for the cultural tradition of genital mutilation...who takes the stage to shame others into silence?

Losing a child, at any point in the pregnancy, is heartbreaking.  You don't have to tell me that.  My wife and I lived it, tried again, and got lucky with our last, as you might've remembered.  He had a little bit of trouble himself..again as you may remember..from my tortured posts between visits to the NICU.  In fact, no one, anywhere in the world, will ever be able to shame me into holding my tongue over anything, by referring to the loss of a child...which I've suffered on every conceivable level, unborn, and newborn...still living, and dead.  So stow it.

Well sorry for both your losses.  But arguing over what to call what had been carried before it was lost doesn't seem kind.  Maybe we can just all have our own thoughts about that, and if there is a legal nit to pick start a thread for those interested?

Politics and the law are messy.  Don't we agree that maximizing personal freedom is generally desirable?  But there are a lot of tough calls - especially as regards parents rights where their kids are concerned.  There are areas where parental rights are currently respected where I would prefer that the state and the law intercede.  Vaccinations for one.  But I'm just not feeling the need to intercede over circumcision.  [Insert obvious joke about mutilation induced loss of feeling here.]

Abortion is really the opposite situation where precedent of law already favors the individual's decision whether to continue a pregnancy.  I'm against changing that and I appreciate when people who feel strongly that abortion is a horror not constantly grind that ax at every opportunity.   I just think for the same reasons that people who feel my wiener is an atrocity not constantly bang away at it every opportunity they get.  Don't want the little guy to get a complex or start recovering memories.

(October 9, 2016 at 1:25 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: IMO, abortion should only be allowed when there is a significant risk to the mother's health. Otherwise, she should've been more careful and knew the risks going in. Her not wanting to "inconvenience herself" or the child not becoming an orphan is not justification enough for us to murder our young like that. It just simply isn't and it makes me sick that anyone thinks it is.

Not your uterus, not your business. Period. End of sentence.

(October 9, 2016 at 1:31 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Well sorry for both your losses.

Don't be, it's so common that it;s the fabric of human existence.  We're all made of heartier stuff. I'm guessing your friend is too. You romantic, you, lol.

Quote:But arguing over whether to call what had been carried before it was lost doesn't seem kind.  Maybe we can just all have our own thoughts about that, and if there is a legal nit to pick start a thread for those interested?

I don't think it matters at all what we call it, in fact I don't know why we even began to discuss abortion - I see no relevance to circumcision.  Can you recall, how and why that happened, how it become the subject of conversation? 

Quote:Politics and the law are messy.  Don't we agree that maximizing personal freedom is generally desirable?  But there are a lot of tough calls - especially as regards parents rights where their kids are concerned.  There are areas where parental rights are currently respected where I would prefer that the state and the law intercede.  Vaccinations for one.  But I'm just not feeling the need to intercede over circumcision.  [Insert obvious joke about mutilation induced loss of feeling here.]

Whos personal freedoms are we talking about?  The personal freedoms of a person to order another person to cut away part of yet another person?  I think that's an impressive failure to consider what would have the be the most relevant personal freedoms.  The personal freedom of the third party not to be subject to the situation described above and have the perpetrators shielded from law...by indifference and societal acceptance.  

Quote:Abortion is really the opposite situation where precedent of law already favors the individual's decision whether to continue a pregnancy.  I'm against changing that and I appreciate when people who feel strongly that abortion is a horror not constantly grind that ax at every opportunity.   I just think for the same reasons that people who feel my wiener is an atrocity not constantly bang away at it every opportunity they get.  Don't want the little guy to get a complex or start recovering memories.

You mean, in an abortion case, one particular set of interests is seen as the compelling interest?  Yeah....it is............  Do you thnk there might be a compelling interest in circumcision?  Whose is that, by your reckoning? I mean, I;m having this conversation here, with you, trying as hard as I can to get somebody to come down on the side of the baby....which is a regrettable failure, imo, in abortion cases...but a necessary one. Maybe we can;t stop them from being killed in utero....but, surely, we can stop people from hacking pieces of them away to suit religious convictions/misinformed cleanliness fetishism? We do that, for the girls......

(October 9, 2016 at 1:28 pm)Aroura Wrote: Oh, I know.  My hubby is also cut, and sex is plenty fun for him.  I agree it seems a small amount of harm, at least if done where it is socially normal and many others are also cut. 
I'm just saying, there is no medical reason for doing it.  I mean, there are all sorts of things we might do to kids that are just a little harmful, no big deal in the long run, but if there is no measurable benefit, why continue the practice?  I don't think the goverment should legislate it, but I do advocate new parents educate themselves more, and not just make the choice because it was done to one of them.  It is a declining practice, even in the US, and someday you might be putting your kid in the minority.

Plus, I'm not telling Cathy anything.  She's great, but this discussion, this time, isn't about her.  It's about circumcision in general.  And we should feel free discuss it, as long as we aren't being rude or trying to shut others down.

I agree that circumcision is yucky and not something I would want to inflict on any child I was responsible for. Even though the aftermath is not so awful, the process itself is not something I could even tolerate to watch. No way would I choose to wait comfortably in the next room while it was performed.

Nonetheless I'm on the side of individual freedom where male circumcision is concerned even though I'm against if for females. That is because, from what I understand, it is much worse long term for girls.

Where and when the state should intercede is tricky and best tread lightly. To pick a much less sensitive subject, if it were up to me, I would definitely seize every gun in the united states which wasn't issued to highly trained and monitored individuals. In this case I think most of us would agree the harm to the individual is far out weighed by the benefits to the society as a whole.

(October 9, 2016 at 1:37 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(October 9, 2016 at 1:25 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: IMO, abortion should only be allowed when there is a significant risk to the mother's health. Otherwise, she should've been more careful and knew the risks going in. Her not wanting to "inconvenience herself" or the child not becoming an orphan is not justification enough for us to murder our young like that. It just simply isn't and it makes me sick that anyone thinks it is.

Not your uterus, not your business. Period. End of sentence.

You want to kill a human being because you don't know how to avoid a pregnancy, keep it in your fucking pants.