What do you think of this 28th amendment?
"Citizens have a right to bodily integrity. No doctor or religious leader shall remove a body part of a minor without medical indication."
What do you think of this 28th amendment?
Gavin Bailey
Other urls found in this thread:
pediatrics.aappublications.org
noharmm.org
healthychildren.org
arclaw.org
bt.dk
thelocal.se
can-fap.net
twitter.com
Brayden Stewart
I think its not Veeky Forums related and you should delete this thread before you get banned.
Christopher Ross
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law
>law
Blake Parker
it really is Veeky Forums related mate
Hunter Peterson
It doesn't have to do with a structure of government or a relationship of government to citizenry, it should not really be part of the constitution,just law if you think it's a good idea. Given the usual notions of parental control over minors and their medical (among other things) decisions, your proposed law seems to restrict that while not offering anything else except your anti-cirucmcision notions.
Joseph James
It should be enforced. Circumsissionis is disgusting barbaric practice.
Ayden Gray
One promising avenue of litigation is this:
U.S. Code §116 states: “Whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” Any alteration whatsoever of the female genitals is illegal. Therefore, due to the Equal Protection Clause (Amendment 14), any alteration of male genitals should also be illegal; otherwise, this constitutes gender discrimination.
Carson Foster
Gender discrimination does not mean what you likely think it means. Craig vs Bohen pretty much solidified intermediate scrutiny for sex related distinctions in law for Equal Protection analyses. As long as it "furthers an important government interest by means substantially related to that interest", it will be kept around. And said courts are likely to be deferential to whatever statistics the government pulls out to support said interests, unless you can prove that they're being used inconsistently.
Anthony Peterson
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the purported of health benefits to circumcision may interfere with equal protection. This is indeed one of the biggest problems with the US; the American Academy of Pediatrics dug itself into a hole of claiming health benefits contrary to almost every other pediatric institute in the world.
>"…nontherapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm."
>Signed by the heads or spokespeople for the pediatric associations of Austria, Britain, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and by senior paediatricians in Canada, the Czech Republic, France and Poland.
pediatrics.aappublications.org
So you think that once the American Pediatric Society finally takes its head out of the sand and concurs with the international consensus, equal protection can have a chance?
Angel Kelly
No, what I'm saying is that sex based invidious discrimination is not held to the same kinds of standards that race based or other "strict scrutiny"cases are. To overcome it is not easy, very few intermediate scrutiny challenges work. You would either have to say public health is not an important governmental goal (good luck), or that the legislation as exists does not substantially act within accord of that goal.
Then you'd need to actually formally challenge it. Which is harder than you might think because such a challenge would need to meet standards of both ripeness and not being moot. Courts, especially federal courts do not wish themselves to be replacements for legislative action. They add or remove laws on case by case bases in order to properly adjudicate individual cases before them. Nobody is forced to get a circumcision in America, except by their parents. Parental control of their minor children and medical procedures done upon them is pretty ironclad. And if you don't want your kids to get them, you just don't get them for your kids. You'd need to find someone who was actually circumcised against their wishes (as an adult) for a non-medically valid reason, or someone who just had one happen because of them.
You want to get an anti-circumcision law in place? Go through the legislative avenue, not the judicial one. You'll never make this work.
Jordan Ortiz
Why are people so obsessed with circumcision? I really don't get it. I don't like it, but I don't see the need to spam my beliefs on it everywhere. Is this a form of extreme projection and insecurity?
Jacob Price
>actually wanting to let (((them))) cuck your dick.
Good goyim. Have a shekel.
Charles Brown
OY VEY ANUDDAH SHOAH!!!
Isaac Baker
>(((EPIC JOO MEME XD)))
Ok /pol/. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying, why is there a vocal minority that's so obsessed with constantly spamming shit about it? It seems like some really hard projection.
Noah Carter
Cutting a piece of your dick off creeps a lot of men out. Understandably, In my opinion.
Dominic White
Yeah what's up with people wanting an intact penis, how anti-semitic
James Sanders
I think it's the greatest human rights violation in the Western world. It's male genital mutilation, full stop. There are an estimated 100,000 seeking foreskin restoration because of how unhappy they are with it, and while they can stretch the skin, they can never get back the highly erogenous tissue that is the inner foreskin and frenulum.
The majority of circumcised individuals resent it and have feelings of mutilation. A child cannot consent to circumcision. There is no medical reason to cut off a perfectly normal and healthy piece of erogenous genital flesh from a child without their consent.
Fortunately, there have been some successful lawsuits against doctors by men circumcised as infants, even if their parents consented, because it was done without medical indication and they suffered injury as a result (namely, circumcision—a severe injury).
Jayden Reed
That's ridiculously obtuse
Gabriel Richardson
In fairness, the whole 'cut versus uncut' thing has been a Veeky Forums staple since before all the cringy 14 year old wannabe nazis migrated here from reddit. It's guys acting tribal about cocks basically. But if you're wondering why people care about it in the first place it's because circumcision of newborns without any medical reason is barbaric. No two ways about it. And it's not a conversation you can actually have in public because of the religious implications of banning the unnecessary mutilation of little boys' genitals. That's basically what happened in Germany when they tried to ban it. The jews and muslims started freaking the fuck out about it. Even some christians started freaking the fuck out about it too because it threatened the idea that 'religious reasons' should be good enough reasons to do anything, no matter how much of a violation it is to the newborn boys. So when you aren't actually allowed to loudly oppose it, you just oppose it in the anonymous semi-privacy of Veeky Forums.
Luis Stewart
>The majority of circumcised individuals resent it and have feelings of mutilation.
Please provide citation for this claim.
> A child cannot consent to circumcision
This is the main point, and it is irrelevant. Parents (or someone acting in loco parentis for whatever reason) have the right to consent on behalf of their minor children for surgery. You would need to demonstrate why parental rights to make decisions on behalf of their children should be abrogated in this instance (But presumably not other instances of similar nature). If you have any legal standing to base this on, I would love to see it.
>Fortunately, there have been some successful lawsuits against doctors by men circumcised as infants, even if their parents consented, because it was done without medical indication and they suffered injury as a result (namely, circumcision—a very severe injury).
I am unaware of any such case where the lawsuit was over the circumcision itself and not because of a later complication developing. The same could be used to support a successful lawsuit for any surgery.
Isaiah Morales
I intended for since the original disappeared.
Matthew Clark
>(But presumably not other instances of similar nature)
Are you saying that any parents who choose to make their child have plastic surgery or similar wouldn't immediately be charged with child abuse?
Jace Sullivan
The cutfags who circumcise their sons do it due to tribal identity. We speak of this because it is an important human rights issue.
noharmm.org
>Emotional distress, manifesting as intrusive thoughts about one’s circumcision, included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to intact men (50%), genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal (30%).
This is in the UK, mind you, where only 6% of men are circumcised. It might be different in the US, but I took this poll on /b/ a few days ago and most are unhappy about it.
Google it. There have been successful lawsuits due to the loss of sexual pleasure, which is the circumcision itself.
For instance, intact men can orgasm from stimulation of the frenulum alone; it's called a foregasm. The frenulum is cut off in circumcision. Significant loss of sexual pleasure.
Lincoln Anderson
Why don't people just stop circumcising their children?
Daniel Powell
And of course, how many kids get their ears or noses pierced? How many of them get charged with child abuse.
Cooper Wright
Of course people who reply to an online poll asking "how do you feel about your circumcision" will overwhelmingly have an axe to grind, at the very least the "I don't care camp" is obviously underrepresented.
Justin Miller
>noharmm.org
Surveyed 546 men. On a site that admits to pulling numbers out of its ass. Come on, show a real citation.
>Google it. There have been successful lawsuits due to the loss of sexual pleasure, which is the circumcision itself.
You google it. You made the claim, you back it up.
Blake Adams
There is a very, very big difference between teenagers who want to get cosmetic surgery and newborn boys who have their foreskins chopped off for no reason other than their parents want it to happen. There is also a vast chasm between a little girl getting her ears pierced and a newborn boy having his foresking PERMANENTLY REMOVED.
There really is no argument here. Are you trying to do a devil's advocate thing or something? There's nothing you can say to defend it.
Mason Myers
It's a peer-reviewed medical journal article published in the British Journal of Urology.
>BJU International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999 (British Journal of Urology)
546 is a large random sample. The results are statistically significant.
Gavin Roberts
>There is a very, very big difference between teenagers who want to get cosmetic surgery and newborn boys who have their foreskins chopped off for no reason other than their parents want it to happen.
No, there isn't. Parents have the legal right to make medical decisions for their children up until the age of majority.
> There is also a vast chasm between a little girl getting her ears pierced and a newborn boy having his foresking PERMANENTLY REMOVED.
You're getting very emotional about htis. Stop and think for a minute.
>There really is no argument here. Are you trying to do a devil's advocate thing or something? There's nothing you can say to defend it.
I am trying to tell you what the structure of American law (especially constitutional law) is like and you're blaming me for not being partisan in your favor. Show me a case that challenges a parent's right to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. Your entire position is basically saying "I know how to treat these kids better than the parents do, so they should be forced by law to agree with me." You will never, ever get a court to sign off on that.
Oliver Evans
It is a very emotional topic. It's male genital mutilation.
________________
________________
The Danish Society of General Medicine, DSAM:
>"If circumcision is performed without a medical indication, it is a case of mutilation."
arclaw.org
bt.dk
———————————
Swedish Paediatric Society:
>"We consider it to be an assault on these boys"
>“It's a mutilation of a child unable to decide for himself"
>"BLF has now concluded that the procedure ought to be banned"
thelocal.se
Do you think any country will ban MGM (male genital mutilation) in our lifetime?
Connor Carter
Here's the thing. Just because the laws of your particular country say that its okay to do, doesn't mean it's okay to do. This is a moral argument, not a legal one. There is a such thing as bad laws. What you're doing here isn't an argument, it's just asserting your country's laws as if they're infallible moral facts. Just like if I was having this argument with a jew or a muslim, they'd assert their holy writings as infallible moral facts. Again, not an argument.
Also
>You're getting very emotional about htis. Stop and think for a minute.
Lol, good counter there. Face it, comparing 16 year olds getting tit jobs and prepubescent girls getting their ears pierced to the needless removal of part of a newborn's genitals is the false equivilance to end all false equivilances.
Isaiah Smith
A teenager getting cosmetic surgery with his parents' consent is very different from someone getting cosmetic surgery without their own consent.
Cameron Fisher
This. And circumcision is more than cosmetic too, as has already been pointed out in this thread. It may not be an integral part of the male genitalia, but it is there for a reason.
Kayden Lee
Oh yeah I can't understand why people would feel upset that a piece of their genitalia was needlessly cut off...
...or why anyone would want to ban such things happening...
Easton Rivera
>No, there isn't. Parents have the legal right to make medical decisions for their children up until the age of majority.
I wasn't aware that ear piercings were permanent, excruciatingly painful removal of functioning tissue.
Ethan Morgan
No, what I'm asserting is that if you want to make a legal change, especially by going through the courts instead of the legislature, you will in fact need to make a legal argument. Which you not only have not done, but you seem actually disdainful of the need to do so.
>Lol, good counter there. Face it, comparing 16 year olds getting tit jobs and prepubescent girls getting their ears pierced to the needless removal of part of a newborn's genitals is the false equivilance to end all false equivilances.
Then show me what court will consider such an argument. Where does the parent's legal rights start to erode at 15 or 16? What's your support of it?
David Ward
>I wasn't aware that ear piercings were permanent, excruciatingly painful removal of functioning tissue.
I wasn't aware that was a relevant factor. Parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children. Do you have anything to contest this?
James Flores
It's not a medical decision! It's a cosmetic decision. The international consensus is that circumcision has no compelling health benefits .
Carter Myers
If the foreskin is sealed shut at birth preventing urination, then cutting it off is a medical decision.
If it's perfectly normal and healthy, it's a cosmetic decision.
Daniel Stewart
Going into surgery, cosmetic or otherwise, is a medical decision. In any event, parents also have the legal right to make cosmetic decisions on behalf of their children as well.
Justin Miller
No they don't. Female genital mutilation is illegal.
Adam Stewart
Are you honestly not understanding me? Or are you deliberately doing so so you can advance your position on a taiwanese grass weaving forum?
Colton Garcia
Parents do not have the right to make cosmetic decisions for their children, not even a tattoo.
And just because something requires surgery doesn't mean it's a medical decision. Some women seek labioplasty, a cosmetic surgery. I challenge you to say that a parent has the right to have a labioplasty performed on their infant daughter.
Parker Campbell
The fact that parents can have the cosmetic surgery of circumcision performed on their son, but not the cosmetic surgery of labioplasty performed on their daughter, is an inconsistency in the law.
Jackson Wilson
Man's sexual function is not severely inhibited by the loss of foreskin, and I say this as a man who was cut later in life.
Evan Martin
"Not severely inhibited." Just inhibited. You can't masturbate like a normal person. And you can't have a foregasm (frenulum orgasm) anymore.
Julian Sanchez
Just get out.
Adrian Brooks
It doesn't even matter. The infant has a right to bodily integrity.
Cooper Brooks
No u
There is no 28th amendment proposition and this whole thread is fucking disguised soapbox for anti circumcision faggots who can't shut the fuck up
Zachary Powell
You are not allowed to be pro infant circumcision and it is very necessary to keep calling you out on your views until you either change your beliefs or kys.
OP didn't say that there is such a proposal, and besides, this kind of discussion is board relevant in any case.
Caleb Parker
I just knew that this thread would be about penis mutilation rituals.
Matthew Jones
Triggered leftypol subhuman detected
Robert Bell
So cite the relevant case law or GTFO
Samuel Reyes
No, what you're asserting is that your particular country's laws have some kind of god like status where they can't be questioned or challenged. Again, this is a moral debate, not a legal one. It isn't about what the laws are, it's about what they should be. Whatever knowledge you have of your own countries laws isn't relevant here. The fact that you honestly believe in the infallibility of human laws is profoundly stupid. We might as well never have another argument again about how a society should be run and what should be legal or illegal because apparently the status quo is unquestionable. If you can't understand this very basic idea, you're either too idiot to be having this argument or (I suspect) trying to cheese your way out of having to actually defend the needless genital mutilation of newborn children. Nobody's buying it either way.
Logan Young
Sounds like a matter of public policy and not law
If you really cared about the integrity of your body, you'd care more about researchers keeping your DNA
Daniel Foster
Try exercising your parental rights to cut off your daughter's clitoris or labia, or branding or tattooing your kid.
Carson Bell
Even if you’re not against circumcision, amendments/laws like this could still be beneficial to children born with intersex conditions and suscepted to cosmetic surgeries (whether done with parents’ permission or not). I’m all for it
Jace Butler
>circumcision thread
Carter Roberts
How is this related to reddit?