Floridian parental spat over foreskin now goes to court

[Saruhan]

Oh humanity...
Why does Hironimus making such a big deal about this?
It's his penis, his decision!
Of course, being at such a young age, who is he to have a choice in this?
So, let his father (Who has a fair chance of also having a penis) make the decision for him.

A human being who'll have a part of him remove for no reason whatsoever that'll give no benefits at all

[The BaRen]

Oh humanity...
Why does Hironimus making such a big deal about this?
It's his penis, his decision!
Of course, being at such a young age, who is he to have a choice in this?
So, let his father (Who has a fair chance of also having a penis) make the decision for him.

Why should the decision default to the father?

Now that I think about it...
Just kill them all.
Problem solved!
Next!

[Olthar]

It's his penis, his decision!

Agreed.

So, let his father (Who has a fair chance of also having a penis) make the decision for him.

That's quite the disgusting contradiction.

[Sailsia]

My opinion on the issue has changed in recent years. I'm against parents making the decision to remove a part of their child for non-medical reasons. It's wrong to take away a part of someone's manhood without their ability to consent.

[Saruhan]

Why should the decision default to the father?

Now that I think about it...
Just kill them all.
Problem solved!
Next!

Non sequiturs, the movie, the biopic, the post, based on the novel push by sapphire

[Ifreann]

Oh humanity...
Why does Hironimus making such a big deal about this?
It's his penis, his decision!
Of course, being at such a young age, who is he to have a choice in this?
So, let his father (Who has a fair chance of also having a penis) make the decision for him.

Why should the decision default to the father?

Because if you have a penis, you know what other people would want done with their penises.

[The Grey Wolf]

It's his penis, his decision!

Agreed.

So, let his father (Who has a fair chance of also having a penis) make the decision for him.

That's quite the disgusting contradiction.

Why is everyone so caught up about "consent?" It's a piece of flesh that serves no purpose, and may even be beneficial to remove.

[Highfort]

Because if you have a penis, you know what other people would want done with their penises.

Clearly. I mean, I know some people who want their penises shortened, so that must mean everyone wants their penis shortened, right?

[Greed and Death]

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/florida-court-abl ... 02789.html

Well Florida you continue to amuse me I will be saddened when you drop into the sea because of rising sea water levels. Either way, the fact that this has gone so far as to have the judicial system decide the fate of someones genitals is beyond me. Especially when that someone hasn't even been asked what they think on the issue because of their age.

Anyway what say you oh circumcised and uncircumcised or what the hell ever you are lot of NSG?

It seems to me she developed this intactivistism just to piss off her ex.

[The BaRen]

It's his penis, his decision!

Agreed.

So, let his father (Who has a fair chance of also having a penis) make the decision for him.

That's quite the disgusting contradiction.

I'm pretty sure we'll all forget this conversation within a few weeks (at least I will) mainly because I believe that the only problems we, humans, can solve involve numbers.
This topic (and many others like it) will be argued over for several hours, with no lasting solution ever being created.
Ahh, human nature.
How art thou such a dick? (No pun intended)

[The Grey Wolf]

Why should the decision default to the father?

Because if you have a penis, you know what other people would want done with their penises.

Like the mother knows so much more.

[Saruhan]

Because if you have a penis, you know what other people would want done with their penises.

Like the mother knows so much more.

If the tie comes down to doing something and not doing something, and you don't know what the person wants, the best option is to go with not doing something. As you can always do the thing later, but you can't undo the thing

[Olthar]

Agreed.



That's quite the disgusting contradiction.

Why is everyone so caught up about "consent?" It's a piece of flesh that serves no purpose, and may even be beneficial to remove.

Yes,"consent" is just completely meaningless! Why even bother having it? What has it ever done for us?

[Ifreann]

Agreed.



That's quite the disgusting contradiction.

Why is everyone so caught up about "consent?" It's a piece of flesh that serves no purpose, and may even be beneficial to remove.

People have this weird idea that it's wrong to cut bits off people without their permission, regardless of what its use might be.

---

Because if you have a penis, you know what other people would want done with their penises.

Like the mother knows so much more.

I imagine she's familiar with them in ways her husband isn't likely to be. Not that it matters, since she's not proposing to do anything that might call for special knowledge about penises on her part.

[Elemental North]

Eh, I'm okay with the south, not all of the people down there are hokey, and they have great food, kind people-mostly, and awesome environments-to me at least. Also, I know. All up and down the south and east coast, this would occur. It's English Common Law, not common sense that governs most of this country, but New England and the south have a puritanical streak to add to already puritanical precedence with governing. There is no compassion with those people. A contract is a contract.

It's not an east coast thing. It's how laws work.

Not saying it really isn't present anywhere but the east coast, I'm saying the east coast is alot less merciful in it's courts on these things, and much more constructionist when it comes to the power of interpretation given to the courts as it pertains to the law.

[Dyakovo]

Agreed.



That's quite the disgusting contradiction.

Why is everyone so caught up about "consent?" It's a piece of flesh that serves no purpose¹, and may even be beneficial to remove.²

1: False
2: It isn't.

[Saruhan]

Agreed.



That's quite the disgusting contradiction.

Why is everyone so caught up about "consent?" It's a piece of flesh that serves no purpose, and may even be beneficial to remove.

Ah yes, that one study that was done in the middle of nowhere, africa, with unknown participants, with only a few subjects, by Jews. Surely reliable

[Highfort]

Why is everyone so caught up about "consent?" It's a piece of flesh that serves no purpose, and may even be beneficial to remove.

Well because the concept - surgery on a person's genitalia that's medically unnecessary being performed without their consent - strikes some of us as being a little... important?

I dunno, if I was a baby, I would've asked my parents not to circumcise me. Except, wait, I couldn't, because I was, you know, a baby. By all means let the kid choose to have a circumcision when he's old enough, but let's not make this a matter of parental preference.

[Wind in the Willows]

Agreed.



That's quite the disgusting contradiction.

Why is everyone so caught up about "consent?" It's a piece of flesh that serves no purpose, and may even be beneficial to remove.

Beneficial to remove? I don't see how it would benefit him.

[Benuty]

Because if you have a penis, you know what other people would want done with their penises.

Like the mother knows so much more.

She knows enough that she clearly could not allow an nonconsensual act be performed in good conscience.

[Highfort]

Beneficial to remove? I don't see how it would benefit him.

Dulling sexual pleasure, thus making it easier for said individuals to practice abstinence?

I imagine that's what people first thought when they decided to start hacking away at children's genitals in the name of god.

[The Grey Wolf]

Like the mother knows so much more.

If the tie comes down to doing something and not doing something, and you don't know what the person wants, the best option is to go with not doing something. As you can always do the thing later, but you can't undo the thing

Obviously the kid will grow up feeling like an incomplete freak. He will ostracize himself from the rest of society, remembering that he was once like them. He will spend countless hours in bed, wishing that things had turned out differently. If only he had a foreskin...

Oh wait. He probably won't care, at all. Like the millions of people who have had circumcisions.

[The BaRen]

Beneficial to remove? I don't see how it would benefit him.

Dulling sexual pleasure, thus making it easier for said individuals to practice abstinence?

I imagine that's what people first thought when they decided to start hacking away at children's genitals in the name of god.

Haha, no.
The Hebrews saw a naked African, said, "Daaaaaaamn!" and suddenly needed an excuse about why their penises were smaller.

[Ifreann]

Beneficial to remove? I don't see how it would benefit him.

Dulling sexual pleasure, thus making it easier for said individuals to practice abstinence?

I imagine that's what people first thought when they decided to start hacking away at children's genitals in the name of god.

Actually, I've heard tell that circumcision caught on in the US exactly because it was believed it would keep young boys from masturbating.

[Saruhan]

If the tie comes down to doing something and not doing something, and you don't know what the person wants, the best option is to go with not doing something. As you can always do the thing later, but you can't undo the thing

Obviously the kid will grow up feeling like an incomplete freak. He will ostracize himself from the rest of society, remembering that he was once like them. He will spend countless hours in bed, wishing that things had turned out differently. If only he had a foreskin...

Oh wait. He probably won't care, at all. Like the millions of people who have had circumcisions.

You really don't understand what I'm talking about, do you?