Dr. Jay Gordon's Web Site - Page 3

[myjo]

Frank, I understand why you feel so strongly about this. I would probably feel the same way if someone had performed female circumcision on me as a baby. But there are other issues involved here that I am not allowed to discuss in this forum. I will however tentatively concede that possibly medical circumcision should be outlawed. But as I'm sure you are aware, that is not the only type of circumcision that is performed in this country.

For the record, my personal opinion on the matter is that circumcision as it is performed medically (not necessarily religiously) is terribly cruel. Both my boys are intact, and I'm extremely happy I was able to make an informed choice about this. I feel horrid for my poor brother who was circumcised at two days of age by an arrogant doctor who didn't even ask my mother and father's permission. He screamed for days and this impeded my mother's ability to bond with him.

I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at here, I just can't go into any more detail or this discussion will take a turn for the worst and my posts would probably be deleted. So pm me if you like.

[Frankly Speaking]

I understand what you are talking about and you are right that we are not to discuss religion except in the most respectful way and only at a minimum and only as it pertains to the subject. I have just re-read the sticky about religious discussion and I am not going to discuss religion. I am going to discuss the law and how it applies to religion.

That being said, the 1996 Female Genital Mutilation law makes no exemption for religion. Girls, no matter what their parent's religion and no matter what their religion says may not have any part of their genitals cut or modified in any way whatsoever except of medical necessity. PERIOD!

Please refer to my discussion of the 14th Ammendment above and the Equal protection Clause.

As stated above, the person(s) wanting to assert that they have this right to choose based on religious belief must show that they have more to lose than the child has to lose in order to prevail. When the child has the very real chance of losing his life as opposed to the parents not being able to abide by one of the 613 laws the religion suscribes to, I think it is a no brainer. If presented with the simple question "Which prevails, the right of freedom of religion or the right to life when the two rights are in conflict?" any judge would say without hesitation "The right to life!"

Now, go ahead and try to convince me of the opposite. I'm a very good listener and I'm very open to other's ideas. I will give them fair consideration.




Frank

[merpk]

by Frankly Speaking
... and I am not going to discuss religion. I am going to discuss the law and how it applies to religion ...
the parents not being able to abide by one of the 613 laws the religion suscribes to ...

Frank. Just because you don't mention "the religion" but call it by a not-subtle pseudonym doesn't mean you're being subtle.

There's another religion that ritually circumcizes, BTW.

All I wanted to say.

[myjo]

Frank, I pm'd you. I'll just say here that I don't necessarily agree with the law at this point. I know that's how it works because judges have taken away the rights of parents of my religion many times. (I not in some anti-medical cult or something, just to make it clear)

It doesn't make it right.