Dr. Jay Gordon's Web Site - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 44 Old 03-31-2004, 11:26 AM
 
Quirky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 11,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Frankly Speaking
It is the medical profession who started this but they have been reticent to end it. They need to step up to the plate and take responsibility. They are the professionals and they should start acting professionally. If they don’t have the guts to take a stand, they are cowards. If they are worried about their practice suffering a financial loss, they are greedy. That pretty much says it all. I don’t see shades of grey here. It is men’s sexuality and lives that are in the balance.

Frank
EXACTLY. I was just coming to post the same thing! OceanSwimmer, it is incontestable that the medical profession in this country began and has perpetuated the practice of routine infant circumcision. Hell, for many years, parents weren't even given a choice - their baby boys (like my dh) were cut at birth without the question even being asked!

The strong impression I get from your posts (I won't go back and pull a bunch of quotations) is that you think change has to start with parents, and that it is parents driving the circumcision of infants. Well, how on earth are the vast majority of parents in this country, who have heard their whole lives about how circumcision is necessary, who have probably never even seen an intact penis, supposed to buck the trend unless they're educated by their doctors?

To put the blame on parents is to duck the collective responsibility the medical profession has to stop what they started, and still perpetuate today.

Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!

Quirky is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 of 44 Old 03-31-2004, 01:38 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,770
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
//
sahli29 is offline  
#33 of 44 Old 03-31-2004, 04:49 PM
 
Ocean_Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Frank:
"Babies do die from circumcision don't you know?"
This exemplifies the patronizing tone I dislike here. Doesn't this Forum have rules about discussing topics politely, or are you allowed to be rude without any self restraint?

"FGM legislation makes allowances for medically necessary surgery."
--Good to know; would you post a link, please? I haven't read it yet.

"The medical profession deserves no more respect than the garbage man deserves."
My garbage man resents being put in the same category as healthcare provider! :LOL

"I also see that I've been misunderstood as far as my stance regarding MGM and FGM: I don't endorse or recommend either."
"We understand this and we applaud you for your stance. What we don't endorse is the assertion that anyone has the right to demand or perform cosmetic, non-beneficial, sexually damaging, life threatening surgery on an unconsenting being without the express consent of that individual. That seems to be your stance."

--Uh, no, Frank. You've got me confused with someone else.:LOL

"From your posts it appears that you have anointed yourself as the official excuse maker and apologist for the medical profession."
--- :LOL --- Now, that's a laugh! :LOL
I posted here b/c it seems to me this Forum has not understood nor appreciated Dr. Gordon's contributions. It seems to have gone downhill from there. Suddenly, I'm accused of endorsing a practice I've repeatedly stated I oppose.
I post here with my personal opinions and experiences.
Dr. Gordon was our family pediatrician while we lived in LA.
I made a choice to speak up for someone who I know is a strong advocate for the rights of children in all ways, and has been for many, many years.

You disagree; we can agree to disagree.
I have no problem with that.


"I understand there were some posts that were aggressive and were removed. I did not see them but we have asked that he come back repeatedly. You can not judge the whole based on a few individuals and the whole would like to have him come back and join us."
---Interesting perspective, Frank: the Forum reserves the right to not be judged by a 'few individuals' but as a health care professional, I can be slammed for the wrongdoings of a few of my colleagues?
How consistent is that, especially in light of your remarks about Dr. Gordon? (i.e."...he believes that men have no right to their God given body and full sexuality. Even when pressed, he demurred."

"I have no doubt he is very good at his profession and is very caring and he has much to add to this forum.
However, he can't benefit those he claims to benefit if he wears his feelings on his sleeve."
--- How much patience do you think we should extend to a Forum that is rude, aggressive, and displays a complete lack of listening skills?
You want Dr. Gordon to come back?
Why should he?
He's out there doing what he's always done without any need for your endorsement (or condemnation, or judgment) Frank.
Just like myself. :LOL
I came into this forum as a mom and an experienced health care provider.
Apparently we aren't welcome here, or must pay some kind of wierd 'dues' b/c some forum members have had bad experiences w/ health care providers.
Somehow, we are held responsible for the wrongdoings of others. I take exception to that, and believe it's not appropriate.

With regards to respect, I mean the respect that is due everyone, regardless of age, sex, occupation, or membership in this Forum, etc., etc.

"I've had my run-ins in this issue but I always stand my ground and I am always consistent in my message. As a result of standing that ground, being consistent in my message and maintaining my ethics, I am well respected and valued here. That happened because I earned that respect, not because I demanded or expected it. It just came.
Dr. Gordon came here with that respect. It was pre-earned but by dodging us and the issues, he is losing that respect very quickly. It's like one of my early career managers said once: "It doesn't matter what you did yesterday. All that matters is what you do today and tomorrow. Yesterday is gone."

---Hmmm. Interesting perspective.
In health care, what we did years ago matters.
It matters to me.
It matters to our patients.
It matters to their families.
Parents on this Forum remember years afterwards experiences they had in healthcare---good and bad---so it matters to them.
In their lives and memories, yesterday is far from gone.
I appreciate knowing what has happened when parents have a bad experience. Especially when it isn't rubbed in my face.
I view it as one more lesson how --not-- to perform my duties.
It's a chance to learn and grow personally and professionally.
In that sense, yesterday is far from gone.

----I also disagree with the respect issue.
I believe everyone is entitled to respect.
Even when they act without courtesy.
However, I reserve the right to end the contact when the lack of courtesy persists.
It gets too annoying, especially since participation here is voluntary.
I don't volunteer for abuse! :LOL
[[I don't know anyone who does!]]

"Think of the young man who robs a convenience store and realizes he has done wrong. 30 years later, after living an exemplary life and working to make things better for his fellow Americans better, he is caught. Do you think he would be treated differently than a man who had been robbing convenience stores on a weekly basis throughout the 30 years? Of course he would be and that is as it should be and the way it would be if a doctor decided to reject the practice of circumcising infants."
--- Um, I think you're describing justice.
The courtroom is an arena.
It's all about winning.
I wish it weren't this way, but that's the difference between fairness and reality, at least in my experience.
See below:
"While there have been no reported cases of successful prosecution of a male circumcision that was performed to the standard of care and to which the parents consented, this may be largely an artifact of the cultural tolerance of a practice that other cultures consider reprehensible. Brigman recommends using existing state laws prohibiting assault and battery to prohibit circumcision, but acknowledges that it would be extremely difficult to obtain a conviction.
American attitudes toward neonatal circumcision may be in the throes of a paradigm shift [141]. The medical justifications suggested for neonatal circumcision are rapidly being exposed as myths, while the procedure's defenders are becoming more vocal in their attempts to prevent the truth about the procedure from being absorbed into mainstream American culture [142-144]. However, cultural blindness is likely to hinder progress in allaying the damage caused by male circumcision. Laws generally reflect societal attitudes and rarely herald dramatic social transformation. Likewise, judges are more likely to respond to well-established social trends than to be the vanguard of dramatic change. Courts naturally view issues through society's social and cultural prejudices [5]."
--From, Van Howe RS, Svoboda JS, Dwyer JG, Price CP. Circumcision: the legal issues. BJU International 1999; 83, Suppl 1:63-73.

"Male circumcision and your defense of the medical profession is nothing more or less than sexist and discriminatory."
--- Oookay, I see the connection between Male circumcision and sexism/discrimination, but defense of the medical profession?
Would you care to explain?

"Perhaps I've misunderstood, but it seems to me this Forum demands all doctors state publicly that he/she finds the practice in violation of human and constitutional rights....or be branded a cowardly, greedy, so-an-so....despite NEVER having performed a circumcision, and actively counseling parents about the risks and harm involved in such a procedure."
---I made this comment because it seems there is/was no recognition in this Forum that Dr. Gordon fulfills all the requirements of an AP-endorsing, non-circumcising pediatrician.

"Paul Fleiss, Robert Van Howe and many unnamed others who refuse to perform or endorse the procedure or to assert the rights of others over the integrity of [men's] [corrected to say---men's and women's---bodies] are the heroes. They have endured the slings and arrows and put their careers on the line when this was a far less popular issue.
They have earned their status."
---According to your definition, Jay Gordon and I are both heroes!

Thanks, Frank! :LOL
Ocean_Swimmer is offline  
#34 of 44 Old 03-31-2004, 05:26 PM
 
Ocean_Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Quirky

The strong impression I get from your posts (I won't go back and pull a bunch of quotations) is that you think change has to start with parents, and that it is parents driving the circumcision of infants. Well, how on earth are the vast majority of parents in this country, who have heard their whole lives about how circumcision is necessary, who have probably never even seen an intact penis, supposed to buck the trend unless they're educated by their doctors?

To put the blame on parents is to duck the collective responsibility the medical profession has to stop what they started, and still perpetuate today.
Hi Quirky,
The intent of my posts is to state my first-hand experiences: There are parents out there who are ready, willing, and happy to learn that circumcision is unnecessary.
There are also parents who are staunchly pro-circ.
It is a constant source of amazement to me these folks can read/hear the data and very forcefully, defensively, reject what seems obvious.
Circumcision does harm. It's assault and battery.
It has been linked every year with babies dying or being subjected to 'sexual reassignment'.
Despite this, some parents continue to insist upon the practice.
It is frustrating in the extreme to work hard to educate and discuss the issue w/ mixed results. Of course, nobody said that this would be easy work! :LOL
Ocean_Swimmer is offline  
#35 of 44 Old 03-31-2004, 08:17 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Ocean_Swimmer
[B]Frank:
"Babies do die from circumcision don't you know?"

This exemplifies the patronizing tone I dislike here. Doesn't this Forum have rules about discussing topics politely, or are you allowed to be rude without any self restraint?
There was no rudeness intended. Dr. Edgar Schoen puts forth the assertion that only 3 boys have died from circumcision in the past five decades. Many, many medical professionals believe this even though the truth is easily accessible through the internet. I didn't know if you held to this belief or not. I was simply asking.


Quote:
"FGM legislation makes allowances for medically necessary surgery."

--Good to know; would you post a link, please? I haven't read it yet.
Glad to:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...tle=18&sec=116


Quote:
"I also see that I've been misunderstood as far as my stance regarding MGM and FGM: I don't endorse or recommend either."

"We understand this and we applaud you for your stance. What we don't endorse is the assertion that anyone has the right to demand or perform cosmetic, non-beneficial, sexually damaging, life threatening surgery on an unconsenting being without the express consent of that individual. That seems to be your stance."

--Uh, no, Frank. You've got me confused with someone else.:LOL
---Uh, no, you said it was a parent's choice. Go back and read over your first post about this and you will see that you did say it. That's what the majority of this is all about. It's also what DR. Jay said. We say it's the parent's right to slice and dice their own genitals but not a defenseless child's. The fact that no one is enforcing the laws extending those rights does not mean the rights don't exist. It is just like there is still a speed limit even if the cops aren't there to enforce them at the moment you happen to pass by at 85 MPH.

Quote:
"From your posts it appears that you have anointed yourself as the official excuse maker and apologist for the medical profession."

--- :LOL --- Now, that's a laugh! :LOL
I posted here b/c it seems to me this Forum has not understood nor appreciated Dr. Gordon's contributions. It seems to have gone downhill from there. Suddenly, I'm accused of endorsing a practice I've repeatedly stated I oppose.
We have applauded Dr. Gordons contributions! I have repeatedly said that. What we don't applaud is his statement that someone has the right to slice and dice someone else's genitals. We've never accused you of endorsing circumcision but of trying to transfer the rights to a man's genitals to other persons and for aplogizing for those who allow it to happen. Clearly, you have done that. There's no denying it.


Quote:
"I understand there were some posts that were aggressive and were removed. I did not see them but we have asked that he come back repeatedly. You can not judge the whole based on a few individuals and the whole would like to have him come back and join us."

---Interesting perspective, Frank: the Forum reserves the right to not be judged by a 'few individuals' but as a health care professional, I can be slammed for the wrongdoings of a few of my colleagues?
The problem with the health care profession is it is not a few individuals, it is the vast majority. Something like 75-80% of OB/GYNs perform circumcisions and 55% of pediatricians do also. That's not a few individuals, that is the vast majority. I suspect the reason more pediatricians don't do them is because the OB/GYNs beat them to the line. To the contrary, it was indeed only a few individuals that apparently stepped out of line here.

Quote:
How consistent is that, especially in light of your remarks about Dr. Gordon? (i.e."...he believes that men have no right to their God given body and full sexuality. Even when pressed, he demurred."
He did in fact demurr. Apparently, it is his belief that men have no rights to their complete God given body otherwise, he would state that it is a violation of a man's bodily integrity.

Quote:
"I have no doubt he is very good at his profession and is very caring and he has much to add to this forum.
However, he can't benefit those he claims to benefit if he wears his feelings on his sleeve."

--- How much patience do you think we should extend to a Forum that is rude, aggressive, and displays a complete lack of listening skills?
Most people here were warm, polite and welcoming as I have stated before. There have been several very polite invitations extended to him to return. I don't know how much more we can do. We don't have total speech control over other members. What more can we do?

Quote:
You want Dr. Gordon to come back?
We have repeatedly stated that.

Quote:
Why should he?
If he is truly committed to the fight against circumcision, this is an excellent place to get the message out. Depends on whether he is really committed or not.

Quote:
He's out there doing what he's always done without any need for your endorsement (or condemnation, or judgment) Frank. Just like myself. :LOL
I don't pass out endorsements. It's not my job. However, it is well within my rights to make judgments about positions and if I disagree with a position, to condemn it. I believe that passing the rights to a person's body to another is wrong and I condemn that position.


Quote:
I came into this forum as a mom and an experienced health care provider.
Apparently we aren't welcome here, or must pay some kind of wierd 'dues' b/c some forum members have had bad experiences w/ health care providers.
Somehow, we are held responsible for the wrongdoings of others. I take exception to that, and believe it's not appropriate.
Certainly you are welcome here. However, if you take a position that is clearly against the majority, you should expect to be challenged. That is exactly what has happened. It is not against you but against your position. This is not a personal thing. You have decided to be the apologist for the medical profession and in doing that, you have taken the responsibility for the wrong doings of others on yourself. We didn't put it there, you did.





Quote:
---Hmmm. Interesting perspective.
In health care, what we did years ago matters.
"Yesterday" the profession did blood letting, skull drilling, electro-shock treatments, forced sterilizations, female and male circumcisions as well as many other horrendous things. Those things don't matter to us any more because your profession isn't doing them any more, except male circumcision. Male circumcision is just as horrendous and just as archaic. If you stopped doing them today and tomorrow, in a relatively short time we would forget about it too. However, the profession refuses to abandon the practice and we are not going to forget today, yesterday or tomorrow. This disgusting thing is carved into our genitals by your profession. It's a constant reminder. As long as the profession continues to do it, we are going to condemn the profession at every opportunity. Circumcision is NOT healthcare, it is mutilation and abuse! The profession has the best and quickest opportunity to bring it to an end and they are not only doing nothing, the vast majority is staunchly supporting and perpetuating it. There is just no adequate defense of that!


Quote:
"Male circumcision and your defense of the medical profession is nothing more or less than sexist and discriminatory."
--- Oookay, I see the connection between Male circumcision and sexism/discrimination, but defense of the medical profession?
Would you care to explain?
I don't understand what you would like me to explain.


Quote:
"Paul Fleiss, Robert Van Howe and many unnamed others who refuse to perform or endorse the procedure or to assert the rights of others over the integrity of [men's] [corrected to say---men's and women's---bodies] are the heroes. They have endured the slings and arrows and put their careers on the line when this was a far less popular issue.
They have earned their status."

---According to your definition, Jay Gordon and I are both heroes!
Well, in a word, no. Dr. Gordon has clearly indicated and you have clearly indicated that your moral convictions are against circumcision. However, it seems that neither of you have the force of character to go face to face and toe to toe with a parent and flatly tell them circumcision is wrong, that they have no right to do it and you condemn it. That is not the action of a hero.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#36 of 44 Old 03-31-2004, 11:41 PM
 
Ocean_Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Well, in a word, no. Dr. Gordon has clearly indicated and you have clearly indicated that your moral convictions are against circumcision. However, it seems that neither of you have the force of character to go face to face and toe to toe with a parent and flatly tell them circumcision is wrong, that they have no right to do it and you condemn it. That is not the action of a hero."

--- In a few words, Frank: You're wrong here.
You speak as if you've been present at the many discussions I've had w/parents.

Unfortunately, you've proven that you don't have a clue about the work some of us have done. The tide is turning; the circumcision rate is dropping in the US. I take pride in the fact that I've had plenty to do with that :LOL
Ocean_Swimmer is offline  
#37 of 44 Old 04-03-2004, 03:43 PM
 
myjo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I had a long post here, but deleted it all because I would have been flamed. Just wanted to say right on Oceanswimmer!
I'm totally against circumcision. But Parents should not have the right to choose taken away. If anyone wants to know why I feel that way, just ask. But don't flame me! I have very good reasons.
myjo is offline  
#38 of 44 Old 04-03-2004, 04:35 PM
 
Quirky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 11,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So, in that case, we should all work for the repeal of the law against female genital mutilation, because it is unfair that parents can choose to circumcise their boys but not their girls, particularly when their cultures have been doing it for thousands of years.

Off to write my congressional representatives right now!

Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!

Quirky is offline  
#39 of 44 Old 04-03-2004, 04:57 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by myjo
Parents should not have the right to choose taken away. If anyone wants to know why I feel that way, just ask. But don't flame me! I have very good reasons.
Myjo, I'm asking.

You seem to forget there are conflicts here. That's assuming that parents actually have this supposed and alledged right and I don't believe they do. But, assuming they in fact do, that right conflicts with the man's rights. As a matter of law, when conflicting parties assert that their rights have been violated and both assert they have these rights and it is confirmed that they do indeed have those rights, the courts have decided that the person who has the most to lose pervails. That is, if one person says that their right to free speech has been violated and the other person says their civil rights has been violated, the person who claims free speech rights loses and the person who claims a civil rights violation wins. That is because the person who claims a civil rights violation has the most to lose.

Now, in the case of circumcision, the child could possibly lose his life and certainly, loss of life trumps anything the parent could possibly lose. The child also runs the risk of a botched circumcision which could leave him with a badly damaged organ or no organ at all. Plus, the child loses a significant part of his sexaulity and I think that also trumps anything the parent could possibly lose. Finally, the child loses a part of his sexual organ that has a sexual and immunological function and I think that beats any right the parent has.

Consider the Constitution of The United States, specifically the 14th ammendment called the Civil Rights Act and more specifically, the clause in that ammendment called the Equal Protection Clause. It plainly states that laws can not be passed that do not give equal protection to all classes of citizens. In other words, a law may not be passed that only benefits whites or females, etc. All laws must give equal protection to all classes of citizens. Now consider the 1996 Female Genital Mutilation Law that says you may not make any cut or other alteration to the genitals of minor females and makes it a felony to do so except of medical necessity. Under the 14th Ammendment, Equal Protection Clause, this law must be extended to males or their constitutional civil rights have been violated. Forget that those rights are violated thousands of times daily with impudence and disregard.

So, we have established that the child's rights to life and limb, the right to his full sexuality and his right to bodily integrity, civil rights and right of self determination could all be violated. Pray tell, what right does the parent have to lose that would trump these rights? I contend that the parent suffers nothing if the right to choose that you assert is denied. Can you tell me anything at all the parent would lose if there were a law passed Monday morning outlawing minor male circumcision?

Finally, please tell me where this right of parents to choose to demand cosmetic, non-beneficial genital surgery exists in the laws of The United States or any of the states. I have never seen a statute that spells this out. I seriously doubt it exists and if it doesn't, then there is no right. However, I will stand corrected if you can show it to me.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#40 of 44 Old 04-03-2004, 06:37 PM
 
polka123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in criminally lenient, corrupt PA & *missing AZ *
Posts: 7,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well said Frank !

Me & DH hug2.gif , adult DD lips.gif & 7 yo DS guitar.gif . 2 GSDs, 6 rescue kitties, 4 birds & a gerbil.
polka123 is offline  
#41 of 44 Old 04-03-2004, 07:21 PM
 
myjo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Ocean_Swimmer likes this.
myjo is offline  
#42 of 44 Old 04-03-2004, 09:56 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#43 of 44 Old 04-04-2004, 11:23 AM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

merpk is offline  
#44 of 44 Old 04-04-2004, 03:20 PM
 
myjo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
myjo is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off