Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

by their own consent after the age of majority with proper anesthesia and sanitary precautions... since you haven't been paying attention. that is none of my business. because it is in the state's specific interests to ensure integrity of the workforce. arms are generally necessary for work. preserving them when possible is again, in the state's specific interests. i do, but to differentiate them legally is really beyond the scope of the specific national interest. as long as the practice does not prevent the creation of new taxpayers, does not create direct and demonstrable harm, and is done consensually, it's not my business or that of the state. from your own quote, my emphasis added: actually, yes it does. it clearly permits people who are of at least the age of majority to have their own labia or clitoris removed. that's a shame. you want to tell me why illinois, minnesota, rhode island, and tennessee feel the need to peek into women's doctors' offices? good. no. women who are at least 18 years old should be allowed to have their own genitalia removed. you missed the other half of my statement.

yes. but not all of them do it. so why don't you stop generalizing. and they don't think they're not going to go to heaven because of it. clearly it's because it's not a congruent procedure. if i rub my leg too hard, i will eventually make it raw or wear out the elasticity and tear it and potentially develop an infection. so you're going to tell me that because someone is irresponsible in the degree of force used on sensitive tissue that it's not their own damn fault they tore it? gj. if i pick my fucking pimples and they scar, it's my own fucking fault. jesus. it doesn't take the kind of force necessary to tear the fucking skin. maybe he should clean and trim his nails. yes, people do that too, and wrongly. but they also treat penile cancer with circumcision. the word treat implies that one ALREADY HAS WHATEVER IS BEING TREATED. literacy is amazing. omg you mean they also use it to treat people who already have cancer? omg i had no idea (for fuck sake.) just because someone makes a different choice than you would have doesn't mean they aren't behaving rationally. no. you said it can't be done properly. i said it can. if it's not being done properly, then work to change that. but you're not going to accomplish it by pissing at me on the internet. write your fucking congressman. no, and no one should cut off their baby's foreskin unless there is an urgent life or health threatening issue. you're the only one talking about infants.

hint: lung infections are either caused by bacteria or virii. and how in the fuck would i find that specific article with nothing to go on by jama, circumcision, and tuberculosis if you don't provide a specific citation of any sort. no, but tuberculosis is generally acquired through airborne transmission. anything else is out of the norm. oh look, we have a new favorite insult. i have an idea. lets make a new rule. no one on the board can post on anything they don't have a degree it.

since forever. laws only exist in such cases as the state has a significant and demonstrable interest in the certain thing. that's what laws do. and i hate to be the one to tell you, you are a cog in the machine. because it is in the state's higher interest to preserve a life rather than to guarantee an additional life afterwards. i think so
but. no. you're misunderstanding. it is in the interest of the state to encourage procreation, not reduce it. if you're not smart enough to make that connection, you have issues. it depends. does splitting the end of my tongue harm me? it's body "mutilation". does getting my labia size and shaped change because i don't think it's sexy enough harm me? it's body "mutilation". if i burn my skin so that it doesn't grow hair, i have "mutilated" my body. is that harmful? if i stain my skin with heavy metals in less than toxic levels i have "mutilated" my body. but have i harmed myself? if i scar the tissue under my breasts to that i don't have to wear a bra anymore i have "mutilated" my body. have i done harm to myself? if i identify as a woman, but i have a penis, have i harmed myself by having my genitalia changed? it certainly should qualify as "mutilation". because removing an arm generally prevents one from doing work and contributing to the economy. however, unless cosmetically changing the external structure of your genitalia prevents you from having children, the state has no interest in preventing it. in fact, since the state has said that people have a right to control and prevent procreation, the state has no legitimate interest in preventing consenting adults from "mutilating" their genitalia in such a way as to prevent births. because you haven't done your job and written your congressmen. it's all your fault. sure. but malpractice means doing something incorrectly or doing something unwanted. i'm not convinced that a country that allows labioplasty should ban extreme labioplasty, since, in medicalized conditions, that's what we're talking about. because you haven't written your congressman. no. i pointed out that it is possible for the procedure to be done properly. if you refuse to take the necessary political steps to see that this only happens to consenting adults, then that's your fault.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

just because religion is involved doesn't mean they have no choice. i assure you that we religious people are capable of exercising choice. fine. i hate men and they should all be bled to death by cutting their dicks off. happy? do you think they searched women's pants? do you think someone would actually report the condition of their genitals in a culture in which they don't fit? that sounds like the "oops i slipped and fell and my pants got ripped off and my dick was suddenly inside her" accidental sex argument. i'm manually stimulated several penises, and some quite forcefully. i've never torn a dick. in fact, i've know a few people who have torn their foreskins by masturbating too forcefully, but never one who tore his circumcised penis in the same fashion. so a mastectomy of a cancerous breast isn't the removal of the breast, per se, just the excision of the tumor which happens to be in the breast. there's lots of things that aren't "normal" that have been labeled "disorders". i've taken to disbelieving that term. no, it justifies the removal of the foreskin for the purpose of treating cancer. so write your congressman and piss off. no, i don't. i say that it's not equivalent to fgm. there's a big difference. it's still wrong, but it's not equivalent. it's not the same procedure. period. you're talking about banning things. i'm talking about the ways laws should be written in order to do the most good without infringing on the rights of individuals to define their own sexuality.

responsible people cite their sources when they make reference to them. fair enough.

i don't defend it. saying it isn't an equivalent procedure doesn't mean i'm defending either.

no, dope. it is in the state's interests to ensure that people are capable of contributing to the economy. the economy is good for the state, they must encourage it. in general, more citizens is beneficial. and, what is enough? but, i imagine the increased population in the last century has contributed to the social acceptability of birth control. i used "quotation marks" for a reason, dope. is one of the few times the constitution protects you from other people and not the state. why do you think we have public schools with mandatory attendance? the state does have a say in whether you become a productive member of society. it does qualify as "mutilation," doesn't it? don't you see that that isn't their concern? peoples reproductive habits and organs are generally in their own purview, not the government's. well, if it's still legal, you haven't been working hard enough.

no, it indicates that i never fucking thought about it. i'm sorry. i don't tend to dick around with bacteria, i try to keep them away from me. in the mean time, i didn't spout off. you mentioned one small claim and i answered it. badly, i apologize. but since germ theory really has very little to do with our discussion of whether or not we should criminalize circumcision, i'm not concerned. especially since you seem to have your own extreme misunderstanding of law and political reality.

and yet you can't see why i'm trying to discuss building laws that follow this simple principle of allowing people to do to their bodies what they want. you know why we don't let people chop their arms off? because that requires that we accommodate them in their new disability. cosmetic changes to genitals doesn't require accommodation. it's no one's damn business. so. we outlaw cosmetic surgery on minors except for life-endangering situations and we outlaw transporting minors outside of the country for that purpose. if we can arrest paedophiles for diddling kids in thailand, then we can arrest parents for mutilating their children in africa. so we do it. we pass the laws. and then we enforce them. and we institute educational programs in our schools and over public and private media that demonstrate the harm and damage these procedures cause. that's the only way we can hope to end the practices. both need to be ended.

it wasn't my example. and, i don't really see a reason not to allow them to decide what their own body integrity means. rhain's argument was that we don't allow people to chop their arms off. i argued why that might be. but, it really should fall under medical privacy.

that's okay. if i could avoid following this discussion, i would.

do you really think the state has no interest in and exercises no interest in economic success? you know what. i call bullshit. i shouldn't have even stepped into this shit. having and exercising economic interest doesn't require slavery. so why is it that we're emphasising math and reading and not government theory classes? how did you graduate from high school if you don't know that the government has a vested interest in economic and monetary success? [qs]

quote:

---

peoples reproductive habits and organs are generally in their own purview, not the government's.

---

Indeed.But the justification isn't a question of economic ability. Do you understand why the phrase "a danger to oneself or others" includes the reference to the self?what does that have to do with reproducive organs? and who defines danger? you? the problem is not me. if you put a reasonable law on the ballot, i'll vote for it. but i have other things to campaign for. we can't all do everything. that i shouldn't have started talking to you. blah blah blah blah. i think you knew what i mean. i happen to have a nasty colon of staph in my head as we speak. i'm sure you're not so daft as to think i was talking about the various things in my stomach instead. except that someone else called you on your bullshit, too. so. show me where it's illegal to cut of your own arms. oh sure, you can be baker acted, but do show me the laws against self-mutilation. clearly there isn't since you happen to be mistaken in this "it's illegal to mutilate yourself" crap. i gave you the benefit of the doubt. clearly i was sorely wrong.but look. you have no understanding whatsoever of law or government and i'm really quite done with you. your threads have been nothing but "you don't care about my dick enough" and i've had it. get over yourself.

when people here get stumped at anything better to say, they accuse you of some manner of bigotry and then make the discussion all about their claim. it's cute, really.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

that's nice. you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles of culture and politics and you argue political theory incompletely, inconsistently, and inaccurately, and you won't listen to, well, experts. i suggest you do some reading on the realities of international and transnational organizations before you decide to resurrect this topic. you can get books off amazon for less than $6 or you can go to your local university library. i assure you, any book i recommend to you will be found there. if you want a list of my comprehensive exam reading list, i can give it to you. then, you can start to have an idea of what you're talking about.