Skip to main content

If you're an American, circumcision almost certainly affects or has affected you or someone close to you.  Yet despite its pervasive impact, discussing it can seem uncomfortable in polite conversation.  Maybe that's because it invokes the male sex organ, or thoughts of painful events.  But one thing is for certain:  The silence is breaking, and the floodgates are open.  Aided by unprecedented freedom to publish, those hurt by circumcision, those denied their own choice by it, and others who know its harm are increasingly sharing their thoughts with the public.

An unanswerable argument against infant circumcision is made each time a male eventually comes forward to say "I wish I still had mine" or "I don't really regret that I was circumcised, but the decision should have been mine to make when I could."  As a male, I think the choice should have been mine.  That's why I vigorously support every person's right to keep the entire body they were born with.

Diarist's view already accounted for, the rest of the diary will be what other people have chosen to say publicly about it.

First up is blogger Andrea Harner:

Andrea Harner blogs her thoughts and shares a persuasive video on 3/30/2007:

The other weekend we started talking about circumcision at the end of a dinner party and with the help of Wikipedia we studied just the very superficial differences in the photos provided.  We also talked about whether we would have our sons (assuming we give birth at some point to a son or two) circumcised.

A blogger who describes herself as "a stay at home mother of 4, navy wife, and midwifery student" on 3/30/2007 wants to give Baby Talk magazine a piece of her mind on her blog Belly, Breast and Baby about poor guidance on circumcision in their latest edition:

Now this isn't exactly a very informative piece, and it is not exactly giving balanced information, which I am sure you can agree.

Kamie on 3/28/2007 blogs about seeing Penn & Teller's TV episode about circumcision:

Within the first 5 minutes of the show you see a newborn circumcision take place.



It was the most barbaric thing I have ever seen done to a newborn. EVER!

First, the baby boy is placed in a molded plastic tray where his legs and arms are strapped down. Then a local anesthetic is applied which obviously does NOTHING because when they showed the foreskin being cut off the baby was SCREAMING...and not the "I'm a little hungry" scream the "STOP CUTTING OFF ONE OF THE MOST SENSITIVE PARTS OF MY PENIS" scream. It was horrible. I'm not even a mother and my heart physically hurt for the little baby.

Intactivist blogger Tony writes about Virginia's "Abraham's Law" on 2/26/2007 at his blog Rolling Doughnut:

A 14-year-old is legally allowed to reject conventional medical treatment for a life-threatening illness. This is wholly appropriate, in my opinion, when viewed with the reality that minors are not automatically incompetent and the perspective of Mr. Cherrix's battle last year. I'm glad to see the General Assembly acknowledging such rights.

Looking forward, if a 14-year-old can reject treatment in a life-threatening situation, how can we continue to assume that infants not facing a life threatening illness, or any illness at all to be more specific, should not be protected by default from circumcision? Essentially, the General Assembly seems to be saying that neither parents nor the state own the body of a minor. So what gives? Clearly parental "rights" have limits. Why is there a limit when there is a life-threatening illness but not when there is no illness?

Blogger Joseph Froncioni posted a thorough dissertation on circumcision on 2/9/2007 (emphasis mine):

My father refused to have me circumcised and for this I remain eternally grateful.
My interest in circumcision has been rekindled primarily by the recent media coverage female genital mutilation has attracted.  This latter practice, based as it is in ignorance and superstition, no doubt deserves all the attention it has garnered and no clear-thinking or fair-minded person can but vociferously support its complete abolition.  What puzzles me though is that among these clear-thinking and fair-mined individuals are those who would, as they decry female genital mutilation, show not one bit of hesitation at having their male children so mutilated.  Granted, the female version of this assault, and assault it is, I assure you, is much more harmful and disfiguring for the victim.  However, I intend to make the case that male infant circumcision, unless performed for true therapeutic indications, is nothing short of medical assault, constitutes a serious abuse of the infant’s human rights, has no place in an enlightened society and should rightly be referred to as male genital mutilation.
Male circumcision is the only medically unnecessary surgery in the USA that is performed without obtaining consent from the patient. In law, parental rights are derived from parental duty and exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of the person and property of the child. Giving consent to medical treatment of a child is a clear incident of parental responsibility arising from the duty to protect the child.  This duty is clearly breached when the procedure in question is non-therapeutic, ablative and irreversible.

Joe. My. God., an activist who blogs about gay culture, took a keen interest on 4/5/2007 in the possibility that New York City might encourage members (so to speak) of his community to separate themselves from their foreskins:

I'll be very surprised if NYC's black and Hispanic gay men don't raise hell about this campaign, at least until there is some (ahem) hard data proving its worthiness for gay men.

and again, giving his interpretation of the retraction of the absurd and scientifically unfounded scheme days later:

Hoodies And Dockers Safe Again:

"Oopsie. Here's your foreskin back. Keep it in a warm dry place. We'll be happy to take it out of your hands later, if you are among the millions suffering from ESPS (Excessive Sexual Pleasure Syndrome.)"

Here's what Junichi Semitsu had to say, less contemporaneously, in 2004 when he was considering the issues surrounding circumcision:

With a handful of my friends having children, I find myself revisiting the debate about whether to circumcise.

After years of waffling, I think I've finally settled my position on this issue.
The hilarious history of circumcision in America speaks for itself. Non-religious infant circumcision didn't become routine in the United States until the late 19th century. The procedure became popular only because it was thought to control masturbation, which everyone considered to be a sinful act that engendered illnesses ranging from blindness to epilepsy to death. By restricting movement of the penile shaft, circumcision was thought to reduce the propensity for males to shake hands with their governor.
the United States is the only country that routinely continues the practice of performing medically-unnecessary male genital mutilation, which was only popularized as a way of controlling the epidemic problem of masturbation.

As much as I consider myself an American patriot, I'm going to have side with the rest of the world on this one.

So I've reached my answer: it doesn't make sense to circumcise.

My decision is final.

Tomorrow, I'm going to go to my doctor and ask to get uncircumcised.

Jenna, "a mother of three (10 years, 3 years, 1 year)" writes at her blog A Mom for All Seasons about circumcision on 3/5/2007:

Routine newborn circumcision is wrong...yes, ethically wrong. I feel extremely strongly about this.
I am very concerned that doctors perform this procedure and that health insurance companies pay for it since it is NOT recommended by any medical association (and it costs money). I can't get a mole removed...even though it has higher chances of getting cancer than my son's penis. You won't bring in your daughter and ask to have her pinky toe removed....they would call social services and psych. But bring your son in and ask to have his penis cut and they say sure. It is an ethics question.

Anna Olsen posts a long article she's written about circumcision on her blog on 3/29/2007:

On the subject of circumcision, I admit to a bias: I am opposed to the routine circumcision of baby boys.

I didn't always feel this way. Twenty-seven years ago, I gave permission for my son to be circumcised because his father had been and my obstetrician said it was best done for hygiene reasons.

Then, a few years ago, when I was editor of The New Age Connection, an ad crossed my desk from ETHIC (End the Horror of Circumcision). Horror? What horror? My son didn't suffer -- did he? As I looked into the matter, I grew increasingly appalled that I had unthinkingly sacrificed my son to tradition and medical dogma. As a result of my research, I wrote "Circumcision: Why fool with Mother Nature?" which appeared in NAC in the spring of 1990. Now, as editor of The Aquarian I again hope to present convincing arguments to persuade parents to leave their baby boys intact.


Men who feel violated by circumcision are banding together in increasing numbers to try to halt what they see as child sexual abuse. ...


For most Jews, circumcision is a religious rights issue for adults, not a human rights issue for babies. ...

But even this fortress of Jewish tradition is being attacked by Jews who value the rights of the baby over the religious rights of the parents. Edward Wallerstein was initially pleased that so many gentiles were adopting the Jewish practice of circumcision. But when he looked into the subject, he changed his mind. The book that resulted -- Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy -- is now a classic in the anti-circumcision literature.

Moshe Rothenberg is another Jew who is speaking out against circumcision. A social worker for the New York City Board of Education, Rothenberg presented his arguments at an International Symposia on Circumcision in favour of revising the Jewish ritual of circumcision. "Circumcision is child abuse. It is medically unnecessary," he wrote in the conference program. ...


"Often the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it."
Mark Twain


And when you consider the physical and mental suffering imposed on the baby though circumcision, I agree with Dr. Spock when he says, "I would leave the little penis alone."

Shauna McCluskey from Mississippi blogs her delight on 2/27/2007:

I am sooooooo happy. I am a moderator on a birth board and a couple that recently had a son were having trouble deciding whether or not to circumcise him, they have decided to leave him intact. Josh and I are vehemently against circumcision. We feel it is a violation of a child's right to bodily integrity and can be very sexually damaging. Also I don't say "uncircumcised" as I feel that this makes it sound like circumcised is the normal way and parents of intact children just have not got around to it yet. Anyway, if anyone who happens across this blog would like the info on circ, here it is.

First and foremost I feel that all children have the right to bodily integrity. Therefor I believe that it is not within my rights as a parent to permanently remove a portion of my childs body.

Finally, I bring your attention to Jason Paige, a musician who communicates his feeling about his own (ritual) circumcision not by blog, but by song, to the tune of Stevie Wonder's "Superstition":

(video link)

(Want to hear more from Jason? Just Some Numbers)

botched my circumcision
blood was on the wall
well they botched my circumcision, yeah
and they left me with a hole

13 day old baby
peeing through his scab, yeah
and my uncle fainted, oooh
cause the mohel was so bad

when you believe in things
that you don't understand
oh you suffer, yeah
circumcision ain't the way

ow ow ow owow

well they botched my circumcision
they must have put the clamp on wrong
[you know when they stretch out the foreskin]
they made the wrong incision
and it wasn't my decision
I had to go along

well my grandma and grandpa paid for it
invited everyone, yeah
fully dressed and catered, cru d'ete
for the newborn son, yes

when you bleed and scream
and cry from the stab of a scalpel
circumcision ain't the way

ow ow owow
wha wha whawaw
mmm mm mmmm mmmm mmm mmm mmm

Whether by name, pseudonym, or anonymously, the silence about circumcision is giving way to publicly available expressions of opposition to any male having his options cut off before he can choose for himself.  Many men who've experienced it consider themselves genitally mutilated.  How many of them can be wrong?

Support the right of every human to be physically whole.  No person deserves less.  NOCIRC.

Belly, Breast and Baby blogger posts a link to a really cool interactive history of circumcision in America on 4/15/2007.

Comments from this diary:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Threads related to this diary:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Stalk Watch:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

DailyKos Policies Clarified:
Thread: 1 2 3

Misha Case Update:
The Oregonian published a story on 4/27/2007 about the case of an Oregon boy whose father plans to force an unwanted circumcision on him (diary).  DOC is providing legal help in his appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Related topic diaries by others:
Circumcision Fetishists Sites Are Not A Credible Source

Help Prevent Tag Abuse:
Tags: circumcision

Originally posted to RealityBias on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 02:44 PM PDT.


Of all the adult American males who were circumcised without their consent and consider themselves genitally mutilated, or at least feel that the irreversible choice should have been their own to make, how many should be ignored?

76%354 votes
0%3 votes
0%0 votes
0%3 votes
0%1 votes
0%3 votes
0%0 votes
1%5 votes
0%1 votes
1%5 votes
19%90 votes

| 465 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A Modest Request - Please Read (27+ / 15-)

    The confines of this diary are intended to be a "safe place" for those who feel injured or deprived of choice by their circumcision, and those who know its harm.

    While joking around is not inherently offensive, please be respectful of those who comment here.  This is not a place in which to pour derision on individuals, tell them to get a life, tell them their experience of loss is irrational, post pictures of sliced bannanas, or tell anyone to "STFU" or "Go Away."

    In other words, please exhibit common decency.

    Thank You

  •  For those sick of RB's repeating same old shit (15+ / 0-)

    you can read other bloggers repeating RB's same old shit.  

  •  I'm afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg (13+ / 0-)

    sorry RealityBias... I couldn't help myself.


  •  I wish I still had my (17+ / 0-)

    tonsils. I feel as though I should have the right to keep the entire body I was born with. Why did my parents think it was OK to rip this lovely appendage from my throat?

    Also, I miss my baby teeth. They were much whiter and cuter than the ones I have now. Why did my parents convince me to trade them in to the Tooth Fairy for a quarter? I don't know who to blame more, my parents or the Tooth Fairy.

    It's time to legislate an end to this cruelty.

  •  Now, (12+ / 0-)

    Before anyone acts like an asshole here and make fun of Reality Bias for his continued devotion to this topic, my new outlook requires me to ask you to think twice.

    We all may disagree, we may see no problem with circumcision, but just say so.

    Be a Strong Democrat, and you will have my support. Be a Weak Democrat, and you can have Joe Lieberman's support.

    by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 02:47:16 PM PDT

  •  Isn't Howard Stern (0+ / 0-)

    trying to lead a campaign on this?

    Not a joke

    by aaraujo on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 02:47:53 PM PDT

  •  I'm going with 10,001 - 100,000 (4+ / 0-)

    Just to leave some baldies around to remind everyone else how great it is to have foreskin.

  •  to circumcize or not is NOT an emergency (8+ / 0-)

    I am NOT talking about FGM here practiced in Africa and islamic countries.

    But male cutting is a benign thing I really dont care one way or the other.
    I will circumcize my son if I get one.

  •  It is genital mutilation, pure and simple (6+ / 0-)

    I love how parents freak when their son comes home with a prince albert, when it was the parent who instilled the "body mutilation" value as one of the child's first memorable experiences...

    Chuck Norris Fears Democrats.

    by roboton on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 02:50:28 PM PDT

  •  Let's ask this question (10+ / 0-)

    Of all the adult American males who were vaccinated without their consent and consider themselves scarred with that variola scar on their left deltoid, or at least feel that the irreversible choice should have been their own to make, how many should be ignored?

    I am waiting with bated breath about the series condemning fluoridation of community water.

    January 20. 2009 cannot come soon enough.

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 02:50:56 PM PDT

  •  I like this diary better than your others (8+ / 0-)

    Nice piece.

  •  Arghhhhh! (10+ / 0-)

    I am sick of this dude.
    People are dying every day in Iraq.
    The suffering in Darfur continues.
    1/3 of all Americans lack adequate health coverage.

    And all he talks about is circumcision.
    He can post all he wants at the Anti-Circumcision Society of America's website -
    but I will troll him whenever he posts on DKos.
    (And I have troll-rated, maybe, twice in three years.)

  •  a request for RealityBias... (11+ / 0-)

    please don't concern yourself with my penis.


  •  Isn't this stuff getting rediculous? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leevank, lazybum

    Anyone ever force you to have you child circumcised against your will? Drop it.

  •  For anyone who wants to read (3+ / 0-)

    a thorough and well-referenced source on the history and origins of circumsion, try this.

    It might actually spur a reasonable discussion of the topic, rather than the gutter humor that usually results from RB diaries (not that I'm necessarily against gutter humor, but there's got to be some kind of balance).

    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes, because then you are a mile away and have their shoes.

    by Flinch on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 02:54:57 PM PDT

  •  Mock it if you will, my fellow Americans... (5+ / 0-)

    but I am proud of my turtleneck.  I was teased as a child at the urinal for being different.  I hear comments all the time about how American women (and gay men) prefer it circumcised.  Well, the tide is turning, people; uncut is the new cut.  Huzzah!

  •  Irishkorean - (11+ / 0-)

    It's clear to me that --
    You need PROFESSIONAL help.  ;-)  ;-)
    (Worth at least two smilies)

  •  Predictable? (6+ / 0-)

    Sure, RB's diaries are predictable.  He's got a cause and he does his darndest to promote it.  Many people here do the same with their particular causes.

    And many others here have issues with RBs cause. In fact, an examination of his recent diaries show that about 4 people in particular have issues with mature discussions of human sexuality:

    • terrypinder
    • kestral9000
    • IrishKorean
    • Inland

    Anyone want to venture any guesses as to their particular aversion to penises?

    When do I get to vote on your marriage?

    by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:04:25 PM PDT

    •  they're scary? (5+ / 0-)

      His heart was beating furiously, like Pee-Wee Herman in a theater.

      by Irishkorean on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:05:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  woops - missed one. Make it 5 people. (3+ / 0-)

      TaylorMattD is another that seems to have issues discussing human sexuality.  Any guesses as to why?

      When do I get to vote on your marriage?

      by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:05:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dude: (7+ / 0-)

        If you think discussing circumcision is discussing human sexuality, you really oughta get out more.  Just saying there's a little more to it than that.

        NB, that first you put the discussion as "discussing pensises", and realizing how STUPID it sounds to be demanding a discussion of penises on a political blog, switched to "human sexuality".

      •  You don't (12+ / 0-)

        have to guess, tvb, as to why I dislike RB's diaries. I've said why in many times before, and in fact, I've told you before.

        I find the following things offensive:

        (1) he and his commenters routinely imply that male circumcision is just like female genital mutilation, or cutting off the clitoris of a teen girl;

        (2) he thinks male circumcision, a procedure that has been practiced for thousands of years and performed on millions of people worldwide, amounts to a "human rights violation";

        (3) he routinely describes millions of men who have been circumcised (and that includes me) "mutilated";

        (4) he thinks parents should have no say whatsoever with regard to circumcision, and instead thinks it should be illegal; and

        (5) he thinks that at some point in the future, doctors who perform circumcisions should be criminally prosecuted.

        •  You forgot (6+ / 0-)
          1. RB is one of the most dishonest posters available.  For example, "missing" the only actual circumcision news since his series began, namely, the WHO findings that circumcision has health benefits.  
          1. RB has posted the same shit on redstate, and argud that circumcision is a "conservative issue" in the same way he argues here it is a "progressive issue".  
          •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)

            will amend my list the next time the apologists come out to say we aren't being nice enough.

            •  and I would add as another example (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              of RBs dishonest assertions: he asserts that he is for "choice", while arguing that a minor should never be circumcized, even if he and his parents want it.  I suppose that's a corrolary of his belief that circumcized males should be able to sue their circumcizers when they turn 18 and that jail is good enough for them.

              •  do you know any infants (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RealityBias, Runs With Scissors

                That want circumcision?  If you can produce one infant that agrees it's a grand idea, I bet you could blow the entire anti-circ movement away.

                When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:55:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Infants 'think' (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  taylormattd, Inland

                  pooping on themselves is perfectly acceptable.

                  Perhaps we shouldn't be letting them make decisions any time soon.

                •  No, but I could produce MINORS (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  taylormattd, musing85

                  about thirteen or so, with their parents, and show that RB doesn't think they should have the choice.  See, the subject is why RB is so disigenuous.

                  But that's an attempt by you worthy of this diary.

                  •  I think you are mistaken (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RealityBias, Runs With Scissors

                    RB has never made the argument that someone old enough to speak for himself should be denied choice. In fact, his argument all along has been that it is a decision that should be left to the person when he is capable of participating in that discussion.

                    It's unfortunate you have been unable to comprehend that part of his many diaries.

                    When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                    by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:32:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      You are simply ignorant of the positions of the person you are defending.  

                      If you are going to give people shit for commenting in these diaries, and for being unhappy with them, you should have the slightest clue as to what occurred in the previous ones, or at least, ask the diarist yourself rather than reflexively defending him.  

                      •  I'm not wrong (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        I'm very familiar with the anti-circ movement and know what the goals of it is.

                        Meanwhile, you have made yet another statement full of bluster and lacking in substance and facts.

                        When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                        by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:44:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          I'm very familiar with the anti-circ movement and know what the goals of it is.

                          Hooray for you.  The subject was the diarist's position.

                          Meanwhile, you have made yet another statement full of bluster and lacking in substance and facts.

                          No, it had a statement of fact about the diarist's position. You just decided that your unequivocal defense of the diarist was more important than whether the statement was true or not.

                          •  and when (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Did you stop beating your wife?

                            Show me one fact in the following statement:

                            You are simply ignorant of the positions of the person you are defending.  

                            If you are going to give people shit for commenting in these diaries, and for being unhappy with them, you should have the slightest clue as to what occurred in the previous ones, or at least, ask the diarist yourself rather than reflexively defending him.  

                            I know what has occurred in the previous diaries.

                            RB posts and you and 5 other people (I forgot to include GoldnI in the circle jerk before) come in and start being disruptive and trolling. It happens every fucking time he posts.

                            That, Inland, is your fact.  

                            You can deny it all you want, but it's all here in black and white. If you have a problem with RBs diaries, petition Kos to have him banned. However seeing as Kos is on top of things or so it seems, I'd venture a guess he has no issues with RB and his issue. Unlike you and your five circle jerk pals who can't seem to discuss circumscision in a mature way.

                            How old are you anyways?


                            When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                            by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:06:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're wrong. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, blue vertigo

                            You know, you are even pissier when you're treated seriously.  No wonder it doesn't happen much.  

                            RB posts and you and 5 other people (I forgot to include GoldnI in the circle jerk before) come in and start being disruptive and trolling. It happens every fucking time he posts.

                            Wrong again.  RB had to become a joke first, and then anger people with his awful, dishonest arguments.  You go back to the first dozen circumcision posts, and you can see that RB build his reputation carefully and slowly.  

                        •  Sorry tvb (0+ / 0-)

                          Inland is right. RB does think male circumcision should be illegal. In fact, he thinks that at some point in the future, doctors who perform the procedure should face criminal penalties.

                    •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

                      he wants to make it illegal to perform circumcisions on anyone who is not an adult.

                      •  show me (3+ / 0-)

                        Show me his words in a dairy here at DKos where he has said that.

                        When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                        by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:42:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  tvb -- why not read the diary yourself? (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          taylormattd, musing85, Dion



                          "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                          -8.25, -6.15

                          by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:49:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ok (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RealityBias, Predictor

                            So back to the comprehension issues.  RB wrote:

                            However, banning non-therapeutic circumcision outright in America is not the approach I propose to minimizing the lingering epidemic of genital cutting of boys.

                            What I propose is one simple legislative measure which will marginalize and greatly reduce the practice without banning it.

                            Tell me again where he proposes making circumscision illegal?

                            When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                            by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:52:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  are you just mising the point on purpose? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, musing85, Dion

                            how does one do this:

                            What I propose is one simple legislative measure which will marginalize and greatly reduce the practice without banning it.

                            via a legislative measure if and unless the act is illegal?

                            you can't fine me for something i have done that is not against a code or law.  you can't punish me for something that is not illegal.

                            so how in the hell do you propose a legislative measure aimed at reducing a procedure without setting forth legal parameters wherein you determine when this practice is LEGAL and when it is ILLEGAL?


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:00:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you don't (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RealityBias, Dion

                            You clarify the laws regarding consent. That is what he is proposing.

                            Consent regarding medical issues is covered by the Nuremburg Principals by the way. You might try reading it someday/

                            When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                            by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:08:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  correction (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Nuremburg Code...

                            Not the Nuremburg Principals.

                            When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                            by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:12:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you did not read the bill. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, Ahianne

                            that much is clear.

                            you read the diarist's diary, wherein he claims the bill will just clarify consent law.

                            let's see -- had you even bothered to take the link on the diarist's page TO the text language of the bill itself, you would have read this:

                               Entitled the "Federal Prohibition of Genital    Mutilation Act of 2007"

                            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, to amend the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 (a) so that boys, intersex individuals, and nonconsenting adults may also be protected from genital mutilation; (b) to increase the maximum punishment of offense to 14 years imprisonment, (c) to include assistance or facilitation of genital mutilation of children or nonconsenting adults as an offense, and (d) to prohibit persons in the U.S. from arranging or facilitating genital mutilation of children and nonconsenting adults in foreign countries.

                            SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

                            This Act may be cited as the "Federal Prohibition of Genital Mutilation Act of 2007".

                            source:  US MGM Bill Web Site

                            so, if the bill only clarifies current law, why would the bill not be simply a clarifying amendment to the aforementioned act?  because this is not a clarifying amendment to the FGM act, it is a wholesale addition of another section to that bill.

                            one more question, tvb -- and to your constant up-rating but not responding person -- why are the nuremberg codes never mentioned in the bill -- as introduced in january 2007 or in the FG act of 1996 -- in the bill language?

                            i mean, if all the diarist is hoping to do is clarify medical consent issues (which the bill does not do) then why isn't this as apparent as one would think?

                            for a bill that reads thusly:

                            to increase the maximum punishment of offense to 14 years imprisonment,

                            i say bullshit that the bill (and its supporters) are not calling for making circumcision illegal.  


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:11:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My Position &'s position (0+ / 0-)

                            MGMBILL without question aims to make genital cutting of any underage person without a medical indication illegal.

                            My personal position is that I don't think mgmbill is perfect, but in an up-or-down vote I'd vote for it.   Were I in a legislative body negotiating such a bill, there are improvements I'd like to see.

                            I did my best to put forward a bill that I would agree with even more in this diary.  It aims to address the reality that a minor should have input regarding their own body.

                          •  big deal? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            so, you do support the bill.  

                            that is clear.

                            the bill clarifies nothing.

                            the bill has zero to say or do about the nuremberg codes, etc.

                            the bill has a punishment for a procedure that it criminalizes.


                            furthermore, your "new bill" or your hoped for modification to the MGM bill as submitted in january 2007 equally makes no mention of nuremberg at all, no  codes of ethics, etc. etc. etc, but instead proffers civil liability as a means of recourse.

                            you admit you would have doctors who perform circumcisions jailed.

                            you do not cop to the fact that both the MGM bill and your variation will make circumcision illegal. (except for cultural/religious reasons -- but with the practice made illegal....  hmmmmmm.  no no subtlety here....

                            what part of the factual evidence did i leave out or misrepresent here?


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:33:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well look... (0+ / 0-)

                            I readily admit that I am searching for the best way to guarantee autonomy to males.  I don't claim to have the perfect answer.

                            I share concerns about banning a procedure that is in wide practice.

                            My bill proposal does not make circumcision illegal.  The idea behind my bill stems from the reality that there exists a doctor-patient relationship even for infants, and that the doctor's responsibility is to the child-patient, and that the child-patient is entitled to recourse if the doctor takes actions against their patient's interest.  Read here for explanation of why proxy-consent may not be protection for a doctor against charges that he performed surgery without a medical indication and without consent of the patient.

                            So again, you can try to pick apart my support for this bill or proposal of that bill, and if you find weaknesses then I'll thank you for it and try to correct them.

                            I just think that a person's right to autonomy of their physical person must be protected regardless of sex.

                          •  i repeat (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            you would have doctor s jailed for performing circumcisions.


                            the bill has penalties for an act it criminalizes.

                            you support that bill.

                            what part of this am i missing?


                            stop this madness.  just stop it.


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:55:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What you're missing is... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            that mgmbill is just one possible way to protect each persons right to bodily integrity and autonomy.

                            I have taken the time to propose my own bill which addresses what I see as mgmbill's weaknesses.

                            There may be still better ways.

                            Regardless, males deserve the right to choose intactness, or circumcision, whichever they prefer.

                          •  dishonesty, utter dishonesty (3+ / 0-)

                            here is what you have written about both the mgm bill and your "alternative" proposal:

                            Path 1

                            What's good about mgmbill is that it is an actual, already drafted and ready-to-go bill, simple in conception in that it accomplishes genital choice by extending the 1996 anti-FGM law to include males.

                            What's fairly criticized is its inflexibility in handling less common but important cases like a minor who wants a sex-change procedure, or who affirmatively and competently chooses a ritual circumcision.  Another practical difficulty with the bill; It instantly makes a common practice into a crime.

                            emphasis added by me for emphasis.

                            there is no mistaking your accurate depiction of the bill here --> even you write that the MGM bill will criminalize circumcision.  all further revisions of your statement here remain as disingenuous today as they were when you first wrote them.

                            continuing on, you wrote:

                                                   Path 2

                            Amendments that might widen support for mgmbill include an exception enabling a minor to affirmatively and competently choose genital alteration surgery.  Such an amendment would make allowance for the fact that the interest of an 18 year old to make such decisions autonomously is not discontinuously distinct from the interest of a minor who has not yet attained 18 years of age.  Autonomy over one's own body is too important to be subjected to the same level of strict, arbitrary cutoff as, for example, as the age at which one can purchase alcohol.  Such an amendment could be modeled after the protections afforded to female minors seeking an abortion.  In all cases, the minor would need to clearly and verifiably give consent, thus protecting that minor's right to choose intact genitals.

                            2 points --

                            1. the age at which individuals can purchase alcohol is 21, not 18.
                            1. this second "path" deviates not at all from the first "path" with the exception of pro-actively sequestering the issue of a minor who would seek to have a circumcision done.  all of the concerns that you noted with the first path (the issue of intersex, etc.) remain unattended to and this path only adds to the already-stated fact that this bill makes circumcision illegal.

                            and then there is "path three."

                                                   Path 3

                            This path takes a completely different approach; It does not involve amending the anti-FGM law, or any criminal law whatsoever.  I proposed this general approach in an earlier diary entitled Marginalizing Circumcision in America: My Proposal.

                            note: this is a very accurate depiction of your separate diary in which you do vet the mgm bill.  and again, i would highlight your dishonesty.  for every time that you have commented that the mgm bill simply clarifies and does not make illegal etc. one need only re-read this comment here where you note quite clearly that the mgm bill will, as did the female genital mutilation act, make criminal the act of circumcision. affirmatively criminalize it.

                            under this "path three, you allegedly are explicating  a new, non FGM-linked bill that would rectify the problems within the MGM bill and provide a wider, more inclusive net for folks to rally around.  in explaining how your bill differs from the mgm bill in congress' hands now you write:

                            If you are interested in the most salient differences between mgmbill and "Genital Choice For All Americans Act Version 0.10", they are presented here in the format expected for an "AMENDMENT PROPOSAL":


                            AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
                               In SECTION 2. (b) add "; or (4) performed on a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and who has been found by a judge (i) to have expressly consented to the operation, (ii) to have been informed regarding the operation to that person's maximum capability, and (iii) to have that person's best interests served by the operation."

                               AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
                               In SECTION 2. (a) replace
                               "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 14 years, or both" with
                               "shall be subject to unlimited liability to all claims made by the person on whom it is performed of harm resulting from the operation, complications of the operation, failure to obtain proper informed consent for the operation, deprivation of genital choice rights implied by this Act, or any other damage attributable to the operation."

                               AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
                               In SECTION 2. (c) replace
                               "any belief on the part of that or any other person" with
                               "any belief on the part of any other person"

                               AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
                               Remove SECTION 4., and replace
                               "SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATES

                               All section of this Act shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act."

                            so rather than offer an alternative that is different from the mgm bill, you merely rearrange some sentences and add in some new pieces and change a penalty or two.  but on foundation, you have the mgm bill.  this is akin to the manner in which you poll in your diaries, namely by way of a push poll.  these three choices are the same choice in slightly different iterations.  there is no other alternative, no differing alternative and no change to the basic point that you intend to criminalize circumcision.

                            in your push polls, the answers are set up to agree in some form or other with you.  again, no real alternatives, no real choices, no real and meaningful conversation.

                            but back to the third "path:"

                            practically speaking, you simply have removed the jail time penalty for committing this crime.  you do not decriminalize circumcision at all.  that simple fact is extant in both your MODIFICATION (again) of the MGM bill as it is in the actual bill language submitted to congress in january 2007.

                            why pretend otherwise?

                            substituting unlimited liability for jail time and fines does not obviate the fact that you are allowing people an opportunity, at any time in their life, the opportunity to have their physician charged with a criminal act and then sued.  endlessly and with little more than just the "belief" that they have been somehow "harmed" as the sole fact necessary to bring such liability cases against the doctor.  the crime is circumcision, the crime you agree to in all three of these options.  you may substitute that the remedy of money is a better remedy that simply a fine and imprisonment for the physician, but you do not alter your belief that circumcision should be made illegal, a crime.

                            additionally, as i wrote in an earlier post, this move to criminalize circumcision is intentionally done to circumvent that fact that there is currently no consensus in the medical community that this should no longer be done as well as to in the future prevent the practice from ever adapting if the medical standards change or show more (or less) benefit.

                            if you really want to misrepresent your already-stated positions, and not get called on it, then i suggest you delete every single previous diary you have written on this issue.  you change and revise and distort at will.  however, you have left footprints all over the site and one need not be a good detective to find out where you have been and where this is all going.

                            stop being disingenuous and stop lying.


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:55:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Read it more carefully (0+ / 0-)

                            for every time that you have commented that the mgm bill simply clarifies and does not make illegal etc.

                            I've never said that.  It's my alternative proposal which is intended to clarify the limits of proxy-consent, without making circumcision illegal.  mgmbill, on the other hand, would make it illegal when there is no medical indication of patient consent.

                            substituting unlimited liability for jail time and fines does not obviate the fact that you are allowing people an opportunity, at any time in their life, the opportunity to have their physician charged with a criminal act and then sued.

                            Wrong.  Civil liability does not equal being charged with a criminal act.  You are misreading my GCFAAA proposal.

                          •  bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ahianne, VolvoDrivingLiberal

                            how can one be brought up on charges of liability if there is nothing criminally wrong with the act?

                            you are criminalizing circumcision.  period.

                            you have admitted that you want to jail doctors who perform circumcisions.  this bill is a mere modification of the mgm bill and albeit without specifically stating criminalization, you dance around it with the civil liability point.  

                            so, for the lay person, please then explain to me how i would then bring a charge against the doctor who circumcised me if in fact there is nothing illegal about circumcision?  this is what i want to understand.  what am i bringing the doctor to court for if he/she has done noting outside of the law?


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  just like any claim of harm (0+ / 0-)

                            how can one be brought up on charges of liability if there is nothing criminally wrong with the act?

                            The same way any party files a civil lawsuit against another party with claims of harm.

                            I'll give you an example.  Let's say some parent takes their infant to the doctor and says, "my husband lost the end of his pinky finger in the war, and we want our baby to look like his daddy.  Please remove the tip of my baby's pinky finger, doc."

                            In the very unlikely event that the doctor complies with this request, I think the child has every right to seek recourse from that doctor (when capable), for acting against the interests of his patient, and in so doing causing harm.  Likewise with non-therapeutic circumcision.

                            But again, as I've said, I do not pretend to know the perfect way forward.  But I do know that doctors performing non-therapeutic, non-medically indicated, ablative surgeries on people unable to consent is a breach of that doctor's duties to his patient.

                          •  step off. just step off. (6+ / 0-)

                            equating a circumcision to the amputation of a pinky so that a baby may look like daddy is so foul and so beneath contempt.

                            this exchange has proven to me tat no mater what, you are relentless in this pursuit of criminalizing doctors who perform circumcisions, of making circumcision a criminal offense, of jailing doctors who perform these surgeries, of intentionally conflating FGN with circumcision, of twisting every possible issue towards somehow being in support of your priapism and lastly of not bothering to address fats with fact.

                            it is disgusting the manner in which you cast parents in these diaries.  you would have us believe that every parent is a snip-happy, callous, thoughtless automaton who would just as soon amputate their child's pinky in a statement of vanity than they would in injuring them in any fashion possible.

                            you are actively seeking to deny parents their parental obligations, and in doing so you are trying to have the state (by new law or tweaking of informed consent law) step in and in-between the parent and the child and have the child's life -- and well-being, regulated by the state.  you would place ahead of the parent the "autonomy" of the newborn male, in an eerie echoing of the feelings of those who oppose abortion because they believe the life of the pre-born is as valuable as that of the mother.

                            you have aggressively demeaned every man in this community blog who is circumcised.  you keep telling us that we are mutilated, incomplete, not whole.  your litany of words and phrases to describe us is nothing short of abuse.  plain and simple.

                            your contempt for physicians and for parents is only outdone by your utter disregard for decency, compassion, truth and reality.  

                            if i had a shred of respect left for you, consider it gone, gone, gone.  

                            you need to stop this horse crap now.

                            one more comment and i will simply leave all of this as this:

                            you have definitely lost one possible ally in this endeavor of yours.  i can see no redemptive aspect of  your campaign to belittle the topic, belittle those who have had circumcisions, belittle the parents of those of us who have had them and belittle the women who have suffered FGM, and to belittle the data, the physicians and public hath entities  who use facts and not invective-laden half-truths to make their point known and understood.  you ridiculed my mother.  you insulted me.  you callously stepped over all the women who have suffered FGM.  and you show not one iota of remorse, regret or even capacity to change.

                            i wonder how many other (potential) allies to this cause have you forced away at the door?


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:28:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  be outraged. just be outraged. (0+ / 0-)

                            you're outraged by the very essence of my arguments.  each point i make on the issue outrages you further.  how dare i insult the medical establishment whose members perform so many circumcisions on newborns.  how dare i compare one unnecessary surgery with another.

                            no matter how i present it, you find my ideas inherently an insult to you.  you believe that my position implicitly demeans every circumcised man on earth, and their mothers.  no matter how vociferously i proclaim my opposition to FGM, you insist i belittle its victims.  when i take a breath of air, a baby kitten dies.

                            you say my ideas and expressing them has lost you as an ally, i don't know what you are if your stance on genital integrity rights rests on what i have to say about it while you claim all your respect for me is gone gone gone.  most likely your view on it has little to do with what i think.

                            for whatever reason you find my ideas threatening.  i think a doctor who performs a non-therapeutic circumcision, an ablative and irreversible surgery, without a medical indication shouldn't be able to accept proxy-consent without risk that the patient, when he discovers what happened, holds him liable.

                          •  Tell that to all the people (3+ / 0-)

                            who had their vestigial tails removed.  Post and anti-tail removal dairy and I might be willing to believe that you are consistent in your thinking.  Until then you are just a spamming troll obsessed with your own dick.

                            I'm crumbelievable.

                            by clonecone on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:31:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it's a good point and i would note (0+ / 0-)

                            there's a distinction between the utterly normal and the unusual or rare.  there are ethical issues there too, but they are somewhat different.  correcting what one might reasonably consider a defect is quite different altering what is both healthy and ordinary.

                          •  So you're the judge of what is normal. (5+ / 0-)

                            It's ok for parents to remove a tail because you have deemed it a defect, but circumcision is immoral because you have deemed it ordinary.  

                            It really is all about you.

                            I'm crumbelievable.

                            by clonecone on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:49:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am not the judge (0+ / 0-)

                            and I was just saying that it's an important distinction.

                          •  You call it a distinction (3+ / 0-)

                            I call it an inconsistency in the intellectual aspect of your argument.  If you're against unnecessary surgery for children, you should be against all unnecessary surgery for children.

                            I'm crumbelievable.

                            by clonecone on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:56:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that would be fair (0+ / 0-)

                            if it were my position, but it's not;  "against unnecessary surgery for children" is over-simplified and over-specified, so not accurate.

                            I am against unnecessary, medically non-indicated, ablative surgery on healthy normal tissue without consent of the patient.

                            That may still have loopholes, as reality doesn't always fit into sound-bites.

                          •  I'm sorry, were you talking to us? (0+ / 0-)

                            Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

                            by madhaus on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:47:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  welcome to "Sisyphus land' (5+ / 0-)

                            clonecone -- no matter how well you argue, no matter that you argue, no matter that you cite reasoned data and fact and truth, this is the land of Sisyphus.  we roll that gigantic boulder up this diarist's mountain only to have the boulder be returned back to the earth where we begin to roll it upward, ad infinitum.

                            the litany that i was enumerating (criminalization, jailing of doctors, conflating fgm and male circumcision, etc.) stand unapologetically endorsed and espoused by this diarist.  hell, even the take they suggest on the WHO's recent policy announcement regarding africa and male circumcision, even as it flies in the face of data, the diarist feels so entitled as to make these studies and facts and data sets as to appear irrelevant in this myopic and selfish, egomaniacal crusade towards making circumcision illegal.  

                            it is worth noting that when the WHO policy came out, nary a peep was heard from this diarist who alleges to be bringing to us all the breaking news regarding this subject.  all the breaking news that can be distorted to support his position that is...  

                            btw, the WHO statement and supporting data are linked above in my replies to homogenius as well as a policy briefing by an african hiv/aids treatment education policy group, TAC.

                            i stayed away from commenting in these diaries after i realized that indeed the definition of insanity was in play -- doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. i believed that when shown data, the less-than-data-supported concepts wholeheartedly embraced by the diarist would slowly be replaced by a more tempered and reasonable response.  instead what i saw was intractability and folly.

                            then, just less than 2 weeks ago, i saw a new side, a side which thread-cut and blew over a feminism diary for its own sense of its own issue.  and a thread-cutting calling out another dKos member.  and a thread-cut where the diarist equated circumcision with child abuse.  etc.

                            i am beyond my wit's end.

                            even redstate tired of him.  over there, he portrayed this as a conservative issue; here, a liberal issue.

                            this is a priapism awaiting a setting to happen.  i am frankly out of patience, no longer even willing to grant the diarist an iota of good intentions in the posting of these diaries.

                            pity Sisyphus -- pushing a rock for eternmity up a hill that can never be mounted.

                            luckily, we are only Sisyphus by analogy.  and we can choose to make the analogy no longer applicable.  for pete's sake i have dealt with trolls who were far more genuine and willing to incorporate suggestions into their temper tantrums.

                            if not a purity troll (i assume purity trolls have a zealous and genuine although evil belief system in operation), i am not sure the kind of troll this diarist is -- there is no genuine policy/principle here, just an evasive, chimeric illusory "autonomy" type of rhetoric that is far too similar to those kinds of policy advisements we witnessed by the heritage foundation et alia with the issue of choice.

                            i am just flabbergasted and tired.

                            sorry to unload on you.


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:47:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  insult to injury? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            in the open thread diary last night, who returns today to make claims that again are not founded and rather patently wrong?  you guessed it.  see for yourself.

                            i dropped 2 donuts on the intentional misrepresentation of facts and for the intentional disruption.  i have just about had it here.


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:12:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is a fundamental difference (0+ / 0-)

                            between a congenital abnormality and a normal part of the human body.

                            A vestigial tail or a sixth toe or sixth finger is a congenital abnormality. The vast majority of children are not born with a vestigial tail or a six digit.

                            Labia minora and foreskin are normal parts of the female and male genitalia. If a girl is not born with a labia minora or a boy is not born with a foreskin is considered a congenital abnormality.

                          •  i know codes around ethics, research, treatment (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            perhaps as part of my former job...


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:20:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, blue vertigo

                              These zealots insist on coming between a family and their doctor.  Sound familiar?

                          •  Right (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, dadanation, blue vertigo, Dion

                            here. Although he says it is not his "preferred" method and he hopes it won't be necessary, he does think that at some point in the future, doctors who perform circumcisions should face criminal penalties.

                          •  this point is crucial (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, musing85

                            how long from now is "eventually?"

                            why is it that the diarist's stance here -- that regarding informed consent -- is not not that much unlike the heritage foundation regarding informed consent and abortion? especially insofar as the ability to seek and utilize informed consent laws as a means to curtail an activity deemed unacceptable by -- in this case -- the heritage foundation...


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:19:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Abortion (0+ / 0-)

                            Abortion must be legal to guarantee the autonomy of women.

                            Infant circumcision denies autonomy to infants.

                            Preventing parents from circumcising their girls or boys when there is no medical indication does not deny parents autonomy.


                          •  you would make all circumcision illegal (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, musing85, Ahianne, dennisl


                            you deny parental role in this decision, and deny a physician the ability to perform their job in a responsible fashion.

                            i know what you are doing here.  this is ultimately because there is no clear-cut medical consensus that you are now seeking to remove the other possibility.

                            when the medical community is split, and malpractice cases come before a jury/court, the ability to prove malpractice for a procedure for which there is a split in the medical community is very rough.

                            you are seeking to take the science out of this debate by having a legislative remedy trump science and the evolving practice and implementation of medical standards.

                            had your "bill" passed and if in fact there were new scientific studies showing even more medical/health benefit for circumcision you would have made all the new advancements not relevant, applicable, or even practice-able by your law.

                            you know this.

                            i know this.


                            your claim of autonomy is utter horsecrap.  what you are seeking to do is deny parents their parental rights with their newborn male child.  period.  and your bill etc seek to then eliminate medical standards and practices from being implemented by physicians by fiat -- once the practice has been declared criminal, what benefit, use or application of any evolving standard of medical care matters?  you can't enact new standards of care, as they evolve, if you are jailed because you performed a circumcision, now can you?  and how likely is it that a physician -- once jailed -- can now have their license reinstated and begin practicing again?

                            choice -- that's the word you really have corrupted here.  

                            and to pretend that this kind of fiat is anything but terrible when looked at across critical issues for us is utter nonsense.


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:47:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You dismiss the heart of my argument, (0+ / 0-)

                            which is that this is an issue of autonomy.

                            All flows from that.  I don't want to see anyone go to jail.  I don't want to see anyone's career ruined.  And I don't want anyone to be denied the choice of an unmodified sexual organ by surgery without medical indication.

                            What do you say to the many men who have been hurt by circumcision, or who at least believe the choice should have been their own?  Tough luck, try not being born male next time?

                            I'll say it again:  I don't know the perfect way to achieve these rights for everyone.  Nevertheless, every person deserves the right to autonomy over their body.

                            You can claim parental rights, but no autonomy is denied to a parent when they are prevented from genitally cutting their female child, or their male child.  Parental rights already have limits, obviously.

                          •  stop equating FGM wth circumcision (4+ / 0-)

                            have you not read or absorbed or listened to a single person who has taken GREAT offense at your equating these two very different acts as being the same?

                            female genital mutilation is illegal.


                            and it is not the same as newborn male circumcision.
                            not at all.

                            stop the conflating.

                            and you know what? you've be doing this now for about 6 monhts and yet you still show no signs of having read or listened to or learned a single thing from any thing any one has said to you at all, especially in regards to your insistence upon saying newborn male circumcision is the same thing as female genital mutilation.

                            does that mean anything to you?


                            "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

                            -8.25, -6.15

                            by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:52:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You've ignored my point about autonomy (0+ / 0-)

                            You've also misrepresented the context in which I raised FGM.

                            Infant circumcision denies autonomy to the infant.
                            Protecting infants from non-therapeutic circumcision does not deny autonomy to anyone.

                            Do you understand?

                        •  Pathetic (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          musing85, shayera

                          that RB would recommend this comment when he knows damn well that he told me he believes (althought it is not his preferred method) that doctors performing circumcisions should, at some point in the future, face criminal penalties.

                          •  ok (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Predictor, Runs With Scissors

                            But I think there is some confusion on his part between civil and criminal in that small snippet of thread. Maybe I am wrong there but reading the entire thread you linked shows him confused.

                            He's never going to see his goal of liability, whether civil or criminal, reached in our lifetimes. I don't think there are any medical procedures so verboten as to warrant civil or criminal liabilities except in extreme cases such as practicing without a license or malpractice. Sure, the baby could get herpes from the procedure or even have his penis accidently burned off but that appears to be besides the point for a good number of posters.

                            I suspect you know that and thus remain baffled, confused and frankly a bit angry and embarrased for you in your reaction to him. Do you feel him to be a threat to you?

                            Regardless your answer, it still doesn't excuse the constant lies told about his position and diaries by a small group of circle jerkers.

                            Bullying doesn't make things better.  Ever.

                            When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                            by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:35:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who has lied (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            about any of his positions? You were the one who was wrong about his beliefs. You are probably right about our nasty tones, but this wasn't an overnight thing - it developed over time, although maybe that doesn't excuse it. But in any event, I don't think anyone is "lying" about his positions.

                          •  ok again (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, RealityBias, Predictor

                            I admit I was wrong on that one part of his position.

                            However, it does appear that we can agree on the nastiness of it all. I really think the bullying started in his second or third diary.

                            And yes, many people have put words and statements into his mouth. Perhaps not you, but it has happened many times in the diaries I've participated in. If I had time this evening, I would be happy to search those instances out. But I have to get to sleep as I have an early wakeup call in the morning and am up waaaaaaaaaay longer than I should've been with this nonsense.

                            When do I get to vote on your marriage?

                            by tvb on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:52:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            have a good sleep.

          •   and this one: (0+ / 0-)

              8.  Republicans have penises and this is a Dem-
                  ocratic blog devoted to getting democratic
                  penises ONLY, elected.

            "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

            by hopscotch1997 on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:42:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  had planned on (11+ / 0-)

      not commenting and just doing what I was told to do in dealing with the problem, but this is almost a trollable comment. I'm refraining from trolling you this time.

      you couldn't be any more wrong

      aversion to penises? hello? i'm gay? I just fucked a dude last night. You could not be any more wrong. And don't go all "maybe his penis is tiny". I do have pictures that prove that wrong and WILL post the links to them.

      it is amazing the Dworkinesque shit people come up with. of course, Dworkin was as psycho as RB is.

      all Along the Watchtower...... blogroll

      by terrypinder on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:08:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They only come out at night? (3+ / 0-)


  •  I'll say it again. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, hopscotch1997, Fabian

    A little desensitivity is a GOOD thing.

    Know what I mean?

    Ninox Connivens - Winking or Barking Owl: Generally nocturnal, but sometimes calls during the day, and on duller winter days may begin hunting before sunset.

    by Night Owl on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:41:54 PM PDT

  •  As the mother of a healthy intact young man, (13+ / 0-)

    I must say that I have my own rather strong feelings about this issue. There are many other "pet" issues posted about here at Daily Kos and I have the choice to read about them - or not.

    I don't understand troll rating someone just because their opinion differs from one's own on a sensitive issue.

  •  I've said it before and I'll say it again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, GoldnI

    circumsized males can shoot their cum further.

    If the Republicans promise to stop telling lies about us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them..

    by Romaniac on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:16:59 PM PDT

  •  jeez (8+ / 0-)

    un-freakin'-real.  I am the mother of 2 circumsized boys.  I feel no guilt whatsoever.  My husband has no issues.  No one I know has issues.
    My husband's best friend had some problems when he was 13, and had to have his foreskin removed.  His mother wished she had done it when he was an infant.

    How come no one freaks out about baby girls having their ears pierced?  Are the earlobes not a sensative part of the body? Circumcisions heal within a week.  pierced ears take much longer. I've never run into a woman who has boo hood because she didn't choose to pierce her ears herself.

    "It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any wurd."

    by gatu on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:33:28 PM PDT

  •  I changed my mind. (6+ / 0-)
    I was going to try to avoid these diaries, but I just can't. I can avoid looking at car wrecks when I am driving, but I can't stay away from one of these. The reason is all the assholes who come out in droves.

    I have taken RB to task previously (rather colorfully, as I recall) which he took graciously. For the benefit of newcomers, I share his passion on the subject, although I differ on approach. I think he has done the cause a disservice through repetition and carelessness. We also may have different priorities, or at least express them differently. For me it is most important to see that parents can make an informed decision about circumcizing their newborn sons. This includes understanding the cultural history of circumcision, the medical industry's financial interest in it, and the physiology of the penis. I don't think that comparisons with FGM are effective, and I think one must tailor one's approach to the audience. But these are things that reasonable people can discuss and even disagree over.

    I find penis humor and clever doctoring of photographs to  be extremely humorous. Back in the day, my Jewish boss and I did a whole theme week of Mohel jokes. But the endless bashing of RB and distortion of what he is trying to communicate in these diaries is bullshit. I have said elsewhere that I am concerned that the early data concerning adult male circumcision and AIDS prevention may be overly optomistic. But I am absolutely willing to consider these studies. All I ask is that they be given rigorous scrutiny, including consideration of ALL the variables pertinent to specific geographic and socio-economic populations.

    Short version: enough with attacking RB. If you want to say that you disagree with him, fine. But the repetitive whining and insults makes you look like a bunch of...well...dicks.

    Blessed are the arrogant...for they shall be really impressed with themselves.

    by homogenius on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:42:55 PM PDT

    •  homogenius -- i really do respect your position (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      taylormattd, musing85, Dion, LAMaestra

      and was witness to the alluded to blow out you had with the diarist.

      given your request for rigor and science, how do you place in context the WHO's policy regarding circumcision in African males where the epidemic is endemic if not just plain devastating?

      the decision was based on data from explicit clinical trials and has a very focused and clear policy implication for its subject and subject mater.

      what do you think about that decision?


      "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

      -8.25, -6.15

      by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:45:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I neither support nor refute. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        taylormattd, DMiller, Predictor, LAMaestra
        I can't refute it. I'm not a public health professional. I haven't read and certainly haven't understood all the data. I believe this is a serious subject and should be thoroughly scrutinized. Thank you for your measured response--I totally respect that. My concern about the WHO statement and the studies it draws on is that my gut tells me that a lot of the conclusions and projections may prove to be premature. I can't justify this with all the facts that it deserves. But I just don't think this will prove to be as effective as they are saying.

        Let me put it another way. In Africa, for instance. Speaking purely anecdotally. Here we have populations where there are numerous issues around compliance with treatments, superstition, culture, tradition, and gender roles. Adult male circumcision creates a window where the patient is vastly MORE open to infection and transmission. In areas where there are all these problems, how do you gauge the risk/benefit ratio? We have already seen how the so-called Uganda approach of A-B-C has been distorted and inflated. What I say is that we, as reality-based people, should ask for conclusive proof. My fear is that we are assuming too much from preliminary reports. I can't prove it. I'm not asking people to believe me. I'm just asking for scrutiny.

        I can't offer you any more reason than that for my skepticism. I can't say with any authority that these studies are suspect, but I can't honestly say that I believe they are not as conclusive as many would have us believe.

        Is adult male circumcision the magic bullet they are saying? Are the results as conclusive after you factor in hygiene, culture, etc.? They may turn out to be. But I just can't help feeling there is a rush to judgment on this or that people are portraying these studies as more definitive than they really are.

        Make no mistake--Africa is in tremendous peril. This great continent is in the gravest danger and this is a matter of enormous concern to all of humanity. I can't overstate how great a potential tragedy this is. But I really feel we need to scrutinize the source of any conclusions like this. The politics involved are unbelievable. And there is significant involvement of parties that we, here at dKos, routinely distrust.

        Blessed are the arrogant...for they shall be really impressed with themselves.

        by homogenius on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:52:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thank you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          taylormattd, homogenius

          your skepticism is well-taken, and in this case, a great prism to look at bot the WHO's recommendations and the impact that such a procedure may have to africa.

          but i am way tired tonight and can't explicate all of it in one fast note to you. if it is ok with you, i will come back to this tomorrow, ok?


          "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

          -8.25, -6.15

          by dadanation on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:58:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  homogenius -- as i promised (0+ / 0-)

          in doing some research into a few of the questions you posed, i realized that the best source for you and your concerns would be from some of the activists and individuals in africa who have to make sense out of the recent WHO announcement in a way far different than do i or for that matter any individual who is not a member of the target population for the WHO's circumcision policy.

          i have several friends and colleagues who are part of TAC, the Treatment Action Campaign in south africa.  according to their mission statement:

          The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) was founded on 10 December 1998 in Cape Town, South Africa. We campaign for treatment for people with HIV and to reduce new HIV infections. Our efforts have resulted in many life-saving interventions, including the implementation of country-wide mother-to-child transmission prevention and antiretroviral treatment programmes.

          The TAC also runs a treatment literacy campaign: this is a training programme on the science of HIV treatment and prevention.

          source:  TAC's website

          on the 15th of april, TAC published their electronic newsletter and its subject was, fortuitously, about the WHO announcement regarding male circumcision.

          rather than a narrative recapitulation of their newsletter, here is the linkwhere you can read it yourself.

          i'm very interested in your thoughts after reading their briefing paper.


          "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

          -8.25, -6.15

          by dadanation on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:20:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  but i will preview a section: (0+ / 0-)

          while the newsletter is extremely measured and relies heavily upon using only the known data and known issues and benefits and potential dangers, it also does make recommendations.

          one of them is:

          We recommend that children under 16 and older than infants should only be circumcised after proper counselling and with their assent. For children over 16 the law requires informed consent and proper counselling.  

          source: april 15th newsletter


          "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

          -8.25, -6.15

          by dadanation on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:26:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  one last link (actualy 4) (0+ / 0-)

          these are the four fact sheets from the WHO regarding not just the issue of male circumcision, but also is relationship to hiv prevention, and in the context of culture, norms, risks, benefits, etc.

          all four are to the point and all 4 are well worth the read.

          #1 -- insert #1 is an introductory/explanatory one-pager

          #2 -- insert #2 details global prevalence of male circumcision and even has a very enlightening map of the world showing prevalence of circumcision

          #3 -- insert #3 deals with the health benefits and associated risks of circumcision

          #4 -- insert #4 discusses circumcision in the context of hiv prevention

          the WHO web page for information, etc regarding this policy can be found here.


          "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

          -8.25, -6.15

          by dadanation on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:41:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Once again (7+ / 0-)

    If I'd only known that I could have made the whole Harold Ford TN-Sen flame war go away simply by telling the Ford-bashers "DON'T READ MY DIARIES IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!", I so would have done that!

    But then again, telling those who disagree with me not to argue with me would have made it look like I was trying to quash dissent, now wouldn't it?

    Rocky Top will always be home sweet home to me, but it will NOT always be Republican.

    by GoldnI on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:56:12 PM PDT

    •  All points of view are welcome (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tvb, The Officious Intermeddler

      Only common decency towards fellow commenters is expected.

    •  I've dissented (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RealityBias, Predictor

      in these diaries before.  I've got 2 boys and no penis, myself.  I relied on the advice of the people in my life who do have them, when I had to make that decision.  And the info they handed me in the hospital back then did seem pretty favorable about circumcision.  
      I don't know if I did the right thing.  But I made the best choice I could with the information I had at the time.  If there is new information available then I think the diarist is right to share it, so that others can make informed choices based on relevant information.  Since I'm not making that choice again, I rarely come back to these anymore.
      My gripe is that there seems to be a gang of bullies who just dump shit here without providing any substance.
      Go ahead and argue!  IMO there are probably other valid positions on circumcision.  But if you aren't going to add anything to the discussion, then yeah, just move on.

      "The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." Bonhoeffer

      by LAMaestra on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:05:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Worst circumcision diary yet. (6+ / 0-)

      A bunch of testimonials and a horrible push poll.  Seriously, that poll is RIDICULOUS.  How can anyone take you seriously when you write things like that?

  •  Why this is a troll diary. (5+ / 0-)

      It relies on testimonials and a push polls.  People don't understand that to have an opinion you have to back it up with something other than this nonsense.  I can make a push poll too (you won't like this one):  

    Of all the children who were killed in their mothers' wombs at the hands of abortionists, how many should be ignored?

    40 million
    All of them, because I am a supporter of infanticide.

    See now why this diary is unacceptable?

    •  Boy, is my face red. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I just did the same thing in my diary--giving only options as to how much people would agree with me.
      Thank you for pointing this out.  I think a lot of people do that.  But I'll remember not to do it next time.

      "The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." Bonhoeffer

      by LAMaestra on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:24:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  YOU don't understand the "Troll Rating" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RealityBias, Predictor

      Speaking as someone who was given an absurd TR rating from you from one of the more thoughtful comments I've posted here in weeks, if not months, I can safely say you don't understand the purpose of the TR rating -- or meaning of "troll diary." It is not a means to express dissent or dissatisfaction with a comment or a diary. You express your disagreement or your dissatisfaction within responsive comments. Troll rating is not the alternative to recommend. The alternative to recommending is simply to not recommend -- or write about your issues.

      Actually, using the Troll rating inapporiately is far closer to troll behavior than anything you criticized here -- or in my comment that you strangely TR'ed. Troll is a rating given to comments that are calculated to disrupt dialogue and debate. Not to comments that might somehow disagree with what you think the Party line" should be. TRing such comments IS disrupting the dialogue and the debate, which is why I say your use of the rating is trollish in itself.

      There is an alternative meaning to "troll" -- outside of that provided in the FAQ. That is for a subversive post -- generally a diary -- a post that given the forum purports to be from one genuinely concerned about Democrats and Democratic issues, but whose content reveals a very different agenda. My suggestion that the criticism about Richardson was superficial -- by definition that cannot be a troll comment, since I'm critical of a slam against a Democratic presidential candidate.

      In short -- cut the shit, and lay off the "troll" button.

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

      by FischFry on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:47:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is ridiculous too: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TeresaInPa, hopscotch1997

         First, the baby boy is placed in a molded plastic tray where his legs and arms are strapped down. Then a local anesthetic is applied which obviously does NOTHING because when they showed the foreskin being cut off the baby was SCREAMING...and not the "I'm a little hungry" scream the "STOP CUTTING OFF ONE OF THE MOST SENSITIVE PARTS OF MY PENIS" scream. It was horrible. I'm not even a mother and my heart physically hurt for the little baby.

       The fact that you have to put this absurd little testimonial in your diary shows to what lengths you have to go to find support for your opinion.

  •  Dude, please stop this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, hopscotch1997

    I can't be here to mock you if you keep posting these diaries when I'm not at work. Can you return to your usual weekday afternoon posting schedule?

    •  Sad. dennisl... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      RB - you stick to your POV - if other's just need to be abusive - or are born and breed to believe your kind is abusive - it's no matter - your opinion is yours to expel - more power to you for the practice of that exercise.

      -7.13 / -5.13 ...Consider; is it better to plot a strategy and wait, or set a course, and scoot the caboodle? - BMM

      by keechi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:20:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Assertions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Linked here because it's in a thread normal users can't see.  Presumably the author didn't intend to obfuscate his assertions from me or normal users when posting it early this afternoon.

  •  Linking here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    so mere mortals can find it and my response.

    •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but lying is.

      You shy away from a fair confrontation of facts and ideas.  You've obviously got a very strong investment of emotion in the appropriateness of non-therapeutic infant circumcision, but you have yet to articulate a flaw in the fundamental autonomy argument.  Even the most exaggerated claims of potential harm from remaining intact are miles away from the bar ethically required for prophylactic removal of normal healthy sensitive sexual tissue.

      Incidentally, it's precisely the same argument which leads to the absolutely imperative that every woman have autonomy over her own body.

  •  I need some "tips" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, RealityBias

    on how to discuss this sensitive topic with others.

  •  I've you've read this diary (0+ / 0-)

    you may also be interested in this lively thread pertaining to it (or its reply, if the original is hidden).

  •  Be Specific And Public (4+ / 6-)

    dadanation said:


    provide the proof to your extraordinary statement regarding the validity and merit of the data from which the new WHO policy was based.


    ...made such divisive and incendiary comments abut the data and trials.

    so please prove your allegation.

    Once again I'll ask you to please link to the specific comment(s) to which you are referring if they are non-hidden, or else quote the text to which you are referring, and post that message into a non-hidden thread (the comment I linked to above is non-hidden but does not link/quote what I've said that you're reacting to).

    •  RealityBias (4+ / 0-)
      I know you can write great Diaries on environmentalism...

      Can we see a few more of those, and a few less on circumcision?

      Leaders Lead By Example
      Leaders Are Servants
      ps. X-Post To NION!

      by kraant on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 02:13:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  RB (4+ / 0-)

      You have stated that you support criminalization of circumcision, so many times that your statements are substantively identical and you're spamming the same comments over and over again.

      You write well, and I'd be really interested in seeing what you have to say on any other subject.

      Forcing the circumcision issue in multiple open threads and diaries, as well as the oversized graphics that break up margins so that others can't even read the site, maybe this is not a great way to get your point across on a controversial subject?

    •  Surely you knew this tactic would untimately fail (10+ / 0-)

      I wanted to make 2 points in this comment which, to give away the ending, I hold that you should be banned from this site.  

      The first point addresses your attempts here and in a few other posts to avoid answering the call for you to corroborate the allegations you had made.  

      The second point reiterates some of the basic reasons of this site and the rules/ethos which govern/define the site, rules and principles you are so egregiously in either contempt of or in violation of.

      • Thumbnail of Point 1:  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
      • Thumbnail of Point 2: Square peg, round hole.


      1. Avoid at all costs being accountable:

      Your tactic of avoiding calls to provide corroborative evidence to many of your more inflammatory claims is a new tactic you have just recently stumbled upon, and as a tactic, it remains unacceptable. Regardless which method you employ to avoid providing factual, well-researched and well-sourced data, your avoidance of it stands in stark contrast to the rules of this community blog:

      1.  Diarists are strongly encouraged to back up all assertions with facts (and preferably links to supporting materials) whenever possible. Use reputable sources whenever possible. If you can't find a reputable source that supports your position, then perhaps reconsider writing your diary.
      1. As a corollary, diarists should always make it clear when they are expressing an opinion - please do not assert opinions as facts, as this tends to be needlessly inflammatory.
      1. Diaries which engage in wild speculation without any proof are strongly discouraged. Repeatedly posting diaries consisting largely or entirely of wild speculation is an abuse of site policy. Bear in mind that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
      1. Diaries which contain hateful or defamatory writing are prohibited.
      1. Diaries which are deliberately designed to inflame are prohibited.   Source: FAQ

      Over the course of several days, you have been asked, specifically by me, to source a very specific and sweeping assertion.  Perhaps the best illustration of this tactic of avoidance at any cost by any means necessary or by distortion/obfuscation of the truth is best seen/read by way of this thread linked to here.

      You were again asked to corroborate your extraordinary claim that you made regarding the WHO, the NIH, the CDC, the data and the methodologies of the prevention science trials in Africa which led to the policy announcement from the WHO regarding adult African male circumcision and its role in HIV prevention. Regardless the number of times and the various diary settings when these requests were made, you never answered the call.  Not once.

      Rather than provide the data that had been requested you instead adopted a rather clever tactic -- but nevertheless an unacceptable one -- by which you claimed an alibi of non-response, pretending your torpor was not of your doing but actually you being pure to the site and its constituents. The calls I was making you said needed to be clear and done in public so that you could answer them in public.

      There were two problems with your story.  First, the changes were made -- several times --- to you in public threads and you even responded to them in public.  

      Secondly, only TUs can read hidden threads.  And reply to them within hidden threads, which are hidden.  Yet you state that you do not have TU status. If this is true, then your responses within hidden threads must have been posed to a thread that was not yet hidden, meaning that you chose to not respond to the call for data but instead to game the system and mock the rules here.  If this is not true, that you in fact DO have TU status, then your  intransigence is beyond comment.

      You use this "challenge me in the open so everyone can read/see" ploy (as well as the posting of new comments in your very old diary) as the means to obfuscate the fact that you are not participating here in good faith.

      Rather than answer the call for data you invented a smoke screen that is both offensive and which has failed you in its purpose -- to shield you from being held accountable for your specious and incendiary and baseless accusations and allegations.

      Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  And you have been asked to source your allegations, and quite often.  In this case with me this game of hide and no seek has gone on too many days too long.  You are now simply flaunting your contempt for and of the intelligence and patience of the individuals who make up this community blog.

      You have had ample opportunity in public to answer my call for data in public and yet you continue to capitalize on the reality that your comments are being hidden as a means to hide and avoid your own personal responsibility to source claims and be honest in your depiction of the facts.

      You should be banned from this community blog.


      1. Irreconcilable differences:

      You should be banned from this community blog.  And not just for your contempt and reckless disregard for the the truth in what you claim to be a salient and important issue for you  but because the purpose of this blog ad your stated goals are neither in sync nor have you made any attempt to bridge the worlds between you and us.

      If the issue were of such import I am hard-pressed to understand where and how lying and the misrepresentation of data and facts makes one's position/issue more winnable.

      Per the  FAQand its using of The Tao Of Trolling Rating,  I wanted to close this post with the following sections from that diary:

      There are circumstances in which everything a person says is, by the definition for this specific site, trolling. It may even still be civil, but it still may not be relevant to the goals of this site. The goals of this site are specific, and this site, like all sites, has certain rules and objectives.

      This site is primarily a Democratic site, with a heavy emphasis on progressive politics. It is not intended for Republicans, or conservatives. It is not intended for third parties, either, although it happens that the goals of progressive third parties and progressive Democrats tend to align in mutually beneficial ways. The community, however, is currently self-selected to be a moderate-left, progressive, and almost exclusively Democratic site. That's who Kos tends to focus on; that's the kind of people he chooses as guest editorialists for his site; that's who the site caters to.

      This is not a site to debate conservative talking points. There are other sites for that. This is not a site for conservatives and progressives to meet and discuss their differences. There are other sites for that, too. This is not a site for discussing how to create a third party. Knock yourself out bitching about the Democrats, but the stated goals of the site are trying to fix them, as a party, not dismantle them.

      This is a site for progressive Democrats. Conservative debaters are not welcome simply because the efforts here are to define and build a progressive infrastructure, and conservatives can't help with that. There is, yes, the danger of the echo chamber, but a bigger danger is becoming simply a corner bar where everything is debated, nothing is decided, and the argument is considered the goal. The argument, however, is not the goal, here. This is an explicitly partisan site: the goal is an actual infrastructure, and actual results. Put simply, we aren't here as a fully representative slice of the world, we're here as a place for progressive Democrats to hang their hats and get things done.  Source:  The Tao of Troll Rating


      "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

      -8.25, -6.15

      by dadanation on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:03:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dion, That's simply not true (4+ / 3-)

    I have never said I don't like the ratings system here.  In fact, I think it has produced a very well balanced self-policing community.

    I very much appreciate that even though a number of users have chosen to make it their mission here to get me banned, and have unloaded over 400 TRs on me in the effort, I'm still here.  Some have characterized this as reflecting poorly on me:  Quite the contrary, the greater the number of TRs sustained without autobanning the greater evidence that the view of this dedicated minority is not shared by the community at large.

    I think it's readily apparent to anyone honest, no matter how strongly they disagree with me, that my diaries and comments regarding circumcision are intended for the sole purpose of sharing my strong views and persuading my peers, and are not intended to disrupt the community as a few users have charged.

    So no, I'm okay with the rating system.

    If a couple of handful of TUs want to abdicate their responsibility to properly police the public comments by wasting their daily donut load on me, they will eventually be seen for what they are for doing so.

    If you're wondering why I posted in my diary and linked to your comment, it's because I want my reply to be viewable by the public without rummaging around in the user comments area.

      •  All I would say (6+ / 0-)

        In RB's defense - and I disagree with him on the topic of circumcision - that there are a LOT of diaries here that have nothing to do with getting Democrats elected. Going after RB on that basis is total BS, unless you plan to go after Cheers and Jeers, Frankenoid's Saturday gardening, cskendrick's "Damn I Did Something," the food and cooking diaries, etc, etc.

        That's what troubles me about all this - it seems there's one standard for the community, and one standard for RB. That's crap. Be consistent.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:59:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Eugene, it's not crap (12+ / 0-)

          It's an honest question. The other diaries you're referring to build community, and are very helpful to others, both in knowledge and in the chicken soup for the Democrat's soul sense of helpful.

          What I object to is spamming, and I strenuously object to it. Since the content of the spam is in fact circumcision and foreskins, that's the reason for my phrasing. I've asked before in less direct terms but no reply.

          •  Who's to say RB isn't helpful? (4+ / 0-)

            I don't personally believe he is. However, is it up to us to determine what is and what isn't helpful to others?

            RB is surely being repetitive. And from what I can tell he seems to want to get autobanned. Which is fine, whatever. I'm just not comfortable with the idea that we're going to start giving TRs to people so they can get autobanned even when their comments aren't trollish in and of themselves, even when we don't think their diaries are good. I guess I think we should have a bit higher of a standard for what gets TR'd - and believe you me, I'm not exactly hesitant to call out crap, to drop the TR on someone.

            I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

            by eugene on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:17:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Community moderation says it (12+ / 0-)

              Nobody loves a spammer, Eugene. No disrespect but he's been asked to write about something else insteads of forcing one subject repetitively. I don't know what autoban is but the repetition is RB's worst enemy.

              •  Again (3+ / 0-)

                There are a lot of people who are "repetitive" in their diaries. nyceve writes about health care almost exclusively. A Siegel writes about high speed rail. There are others. But nobody seems to have a problem with them (nor should they).

                It just seems to me that people want to ban RB because he talks about circumcision, and while I don't think that's a particularly important issue, I have a problem with us saying "that's out of bounds." It's like he's being singled out unfairly. And I think we have to be fair and equal in the application of community standards, or they will quickly become meaningless.

                I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                by eugene on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's simply wrong, Eugene (10+ / 0-)

                  If RB wrote about circumcision and didn't diary hijack, most of us would just ignore the diaries.  I'm sure if I started posting links to my weekly series in political or campaign diaries, I'd be resented too.  But I don't.  I'll post a link in the current Open Thread, and leave it at that.

                  You're ignoring the behavior that has led to the strong reaction from so many, and that's either because you're looking the other way or you don't care.  Check out the hidden comments, and what kind of diaries they're in.  Check out the reactions.  All of them... then tell me that you still think RB isn't a troll.

                  Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

                  The Music Room - Every weekend. Music & Musicians discussion.

                  by madhaus on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 11:27:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've looked at them (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theran, kraant, RealityBias, Bob Dwyer

                    With maybe one or two exceptions he's posting links to his diaries in open threads - and people have TR'd him there too. Posting links in open threads to your diaries is an expressly protected and legitimate way to pimp your work. TRing that was dictionary-definition ratings abuse.

                    I'm not saying RB is not misbehaving; sometimes he deserves to be trolled. But there really is a group of people that has decided to TR everything he writes, even when it isn't a trollish comment, and I think that's BS. I think the "strong reaction" is borne partly out of an Orwellian "we have decided you do not fit here" and partly out of a childish "he said pee pee" reaction to the subject of his diaries.

                    I recognize that I'm fairly alone in this, and that RB will be autobanned eventually, and likely soon. I can't stop that. I can only ask the deeper questions: if you all decided RB has to go, what is to protect the rest of us if we decide to hold opinions and write on subjects that many of you disagree with?

                    If the trollrating of RB was more consistent and followed the standard rules as laid out by Hunter in the dkosopedia entry - which has NOT been the case so far - then it'd be fine. As it is this just seems like everyone's picking on him, and I think that's shameful behavior.

                    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                    by eugene on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:35:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I only write about one issue (8+ / 0-)

                  Human rights (torture, rendition) are never going to be a fun, popular subject with lots of comments and discussion in a diary. I don't think anyone is saying it's not okay to be a single issue diarist. What I think is out of bounds is spamming, being so repetitive about my cause must be heard in unrelated diaries.

                  His cause is a call for criminalization of circumcision. It's obviously not everyone else's top priority. If you're going to defend RB, then maybe you need to consider the fact that people can make up their own minds, read the diaries they're interested in, on causes they feel are important, and time after time, along comes RB with the same old off topic reposted anti-circumcision blues.

                  I resent that. I'd resent it on any other subject as well. It's rude and disruptive, and RB is fully aware that he's being perceived as rude and disruptive. Daily Kos ain't gonna change for RB. Only he can modify his behavior and stop spamming.

                  •  DKos should not change for RB (0+ / 0-)

                    Which is of course my entire point here - it seems to me that people are changing the TR rules to try and get rid of him. I don't agree with him on circumcision at all - and I think people should definitely make up their own mind. But not by banning him, not at this stage.

                    Just so it's clear, I got pretty much run out of MLW for advocating more bannings of people. So I'm not opposed to banning. It just needs to be done consistently. And here I think the TRs that are being applied to get RB banned are not being applied fairly or consistently. Frankly I'd rather I had a better person and issue to defend, but, don't always get to choose these things when one wishes to make a stand on principle.

                    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                    by eugene on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:04:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Now wait just a doggone minute (11+ / 0-)

                  How you can possibly compare nyceve to RB is beyond me. Even mentioning them in the same sentence is nigh unto heresy. Yes, eve writes almost exclusively about healthcare (as Jérome à Paris writes almost exclusively about energy). But neither of the latter two diarists says exactly the same thing in each and every diary they write. RB, on the other hand, hasn't had a single new thing to say since he posted his first episode of preputial paraphilia, 35-odd diaries ago.

                  It has nothing to do with the subject matter of his diary. It has everything to do with the fact that he's written the same goddamn diary 35 times, and still hasn't provided anything remotely resembling a substantive response to the factual criticisms that were pointed out on that very first one. He's spamming the site with his anti-circ fetish: and you're enabling his bad behavior by continually uprating comments that others have been hidden, all because you have this quixotic need to champion the underdog.

                  •  I'm not making a direct comparison (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I don't think nyceve and RB are at all alike. But I do think that "RB writes on one issue alone" is a BS reason for trying to get someone autobanned. Why not just ignore his work?

                    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                    by eugene on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:02:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm going to say this very sloooooooowly (11+ / 0-)

                      so you don't miss the point. RB doesn't write "on one issue alone." RB writes one fucking diary, over and over and over and over and over and over again. Time and time again, it's always the same BS, the same push polls, the same links to the same tired anti-circumcision sites, the same baseless equations of circumcision with mutilation and/or FGM, the same obstinate refusal to acknowledge that there might, possibly, be another point of view on the subject, the complete refusal to accept that there are perfectly valid reasons for men to be circumcised.

                      You would think, after four or five rounds of people asking the same questions (and never getting answers, by the way--so every time he talks about wanting discussion, he's lying), pointing out the same inconsistencies, and, yeah, snarking the shit out of him for being so obsessed with foreskin, that he would have taken the hint and shut up about it. But no. He went on to inflict another 30 diaries' worth of that tired old shit on us.

                      Now if he were actually engaging people with different points of view in his diaries, if he were actually responding to legitimate questions and criticisms about the statements he makes therein, if he were actually writing diaries with a new take or bringing in new information, you might have a point. But since he is in fact doing none of those things, neither RB nor you nor any of his other uprating posse members has a legitimate leg to stand on.

                      His diaries don't even have the excuse (as with C&J, or WYFP?, or the photoblogging diaries, and others of similar ilk) of building community or providing folks with opportunities to take action. Ergo, since his diaries have nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of this site, even tangentially, he should either stop posting them and become a functioning, participating member of the community, or he should--voluntarily or otherwise--go someplace else where people don't mind his foreskin fetish.

                      And I've got to say, your reflexive uprating of every single post of his that gets hidden is edging perilously close to the line, in my book, of troll-enabling.

                      •  Whatever (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kraant, Caoimhin Laochdha

                        If you think TUs are only to use their ratings to confirm or disconfirm what other people have already decided, if TUs don't get their own judgment, go ahead, TR me for all I care.

                        You should also go see if I've uprated every single post of his - there are some that I've not done that with.

                        My point isn't about RB in particular, it's about what the standards are for a TR and for autoban. I disagree with him on his issue and I think he's something of a putz (pun intended) for his single-minded and repetitive focus on it.

                        Is it trollish, though? No. I don't see it that way. And given the numbers, I don't think my objection is going to stop you from getting what you want.

                        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                        by eugene on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:52:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I call bullshit (5+ / 0-)

                          I think it is about RB for you. You seem predisposed to cheer for the underdog, just because he's the underdog. RB is your latest pet cause.

                          This isn't about consistency or defining a standard. You know what the standard is, and you practically admit that most if not all of what RB writes violates that standard. I've seen more than enough sections of both the FAQ and Hunter's troll-rating diary (thank you, StevenJoseph et aliae!) appended to enough of RB's bullshit comments to know that the ratings are in line with policy. And when I see one of his troll comments, I bagel it, just as I do when anyone else steps over a line.

                          Liars get troll-rated here. So do people who abuse other Kossacks. And so do people who spam or diary-whore in an intrusive way. And whether or not you agree with the "reputation of the site" argument, the fact remains that the guy whose name is on the marquee does think it's an important issue, and has said that there are certain topics which are out of bounds for this site. And if it were my name on that marquee, and RB had been posting his preputial paraphilia all over my site for this long, I would absolutely have banned his ass by now. Autoban would almost certainly have gotten him by now, except for the fact that you and a few others in his posse have taken to uprating--if not 100% of his hidden comments, at least a good 75% of them. As you deigned to acknowledge, RB has pissed off enough TUs that autoban is almost certainly going to strike eventually. Yet you continue to slow down that process. Why?

                          Worse yet, every time you or one of RB's other little helpers comes along and uprates a comment that absolutely deserves to be hidden, I and others have to waste ammunition to hide it again, when we should be banishing other craptastic comments. Lord knows we've seen more than our fair share of them the last few weeks--and I doubt the quota will get any smaller as we really move into campaign season.

                    •  I explained the other reasons below (9+ / 0-)

                      in my other comment to you...

                      others have explained the multiple reasons in various comments which you have surely read since you've uprated the parents to them despite 10 or more trollratings on some.

                      I don't understand why you're refusing to see that he has gone above and beyond here eugene.

                      He posts unscientific information. He says there's no difference between female genital mutilation and circumcision!! No differences?!

                      And you're happy allowing someone who brings down the credibility of the site to continue posting here?

                      That I just don't understand.

                      •  Elise. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kraant, Caoimhin Laochdha, bic momma

                        It's not that I'm refusing to see anything. I see the same comments you folks do, and I just don't agree with the logic being employed here. Yes, he posts unscientific information. He's not the only person who doesn't see a difference between FGM and male circumcision - I do, but he is far from alone, including some scholarly opinion, in that view.

                        And I strenuously and totally disagree with the "credibility of the site" argument, and always have, ever since Markos banned the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. To put that in context, I was one of the loudest critics of the 2004 election fraudsters, until georgia10 wrote her exegesis showing that there really was a problem (I mention this to say I'm not a reflexive defender of conspiracy theory).

                        To be very clear: I defend RB not because I agree with him. I do it because I have an objection on principle to the notion that we should ban people because we disagree with their interpretations or subject matter alone.

                        And also because I get the sense that RB is being held to a different standard. If people can show me that folks who traffic in misinformation are being TR'd and autobanned, that's great. But there must be consistency.

                        I think a lot of this community, I'm still here when most of the people I know and befriended left long ago. I stay because I still see a LOT of value here. But I also worry that the community will eventually be destroyed by a morass of meta and recrimination unless we are consistent about our standards. I really don't like the impression that RB is being singled out. That troubles me deeply. When innocuous comments are TR'd, that troubles me. I hear and understand your POV on this, but I disagree with it.

                        I guess I just have a genetic disposition to ride against the herd on certain things.

                        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                        by eugene on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:00:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Um yes...we do trollrate (9+ / 0-)

                          people who traffic in misinformation. Not only do we trollrate them, but they are often banned. They're called conspiracy theorists...and Markos has stated he doesn't have a tolerance for them. Those CT folks are doing the same thing RB is doing. They have obsessions...the peddle in misinformation from sites that are not credible.

                          In addition to that, there is a list of sites in the FAQ that are considered to be not credible...when people use those sites we tell them to delete...or we trollrate them.

                          This has been the policy since I got here...ages ago. Years ago.

                          The difference is that RB is obsessed with circumcision...the others are obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy theories, or voting conspiracy theories...or "the jews did (insert whatever here)"...

                          Those attitudes aren't tolerated here for a reason...

                          •  OK then (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theran, kraant

                            What is the line? Is RB a conspiracy theorist merely for being obsessed with circumcision? Many of us post information that turns out to be inexact, or wrong. Does that get a TR too?

                            If this is consistently followed, then I'm fine with it, I just wanted to make sure that RB wasn't being singled out merely for being obsessed with the foreskin, or that this wasn't a case of "well we all decided RB is a troll and has to go, so fall in line eugene."

                            I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                            by eugene on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:03:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, when we post information (0+ / 0-)

                            and we're proven wrong...we usually admit it and apologize for our mistake. Don't we?

                            RB never does. That's my point. And this isn't "RB has to go, so fall in line eugene"...this is...please let the posts that deserve trollratings be trollrated without the unnecessary uprating.

                            It's very frustrating to see the same conversation over and over again...and the same misinformation over and over again.

                      •  To be clear (5+ / 0-)

                        I do see a difference between FGM and the circumcision Rb decries. Wasn't sure I made that clear in my first reply to you.

                        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                        by eugene on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:03:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Besides (10+ / 0-)

                      I highly doubt that nyceve would say that cancer survivors are mutilated...

                      Rocky Top will always be home sweet home to me, but it will NOT always be Republican.

                      by GoldnI on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:25:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Your question: (9+ / 0-)

              However, is it up to us to determine what is and what isn't helpful to others?

              Why, yes. It is. It's called being a TU.
              Who knew?

              Magic 95.5 (800)296-9267 And I'da gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.

              by kestrel9000 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:55:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  How many of his diaries (9+ / 0-)

          are related to circumcision?

          I think you should go look. It's about 90% of them...and there are a lot of them. And read them...they're the same recycled information over and over again. We have a rule here about repetitive diaries.

          In addition to that, yes, everyone has their "pet" issue...but the difference in this case is the volume of his diaries ON his pet issue...compared to the volume on everyone else's pet issue. In addition to that, he's spreading false information that is scientifically inaccurate. He has stated that there's no difference between Female Genital Mutilation and circumcision...repeatedly.

          He's a troll eugene...I wish it wasn't the case myself...because he did write one good diary on energy issues, but that is the case.

    •  Banning is not determined by the number of (12+ / 0-)

      ratings you get, but by the number of comments that are hidden.  You are so behind in the rating system stuff.  You have pretty many hidden, so you are slowly dying a painful death by auto banning.  

      The thing is, and I want to say this while you are still here, you had a point your first or second diary.  A point which might have had a chance at intelligent discussion, but then you ran amuck and turned off everyone who would have listened at the beginning.  

      The reason I troll rate you, is because i am sick and tired of seeing circumcision compared to female genital mutilation.  With a circumcision, you are still able to function painlessly and normally.  If you had been really mutilated as in female genital mutilation, you would possibly be dead, or have a fistula in your body where the contents of your bowel or bladder is leaking into your insides uncontrollably, or you might be in intense pain still, or paralyzed in the lower part of your body. FGM causes problems with pregnacy, and many other health issue long after its occurance.  I have no qualms about helping to get you banned if for this reason only. You disgust me.

      Too bad.

      "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

      by hopscotch1997 on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:55:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Although it should be noted (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor, Runs With Scissors

      You did contradict yourself in this comment.

      But then, that's not grounds for giving someone a TR.

      If it is, all of us will have to be autobanned.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:00:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As you are aware (14+ / 0-)

      months and months went by where I sat silently and did not object to the content of your diaries, didn't TR you, etc.  I disagreed strongly, but thought I had said my piece there and had moved on.

      Unlike some of your new defenders, however, I actually know your history very, very well.  So when the spamming and personal attacks on the characters of those who disagree with you started, I changed my mind about sitting on the sidelines.  I'm perfectly willing to take the hit on my reputation now for this decision.

      Now, I think you're here simply to disrupt and play on the good nature of a misguided few.  You're calling users out on a daily (hourly?) basis and prolonging a flame-out that should have ceased days ago.  You'd still be a TU in good standing if you hadn't decided to spam the open threads for 6 days in a row.  In fact, you're still posting borderline comments hoping you'll get even more opportunity to make yourself look like the victim here, when nothing could be further from the truth.

      There was a point where you may have proven yourself to be a productive and useful member around here, but that time has long since passed.  I cite, again, the "theory of net positive contribution" as written by Hunter in making this judgement, and I stick by it.

      Never trust any user ID over 10,000!
      - Anonymous

      by Dion on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:05:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  very (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Elise, Dion, Rippen Kitten

        well said, Dion.

      •  Then I guess I fall into your category of the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, RealityBias, Dion

        good nature of a misguided few

        I thought I made my position clear in a post about 3 Diaries back. I am against Circumcision as is my Partner who is Uncircumcized. Both of us had to bear through unbelievably hideous comments about Foreskin. We weren't amused. I thought the attack level on RB was over the line.
        I don't see RB as a Troll, he seems more like a Libertarian Progressive type and definitely not a Republican.
        This is why I have uprated a few of his comments.
        I have only ever rec'd one RB Diary that I can remember because I felt the Community here was not open to them.
        On the other hand, RB's approach & style needs alot of help, his approach has resulted in a Flamewar, and that I agree needs to stop. I don't have the time nor patience to participate in that.
        I value my place in this Community and do not wish to pissoff my fellow Kossacks.
        So, would someone please have Management make a decision on this, so that we can get on with our lives and continue working for the election of a Democratic President & Congress?
        If someone wishes to discuss this with me further, off line, via e-mail, let me know.

        "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

        by Predictor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:15:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  no, RB, not really. in essence what you've said (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, madhaus, Dion, Rippen Kitten

      what you have said is that you love the sin but hate the sinner.


      "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

      -8.25, -6.15

      by dadanation on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:03:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Personal attacks and mocking (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    dennisl, Runs With Scissors
    Hidden by:
    Marcus Tullius

    only highlight your

    Picture of Galileo's Telescope

    failure to confront reality in intellectually honest manner, including recognizing those hurt by a circumcision they didn't choose.

  •  This diary is a little choppy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condoleaser, RealityBias

    Your tone is clipped.

    And, please, don't get snippy.

  •  oh, RB...?! RB...!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, madhaus

    this is something that needs your immediate's a link to a comment you're avoiding, upthread a bit.

    I know you want us to think you're very fair and open 'n stuff, about it...? open up to us...perhaps we'll be sympathetic.

    whattya say, eh...???

  •  RealityBias (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    I don't know whether you can see this comment.

    So I'm copying it here:

    RealityBias (0 / 0)
    Don't do this, two wrongs don't make a right.

    I've got a much better topic for you to Diary on...

    There's a study I think needs to be beaten into the dust, before (WARNING ADULT CONTENT) Pro-FGM types like these  notice it exists.


    Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? Stallings R.Y., Karugendo E.


    Full Text (PDF)

    Full Text (HTML)

    Think you can do it?

    There are already, before this study, Doctors in Egypt claiming health benefits for FGM...

    I've been trying to write a Diary on trend towards medicalisation of FGM but I don't have the background to make it solid.

    Leaders Lead By Example
    Leaders Are Servants
    ps. X-Post To NION!

    by kraant on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:02:33 PM PDT

  •  VolvoDrivingLiberal, (0+ / 0-)

    I'm responding here to keep threads on-topic.  You're welcome to link from the old one if you want.  I'm not trying to hide.

    I'm sorry that you've concluded I am not capable of rational discussion.  Many others have come to the opposite conclusion.  I sense that you really don't want to talk about circumcision all that much, but if you want to try having a forthright, respectful, non-hidden, fact-based civil discussion about it, I'm willing to do the same.

    •  Every new comment thread you start (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dadanation, trashablanca

      ignores multiple questions you've already been asked.  This is the Condoleeza Rice method - "I've already submitted answers to those questions so I need not appear at your hearing."  Of course she hasn't answered the questions, and neither have you.

      Please blockquote some outstanding questions and answer them.  This is a way for you to limit the number of TRs you will receive in the future.  

      My questions for you, none of which have been answered.  If this is too many, please start with Question 4:

      1. Why do you conflate FGM with circumcision?  They are very different, and your doing so offends many opponents of FGM.
      1. Why do you keep reposting this old diary on multiple Open Threads?  You know they will be troll rated as spam.  Do you enjoy being victimized?  Are you aware of the dynamic where you cause your own victimization?  Is it actually victimization if the so-called victim starts it, or would the proper term be masochism or suicide by cop?
      1. Why have you ignored so many questions directed toward you?  You seem to have plenty of time to post, but you don't answer much.
      1. The question I want answered the most: You've been accused of either having TU or having a confederate show you hidden threads.  You've complained about the accusation, but you've never responded to it.  Please do so now: How are you able to know of hidden comment contents?

      Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

      The Music Room - Every weekend. Music & Musicians discussion.

      by madhaus on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:47:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Regarding hidden threads... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Someone who is not a TU can find and read non-hidden messages that are attached to a hidden message. They can not read the hidden message, but they can read the responses to it.

        I don't know if that is what RB does, but it is a possibility.

  •  blue vertigo, this is my response to your (0+ / 0-)

    comment here.  I'm responding in a new thread because I want my response to be visible to normal users without rummaging around in personal comment sections.

    Please post in a non-hidden thread any questions that you have, particularly if they are about the medical or ethical aspects of the practice of circumcision.  However don't bother asking highly personal questions like you have before such as asking me to detail my relationships with family members, as I will not answer them.

  •  Cooling off period (4+ / 0-)

    ReailyBias, in my opinion a sign of maturity is knowing that you don't always have to have the last word to make your point.

    This topic has become overheated. It has become too emotional. We all need a cooling off period.

    Sometime I would like to talk with you about ideas for real life activism on this issue.

    •  To RealityBias: (3+ / 0-)
      I second the above comment, and as much as I have to respect you for sheer cussed persistence in your multi-diary jeremiad against circumcision. I think you need to take a bit of a break.

      I highly suggest that any circumcision Diaries you write be outnumbered by a vast ratio of Diaries on other topics.

      Say 5 to 1, 10 to 1, the larger the ratio the better.

      Think of it as paying your dues.

      This may seem unfair, but as it stands circumcision Diaries on dkos are a guaranteed cesspit of viciousness and negativity.

      Further. I most strongly urge that in your next diary you avoid the topic of circumcision like the plague. (Both as a topic for the diary and also in the comments.)

      Thank you for your time.

      Leaders Lead By Example
      Leaders Are Servants
      ps. X-Post To NION!

      by kraant on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:45:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  kraant, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant, Runs With Scissors

        Thanks for your support.
        I decided a while back to keep these diaries to a modest pace, not more handful or so per month, however I don't think I'll achieve your suggested ratio because:

        1. There are a multitude of important news stories pertaining to circumcision.
        1. Mainstream media fails to cover them or covers them poorly or terribly
        1. Medical studies relating to this subject come out frequently
        1. There number of other sources covering the practice of cutting genitals of American boys on an ongoing basis is limited
        1. I only have something on a different subject that I consider worthy of diary occasionally.

        I will, however, make an effort to not diary only about circumcision issues.

        Regarding your "cesspit" comment, I think there is reason for optimism that future diaries will be filled with less spam/vicious commentary.

        •  RealityBias, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Thank you for being willingness to moderate yourself.

          A wise person understands The Tao.

          There's just one thing I think it's important for you to understand...

          Being circumcised doesn't in any way shape or form make you incomplete, mutilated, or somehow less of a person...

          You're a beautiful individual snowflake... Just like everyone else... ;)

          Seriously, I think it's really important that you understand this...

          Mmmk? :)

          Leaders Lead By Example
          Leaders Are Servants
          ps. X-Post To NION!

          by kraant on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 03:47:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Respect for religious beliefs of others (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, RealityBias

    In the chapter on male circumcision in her book The Ethical Canary Science, Society and the Human Spirit Margaret Somerville highlights the importance of respect for the religious beliefs of others.

    (W)e must have great respect for people's religious beliefs, especially when these beliefs are long-established and by interfering, not only do we harm the people whose religious beliefs we interfere with, we also harm society. Respect for religious beliefs that differ from our own, or simply respect for others' religious beliefs if we are agnostic or atheist, is central to a general climate of ethical tolerance.

    In my opinion some people opposed to non-therapeutic circumcision do not appreciate the significance of circumcision in Jewish and Muslim culture and religion.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Margaret Somerville that genuine respect for the religious beliefs of others is central to civilized society.

  •  I've stated my position in the past, but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, RealityBias

    ...there's no harm in reiterating it.

    I oppose circumcision of newborn children in all cases where it isn't medically necessary. As kraant pointed out in another diary, the individual's right to an intact body outweighs potential medical benefits (even if they are genuine). Let the child consent to the procedure at an appropriate age.

    For the proponents of circumcision I have only one question: if foreskin is superfluous, why would it have evolved?  

    Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man. -- Thomas Paine

    by Autarkh on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:01:55 PM PDT

  •  One More Unanswerable Argument Against MGM (0+ / 0-)

    "That’s just the way we do things", via blOUCH!
    Posted by SammyJr, 27 years-old, male, caucasian-european, atheist, born in United States, living in United States.

    (emphasis not mine)

    Like most Americans, I had no clue what circumcision was, exactly. As a child, I was told that it was simply something that boys had done. Instinctually, I knew it was wrong since it made no sense that every single male would be born defective. While at college in the late 1990s, I was browsing the web and came upon the topic. It was a crudely drawn diagram of normal male anatomy and the subsequent removal of the foreskin. It struck me as very creepy and primitive.
    By this time my parents were well aware that I think that routine infant circumcision is a horrible way to start out life. At one point I asked my mother why she would do something like that to me. Her response was, "That’s just the way we do things." No emotion. No apology. Just a curt response. Later, she told me that their doctor recommended it. Of course he did. He gets paid for it! ...
    I hate being circumcised.

    Again, for all you naysayers who think that all men, without reservation, love having a snipped dick:

    I’m a man and I hate being circumcised.
    Well, at least I protected my son.

  •  Misha Case Update (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Dwyer

    Misha Case Update:
    The Oregonian published a story on 4/27/2007 about the case of an Oregon boy whose father plans to force an unwanted circumcision on him (diary).  DOC is providing legal help in his appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.

  •  Bob Dwyer, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    After replying to you here I came across this comment.

    Do you think this comment put to me represents a good faith effort at initiating a substantive discussion without carrying forward past animosity?  If not, can you assist the commenter with formulating an initial question intended to stimulate a forthright and civil discussion?

    •  Why should Bob reply to you? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      homo neurotic, kraant, Pandoras Box

      You do not reply to us.

      Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

      The Music Room - Every weekend. Music & Musicians discussion.

      by madhaus on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 12:26:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  madhaus, some here have suggested, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that it is preferable to engage in a contemporaneous conversation rather than continue a previous one.

        This does not mean avoiding any questions you might have.

        So I ask that you choose the one question you consider most appropriate to be first, and ask it anew.

    •  Perhaps the questions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      could be phrased in a less confrontational way, but I don't think the questions are out of line.

      Having said that, my response to the first question about FGM would be:

      Saying that there are some similarities between two practices is not the same as saying the two practices are equivalent. I have never said that male circumcision is equivalent to female genital cutting. They are not equivalent. There are significant differences between the two practices. Since this is such a hot-button issue, can we please agree to disagree about this topic and not discuss it further until things cool down more?

      It seems to me that you question to VDL was a rhetorical question. If that was the case, just asking the question made your point. There is no need to pursue it further.

    •  Here is the problem with this, and what you don't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kraant, GoldnI

      understand is that there are no similarities between circumcision and FGM, except that they involve  tissues of both bodies located in similar areas.  You don't get that.  And that is what problem is.

      "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

      by hopscotch1997 on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 03:13:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why do we need to raise that subject at all? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We can explore most if not all of the medical and ethical issues surrounding male circumcision without ever investigating what links or similarities or differences it might have to FGM.

        The characteristics of male circumcision stand on their own.

        If you wish to discuss how the two topics are or are not related, we can do that, but choosing not to do so does not prevent in-depth discussion of male circumcision.

        •  It is going to stick, because you have used it (6+ / 0-)

          so many times before.  You would be in a lot less trouble here if you had never tried to say that the two of them compared at all.  But you did.  People remember it,and won't let you get away with it.  We never had to discuss it, but it's too late now.

          "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

          by hopscotch1997 on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 03:53:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Allow me to address that point... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            According to The Female Cutting Education and Networking Project:

            These are the similarities between Female Genital Mutilation and circumcision.

            On the other side of the fence a circumcision fetish site compares Type I FGM to circumcision here:


            These "medical" justifications for FGM from a doctor make may also sound rather familiar

            Dr Saed Thabet, a professor of gynaecology at Cairo's Kasr El Aini Teaching Hospital, believes that female circumcision is necessary, although he thinks that it should be performed only by doctors. The study pamphlets that he distributes to his students include a section on how circumcision is healthier for the woman. "Both Islam and medicine agree on its benefits," said Dr Thabet. "Uncircumcised girls will want sex more than is healthy. And they are more liable to infections and cancers."

            Leaders Lead By Example
            Leaders Are Servants
            ps. X-Post To NION!

            by kraant on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:24:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your list of stuff supposedly showing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VolvoDrivingLiberal, GoldnI

              the similarities between the two is stuff somebody sat down and wrote in about 5 mins.  It reminds me of a list I once read of the similarities between Elvis and Jesus Christ:  Elvis sings rock and roll, Jesus rolled the rock from his tomb when he rose from the dead.  Similarities that really have nothing to do with reality.  

              As for the Egyptian Doctor:  Should anybody care about what he says, who know about what really goes on?  There is no real proof that sexual stimulation is changed for men when circumcism is done, but it is a very extreme thing when done to a girl and does in fact, from what I have read, deaden the feeling significantly for women.  IT HAS NO SIMILARITIES except that in a hospital some sortof a knife is used and it happens around the crotch area.  The statement of the person regarding women getting more infections so it is done for health has nothing to do with reality.  There is nothing that is done in FGM that would guard against infections, in circumcism, a part of the penis which is conducive to encouraging bacterial growth is affected.  You are trying to use a doctor in a society which already is mysognyistic and who is trying to increase hurt for women with a process in a society, this society, that is not similar in that respect.  He even says that it is intending to lesson womens enjoyment of sex, and that is not the reason it is done here.  If it has done significant harm to mens sexual enjoyment or feeling in this country, there sure is no evidence of that culturally or medically.

              "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

              by hopscotch1997 on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:17:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you pro-circumcision? [NT] (0+ / 0-)

                Leaders Lead By Example
                Leaders Are Servants
                ps. X-Post To NION!

                by kraant on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:21:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't see anything wrong with it, and there (4+ / 0-)

                  isn't a big outcry by men that I have heard that indicate that it is causing them problems in their lives.  Therefore, when it is compared to FGM which is a horrific experience for teenage girls to go through, it really upsets me. (And yes I have every concern for times when something happens during the process that goes wrong.  I think that would be an awful thing for anyone.  But I have not frankly heard of any except on A and E.  I know that it is not easily discussed so there are more....maybe if I found that there were more than what I know about it would be different.....)

                  The men who object to circumcism, that I can see, aren't doing it primarily because of any pain they are experiencing, any lack of sexual feeling they have identified, any lingering physical problems like an inability to have children, an inability to go to the bathroom normally, fistulas, etc.  They are objecting to it on the basis that they were not asked about it first.  That is fine, and okay, but it doesn't have anything to do with the reasons there is objection to FGM.

                  And, to answer your question.  I'm used to circumcised men so I prefer them. I am a little turned off by uncircumcised.  Maybe if there were no such thing I would not know the difference.  As far as being FOR it, I am, in that I am not against it. That is a preference, and so I am not going to be able to break it down further for you, like you are going to ask me to do.

                  "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

                  by hopscotch1997 on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:37:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And one more thing. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kraant, VolvoDrivingLiberal, GoldnI

                    It doesn't matter if I am pro or anti, because I am not an activist.  If it changed and there were no circumcisms, then we would have to get used to it.  It is not my place to actively pursue what happens to a mans body, if it is not something that is a really serious and unhealthy problem and in this society it doesn't seem to be or there would be a much larger outcry from men and reports all through their lives of what is happening to them because of it, I would think.  

                    I feel that it is something different when I see what is being done to girls.  The negative and immediate affects that I have seen reported are something which makes me vocal and pushes me to fight against it.

                    "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

                    by hopscotch1997 on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:49:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Have you read this study? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      It's only 5 pages long, download the pdf here.  It shows clearly that the parts removed in circumcision are more sensitive than any part that's left after one.

                      Don't males deserve all the sexual sensations planned for them by nature?

                      •  RealityBias (5+ / 0-)

                        You had a point for discussion once long ago.  It certainly has been lost though.  Sometimes one makes more progress silently working toward a cause than they do actually screaming it from the roof tops.  I have sympathy for your cause, and I can see merit in it, but you are no longer a positive messenger for the issue.  You need to not expect feeling for your issue, if you don't empathize with others to the extent of acknowledging that some things others experience are beyond your pain level in comparison.  You may have issue with what happened to you, but you are healthy, safe and living a good life. I assume that since you don't indicate otherwise. Even if you think you were unjustifyable deprived of something, it wasn't your life, it wasn't your legs and arms, it wasn't your sight, it wasn't any other of a million more terrible things that could be happening to you.  Lose the anger and be thankful that you are living a painfree decent life with room for much, much, enjoyment.  Even if you had not been circumcized, you don't know to what extent you could feel more sensitivity.  Everyone has a different level of sensitivity, and perhaps it would not have made a differenc.  A whole lot of being able to enjoy sex originates in ones head and has little to do with their body. This is also a well established fact, and if there is a problem in your head about sexual enjoyment, then it is going to affect you no matter what sensitivity you have or don't have in your skin.

                        "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

                        by hopscotch1997 on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 07:09:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  We may have to agree to disagree here... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Prior to the attempt to run RB off dkos I never considered pro/anti circ to be a big issue. If asked I'd recommend against circ, but that would be as far as it went.

                      In fact I've considered it such a non-issue that I've rarely commented in these circ Diaries up until now. Not paying them much attention is actually quite easy.

                      Now I'm not a major league human-rights activist. Just a humble administrator of some obscure little human rights blog.

                      However after going back and reading the background on all this, digging around doing the research seeing what kinds of arguments are being made in favor of circ and the sheer desperate defensive hidden bias that these claims are not pro-circ but rather "scientific" or "unbiased" etc etc combined with the recent push by proponents of FGM to attempt to medicalize and justify FGM using those very same arguments. I've concluded that proponents of circumcision are giving aid and comfort to proponents of FGM. Whereas an attack on circumcision as an institution is ipso facto always an attack against FGM since circumcision is the lesser harm and therefore if an argument in favor of circumcision does not justify it, then there is is no way that same argument can ever be used to justify FGM.

                      The funny thing is that it wasn't RB who convinced me of this, it was his opponents.


                      Leaders Lead By Example
                      Leaders Are Servants
                      ps. X-Post To NION!

                      by kraant on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:20:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But the points against each of them (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        should stand on their own.  The pain and suffering associated with each are different.  I truely believe that they are not similar except that they affect the same part of the body for each. The reason they originated, I doubt are very similar either. I admit that I have not had one of either kind, and so I can't judge the pain associated with circumcision on males, but I have never heard of any serious objections or problems arising from it at all except in a couple of extreme cases. In my opinion, we should not drastically change our country because other cultures are using a particular custom to heap more control and hate on women.  The middle east culture, again in my opinion, is particularly mysognistic and we don't have to change to fight something there unless the men in this country are objecting seriously to the custom and I see no evidence that they are.  There are other ways to fight FGM surely, than to change our culture to stop something in theirs.  I don't go for the If you can't beat them, join them, approach.  

                        However, your point is taken and makes some sense to me.  So to each her/his own opinion wise.  But I guess it should be each persons choice whether the proceedure is done.  Trouble is is that when it is done as an adult it would be very traumatic, so it is better to make the decision for a baby.  I would rather that happen and I have a painless life, that still included plenty of stimulation and enjoyment if I were a man, than have it done as an adult.  I certainly don't think that it should be done to adult or teenage males in Africa even if it does help stop aids or to females.  There are other ways......

                        Okay, I might have said everything I can ever say about this subject.  But you have some points with merit, I will conceed that.

                        "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

                        by hopscotch1997 on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:26:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  GoldnI, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As far as this story is concerned, I'll concede that I was wrong about the case being fake, because it's obviously not now.

    The gesture is appreciated.

    I noticed several other interesting points about this case, and I would like to share them with you, and have a reasoned discussion about it.

    Ok, go ahead.

    However, I'm not going to do that here, in a thread where only you, me, and a few other people are going to see it.  If you have the guts, talk to me somewhere more visible.  Let the people judge.

    Just say where.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site