How confusing: remember the story about the convert to Judaism who was trying to compel his adolescent son to be circumcised? I was persuaded by others that the story was almost certainly an urban legend, but now it turns out that there really is a pending court case that fits the particulars. The Oregonian reports the details, but leaves out the names of those involved (the accusation that this was faked was in part based on the similarities of the names to those in a work of fiction with a similar premise; could it be that the fictional names were used because they fit the story?) In addition, they have a quote from an Oregon lawyer defending the father's right to put his kid through unnecessary cosmetic surgery.
But Julie H. McFarlane, a supervising attorney with the Portland-based Juvenile Rights Project, said that the child's consent for a medical procedure is not required until he turns 15.
"I think the dad has the legal right as the custodial parent to make those kind of religious or medical decisions," McFarlane said. "It's not much different from cosmetic surgery."
15??? Now they tell me, after my daughter turns 16. Maybe threats to carry out random weird cosmetic operations on her would have been a useful tool for getting her to do the dishes. Now she's just going to roll her eyes and tell me she won't sign the consent form, darn it.
I do wonder what has happened to the Hippocratic Oath, though. What doctor would carry out such unnecessary surgery if the child or mother were opposing it? Or is Dad just going to find some quack rabbi who will hack it off under the protection of his synagogue? That's one easy way around ethical considerations — find someone who will use the imagined word of a god to justify violating them.
- Log in to post comments
"While the author describes nerves present in the foreskin, to demonstrate loss would involve disproving nerve regeneration."
Back to talking in circles, I see..didn't we both acknowledge that negative proof cannot exist--so how can this this alleged foreskin nerve regenerataion be disprrven..back to denial of both logic and scientific concepts..
Since what you request is impossible, the only possible way out for you is to provide proof that they do--and this have miserably failed to do.
So, again, when can we expect you to demonstate that they do regenerate?
"Back to talking in circles, I see..didn't we both acknowledge that negative proof cannot exist--so how can this this alleged foreskin nerve regenerataion be disprrven..back to denial of both logic and scientific concepts.."
As I have previously remarked, the difficulty in proving your case is not my problem. In debate, one should be willing to prove any claim one makes. The implication of this is that one should not make a claim that one cannot prove. If you are foolish enough to claim as a fact something that is impossible to prove, then at the least you should be able to admit this. (I have indicated on many occasions that such an admission would be perfectly acceptable.)
However, in point of fact, I outlined a method in post 488 that would suffice for the purpose of demonstrating your case.
"If you are foolish enough to claim as a fact something that is impossible to prove, then at the least you should be able to admit this. (I have indicated on many occasions that such an admission would be perfectly acceptable.)"
LOL, and THIS is is an example of how your faulty mental process works.. with this nonsense then no one anywhere anytime can ever make any claim--as some moron can simply come along with a wild-butt speculation and merely demand someone provide some negative proof which is not possible?
Since you keep resorting to "absolute proof" and "negative proof" it seems you are unable to comprehend and/or retain the concept that neither are possible and all we have is "scientific proof".
So, one cannot ever disprove your speculation, however, since prositive proof is posssible, you can disprove my claim by proving foreskin nerves regenerate.
BTW, your "method" is as faulty as your logic--I am still waiting for proof that someone, somewhere has ever regenerated ANY foreskin nerves.
"LOL, and THIS is is an example of how your faulty mental process works.. with this nonsense then no one anywhere anytime can ever make any claim--as some moron can simply come along with a wild-butt speculation and merely demand someone provide some negative proof which is not possible?"
You have yet to explain what is so "wild" about the suggestion that a process that is known to occur in the body in general may affect the penis.
"Since you keep resorting to "absolute proof" and "negative proof" it seems you are unable to comprehend and/or retain the concept that neither are possible and all we have is "scientific proof"."
Scientific proof such as the method outlined in post 488...
"You have yet to explain what is so "wild" about the suggestion that a process that is known to occur in the body in general may affect the penis."
I don't need to explain anything--foreskin nerve regeration is YOUR speculation--and something you have yet to provide any proof for--again, it is not MY job to support YOUR speculation.
"Since you keep resorting to "absolute proof" and "negative proof" it seems you are unable to comprehend and/or retain the concept that neither are possible and all we have is "scientific proof"."
Scientific proof such as the method outlined in post 488..."
So, when can we expect you to use this so-called method and show that this speculation of yours occurs.
For the umpteenth time--talk is cheap and you do nothing but talk! Please provide the proof for your speculation.
I am still waiting for proof that someone, somewhere has ever regenerated ANY foreskin nerves
"I don't need to explain anything--foreskin nerve regeration is YOUR speculation--"
Xin's, actually, as I explained in 395. I do wish you'd pay attention.
"and something you have yet to provide any proof for--again, it is not MY job to support YOUR speculation."
Again, please pay attention. I am not asking you to support "my" speculation. I am asking you to explain your description of it as "wild".
"So, when can we expect you to use this so-called method and show that this speculation of yours occurs."
What on earth gives you the impression that I have the slightest intention of doing so? Since I have not claimed that it definitely occurs, there is no obligation on my part to prove such a claim. On the other hand, since you have asserted (by implication) that it does not, you have such an obligation.
One that you seem determined to avoid.
"What on earth gives you the impression that I have the slightest intention of doing so? Since I have not claimed that it definitely occurs, there is no obligation on my part to prove such a claim."
LOL, the typical circumfetishist's and/or circumcision apologist's response--you sure talk the talk, but sure don't walk the walk...it all boils down to IF you cannot support your assertion, then one need not even consider this speculation.
"On the other hand, since you have asserted (by implication) that it does not, you have such an obligation."
Still trying thr old "shifting the burden of proof" game? Sorry--it is YOUR speculation..and without any proof of it's existence, my only obligation is to dismiss it as mere idle speculation by me.
Still unable to comprehend that only scientific proof can exist? Simple concept--absolute and negative proof are impossible--you might try a bit harder to comprehend and/or retain this simple concept.
"One that you seem determined to avoid."
The only avoidance here is YOUR avoidance of the requirement for YOU to support YOUR speculation.
"it all boils down to IF you cannot support your assertion, then one need not even consider this speculation."
Ok. I'm speculating that gravity in my home works the same way as elsewhere. Are you seriously telling me that you "need not even consider this speculation"?
"Sorry--it is YOUR speculation"
I see no point in continuing to discuss the issue with you when you persist in making such incorrect statements in spite of being corrected. Let me know when you're willing to pay attention and correctly attribute the origin of the suggestion.
ohh, more empty words.. I am sooo not impressed.
When you are able to support your speculation with proof, I will gladly discuss that "proof" with you.
Until then reality rules, and will not be affected in the least by your words,speculations, or even the latest word-suggestion.
why on earth is this father forcing this on the son ....the courts should be taking that kid away from that parent for emotional abuse if not for the physical trauma
why is the court system involved in this anyway
Let me put it this way... I'd consider any such woman perverted and, erm, select someone else. I'm with comments 57 and 126.
Huh?
Creepy. Deeply creepy.
Looks like someone has a totally irrational phobia of urine tract infection. Comment 77 says it's even counterproductive; I'm not surprised at all.
LOL! This undoes much of the emotional damage I have inflicted on myself by reading that far. :-)
Off the top of my head, I can think of one. Europe, Canada, and Japan lack abstinence-only "education" and, as expected, have lower rates of teen pregnancies. I suppose that means lower rates of unprotected sex, which clearly explains something.
But Mexico?!?
If you want the Latin plural, that's penes...
You're kidding, right?
It's not that simple. When I was in hospital for middle ear infection, it was suggested to take my tonsils out while they were at it, just so, for no particular reason. I still have my tonsils, and haven't ever had problems with them.
So would I.
WTF? I've read a book on a 16th-century Jew who (among many other things) wrote a treatise on how damaging the phrenulum is not only not required by Jewish law but highly counterproductive to healing and later function. The stupid! It burns!!!
Am I glad I don't even know where the phrenulum is. Please don't tell me.