@Ammar I'm not equating them at all levels, but at a fundamental level both are the mutilation of children without consent.
But fgm removes a woman's ability to enjoy sex because it makes them less likely to cheat on their husband. Motivation makes a huge difference here in my opinion. I was circumcised as an infant and guess what? I don't remember a thing about it. Some of these girls being mutilated are pre-teens and they're being mutilated because it makes them easier to control. Disgusting...
@Ammar I'm not equating them at all levels, but at a fundamental level both are the mutilation of children without consent.
I was circumcised as an infant and guess what? I don't remember a thing about it.
Oh I see. So if I can find a woman who believes they were unharmed by circumcision, the whole problem goes away.
I'm saying the reasoning is completely different. One is used to basically inhibit an entire gender from enjoying sex, the other is for purely religious or, less arguably, hygienic reasons with no long term consequences. That's a pretty clear difference if you ask me and I'll just leave it at that.
Western countries have, I think rightly, been hesitant in recent years about imposing their own cultural norms on other people. However, in some circumstances they've deemed that the harm caused by particular religious and cultural practices is so great that they should be outlawed irrespective of the impact that has on individual freedom. That's the case in most countries with FGM, i.e. it's been made against the law.
In the case of male circumcision things are far less clear-cut. When I was growing up in the UK circumcision was clearly not done to the majority, but was still relatively common (perhaps 20%-25%). It's now much less common (more like 5%) and is pretty much restricted to particular religious groups. There's been a significant drop over that period in the US as well, though from a far higher base.
Up until about 30 years ago circumcision was widely accepted as medically beneficial, or at worst, neutral. Since then I think that assumption (at least in the UK) has turned around. It's now widely accepted as at best neutral. That's part of the reason why doctors are increasingly campaigning against the practice, but I think most of the pressure to end circumcision has come as a result of changes in medical ethics. The balance of the rights of the patient against those of parents and the wider community has changed and doctors are now more reluctant to undertake procedures without the consent of individuals.
Here is guidance on the issue from the British Medical Association. That dates from 2004 and I suspect one reason why it's not been updated is the increasing controversy about the procedure. Nevertheless the law in the UK does still clearly allow circumcision to be done to infants who are unable to give consent. That wouldn't now be possible simply on the grounds of parental preference, but doctors would be entitled to conclude the procedure was in the best interests of the child for non-medical reasons (for instance to avoid them being ostracized by a particular religious group).
This story dates from 2012 when a German court concluded circumcision was not legal as the bodily harm caused could not be justified (since then Germany has passed a law confirming the procedure can be authorized by parents in order to avoid criminalizing religious procedures). The article also reflects on the slowly changing attitudes in the US.
Personally I hope that attitudes will continue to change and this procedure will eventually disappear as a cultural phenomenon. This article reflects on attitudes in Israel and draws a parallel between the arguments used to justify circumcision and FGM. I'm not arguing that the harms of those procedures are equivalent, but I agree that the arguments used to justify the procedures are the same and I do think the moral issues are also the same - to what extent is it justifiable to permanently alter a child's body for social reasons and without their consent?
Religion and custom are not valid justifications for circumcisions. There are medical and health arguments in favor of circumcision, which would be legitimate reasons to tolerate it, but I don't think the benefit is worth the cost and the risk. Personally, I would oppose it in any country without a very high rate of AIDS. Circumcision slightly reduces the risk of AIDS transmission, but that's not worth the damage except in a few countries in Africa, where the AIDS rate is so high that even slightly reducing the risk of infection would be a major benefit (one might object that condoms are preferable to circumcision, which they are, but there's no way of knowing if your child is actually going to practice safe sex when they come of age two decades later).
Even so, I wouldn't equate it with FGM. FGM is a much more severe procedure (it involves completely amputating the visible part of the clitoris and also mutilating the vaginal opening) and it has no medical justification; there are zero health benefits associated with the practice.
With circumcision, you can make a flimsy argument that it has a medical benefit. With FGM, you can make no such argument at all.
The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and FGM most definitely qualifies as cruel and unusual--the practice itself is already unconstitutional. I think it's fairly clear that there's no way that a law banning an unconstitutional practice could possibly be unconstitutional.
There is no justification for forcibly mutilating little girls.
I agree that it is cruel, but it is unfortunately neither unusual nor a punishment in the legal sense. So while I agree that it should be illegal and the justice did not render the right judgment, your line of reasoning is not valid. It might be more straightforward to consider FGM a special case of aggravated assault.
Perhaps, but for the purposes of debating its constitutionality, the Constitution does have a clause that suggests it's not acceptable. It might not be called a punishment, but in practice, it's virtually indistinguishable from a punishment inflicted for being female. It's difficult to imagine that the Eighth Amendment was intended to only ban torture or mutilation that was inflicted for a specific type of reason, and not simply to ban torture or mutilation themselves.
There are at least 3 or 4 realistic medical benefits to being circumcised, which include a smaller risk of UTIs, penile cancer, and less chance of the transmission of STDs. It isn't massive in any of those cases, but it does exist. It also exclusively takes place within the first few days of life. No one will ever remember it happening. FGM takes place in girls up to 15 years old.
Also, I imagine you'll hear alot of defending it here because, frankly, alot of the posters are probably circumcised. In the realm of sex, it seems (based on a some surveys) that women find the circumcised penis to be cleaner and more visually appealing, and that the uncircumcised penis may provide a slightly more natural amount of lubrication during sex. So, take your pick I guess.
Genital mutilation should be banned for both genres.
---------------------------
Anyway, an interesting question about immigration. To show that the difficulty to atapt into a new country is not something racially related.
q : Do Italians consider Argentines with Italian citizenship fully Italians?
"Not unless you speak an accent-free Italian (regional accents are welcome), and you understand all local assumptions and each localism. Then, they will consider you as one of them. And you’re done.
In the meantime, you’ll be “extracomunitario”, or a rarity.
(Written by an Italian citizen, born in Argentina, living in Germany; with a sister, Italian citizen as well, living in Italy for almost two decades.)"
However I think the argument will be it needs to be allowed because of "religious liberty"
You can apply that so-called standard to excuse all sorts of nasty and bigoted behavior.
I see what you did there.
I understand that on some philosophical grounds that Circumcision and FGM are very similar. However, the contextual difference is important here. The physical/emotional/psychological trauma is much larger in one case than the other.
In my opinion, they should both be illegal. However, if I only have a certain amount of political capital, I'm going to spend it on FGM before Circumcision.
Side note: I also think we shouldnt baptize babies. Let them become consenting adults before you do that (but that's a much different situation. I think it has more to do with agency than the very real trauma of FGM).
It smells bad and makes you wet. And being forced to take a bird bath against ones toddler will is pure evil!
Honestly, I'm against forcing ones own religion (or the lack thereof) on children. As that's nothing short of brainwashing the next generation. They can choose for themselves later on what path they'll walk on. Including getting piercings, tattoos, split tongues, cyborg implants or circumcisions in adulthood.
There are at least 3 or 4 realistic medical benefits to being circumcised, which include a smaller risk of UTIs, penile cancer, and less chance of the transmission of STDs. It isn't massive in any of those cases, but it does exist. It also exclusively takes place within the first few days of life. No one will ever remember it happening. FGM takes place in girls up to 15 years old.
It's most common in the US in babies, though not exclusive even there. In some cultures it's far more commonly done later in childhood. This report is mainly about the potential impact on HIV, but has plenty of other information, including on the age procedures are carried out.
If being done for medical reasons then it does make sense to do it early, as there are fewer complications to the procedure when done to babies. That potential advantage needs to be balanced against the ethical issues though.
In 1990 the US passed the Global Change Research Act. That required that the US government produce a report for Congress and the President at least every 4 years on the impacts of climate change. The 4th set of reports started in 2017 with a report on the scientific basis for climate change. A companion report to that has just been published setting out the expected impact of climate change on humans and society.
The report really ought to make sobering reading for President Trump, though of course it won't. The report suggests that by the end of the century the costs to the US every year will be many hundreds of billions of dollars (at current prices) as a result of, e.g. - sea level rise - extreme weather impacts and wildfires - agricultural disruption - excess deaths from heat and poor air quality - reduction in labor hours from heat
A significant amount of those costs are already inevitable, but the majority could still be avoided if the political will were there to take the appropriate action.
In 1990 the US passed the Global Change Research Act. That required that the US government produce a report for Congress and the President at least every 4 years on the impacts of climate change. The 4th set of reports started in 2017 with a report on the scientific basis for climate change. A companion report to that has just been published setting out the expected impact of climate change on humans and society.
The report really ought to make sobering reading for President Trump, though of course it won't. The report suggests that by the end of the century the costs to the US every year will be many hundreds of billions of dollars (at current prices) as a result of, e.g. - sea level rise - extreme weather impacts and wildfires - agricultural disruption - excess deaths from heat and poor air quality - reduction in labor hours from heat
A significant amount of those costs are already inevitable, but the majority could still be avoided if the political will were there to take the appropriate action.
Is it a picture book? If not he won’t even look at it. Worse, he may realize the government is paying for these types of studies and just cancel the whole thing.
When my child was born in a foreign country I remember being quite nervous about issues like circumcision- which otherwise might have been taken for granted by doctors. It's an example of how majority customs can mark the bodies of minorities, who aren't always able or willing to dissent.
What Happens When a Bad-Tempered, Distractible Doofus Runs an Empire?
"One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite. Since Wilhelm was notably indiscreet, people always knew what he was saying behind their backs. Ferdinand had his revenge. After a visit to Germany, in 1909, during which the Kaiser slapped him on the bottom in public and then refused to apologize, Ferdinand awarded a valuable arms contract that had been promised to the Germans to a French company instead." https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-happens-when-a-bad-tempered-distractible-doofus-runs-an-empire/amp?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2eO13RWYY8vr3daYahpXkIouc_fpIw2T30FzghYKmvLpTlHgzZ8aUmBQI
TRUMP'S THANKSGIVING CALL TO TROOPS WAS 'INSULTING,' RETIRED LIEUTENANT GENERAL SAYS
ForAmerica ― whose mission is to “reinvigorate the public with the principles of American exceptionalism: freedom, prosperity and virtue” — accused Macy’s and NBC of blindsiding parents Thursday by airing the kiss between actresses Caitlin Kinnunen and Isabelle McCalla during a rendition of musical “The Prom.”
Broadway show 'The Lifespan of a Fact' extends invite to President Trump — as a teaching moment
https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ny-ent-daniel-radliffe-donald-trump-play-invite-20181118-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0jwc17LJ_szYa5bBdlQHTlc8aa8G0ZSCIaUBQaprarmUUxVqLDRGEsflk The producers of Daniel Radcliffe’s Broadway show about truth in journalism are extending a formal invite to President Trump and the First Lady — as a teaching moment. In “The Lifespan of a Fact,” Radcliffe, who starred in the “Harry Potter” film franchise, plays a fact-checker to a controversial magazine writer played by Bobby Cannavale who’s known for bending the truth. The producers also suggested that Trump might learn how to better spot “fake news” about himself after seeing the show. They appealed to Trump’s history as a Broadway player to make their invite more alluring. In 1970, Trump, then 23, invested in the comedy “Paris is Out!” which fizzled out after fewer than 100 performances.
Wolfenoot, a 7-year-old's made-up holiday, goes viral, launches movement to benefit dogs and wolves
https://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/ct-food-wolfenoot-20181017-story.html?fbclid=IwAR360U4PmWz-89OVZJXSz40g9VWt68BaL9r9X2Jdp4WAKG6i25cnTrY2Ozc A 7-year-old’s vivid imagination and kind heart have created a new holiday called Wolfenoot, and the thousands of people around the world who’ll celebrate it Nov. 23 will donate to dog- and wolf-related charities, including one in Indiana. Wolfenoot — say “wolf-uh-noot” — was born after the New Zealand boy told his mom about the holiday: “The Spirit of the Wolf brings and hides small gifts around the house for everyone. People who have, have had or are kind to dogs get better gifts than anyone else. You eat roast meat (because wolves eat meat) and cake decorated like a full moon.”
Couple Agreed to Foster 4 Kittens Without a Mom But the Kitties Had Their Own Plan
Even though this is satire, it has been 10 years now since a Walmart employee was trampled to death when he went to open the store and one of the reasons why I refuse to shop there, especially during the holiday season.
This is pretty normal stuff. People get more sophisticated as the years go by, so old jokes stop being funny. People get more enlightened as the years go by, so old movies, TV, music, and books seem quaint, or even backward or offensive. When the audience changes, the audience reaction changes.
I remember watching an old Marx Brothers film, and there was a joke about "the darkies." Most of the humor in those movies has stood the test of time so far, but that joke hasn't. That's just how things work.
Love songs and romantic stories are grounded in the values of the times. Our ideas about gender roles have changed, so naturally the older songs and stories sound weird if you think about them, and aren't as appealing even if you don't think about them.
Trump Foundation lawsuit: New York state judge rejects Trump claim that he can't be sued because he is president
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/23/new-york-state-judge-rejects-trump-claim-that-he-cant-be-sued-because-hes-president.html?fbclid=IwAR00rMkIAWLtbGGL5oQQUz63xqX144ePMcF_nwq4pHyeTqgJd3XUVBVObDQ I actually like this. Even a President shouldn't be above the law. This may be one of the reasons Trump went off on judges earlier. A New York judge on Friday denied a request from President Donald Trump and his family members to dismiss a lawsuit against them and the Trump Foundation alleging that the charitable foundation violated state and federal laws for "more than a decade." In her ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York state Supreme Court shot down an argument from the Trump family's attorneys that the case should be dismissed because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggests "a sitting president may not be sued."
Ohio Republicans declare motherhood “necessary,” want to make it mandatory
https://www.salon.com/2018/11/21/ohio-republicans-declare-motherhood-necessary-want-to-make-it-mandatory/?fbclid=IwAR393mnZBE_5eYzzqS6v7G3vW9bSENsBb7mfGu4L2NKaOTMg10Q7PeOq_HI In the stampede to ban abortion, Republican politicians don't always bother to keep up the pretense that their opposition to abortion is about "life." All to often, they let slip how much it's rooted in contempt for women having control over their own bodies and their own futures. Last week, the Ohio state house passed a bill that would ban abortions at six weeks. That would effectively a ban on most abortions, since performing the procedure before a pregnancy shows up on an ultrasound, which happens at just about six weeks, is not medically recommended. During debate over the bill in the Ohio state house, Republican state Rep. Christina Hagan brought her infant twins onto the floor to shame women who aren't mothers about their alleged selfishness. That's why it shouldn't be controversial to point out that anti-choice views are rooted in misogyny. These people actively choose to ignore the carefully collected evidence about women's lives, in order to cling to sexist stereotypes painting women who have abortions as lazy and slutty. The only reason to choose ugly stereotypes over facts is because you want to believe the worst about women. That, in turn, should explain why, after passing this already egregious abortion ban, the Ohio legislature is now considering an even more draconian bill that would reclassify fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as "persons" in the criminal code.
Trump Foundation lawsuit: New York state judge rejects Trump claim that he can't be sued because he is president
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/23/new-york-state-judge-rejects-trump-claim-that-he-cant-be-sued-because-hes-president.html?fbclid=IwAR00rMkIAWLtbGGL5oQQUz63xqX144ePMcF_nwq4pHyeTqgJd3XUVBVObDQ I actually like this. Even a President shouldn't be above the law. This may be one of the reasons Trump went off on judges earlier. A New York judge on Friday denied a request from President Donald Trump and his family members to dismiss a lawsuit against them and the Trump Foundation alleging that the charitable foundation violated state and federal laws for "more than a decade." In her ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York state Supreme Court shot down an argument from the Trump family's attorneys that the case should be dismissed because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggests "a sitting president may not be sued."
That's not an unusual or controversial decision. There's plenty of precedent allowing sitting Presidents to be sued and none giving them protection for non-official acts. That doesn't mean of course that Trump will give up on this argument. One of the reasons he appeared to be so keen on Kavanaugh was the latter's expressed view that the President should be more shielded from legal action - at least while in office.
Trump Foundation lawsuit: New York state judge rejects Trump claim that he can't be sued because he is president
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/23/new-york-state-judge-rejects-trump-claim-that-he-cant-be-sued-because-hes-president.html?fbclid=IwAR00rMkIAWLtbGGL5oQQUz63xqX144ePMcF_nwq4pHyeTqgJd3XUVBVObDQ I actually like this. Even a President shouldn't be above the law. This may be one of the reasons Trump went off on judges earlier. A New York judge on Friday denied a request from President Donald Trump and his family members to dismiss a lawsuit against them and the Trump Foundation alleging that the charitable foundation violated state and federal laws for "more than a decade." In her ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York state Supreme Court shot down an argument from the Trump family's attorneys that the case should be dismissed because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggests "a sitting president may not be sued."
That's not an unusual or controversial decision. There's plenty of precedent allowing sitting Presidents to be sued and none giving them protection for non-official acts. That doesn't mean of course that Trump will give up on this argument. One of the reasons he appeared to be so keen on Kavanaugh was the latter's expressed view that the President should be more shielded from legal action - at least while in office.
Indeed. The Supremacy Clause says nothing about a president unable to be sued. The Supremacy Clause just says that the Constitution of the U.S., and federal law, and treaties of the U.S., are the supreme law of the land, over anything in state law or constitutions. And there's nothing in the Constitution that the President CAN'T be sued, let alone for lawsuits originating from PRE-office events.
What kind of lame lawyers does the Trump family have to present THAT as a defense?
Trump Foundation lawsuit: New York state judge rejects Trump claim that he can't be sued because he is president
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/23/new-york-state-judge-rejects-trump-claim-that-he-cant-be-sued-because-hes-president.html?fbclid=IwAR00rMkIAWLtbGGL5oQQUz63xqX144ePMcF_nwq4pHyeTqgJd3XUVBVObDQ I actually like this. Even a President shouldn't be above the law. This may be one of the reasons Trump went off on judges earlier. A New York judge on Friday denied a request from President Donald Trump and his family members to dismiss a lawsuit against them and the Trump Foundation alleging that the charitable foundation violated state and federal laws for "more than a decade." In her ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York state Supreme Court shot down an argument from the Trump family's attorneys that the case should be dismissed because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggests "a sitting president may not be sued."
That's not an unusual or controversial decision. There's plenty of precedent allowing sitting Presidents to be sued and none giving them protection for non-official acts. That doesn't mean of course that Trump will give up on this argument. One of the reasons he appeared to be so keen on Kavanaugh was the latter's expressed view that the President should be more shielded from legal action - at least while in office.
Indeed. The Supremacy Clause says nothing about a president unable to be sued. The Supremacy Clause just says that the Constitution of the U.S., and federal law, and treaties of the U.S., are the supreme law of the land, over anything in state law or constitutions. And there's nothing in the Constitution that the President CAN'T be sued, let alone for lawsuits originating from PRE-office events.
What kind of lame lawyers does the Trump family have to present THAT as a defense?
Very bad ones. Most lawyers won't work for Trump because he has a history of not paying people he hires.
Trump Foundation lawsuit: New York state judge rejects Trump claim that he can't be sued because he is president
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/23/new-york-state-judge-rejects-trump-claim-that-he-cant-be-sued-because-hes-president.html?fbclid=IwAR00rMkIAWLtbGGL5oQQUz63xqX144ePMcF_nwq4pHyeTqgJd3XUVBVObDQ I actually like this. Even a President shouldn't be above the law. This may be one of the reasons Trump went off on judges earlier. A New York judge on Friday denied a request from President Donald Trump and his family members to dismiss a lawsuit against them and the Trump Foundation alleging that the charitable foundation violated state and federal laws for "more than a decade." In her ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York state Supreme Court shot down an argument from the Trump family's attorneys that the case should be dismissed because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggests "a sitting president may not be sued."
That's not an unusual or controversial decision. There's plenty of precedent allowing sitting Presidents to be sued and none giving them protection for non-official acts. That doesn't mean of course that Trump will give up on this argument. One of the reasons he appeared to be so keen on Kavanaugh was the latter's expressed view that the President should be more shielded from legal action - at least while in office.
Indeed. The Supremacy Clause says nothing about a president unable to be sued. The Supremacy Clause just says that the Constitution of the U.S., and federal law, and treaties of the U.S., are the supreme law of the land, over anything in state law or constitutions. And there's nothing in the Constitution that the President CAN'T be sued, let alone for lawsuits originating from PRE-office events.
What kind of lame lawyers does the Trump family have to present THAT as a defense?
Ones that know delaying is an effective tactic to get others to settle.
With a settlement, you can force a NDA on those you pay off.
MIDTERM ELECTION RESULTS SAW REPUBLICANS SUFFER WORST HOUSE DEFEAT IN U.S. HISTORY BASED ON POPULAR VOTE
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-midterms-popular-vote-worst-ever-1226441?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3RAfwFI_56wA5ESleZFmX01ENWGqrgcBcwL-Hw_B5JJFloosJzG2PszlA Despite President Donald Trump’s claim of a tremendous victory in this month’s midterm elections, Democrats pulled off the biggest midterm victory in the country’s history by claiming 8.8 million more votes than Republicans in House races, according to popular vote results from the Cook Political Report. Democrats earned over 59.2 million votes in House contests and Republicans 50.3 million votes as the former flipped 38 House seats around the country, Cook Political Report editor Dave Wasserman said. The difference proved to be the biggest popular vote difference for either party in the country’s history. We already knew Trump was a liar.
A GOVERNMENT CLIMATE STUDY CONTRADICTS THE PRESIDENT
https://www.wired.com/story/a-government-climate-study-contradicts-the-president/amp?fbclid=IwAR1ciOzREFyoNAifWD0v80kd0aUmeov4Wl73Y2Ali1zY0ods2fwhhzBIGZ4 And they released it on Black Friday, where news goes to die, of course. It is the most Friday-News-Dumpiest of all possible Friday News Dumps. On the conference call, a spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration repeatedly asked journalists on the line to ask about the report’s substance, and to refer questions about its timing to Michael Kuperberg, the executive director of the US Global Change Research Program. (He has not yet answered my email.) Another call participant explained the timing this way: “There are two major international climate related conferences taking place in early December,” David Reidmiller, director of the National Climate Assessment, said. “We wanted to get the NCA out into the public sufficiently in advance of those meetings to ensure the community had time to review them.” No one would answer why Black Friday was a better option for publishing NCA4 (and a related big report on carbon in North America) than, say, three days later, on Monday of the following week. Maybe the government just thought it’d be nice to offer a Black Friday discount on the apocalypse. “This is a report that has not been altered in any way based on any political views or ideological perspectives. It is the report the authors put together and the most conclusive and authoritative report in the world, frankly, about how climate change is going to affect a particular country. I’m very happy about that,” Andrew Light, a senior fellow at World Resources International who worked on NCA4’s chapter on mitigation, tells me. “The message this administration is sending out by putting it out on Friday is perfectly clear—that this is not an administration that is engaging on this issue, and they do not, frankly, have an interest in helping other communities to engage and prepare on this issue. And that’s a tragedy.”
Comments
In the case of male circumcision things are far less clear-cut. When I was growing up in the UK circumcision was clearly not done to the majority, but was still relatively common (perhaps 20%-25%). It's now much less common (more like 5%) and is pretty much restricted to particular religious groups. There's been a significant drop over that period in the US as well, though from a far higher base.
Up until about 30 years ago circumcision was widely accepted as medically beneficial, or at worst, neutral. Since then I think that assumption (at least in the UK) has turned around. It's now widely accepted as at best neutral. That's part of the reason why doctors are increasingly campaigning against the practice, but I think most of the pressure to end circumcision has come as a result of changes in medical ethics. The balance of the rights of the patient against those of parents and the wider community has changed and doctors are now more reluctant to undertake procedures without the consent of individuals.
Here is guidance on the issue from the British Medical Association. That dates from 2004 and I suspect one reason why it's not been updated is the increasing controversy about the procedure. Nevertheless the law in the UK does still clearly allow circumcision to be done to infants who are unable to give consent. That wouldn't now be possible simply on the grounds of parental preference, but doctors would be entitled to conclude the procedure was in the best interests of the child for non-medical reasons (for instance to avoid them being ostracized by a particular religious group).
This story dates from 2012 when a German court concluded circumcision was not legal as the bodily harm caused could not be justified (since then Germany has passed a law confirming the procedure can be authorized by parents in order to avoid criminalizing religious procedures). The article also reflects on the slowly changing attitudes in the US.
Personally I hope that attitudes will continue to change and this procedure will eventually disappear as a cultural phenomenon. This article reflects on attitudes in Israel and draws a parallel between the arguments used to justify circumcision and FGM. I'm not arguing that the harms of those procedures are equivalent, but I agree that the arguments used to justify the procedures are the same and I do think the moral issues are also the same - to what extent is it justifiable to permanently alter a child's body for social reasons and without their consent?
Even so, I wouldn't equate it with FGM. FGM is a much more severe procedure (it involves completely amputating the visible part of the clitoris and also mutilating the vaginal opening) and it has no medical justification; there are zero health benefits associated with the practice.
With circumcision, you can make a flimsy argument that it has a medical benefit. With FGM, you can make no such argument at all.
Also, I imagine you'll hear alot of defending it here because, frankly, alot of the posters are probably circumcised. In the realm of sex, it seems (based on a some surveys) that women find the circumcised penis to be cleaner and more visually appealing, and that the uncircumcised penis may provide a slightly more natural amount of lubrication during sex. So, take your pick I guess.
---------------------------
Anyway, an interesting question about immigration. To show that the difficulty to atapt into a new country is not something racially related.
q : Do Italians consider Argentines with Italian citizenship fully Italians?
"Not unless you speak an accent-free Italian (regional accents are welcome), and you understand all local assumptions and each localism.
Then, they will consider you as one of them. And you’re done.
In the meantime, you’ll be “extracomunitario”, or a rarity.
(Written by an Italian citizen, born in Argentina, living in Germany; with a sister, Italian citizen as well, living in Italy for almost two decades.)"
https://www.quora.com/Do-Italians-consider-Argentines-with-Italian-citizenship-fully-Italians
However I think the argument will be it needs to be allowed because of "religious liberty"
You can apply that so-called standard to excuse all sorts of nasty and bigoted behavior.
I understand that on some philosophical grounds that Circumcision and FGM are very similar. However, the contextual difference is important here. The physical/emotional/psychological trauma is much larger in one case than the other.
In my opinion, they should both be illegal. However, if I only have a certain amount of political capital, I'm going to spend it on FGM before Circumcision.
Side note: I also think we shouldnt baptize babies. Let them become consenting adults before you do that (but that's a much different situation. I think it has more to do with agency than the very real trauma of FGM).
Honestly, I'm against forcing ones own religion (or the lack thereof) on children. As that's nothing short of brainwashing the next generation. They can choose for themselves later on what path they'll walk on. Including getting piercings, tattoos, split tongues, cyborg implants or circumcisions in adulthood.
If being done for medical reasons then it does make sense to do it early, as there are fewer complications to the procedure when done to babies. That potential advantage needs to be balanced against the ethical issues though.
The report really ought to make sobering reading for President Trump, though of course it won't. The report suggests that by the end of the century the costs to the US every year will be many hundreds of billions of dollars (at current prices) as a result of, e.g.
- sea level rise
- extreme weather impacts and wildfires
- agricultural disruption
- excess deaths from heat and poor air quality
- reduction in labor hours from heat
A significant amount of those costs are already inevitable, but the majority could still be avoided if the political will were there to take the appropriate action.
Trump warns of 'bedlam, chaos, injury and death' if US judges allowed to do their job
Riiiight. Just like it did in the past. :Phttps://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-warns-chaos-injury-and-death-if-us-court-stays-independent-2018-11?fbclid=IwAR0grnM60QDe8SGegjScIwCi0h4uFFNHVHqhvnFzyew12GrFoKHDqu1qCss
What Happens When a Bad-Tempered, Distractible Doofus Runs an Empire?
"One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite. Since Wilhelm was notably indiscreet, people always knew what he was saying behind their backs. Ferdinand had his revenge. After a visit to Germany, in 1909, during which the Kaiser slapped him on the bottom in public and then refused to apologize, Ferdinand awarded a valuable arms contract that had been promised to the Germans to a French company instead."https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-happens-when-a-bad-tempered-distractible-doofus-runs-an-empire/amp?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2eO13RWYY8vr3daYahpXkIouc_fpIw2T30FzghYKmvLpTlHgzZ8aUmBQI
TRUMP'S THANKSGIVING CALL TO TROOPS WAS 'INSULTING,' RETIRED LIEUTENANT GENERAL SAYS
https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-thanksgiving-call-troops-was-insulting-retired-lieutenant-general-says-721210?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR1JObusvuP6bjuyjya9kwBYhRYsVWnCq8B3vlh2Rbc2zUC9023yMnlHRNgCue Trump Blowback n 3... 2... 1...
Conservative Group Rants About Same-Sex Kiss At Macy’s Parade, Twitter Reacts With Love
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/conservative-group-gets-shredded-over-macys-same-sex-kiss-criticism_us_5bf7f08ee4b0eb6d930dc92c?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003&fbclid=IwAR03cA_3_QCTXkFESQNKE7jK_4cKknYHGw5yycf3hgkZf743HGH8H1zk9qQA conservative group faced backlash on Twitter after it claimed the same-sex kiss televised live from the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York had broken the innocence of “millions of small children.”
ForAmerica ― whose mission is to “reinvigorate the public with the principles of American exceptionalism: freedom, prosperity and virtue” — accused Macy’s and NBC of blindsiding parents Thursday by airing the kiss between actresses Caitlin Kinnunen and Isabelle McCalla during a rendition of musical “The Prom.”
Broadway show 'The Lifespan of a Fact' extends invite to President Trump — as a teaching moment
https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ny-ent-daniel-radliffe-donald-trump-play-invite-20181118-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0jwc17LJ_szYa5bBdlQHTlc8aa8G0ZSCIaUBQaprarmUUxVqLDRGEsflkThe producers of Daniel Radcliffe’s Broadway show about truth in journalism are extending a formal invite to President Trump and the First Lady — as a teaching moment.
In “The Lifespan of a Fact,” Radcliffe, who starred in the “Harry Potter” film franchise, plays a fact-checker to a controversial magazine writer played by Bobby Cannavale who’s known for bending the truth.
The producers also suggested that Trump might learn how to better spot “fake news” about himself after seeing the show. They appealed to Trump’s history as a Broadway player to make their invite more alluring. In 1970, Trump, then 23, invested in the comedy “Paris is Out!” which fizzled out after fewer than 100 performances.
U.S. impacts of climate change are intensifying, federal report says
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/23/climate-change-intensifying-economy-impacted-federal-report-finds/2093291002/?fbclid=IwAR1nLJseOqlxBBJfuv9miBS5-_A_qIBrgA4DW4o9VbCmMSMFNb9_5Jw1H74A massive report issued by the Trump administration on Friday emphasizes the dire threat that human-caused global warming poses to the United States and its citizens.
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities," researchers say in the report, officially Volume II of the National Climate Assessment. (Volume I was released last year.)
Wolfenoot, a 7-year-old's made-up holiday, goes viral, launches movement to benefit dogs and wolves
https://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/ct-food-wolfenoot-20181017-story.html?fbclid=IwAR360U4PmWz-89OVZJXSz40g9VWt68BaL9r9X2Jdp4WAKG6i25cnTrY2OzcA 7-year-old’s vivid imagination and kind heart have created a new holiday called Wolfenoot, and the thousands of people around the world who’ll celebrate it Nov. 23 will donate to dog- and wolf-related charities, including one in Indiana.
Wolfenoot — say “wolf-uh-noot” — was born after the New Zealand boy told his mom about the holiday: “The Spirit of the Wolf brings and hides small gifts around the house for everyone. People who have, have had or are kind to dogs get better gifts than anyone else. You eat roast meat (because wolves eat meat) and cake decorated like a full moon.”
Couple Agreed to Foster 4 Kittens Without a Mom But the Kitties Had Their Own Plan
https://www.lovemeow.com/kittens-foster-have-their-plan-2621227803.amp.html?fbclid=IwAR0pTosELBLDq0jrxFJrbb9Wbkd9VjniWAwPJv7A6dhZWqIr4QnzGDNK8ikA couple of feel-good stories to cut down on the bad.
Reevaluating the 'Romantic' Hit Songs of Pop Music's Patriarchy
https://www.kqed.org/arts/13844829/pop-music-patriarchy-a-reevaluation-of-romantic-hit-songs?fbclid=IwAR3GRJTEWpnLf2IhsBneNHANSslYVXTMG-qak3oIFseZ3hgSP8ePIBuwf9sA very powerful piece. A lot of songs people consider "Romantic", are in fact, deeply mysogynistic, even going back to folk music, like "Cold, Haily Widy Night", and "The Blacksmith"
42 Million Dead In Bloodiest Black Friday Weekend On Record
https://www.theonion.com/42-million-dead-in-bloodiest-black-friday-weekend-on-re-1819574242?utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&fbclid=IwAR0B3PjR-Q0JLE3hsasx7GTdiMMrNfwjxxkiGoSZXnWrnmmPhvR_w1eSo2Y&fbclid=IwAR2bSYWs_Mub65QTw9bABaOrPnhryqKNqGwHiUYzLqrgqFXYnQIEgmBMTzs&fbclid=IwAR2nIDqjES7C6vQtDtcUMqwvvwhVZrYTW9NyXfqcfDtxqypT6ZlG2IPybR8From the Onion, a comedy paper.
"Survivors of the deadly holiday sales event said that while the weekend began as a chance to “get in on some unbeatable post-Thanksgiving deals,” it quickly escalated into a merciless, no-hold-barred fight to the death.
“At some point in time we all stopped caring about the deals and the holiday shopping and were pretty much just out for blood,” said Dana Marshall, 37, a Target shopper who suffered seven broken ribs and a cracked sternum while fighting two other customers for a discounted Nikon digital camera. “I remember just sitting on top of a woman and smacking her head with a DVD player until her face was completely unrecognizable. I felt nothing. Absolutely nothing.”
A commentary on American Consumerism? Or our love of violent games?
http://blackfridaydeathcount.com/ keeps track of deaths and injuries that happen on this day in malls all across the United States. This year actually has four entries. A man shot in NJ, 2 people stabbed at a Macy's outside of Syracuse, another guy was beat-up and shot in Memphis and lastly a gunman was killed after he shot 2 people including a 12 year old girl in Alabama.
It all seems comical, until you realize that stuff like this happens every year. The deals and the consumerism is not worth the risk IMO.
I remember watching an old Marx Brothers film, and there was a joke about "the darkies." Most of the humor in those movies has stood the test of time so far, but that joke hasn't. That's just how things work.
Love songs and romantic stories are grounded in the values of the times. Our ideas about gender roles have changed, so naturally the older songs and stories sound weird if you think about them, and aren't as appealing even if you don't think about them.
Trump Foundation lawsuit: New York state judge rejects Trump claim that he can't be sued because he is president
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/23/new-york-state-judge-rejects-trump-claim-that-he-cant-be-sued-because-hes-president.html?fbclid=IwAR00rMkIAWLtbGGL5oQQUz63xqX144ePMcF_nwq4pHyeTqgJd3XUVBVObDQI actually like this. Even a President shouldn't be above the law. This may be one of the reasons Trump went off on judges earlier.
A New York judge on Friday denied a request from President Donald Trump and his family members to dismiss a lawsuit against them and the Trump Foundation alleging that the charitable foundation violated state and federal laws for "more than a decade."
In her ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York state Supreme Court shot down an argument from the Trump family's attorneys that the case should be dismissed because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution suggests "a sitting president may not be sued."
Ohio Republicans declare motherhood “necessary,” want to make it mandatory
https://www.salon.com/2018/11/21/ohio-republicans-declare-motherhood-necessary-want-to-make-it-mandatory/?fbclid=IwAR393mnZBE_5eYzzqS6v7G3vW9bSENsBb7mfGu4L2NKaOTMg10Q7PeOq_HIIn the stampede to ban abortion, Republican politicians don't always bother to keep up the pretense that their opposition to abortion is about "life." All to often, they let slip how much it's rooted in contempt for women having control over their own bodies and their own futures.
Last week, the Ohio state house passed a bill that would ban abortions at six weeks. That would effectively a ban on most abortions, since performing the procedure before a pregnancy shows up on an ultrasound, which happens at just about six weeks, is not medically recommended. During debate over the bill in the Ohio state house, Republican state Rep. Christina Hagan brought her infant twins onto the floor to shame women who aren't mothers about their alleged selfishness.
That's why it shouldn't be controversial to point out that anti-choice views are rooted in misogyny. These people actively choose to ignore the carefully collected evidence about women's lives, in order to cling to sexist stereotypes painting women who have abortions as lazy and slutty. The only reason to choose ugly stereotypes over facts is because you want to believe the worst about women.
That, in turn, should explain why, after passing this already egregious abortion ban, the Ohio legislature is now considering an even more draconian bill that would reclassify fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as "persons" in the criminal code.
What kind of lame lawyers does the Trump family have to present THAT as a defense?
With a settlement, you can force a NDA on those you pay off.
MIDTERM ELECTION RESULTS SAW REPUBLICANS SUFFER WORST HOUSE DEFEAT IN U.S. HISTORY BASED ON POPULAR VOTE
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-midterms-popular-vote-worst-ever-1226441?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3RAfwFI_56wA5ESleZFmX01ENWGqrgcBcwL-Hw_B5JJFloosJzG2PszlADespite President Donald Trump’s claim of a tremendous victory in this month’s midterm elections, Democrats pulled off the biggest midterm victory in the country’s history by claiming 8.8 million more votes than Republicans in House races, according to popular vote results from the Cook Political Report.
Democrats earned over 59.2 million votes in House contests and Republicans 50.3 million votes as the former flipped 38 House seats around the country, Cook Political Report editor Dave Wasserman said. The difference proved to be the biggest popular vote difference for either party in the country’s history.
We already knew Trump was a liar.
TIME UNTIL TRUMP LEAVES OFFICE
https://howlonguntiltrumpleaves.com/?fbclid=IwAR3UNUt_Ab2lC1JPMCUODMCRybHcQd0VbWL5B_xYvsZ5c6nhxYnOJg84A-cCounting Down the Days....
A GOVERNMENT CLIMATE STUDY CONTRADICTS THE PRESIDENT
https://www.wired.com/story/a-government-climate-study-contradicts-the-president/amp?fbclid=IwAR1ciOzREFyoNAifWD0v80kd0aUmeov4Wl73Y2Ali1zY0ods2fwhhzBIGZ4And they released it on Black Friday, where news goes to die, of course.
It is the most Friday-News-Dumpiest of all possible Friday News Dumps.
On the conference call, a spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration repeatedly asked journalists on the line to ask about the report’s substance, and to refer questions about its timing to Michael Kuperberg, the executive director of the US Global Change Research Program. (He has not yet answered my email.) Another call participant explained the timing this way: “There are two major international climate related conferences taking place in early December,” David Reidmiller, director of the National Climate Assessment, said. “We wanted to get the NCA out into the public sufficiently in advance of those meetings to ensure the community had time to review them.”
No one would answer why Black Friday was a better option for publishing NCA4 (and a related big report on carbon in North America) than, say, three days later, on Monday of the following week. Maybe the government just thought it’d be nice to offer a Black Friday discount on the apocalypse. “This is a report that has not been altered in any way based on any political views or ideological perspectives. It is the report the authors put together and the most conclusive and authoritative report in the world, frankly, about how climate change is going to affect a particular country. I’m very happy about that,” Andrew Light, a senior fellow at World Resources International who worked on NCA4’s chapter on mitigation, tells me. “The message this administration is sending out by putting it out on Friday is perfectly clear—that this is not an administration that is engaging on this issue, and they do not, frankly, have an interest in helping other communities to engage and prepare on this issue. And that’s a tragedy.”
Iconic Carnegie Deli to return to New York for one week — and sandwiches are $1
https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/ny-fea-carnegie-deli-pop-up-opens-new-york-20181123-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1iVehGXLuldupxlMndgmLpdj1tuk__-I1aPPc2HvFwPD0wvsUIbVc6MroIf you're in NYC, stop by for $1 sandwich, and sides that are even cheaper!