Perhaps ye Philistines should cleanse thyselves.

[ARMANIXXX]

http://the-aids-pandemic.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html

............"Female to male infectivity was higher for uncircumcised men than circumcised men (.0128 vs. .0051). Uncircumcised men were found to have over a 2-fold increased risk of HIV-1 infectivity per sex act."







http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm



"4]. In addition, the micro-environment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [2]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [5]."

[ARMANIXXX]

What I still find interesting is how the Bible pointed at circumcision for good health eons ago, yet modern day science prefers to scoff at it.

Funny how the word of God can smack you right in the face for disobediance when you least expect it.

[chefmike]

What I still find interesting is how the Bible pointed at circumcision for good health eons ago, yet modern day science prefers to scoff at it.

Funny how the word of God can smack you right in the face for disobediance when you least expect it.

Since when was the bible the word of god? I was under the impression that it was written by a bunch of deluded zealots who thought that some invisible entity had spoken to, or through them. In other words, they were batshit crazy...as you appear to be, slick...

[ARMANIXXX]

Since when was the bible the word of god? I was under the impression that it was written by a bunch of deluded zealots who thought that some invisible entity had spoken to, or through them. In other words, they were batshit crazy...as you appear to be, slick...

__________________________________________________ ________________________________




It's been established long ago, I think before I got here, that you're on your way to hell chef.

Don't worry,
I'll do my best to send you some Evian.......a case or 2

[chefmike]

It's because of the bible-banging american taliban that bush capitulates to(like yourself) that stem cell research is being vetoed again today. If you, or a loved one ever contract one of the many terrible afflictions that stem cell research might help, you may one day come to regret your religious zealotry. But it will be too late.

[ARMANIXXX]

Question, as it pertains to this particular topic...


Are you circumcised Chef Mike?

[chefmike]

Question, as it pertains to this particular topic...


Are you circumcised Chef Mike?

Answer, as it pertains to this particular topic...

I don't plan on indulging your fascination with circumcision. I find your fanatical christian fundamentalist fixation on the subject to be more than a little creepy, frankly. Maybe you should focus on the real problem, the fact that religious zealots like yourself continue to be an impediment to civilization to this very day.

[SarahG]

Regardless what it says in some book or what a few scientific studies may suggest I am not convinced that the practice of forced circumcision for males is justifiable. Many states and hospitals over the years have had policies requiring male babies to be circumsized... to me I take issue with that as a consent violation.

I also find the idea that a parent would modify any physical or visual characteristic of their child without the child's input or consent disturbing... regardless rather said procedure is "reversible"... but I do have some intersexed cousins and am too fimiliar from the extreme of such consent violations; when a hospital and/or parent decides to force their child who is between sexes into one without waiting to see what gender the child has mentally... no one should arbitrarily pick an intersexed child minutes after birth and randomly guess a sex to "turn it into."

IMO forcing a family to cut up the genitals of their offspring on religious grounds is no different from the barbaric practices of forced female circumcision in rural 3rd world countries. I for one think we are or at least should attempt to be somewhat better than that.

[ARMANIXXX]

^

I'll get back to you later.

[gaiseric]

SarahG, you have put down a lot of the thoughts that I have had on this subject for some time. It amazes me that in a time when you can be arrested for assault for having your hand on a child's arm, a stranger is allowed to cut the genitals of a young child/baby when the victim cannot give any form of consent.
And before anyone says that the parents give their permission, there was a case in the UK many years ago concerning people who used an S & M club. One man was convicted of grievous bodily harm for using a sword to cut hs friend, even though the friend had given permission. Not quite the same but similar with regard to the permission part.
I am not circumcised myself, or religious for that matter, but I think that this practise should not be carried out until the child is old enough to make the decision himself. I also don't think that children should be force fed religion when they are young. This is another subject that should be left until kids are old enough to make up their own minds.

[LOCpunks]

Actually, all of the Abrahamic religions historically espouse(d) circumcision...EXCEPT Christianity. It's kind of amusing that you (Chefmike) are relating the issue to "Christian fundamentalism."

Frankly, in the medical world (and especially in 3rd world countries), circumcision shouldn't have anything to do with infant rights. With AIDS as rampant a problem as it is, and circumcision proven to be a significant and direct prevention technique to the spread of AIDS (and a host of other STIs), circumcision is quite necessary. The fact of the matter is, people do not use protection, and child prostitution is a way of life for many families. Even with circumcision, the dangers will never cease, and with education so ineffective in places like rural India, people are ignorant to the dangers. Even equipped with the knowlege, and with protection, HIV simply spreads much more easily with uncircumcised penises.

It's sad that here in America people are so hung up on rights that they'd rather see thousands and potentially millions die simply from ignorance. As much as some of you may think it is someone's "right" to leave their child uncircumcised, it is not their right to spread HIV and other invasive diseases to their children, spouses, communites. And that is simply what failing to circumcise (among other easily-done and cheap procedures to ensure future health in developing countries) is: a means to that end.

And SarahG, in many cases in developing countries, a mother bearing for the 3rd or even 2nd time can and often does mean death for the mother and often the child. A close friend of mine is a PHd researching this very subject - the effects of circumcision on the spread of HIV and STIs, as well as on the subject of women's medical rights in India. After much discourse with her, there is no doubt in my mind that forced tubal ligation in women is necessary. What you don't understand is that without it, they will keep birthing children until death. As soon as they give birth, they are impregnated again; this all leads back to the lack of condom use in India (and other 3rd world countries). As much as you educate, and as much as you try to spread awareness...it doesn't change the fact that without forced tubal ligations, you are condemning them to certain death. Impoverished, malnourished women are not fit to give birth time and time again. But it is NOT their choice to have sex. This is what you must understand. A woman there does NOT have the right to say no to sex or subsequent impregnation.

Like I said, granting these "rights" (to negate natal circumcision or to avoid tubal ligation) often means ensuring a patient's right to death. Not only their death, but the likelihood that they will keep spreading these invasive diseases.

[chefmike]

I could give a flying fuck about circumcision, or whatever religious cult supports it, LOC...this clown's idiotic bible-banging has established him as one of the american taliban that the chimp-in-chief bows and scrapes before IMO...and that's MY point... all religious fundamentalism(and perhaps religion itself) is a detriment to humanity, and it's also tax-fucking free.

[Rogers]

Here's a question for you, ARMANIXXX. If God didn't think Man having foreskin was a good idea, then why did he give us it? The simple reason is, that it's there for our protection, in case we get stung by a bumble bee there when we're naked in the Garden of Eden. :lol:

[panama_red]

Is ARMANIXXX serious about being religious? If the Bible is anything to go by he is heading straight to Hell for fantasising over t-girls.

[BeardedOne]

"... but I do have some intersexed cousins and am too fimiliar from the extreme of such consent violations; when a hospital and/or parent decides to force their child who is between sexes into one without waiting to see what gender the child has mentally... no one should arbitrarily pick an intersexed child minutes after birth and randomly guess a sex to "turn it into."

I briefly romped with an intersexed boifriend that frequently told me that "..the doctors are invariably wrong in their choice of gender for us...", so I can throughly understand this.


And before anyone says that the parents give their permission, there was a case in the UK many years ago concerning people who used an S & M club. One man was convicted of grievous bodily harm for using a sword to cut hs friend, even though the friend had given permission.

Was this the "Spanner" case? That was one sorely fucked up prosecution.

[tonkatoy]

I think there are many religious practices that have no grounds or reason seated in religion, but are more about public policy or public health. Muslims do not eat pork on religious grounds, but the real reason pork is forbidden is that swine need too much water to be raised in the desert. So instead of trying to get people to abandon a source of meat that was tasty but was a severe drain on scarce resources voluntarily, they made it a sin to eat.

There are many other examples, the catholic rosary was so that uneducated peasants people could follow the mass, which was read in latin. Also many aspect of kosher food and the jewish diet were inspired by a desire to not get trichinosis and other diseases. In these cases the practice has taken on a mystique out of proportion to its real importance. Maybe we could stop global warming by making carbon emissions a sin.

[LOCpunks]

Brilliant.

[LOCpunks]

I rolled my eyes because your post doesn't answer the question. The research of HIV/STD infections is only 20 or so years old. The whole circumcision practice goes back for more than 50+ to atleast 100 years. If the study is only research is only recent about transmission effectiveness, then what was the purpose circumcision practices 50+ years ago?

It wasn't for HIV/ AIDS because, they didn't know anything about that back then. So, your post doesn't make much sense to me.

:roll:

If you read my response, I mention a few times about other diseases more easily transmitted when circumcision is not present. If I'm not mistaken, VD has been around for a hell of a long time. One of the original points of practicing circumcision 100-150 (give or take a few) years ago was to prevent disease. I thought this was common sense. So your reasoning here doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, I concentrated on HIV because it is has the most important application here, but I did not neglect to mention the effect of circumcision on STIs, which goes hand-in-hand with HIV transmission risks.

[LOCpunks]

That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is; If the research is only a few decades old. What was the reasoning 50+ years ago? I'd like to see a link supporting your claims.

Are you really going to say STIs have only been studied for the past 20 years?

Circumcision Enforced by Law
By J.M. Vandavel, MD, Waco

(Read at Convention, Loue State Medical Society, Houston, June 25, 1889)

"While we agree in a measure with the statement that the world is governed too much by prohibitory or implied prohibitory acts, we must also agree in the fact that governments are organized, fostered and perpetuated for the general welfare of the constituency, individually and collectively.

It is the duty of the civic or municipal, state and national governments to look after the habits and customs of their citizens respectively, and direct in a legal way whenever it is apprehended, or discovered, that general prosperity is crippled, general health injured and the sanitary status are of such a character as to impede sanitary invironment [sic] and healthfulness; dwarf the civilian in physique and thought; degenerate robust muscularity and mental acumen, legislative action becomes s paramount as the quarantine to prevent yellow fever, small-pox, cholera Asiatica, and as absolutely necessary as the interstate commerce bill to prevent discrimination in freight rates and railroad travel; because these affect the general welfare."

"This proposition being granted as true, the question of the enforcement of circumcision is the one most needed to be discussed. That circumcision should be enforced by law only obtains in so far as we can show that consumption, scrofula, glandular enlargements, rheumatism, heart trouble and eczema are sequelae in any manner of syphilis. [3]

The transmission of syphilis is one of the medical axioms: i.e., syphilis often pure and simple in the offspring — often syphilis in a modified form, for we see daily, syphilis transmitted and assuming the form of dermal eruptions, osseous dyscrasia, deformations, and in whatever way this taint manifests itself, it carries along with it deterioration of a physique which otherwise might have been an admirable specimen of God’s handiwork. If we can check the ravages of disease, cut off inherited diseases transmitted by marriage and illegitimate cohabitation, calm excited brain and vaso-motor nerve centres, soothe supra reflex nerve excitation, we will have, in a measure, cured in advance many diseases and imagined diseases, both of mind and body, originating in an elongated prepuce, bringing on onanism, early cohabitation, phimosis, paraphimosis, and syphilis and sequelae."

Sorry, no link. It's a paysite for scholarly journals...but the point is there, as early as 1889.

[LOCpunks]

Circumcision as prevention for contracting syphilis; 1855
http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/20060417205950data_trunc_sys.shtml

[LOCpunks]

All you asked is to provide reasoning for why the medical community espoused circumcision 50+ years ago (since not for HIV transmission). I never said that they were entirely legitimate, nor did I say that they were conclusive. My point to you was simply that a significant factor to the argument in favor of neonatal circumcision in the 19th and 20th centuries was the belief that it lowered transmission rates of venereal diseases.

This isn't even what I was talking about in the first place. You replied that I didn't "answer the question"...What question was this? I was simply responding to those who claimed neonatal circumcision was wrong in an of itself, and relating it to developing countries in which circumcision is entirely necessary to prevent the transmission of STIs/HIV - if not here in industrialized countries.

And yes, circumcision *may* reduce the probability of a transmission. Of course it does not halt transmission entirely! NOTHING WILL! Nobody is saying circumcision is a preventative cure for HIV......but it has become increasingly clear that it makes it significantly less likely to transmit. You imply that it doesn't matter - that a 2+ fold lower transmission rate doesn't matter because it doesn't guarantee safety...is this true? Because by your logic, condom use shouldn't be espoused because it does not completely halt transmission of HIV/STIs (an exaggeration, I know).

I'm just saying that in developing countries where HIV rates are extremely high and condom use is extremely low, circumcision can make a HUGE difference in stopping the proliferation of AIDS. In India alone, there are 6 million people living with HIV. A 2000 study showed that only 8.4% (531 out of 6345) used condoms and only 35.2% knew that condoms could prevent HIV transmission. You do the math. Tell me that a 2+ fold greater likelihood of contracting HIV doesn't make a difference under those circumstances.
(Abstract- http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102241879.html)

[chi73inla]

I'll never forget how Dana Douglas used to be repulsed that I would fuck uncut street girls. Of course, Dana still ended up dying from the full blown aids.

[SarahG]

....circumcision shouldn't have anything to do with infant rights....

It's not about "infant rights"- those kids grow up eventually, this is about the fact that their bodies have been altered before their ability to make consent on such decisions.

You know why pedophilia is illegal in western society? Any idea? It is really simple: we believe that pedophilia is bad because it involves doing a sexual act with someone who is unable to consent to sex because they are too young to make a decision on such an action. That is the entire basis for all of our legislation regarding minors and sex acts, porn and other such things. IMO you can try to trivialize this all you want (I take offense to the notion of this issue being about "infant rights") but we as a global population need to come to terms with the reality that children/minors are not enslaved to their parents, nor are they property of their parents.

I see this no different from institutions that force, coerce or lie to parents to get them to endorse forced sex status assignment on intersexed newborns.



...With AIDS as rampant a problem as it is, and circumcision proven to be a significant and direct prevention technique to the spread of AIDS (and a host of other STIs), circumcision is quite necessary.

Just because something has benefits does not mean it is necessary to require it by law. Should condom use be required for everyone on the entire planet by law in order to curve std transmissions? Oh wait, I have a better idea... why don't we just use the government to demand that surgeons remove the heads from every male penis on the planet (since after all; if there is no pleasure there is no recreation, if there is no recreational sex aids transmission stats will go down...).



It's sad that here in America people are so hung up on rights that they'd rather see thousands and potentially millions die simply from ignorance.

And just what would the purpose of life be at all, if it is without liberty? There are always ways in which we could sacrifice liberties for a real or false sense of security on any number of issues in which innocent lives are at risk... choosing to abandon our rights in favor of these concerns is kinda like having your doctor tell you at your next physical that they want to decapitate your head to decrease your odds at developing a brain tumor. This is not something unique to this issue; if a principle is valid it will apply and work in any and all relevant situations. We could just as easily be talking about the so-called war on terror or any number of other issues where we are supposed to believe that sacrificing our liberties are a valid trade off in exchange for a real or precieved sense of security... and once you make that trade off there will always be one other issue in which the same argument reappears, the same dialog occurs and at the end the citizen is left with less recognized natural rights then they had before hand.



As much as some of you may think it is someone's "right" to leave their child uncircumcised

It is not their decision to make. Their child should be able to consent to what medical procedures are preformed to alter their body.


it is not their right to spread HIV and other invasive diseases to their children, spouses, communites. And that is simply what failing to circumcise (among other easily-done and cheap procedures to ensure future health in developing countries) is: a means to that end.

Sounds to me just like a more educated version of the argument used in rural Africa to justify using rusty dull razor blades to forcefully mutilate the genitals of their female populations... Why not just round everyone with aids up and shoot them (note I am being sarcastic and not endorsing that concept) since after all, it will be a cheap and easy way to keep them from infecting others. It is truly unfortunate that conditions exist the way they do in some parts of the planet but until these populations stop the self destructive, self inflicted maladaptive behavers (aka start wearing condoms, no more of these "i can cure aids by fucking ___ virgins" myths, etc etc etc) then it really isn't going to make a difference how many rights you violate to try to help the world become a better place.


After much discourse with her, there is no doubt in my mind that forced tubal ligation in women is necessary.

Necessary? Truly? The history books (and in living semi recent history I may add) show that India tried forced sterilization policies for their population. I suggest you read up on those experiences before suggesting anything along those lines as a blanket, general proposal to counter something like aids progression or maternal fatality.



But it is NOT their choice to have sex. This is what you must understand. A woman there does NOT have the right to say no to sex or subsequent impregnation.

No, she does have the right in the sense that it is a natural right; the issue is rather or not that right is respected and recognized... aka I have a natural right to bare arms. That doesn't change rather I am in Virginia, New York, London or Russia... rather or not those governments chose to recognize that right is a separate issue but that right is still there just the same. The saying goes that people are free but born bound in chains.

Again, this goes back to consent issues; these countries need to recognize the civil liberties of their female populations and need to make the reforms needed to ensure such rights are respected.

[SkyTwo]

Perhaps ye Philistines should cleanse thyselves.

Perhaps thou shouldst brush up on thine Oldespeake.

[ARMANIXXX]

^^

I disagree with your claim.

I DO agree that children are the "property", of sorts, of the parents.


You may take it the wrong way but make no mistake, the parent has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect their children and circumcision is, imo, the result of this said responsibility.


Children have no DECISION MAKING rights because children can not be counted on to understand, know or make proper decisions. If my little nephew had the choice, not only would he be uncircumcised, but he also would not go to school, he would play video games all day and definately WOULDN'T eat any of his vegetables.


Children are the property of responsible decision making parents.

I realize "responsible decision making" is rather arbitrary and leaves open lots of room for debate, But in this country, and pretty much all countries that I know of, the parent is the "owner" until parent is deemed or proven irresponsible...........as it should be.

[ARMANIXXX]

Here you go......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzKHQX59Wso


:)

[SarahG]

-deleted-

[Jericho]

Yeah right, put your kids thru this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk

[LOCpunks]

It's not about "infant rights"- those kids grow up eventually, this is about the fact that their bodies have been altered before their ability to make consent on such decisions.

I see this no different from institutions that force, coerce or lie to parents to get them to endorse forced sex status assignment on intersexed newborns.

This is ludacris. You are just oversimplifying everything. I can't even respond to this.


Just because something has benefits does not mean it is necessary to require it by law. Should condom use be required for everyone on the entire planet by law in order to curve std transmissions?

Willfull exposure laws exist in at least 28 states now. Disclosure and condom use IS required by law in cases of HIV. Some statutes are more lenient than others. But alas, I am talking in terms of developing countries with epidemical levels of disease. And you keep using these drastic examples of "mutilation"...We are talking about simple circumcision, in places with HIV epidemics and hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people who don't even know what HIV is or what condoms are used for. As much as you seem to deny it, we live in a socially responsible society. Public health MUST, in some cases, supercede individual rights. if you want to live in an anarchic society where the government and social entities have no bearing on your life, go to it. I'd be happy to live there.

Out of curiousity, where do you stand on court-ordered medication? Should society be put at risk because of a pathological psychotic w/ a history of violent crime and his right to refuse medication?


And just what would the purpose of life be at all, if it is without liberty? There are always ways in which we could sacrifice liberties for a real or false sense of security on any number of issues in which innocent lives are at risk... This is not something unique to this issue; if a principle is valid it will apply and work in any and all relevant situations. We could just as easily be talking about the so-called war on terror or any number of other issues where we are supposed to believe that sacrificing our liberties are a valid trade off in exchange for a real or precieved sense of security.

Again, you are just throwing out blanket statements and oversimplifying, positing that this issue compromises basic human rights. It doesn't. This is a matter of public health, not simply one of individual rights. Furthermore, I view the matter as the right of informed parents, and support a system where parents are informed on site at birth. There are obviously cases where a circumcision shouldn't be performed, whether it is a religious basis or what have you. But...in surveying mothers/female patients, the PHd I mentioned earlier found an overwhelming support for future circumcisions, even in Hindu families which adamantly opposed circumcision (for fear of Muslim conversion). I am simply saying that circumcision needs to be done at a far higher volume in places where HIV and STI (which obviously aid HIV transmission) epidemics exist.


It is not their decision to make. Their child should be able to consent to what medical procedures are preformed to alter their body.

What can I say? I wholeheartedly disagree. As ARMANIXXX said, parents have an obligation to act in their child's best interest. And as I said before, there is no doubt that in some cases, public health must supercede individual rights.


Necessary? Truly? The history books (and in living semi recent history I may add) show that India tried forced sterilization policies for their population. I suggest you read up on those experiences before suggesting anything along those lines as a blanket, general proposal to counter something like aids progression or maternal fatality.

This does not address the issue I was relating to at all. I am well aware of India's positions on forced sterilization. I have a feeling YOU are not aware of the maternal mortality rates at birth.


No, she does have the right in the sense that it is a natural right; the issue is rather or not that right is respected and recognized...

Again, this goes back to consent issues; these countries need to recognize the civil liberties of their female populations and need to make the reforms needed to ensure such rights are respected.

This is all fine and dandy, but again, you are being unrealistic. Mass cultural norms are not going to change overnight. Something needs to be done NOW, and you're just sitting here saying that they have natural rights to say no to sex. GREAT. Now that we know that their rights are not going to be respected, what do you propose to do about the constant impregnation of women unable to sustain childbirth? What do you propose to do about the high maternal mortality rate at birth? It's great to talk about a need for individual rights, but do you have any thoughts at all on these issues? Or on the prolilferation of AIDS?

Again, I am not talking about your personal experience from living in like...fucking New Jersey or something. I am trying to look at things from a public health point of view, and I don't think you know (or care) about the direness of the situation.

[BlackAdder]

"After much discourse with her, there is no doubt in my mind that forced tubal ligation in women is necessary."

You my friend, are a sick twisted individual..... I am soooooo glad youll never be in a position of power to decide something like that for the rest of us.

And for the record, I once again state that there is NO definitive proof that circumcision does anything at all to slow the spread or prevent stds. You can cook the data however you want, but my own discussions with the *surgeons* that used to come into my store a few years ago(surgeons are gamer geeks btw:), have led me to the conclusion that male circumcision, and MOST CERTAINLY female circumcision, serves no useful purpose in modern society. My mother is also an RN shift manager at one of the larger local hospitals and after many rows with her over this even *she* admits now that circumcision is more then likely unnessary and damaging.



Btw, i dont give a fuck whats going on in India. The whole shitty place can fall off into the ocean for all I care.

[ARMANIXXX]

^

Well fine then,

Let your kid have his smegma then.....see if I care.

lol

[LOCpunks]

:roll:

Thanks for taking that quote completely out of context, jackass.

Like I said, the matter is a public health concern. I'm not talking about America, I am talking about countries with drastic maternal/infant mortality problems. Not only that, but in both cases - that of tubal ligation and that of male circumcision - informing patients/guardians is frequently enough to obtain consent. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the population remains uninformed. Like I said before, I'm not talking about dragging patients into a hospital, strapping them to a table, and tying their tubes. But I do support mandated postpartum ligations in cases of 3rd, 4th, etc child birth on site because statistically, by not doing so, a mother becomes an increasing danger to herself and to future children. Furthermore, policy mandates do not mean that voluntary tubal ligations do not exist. Frankly, if she wants to continue to endanger her life and the lives of her future children, she doesn't have to go to the hospital. She doesn't have to be a part of society if she so chooses.

Hell, Indian mothers are ~ 159 times more likely to die during childbirth over their lifetime than American mothers. Infant and maternal mortality risks only rise with each passing childbirth. But more important than any debate over public health vs. civil rights...the issue goes much deeper than an individual's right to refuse a medical procedure. Tubal ligation is probably the only realistic way to curb child birth in places where women are property, raped by men as they please. An overwhelming number of births are not planned or even desired. Wholly uninformed about voluntary tubal ligation, now a woman must be forced to give birth? To suffer the abnormally high maternal mortality rates?

"The whole shitty place can fall off into the ocean for all I care."

Btw, you're a fucking ignorant asshole.

[SarahG]

It's not about "infant rights"- those kids grow up eventually, this is about the fact that their bodies have been altered before their ability to make consent on such decisions.

I see this no different from institutions that force, coerce or lie to parents to get them to endorse forced sex status assignment on intersexed newborns.

This is ludacris. You are just oversimplifying everything. I can't even respond to this.

How is this an oversimplification? You're altering the body of a minor before they are able to consent to that action. Period. That is a big consent violation IMO.



Willfull exposure laws exist in at least 28 states now.


So somehow we are supposed to believe that failure to get a circumcision = willful exposure? Are you serious?



Disclosure and condom use IS required by law in cases of HIV.

But you're missing a big part of that- I will repeat it and put it in bold "in cases of HIV." That means condom use isn't required by law as a blanket policy- it means protection is required by law whenever the people involved in the sex act *know* that this is a case involving HIV. It also means no such legal requirement exists for people who know they are both clean. I am not proposing people stop using protection by any means, I am just saying to require it across the board without care to consent or circumstance is idiocy at best and unneeded over regulation at worst.



I am talking in terms of developing countries with epidemical levels of disease.

I don't care what place/region/etc you are talking about, if your principle is true it should hold true across the board in other settings. It shouldn't matter rather you are in India or NYC or Utah.



And you keep using these drastic examples of "mutilation"...We are talking about simple circumcision, in places with HIV epidemics and hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people who don't even know what HIV is or what condoms are used for.

Drastic is not a subjective term whatsoever... not all female circumcision are performed by force using dull rusty razor blades in rural African villages. Many OBGYNs in certain countries perform it as they would any other surgical procedure in a hospital with all the typical steps taken in terms of safety, comfort and aftercare... again it comes down to a consent issue, if someone is being forced to have their body altered without their consent- that is a problem.



As much as you seem to deny it, we live in a socially responsible society. Public health MUST, in some cases, supercede individual rights. if you want to live in an anarchic society where the government and social entities have no bearing on your life, go to it. I'd be happy to live there.

There is a huge difference between anarchy and libertarian- my personal philosophy is that governmental powers, actions and duties should be as little as practical, that doesn't mean there is no governmental system, that doesn't mean there are no duties for said governments to perform... BUT that does NOT mean that governments should have a blank check whenever "public safety" is at risk, most ESPECIALLY when it involves forced medical procedures, sterilization and other such issues.



Out of curiousity, where do you stand on court-ordered medication? Should society be put at risk because of a pathological psychotic w/ a history of violent crime and his right to refuse medication?

That is totally unrelated; if someone is mentally ill (say paranoid schizophrenic) and they are ordered by a court to take their psy medications then they are unable to consent and can not become able to consent.. (you don't outgrow being schizophrenic) with a minor, unless the issue is imminent (like an emergency procedure etc) they will be able to consent to whatever the issue is, if the family/courts/etc just wait it out a few years. To use an example I used earlier... if you have an intersexed infant and "hold off" on any genital "corrective/reconstruction" surgeries until it is older to form an opinion on such matter- it is only going to help the patient (no harm will be done by waiting for said child to show its gender status for instance... so there is no "wrong guessing" as to which sex status the child should have, if any).

The child's input should be considered... to use a "less drastic" example; what if the minor's parents are Christian scientists who do not believe in doctors and are not willing to "allow" their child to receive their shots, treatments when sick and so on. What if the child wants said treatments, should the child be forced by the state to subject to the parents religious medical views until she/he turns 18? We have seen what happens when groups do not get their kids the shots they need based on religious objection; polio outbreaks for instance... sometimes ignoring a child's medical opinions can be just as much of a risk to the health of the public.



Furthermore, I view the matter as the right of informed parents, and support a system where parents are informed on site at birth.

I have nothing against systems in which parents are told about potential benefits to procedures, so long this does not involve lying to, coercing or forcing the family to subject their child to a given procedure which would alter the body of the patient.

I question the vagueness of any legislation which says the patient must be "informed" before she can make consent... some states have used such terminology to restrict women's reproductive rights and/or to bully women seeking procedures relating to reproductive rights into not having the procedure... and I take great issue to that.



There are obviously cases where a circumcision shouldn't be performed, whether it is a religious basis or what have you

So circumcision should or shouldn't be forced by the government/establishments? Either it should be or it shouldn't be, I don't see how your position could have it both ways... either you think it is a health crisis that requires forced/mandated circumcision or it isn't (unless I am mistaken).



I am simply saying that circumcision needs to be done at a far higher volume in places where HIV and STI (which obviously aid HIV transmission) epidemics exist.

But that is not what you were saying earlier unless I am mistaken, I was under the impression from your posts that you were in favor of deneying patients' rights to consent in light of public safety... stating that it merely has to be done at higher volume does not mention how this would be accomplished. Are you (still) insisting it be done without consent or are you saying it needs to be done, but done in a way that does not involve consent violations (the later of which I might be inclined to agree with- again my issue is not circumcision my issue is with rather or not a patient's consent is taken into consideration).



parents have an obligation to act in their child's best interest.

That I completely agree with, however I take issue to when such good intentioned actions run in against the consent rights of the child. Providing the emotional, fiscal and material support a child needs (place to live, food, love those types of things) is without question something parents must provide for their children... but that does NOT mean parents can, for instance, keep their child (against its wishes) from medical care on religious grounds, or force their child to be disfigured, altered or otherwise changed before the child is old enough to express some short of opinion on the matter.



...I am well aware of India's positions on forced sterilization. I have a feeling YOU are not aware of the maternal mortality rates at birth.

I am referring to historical events in India's history in regards to forced sterilization. We are surrounded by history but it appears despite it being in front of us at all times; we make an intentional choice to ignore it and its lessons.

Sure mindsets don't change over night, but going down the road of rights violations to achieve an ideal state of existance will do nothing but harm in the long run. Simply put you can't save everyone, and if it costs millions of lives for people to get it into their brains and psychies that "I need to do ___" then it takes millions of lives for that to happen.

Do I care? Sure I care, but I am not about support any idea which involved generalized across the board forced sterilizations... we all know how such programs are judged by history, how many such good intentioned programs must we expierence globally before we care about the methods in which we go about our quest for a better world?

As to forcing girls to get their tubes tied... I would have to say that there was a time in Europe when a good intentioned Eugenics program was unveiled as a governmental run program aimed at perfecting humanity- to remove all its flaws, genetic conditions/illnesses and other such problems.

It cost the continent 6.5 million lives (that we know about) and forcefully sterilized countless portions of the population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[LOCpunks]

How is this an oversimplification? You're altering the body of a minor before they are able to consent to that action. Period. That is a big consent violation IMO.

Again, how many times can I answer this? I view the right as one of parents/guardians, not of the child. Obviously, we have to agree to disagree on this, because I don’t see how it is a consent violation at all. Perhaps you misunderstood, or maybe I misspoke, but as I’ve said several times before, I support statewide mandating policies in hospitals whereby patients are informed on site. If the patient/parent chooses not to waive his/her rights and consent, they cannot receive medical assistance at the hospital. I am not talking about circumcising every living body, but if you want to use socially-funded hospitals, you should have to adhere to social regulations as they pertain to public health.


But you're missing a big part of that- I will repeat it and put it in bold "in cases of HIV." That means condom use isn't required by law as a blanket policy- it means protection is required by law whenever the people involved in the sex act *know* that this is a case involving HIV. It also means no such legal requirement exists for people who know they are both clean. I am not proposing people stop using protection by any means, I am just saying to require it across the board without care to consent or circumstance is idiocy at best and unneeded over regulation at worst.

I understand it is not a “blanket statement,” I was simply responding to your comment, “Should people be required to wear condoms?” Obviously, this example is not on the same level as the one we are talking about, but at the same time, it does relate. U.S. states require condom use/disclosure as an individual responsibility for HIV+ people. In a place where condom use is not only uncommon, but rejected by many, and HIV infection is rampant, that individual responsibility is moot. Many would argue that the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the government and public health institutes.


I don't care what place/region/etc you are talking about, if your principle is true it should hold true across the board in other settings. It shouldn't matter rather you are in India or NYC or Utah.

Again, it shouldn’t matter. I’d like to live in a world where everyone could live comfortably and with equal rights. But we don’t. And we have to plan accordingly. You haven’t even addressed any of the facts here, nor have you addressed the reasoning behind my call for mandating tubal ligations (again, in specific cases) in hospitals. We do not live in a libertarian society, so stop trying to prove that your universal principles are applicable everywhere. They aren’t. As I said earlier, Indian mothers are ~ 159 times more likely to die during childbirth over their life than American mothers. What is to be done about it? Hell, the vast majority of Indian women have very few, if any, places to seek tubal ligations and other birth control methods.


There is a huge difference between anarchy and libertarian- my personal philosophy is that governmental powers, actions and duties should be as little as practical, that doesn't mean there is no governmental system, that doesn't mean there are no duties for said governments to perform... BUT that does NOT mean that governments should have a blank check whenever "public safety" is at risk, most ESPECIALLY when it involves forced medical procedures, sterilization and other such issues.

Excellent, and you know what? No libertarian society exists or has ever existed. We do not live in one, neither does India. So please refrain from applying your theoretical claims on societies which they do not apply to. We live in a federalist republic. Nobody said the government should have a “blank check,” and nobody is saying that they should act in every little case of public health…but in epidemical cases where hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake, HELL FUCKING YES THEY DO. Stop trying to compare this to the fucking Holocaust, there are no commonalities. “Force” is a word constantly taken out of context. Frankly, if you want to obtain medical assistance for childbirth at a government-funded hospital which you cannot afford, you can be sure that I condone a medical official handing you a waiver and consent form and telling you to get the fuck out of their hospital if you refuse to sign it. You can go ahead and give birth in your backyard, because under the demographic health circumstances, either way, there is a fair chance you are going to die during childbirth regardless. That is something that the government cannot continually support in hospitals that it funds. I am not talking about going into people’s houses and tying their tubes. AGAIN, stop trying to relate this to past forced sterilization projects which share no common ground with what I am talking about.


That is totally unrelated; if someone is mentally ill (say paranoid schizophrenic) and they are ordered by a court to take their psy medications then they are unable to consent and can not become able to consent.. (you don't outgrow being schizophrenic)

Sorry, but this is COMPLETELY incorrect. Paranoid schizophrenia (which is actually the very disease I had in mind) IS NOT an incapacitating disease. Of course they have the ability to consent! I don’t know where you get this misconceived notion about debilitating diseases, but schizophrenics have EVERY capacity to understand the matter of consent and to refuse medication. So again, I ask you, in the case of a pathological psychotic with a violent history, should they be FORCED to be medicated? For the public good?

And since you feel that every medical decision must be made by the minor, what of the countless medical procedures that may be necessary early on in life? Appendectomies, laparoscopies, lithotomies, etc.? The parent has no right to alter the child’s body, but the child is too young to understand/consent! But without these procedures, the child could endure serious complications and death. What then? Surely you would allow the parents to consent to these medical procedures, right? But if so, you are contradicting everything you have been saying here. You can’t have it both ways.


Sure mindsets don't change over night, but going down the road of rights violations to achieve an ideal state of existance will do nothing but harm in the long run. Simply put you can't save everyone, and if it costs millions of lives for people to get it into their brains and psychies that "I need to do ___" then it takes millions of lives for that to happen.

Again, you are oversimplifying to fit this “rights vs. freedom” argument of yours. Good, so you are willing to sacrifice millions of innocent human lives. I’m glad. Now that we have established that, what exactly do you propose to stop the needless death? To stop the unrepentant and widespread rape/impregnation of innocent woman who are unfit to sustain childbirth? Again, any thoughts AT ALL?


As to forcing girls to get their tubes tied... I would have to say that there was a time in Europe when a good intentioned Eugenics program was unveiled as a governmental run program aimed at perfecting humanity- to remove all its flaws, genetic conditions/illnesses and other such problems.

It cost the continent 6.5 million lives (that we know about) and forcefully sterilized countless portions of the population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with race purification. Hell, it doesn’t even have to do with population controls. How many times do I have to say this? It is about maternal mortality. The programs I am talking about perhaps significantly limit a patient’s choices, but surely they don’t “force” sterilization, and certainly not at the levels that you keep trying to illustrate. I mean, come on. Trying to relate this to the Holocaust? More than that, trying to paint Nazi Eugenics with “good intentions” to somehow lump it in with what I am talking about? Completely ridiculous.

[biguy4tvtscd]

The comparisons between circumcision and gender related plastic surgery at birth are rather hysterical. There's a grand canyon sized difference between "snipping the tip" of an obviously male baby, and performing plastic surgery and/or genital mutilation on a newborn of indeterminate sex to either "make them male" or "make them female"

I was raised Roman Catholic, as were most of my friends. All of us were circumcised as infants, and not one of us ever got the neurotic notion that our parents "mutilated us without our consent" Plain and simply, there's nothing wrong with it.

Also, in the event I ever have a son (I already have a daughter), he will most certainly be circumcised.

I also have to say that I get a huge kick out the fact that circumcision has been performed on millions of healthy baby males in our planets history, and yet in the last 30 years it has morphed from a normal routine procedure to some horrific form of torture and mutilation. Get a grip.

Here's a tip, before you concern yourself with western doctors performing routine circumcisions, let's take care of the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation in Africa (which, unlike circumcision, is real and actual mutilation, and done for no other reason than sheer ignorance)

[chefmike]

What I still find interesting is how the Bible pointed at circumcision for good health eons ago, yet modern day science prefers to scoff at it.

Funny how the word of God can smack you right in the face for disobediance when you least expect it.

There has been some interesting discourse re circumcision in this thread...although that still doesn't change the fact that it was started by a bible-banging shill for the christian taliban...and while we're on the subject of religious zealotry, let's take a look at what this fool has to say about evolution-

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=21884&start=0

[SarahG]

Obviously, we have to agree to disagree on this, because I don’t see how it is a consent violation at all.

I suppose we don't have a choice but to agree to disagree on this.


If the patient/parent chooses not to waive his/her rights and consent, they cannot receive medical assistance at the hospital. I am not talking about circumcising every living body, but if you want to use socially-funded hospitals, you should have to adhere to social regulations as they pertain to public health.

Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that in order to use a publically funded (do you mean in full or in part?) hospital for heathcare you have to agree, under your proposal, to having circumcision performed? What do you think that this will do to the mortality stats if that simply means families opt to walk out of the hospital so they can go give birth at home? Saying "ok, if you want healthcare you're going to have to agree to getting this procedure" to me sounds like it could convince alot of people to leave the healthcare system... if you mean to also go this way for tube tying (aka "this is your 3rd baby so if you want to give birth here we are going to sterilize you") I suspect most Indian families would merely go home to try to give birth in their home... especially in the rural areas where children are assets that provide labor critical to survival (to bring in money, food etc).



I understand it is not a “blanket statement,” I was simply responding to your comment, “Should people be required to wear condoms?” Obviously, this example is not on the same level as the one we are talking about, but at the same time, it does relate. U.S. states require condom use/disclosure as an individual responsibility for HIV+ people. In a place where condom use is not only uncommon, but rejected by many, and HIV infection is rampant, that individual responsibility is moot. Many would argue that the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the government and public health institutes.

I don't see the statues you cited as related given the differences in extremes. However I take it from the later half of that paragraph that you are stating that because a faction ignores the law/responsibility/etc they require having their rights taken away... that I can agree with to a point, pertaining to this issue (since apparently you can't stand generalizations or poly sci theory...)... does India have laws on the books pertaining to condom use and/or disclosure for people known to have HIV? If they do not, why not try that first? If they have such laws, are they truly enforced? If not, again that would be something to try. After that, if the people are still ignoring said regulations- only then does it make sense to remove their liberties and again, only then does it make sense to do it based on guilt.

Aka the main difference between the American and Chinese judicial systems is that in America, the system is setup so that it will rather let 100 guilty citizens go free then send one innocent citizen to imprisonment. In China it is the opposite (preferring to have 100 innocents be imprisoned rather than let one guilty citizen free). I would have no problem if say, India went and somehow punished someone for going and spreading aids threw refusing to use protection after legislation is brought up, notified to the people and enforced requiring it for cases where parties to a sexual act know they have aids.

I do not find the idea of taking the whole population of India and subjecting them to things based on HIV spread under such laws, even when said citizens had not been found to have taken part in such an action even if the statistics implies more were committing said crime then were being punished for it.



As I said earlier, Indian mothers are ~ 159 times more likely to die during childbirth over their life than American mothers. What is to be done about it? Hell, the vast majority of Indian women have very few, if any, places to seek tubal ligations and other birth control methods.

And at what level would mortality statistics have to reach compared to the United States in order for such actions to be mandated? So it is 159x in India... would you still be proposing this if it were 100x? 50x? 20x? Less?

Your last thought here is telling "have very few, if any, places to seek tubal ligations and other birth control methods"- again, that should be explored most definitely before any proposal that involves the government forcing said procedures upon the population or part of the population therein.



and you know what? No libertarian society exists or has ever existed.

That just isn't true. From American history, America as under the articles of the confederation was a libertarian society from a federal standpoint. Many territories were libertarian societies before they were forced to be changed during the road to statehood.

Have you ever read the Turner thesis? The history of political philosophy during the American 19th century went over the fact that the libertarian perspective was mainstream based on geography and population, the extremes between the libertarians and what were originally called the antifederalists were dependent (in terms of being mainstream) based on this relationship and we see the effects of such to this day. Before you say "ah, but that is part of the country and not the whole country" I will remind you that you said society- and any country that is large enough or diverse enough internally has different societies within it. The roman republic and empire alike had many societies inside their country (and its territories) and they even had their own rules, regulations and what not based on those differences.



We live in a federalist republic.

And what does that have to do with libertarianism? It doesn't, at all. You're talking about the structure of the system whereas i am talking about the duties and conduct of said system. A federalist republic could be or could not be libertarianistic and still be a federalist republic. The fact that you have this confused shows me you really have no idea what I am talking about.



Paranoid schizophrenia (which is actually the very disease I had in mind) IS NOT an incapacitating disease.

It is if the patient is refusing to take medication, which is what your example was about. Thus going off their meds is not an action they can consent to do when ordered by the courts based on risk to themselves or others.

If a patient with this condition has a history of hurting people when off medication and is ordered to go on their medications as a result this is not a consent issue. I had a relative who had this disease and since he had no record of being harmful to him or others when off his meds, no one cared nor forced him to do otherwise and thus he was able to consent (when well) not to take his medication. When he was off his medication he was not of sound mind to the point of being able to consent to anything; but in terms of his medication he would go threw cycles where when he was on it, and when he was not on it. When he was not on it he would just sit in his study all day designing perpetual motion machines ("free energy") for all the time he was awake and was as harmless as someone can be (sane or otherwise).



what of the countless medical procedures that may be necessary early on in life?

I thought I had it clear that I was talking about modifying/altering the body of someone without their consent when it is not based on concern of their imminent health risk? If it is a procedure/treatment/etc required for the patient to survive and doing said procedure will "cure them" I don't see what the issue would be in just doing the procedure.

Going and doing an elective/optional procedure that can wait a few years is a whole other can of worms. Likewise for procedures where the patient is going to die either way and treatment decisions effect the quality of life for the patient's last days alive.

Sure there are risks with anything and everything, including surgeries but I don't see the logic behind refusing a kid to have emergency surgery on say, a open gash in their stomach based on the possibility that a complication would occur and kill the patient... I mean come on, I could walk out my door and be struck and killed by lightning, hit by a bus- whatever- but that isn't enough to go "you know what, I am just going to stay in my room because it is safer" (of course, even that maynot be true; there is always building fires, CO poisoning etc... but now I am going off on tangents).



This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with race purification.

It sure as hell does.

The eugenics expirament known as the Holocaust (per the 1950s-onward use of the term, Holocaust was a more general term prior to WW2 and in fact has its origins in the Great War but this is not something in the scope of this thread) was not created by the Germans solely to kill off all the gypsies, gays and Jews in Europe by any means. Only an American K-12 history course would give you that impression.

The German expirament was also aimed at perfecting humanity threw eugenics from a nonrace perspective.

Think of it this way: List ALL the genetic conditions, genetically linked conditions and think of how much better humanity would be if we did away with all those conditions? Eugenics, incl in the German project was aimed at sterilizing people who had such "defects" that way such conditions would become a mere part of history... people would be healthier, with lower health costs, illnesses and death stats because of all the genetic based diseases et al that would be taken out of existance (this is really what eugenics is all about at its core- it was never intended to be a racist concept, it was just perverted by the Germans... and it is the general theory behind most breeding systems for animals, plants etc).

Do you know what was required per German law in order to marry let alone reproduce? It wasn't specific to race for this reason.

If eugenics per specifically these types of conditions were properly carried out globally, it would save lives, probably more lives than mortality statistic pertaining to India (not to trivialize their plight). So why don't we impose such a project? After all, based on your comments I assume all you care about are the statistics and any rights that are trampled along the way are just collateral damage out of concern to the public health.

And yet I would at least hope that most of the people here would be opposed to a global eugenics project forced upon the global populations- regardless how many millions of lives it would save. At the end of the day, public health risk/concern merely is not enough to justify certain intrusions (forced sterilization being one of them).

[tubgirl]

The comparisons between circumcision and gender related plastic surgery at birth are rather hysterical. There's a grand canyon sized difference between "snipping the tip" of an obviously male baby, and performing plastic surgery and/or genital mutilation on a newborn of indeterminate sex to either "make them male" or "make them female"

I was raised Roman Catholic, as were most of my friends. All of us were circumcised as infants, and not one of us ever got the neurotic notion that our parents "mutilated us without our consent" Plain and simply, there's nothing wrong with it.

Also, in the event I ever have a son (I already have a daughter), he will most certainly be circumcised.

I also have to say that I get a huge kick out the fact that circumcision has been performed on millions of healthy baby males in our planets history, and yet in the last 30 years it has morphed from a normal routine procedure to some horrific form of torture and mutilation. Get a grip.

Here's a tip, before you concern yourself with western doctors performing routine circumcisions, let's take care of the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation in Africa (which, unlike circumcision, is real and actual mutilation, and done for no other reason than sheer ignorance)


:claps

[LOCpunks]

Sorry guys, I know this has been dragged out far too long, but...once you start, it's hard to stop. This will be my last post here. Unless somebody says something really ridiculous.


I suspect most Indian families would merely go home to try to give birth in their home... especially in the rural areas where children are assets that provide labor critical to survival (to bring in money, food etc).

I don't believe this for a second. I would like to see evidence of this...surveys, studies, whatever. I don't have the studies on hand, but the researcher I know personally who worked with the WHO in India actually performed studies in rural southern India on the subject and worked as a lead doctor in a medical facility in Andra Pradesh. From everything I can remember listening to, women were generally very receptive to sterilization after being educated on the risks of enduring many childbirths and on the benefits of declining fertility.


And at what level would mortality statistics have to reach compared to the United States in order for such actions to be mandated? So it is 159x in India... would you still be proposing this if it were 100x? 50x? 20x? Less?

Your last thought here is telling "have very few, if any, places to seek tubal ligations and other birth control methods"- again, that should be explored most definitely before any proposal that involves the government forcing said procedures upon the population or part of the population therein.

I don't have a set line to draw where government action should be taken. The fact is that the mortality rate is alarming. And yes, I fully support establishing institutions for voluntary birth control. But the fact of the matter is, there is not enough money in the world to penetrate the poor, rural areas in India with educational programs and to establish the number of medical facilities to facilitate those programs; at least to a point where they could be considered effective.


It is if the patient is refusing to take medication, which is what your example was about. Thus going off their meds is not an action they can consent to do when ordered by the courts based on risk to themselves or others.

Maybe I am not being clear. The issue is whether or not court-ordered medication is justifiable when a patient has the capacity to consent to or to disallow medication. I am not asking you whether or not a patient can legally consent in the case of a court order. The answer is clear. But if a mentally ill patient has done his time and refuses to be medicated, forcing medication on him IS justifiable for the public good? Because he represents a threat to society, no?


That just isn't true. From American history, America as under the articles of the confederation was a libertarian society from a federal standpoint. Many territories were libertarian societies before they were forced to be changed during the road to statehood.

In most cases, the line between "confederation" and "federation" is entirely ambiguous. The governments within states/territories in the confederacy certainly were not liberal to the extent to consider them "libertarian societies"; a weaker central government within the confederation may have existed, but that did not mean that the states retained authority so limited as to be considered libertarian. Have you read any of Louis Hacker or Charles Beards' works? Or any of the other historians/professors who attacked the Turner Thesis and its pertaining idea of exceptionalism? Anti-federalism DID NOT equate with libertarianism; yes, it borrowed from the libertarian school of thought; yes, anti-federalists sought to limit federal government (because of its association with a monarchal force), but they still supported individual states with sovereign governments in which citizens were subject to state and local authority.


And what does that have to do with libertarianism? It doesn't, at all. You're talking about the structure of the system whereas i am talking about the duties and conduct of said system. A federalist republic could be or could not be libertarianistic and still be a federalist republic. The fact that you have this confused shows me you really have no idea what I am talking about.

Federalism is a political philosophy. Not only that, but it is often (but not always) in contrast with libertarianism. Republic may refer to the structure, but federalism asserts that individuals are still subject to both state and federal policy, hence the justifiable conduct of federal government that I refer to here. The central government, at least here in the U.S., undoubtedly has a responsbility to provide social provisions and to promote the general welfare of its citizens, which is all that I am asserting. I understand that libertarians are irrespective to the laws of the state, and generally believe an individual's rights must never be put aside in the general interest. What I don't understand is how you believe that libertarian theory should be applied in a federalist state (or confederacy) where citizens are subject to state and federal laws intended for the public good. They shouldn't, and your individual beliefs should have no bearing (in the grand scheme of things) on how our [or other federalist states] should conduct themselves. I am not trying to justify federalism or defeat libertarianism here. I am simply saying that in a federalist system (such as the system that exists in the U.S. or India), the government has certain obligations to public health and safety that in nature, supercede individual rights.


If it is a procedure/treatment/etc required for the patient to survive and doing said procedure will "cure them" I don't see what the issue would be in just doing the procedure.

Going and doing an elective/optional procedure that can wait a few years is a whole other can of worms. Likewise for procedures where the patient is going to die either way and treatment decisions effect the quality of life for the patient's last days alive.

So there are exceptions now? What about nonfatal conditions that can cause complications later in life? RTIs, for instance? Where does the line end?


It sure as hell does.

...

The German expirament was also aimed at perfecting humanity threw eugenics from a nonrace perspective.

...

If eugenics per specifically these types of conditions were properly carried out globally, it would save lives, probably more lives than mortality statistic pertaining to India (not to trivialize their plight). So why don't we impose such a project? After all, based on your comments I assume all you care about are the statistics and any rights that are trampled along the way are just collateral damage out of concern to the public health

Did you ever learn that correlation does not constitute causation? Just because eugenics programs have historically been used to justify forced sterilization of persons who appear to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized, and genocide, does not mean that sterilization programs constitute eugenics. I have to keep saying this again and again, but trying to paint me as a supporter of eugenics, and by proxy, of Nazi human rights abuses, does not justify what you are saying at all. And it sure as hell does not prove all sterilization programs as such. These programs are not intended to "perfect humanity", serve as drastic population control, or anything that you keep trying to paint them as. They are to prevent maternal mortality in areas where mortality (and usually by correlation) fertility rates are threateningly high. You act as if the policies wouldn't allow you to have multiple children. If you read anything I wrote, there is nothing to suggest anything you posited my claims to be.


The comparisons between circumcision and gender related plastic surgery at birth are rather hysterical. There's a grand canyon sized difference between "snipping the tip" of an obviously male baby, and performing plastic surgery and/or genital mutilation on a newborn of indeterminate sex to either "make them male" or "make them female"

Thank you biguy4tvtscd. This is what I hadn't cared to respond to earlier. Complete and utter exaggeration and oversimplification...the capstone of this thread.

[BlackAdder]

I may be an asshole yes agreed and unquestionably, but I am far from being ignorant and I know for a *fact* my friend that I am smarter then you, heh.

[LOCpunks]

I may be an asshole yes agreed and unquestionably, but I am far from being ignorant and I know for a *fact* my friend that I am smarter then you, heh.

Very compelling. :shock:

Could have fooled me. :lol:

I'd say that anyone who says anything along the lines of "they (all Indians) could die for all I care," if not ignorant, is frankly retarded for trying to espouse individual rights thereafter.

[SarahG]

...women were generally very receptive to sterilization after being educated on the risks of enduring many childbirths and on the benefits of declining fertility.

Again this is only giving me more evidence that there are things to be explored before forced sterilization. If there are women who are receptive- aka willing to consent to such procedures without threats, lies or governmental mandates then that should be taken into consideration far before any country starts sterilizing sections of their population as a blanket policy to curve mortality statistics. Don't you agree?



I don't have a set line to draw where government action should be taken. The fact is that the mortality rate is alarming. And yes, I fully support establishing institutions for voluntary birth control. But the fact of the matter is, there is not enough money in the world to penetrate the poor, rural areas in India with educational programs and to establish the number of medical facilities to facilitate those programs; at least to a point where they could be considered effective.

I think the key to any problem in a global population such as this one would only practically be curbed through a combination of programs, incentives and other such things... I think it is absurd to say or believe that a country should merely try contraceptive distribution/education/etc and then if that fails, move on to say, educating women about sterilization programs and seeing if they consent to them etc... you really need to hit it with as many options as a country can pull off without violating civil liberties. If I gave you the implication that I was advocating trying one thing then an other then an other I am sorry as that was not my intention- I will make it clear that any progress on problems like these requires as many options as possible, especially since what works for one person may not work from another. Would any of these things by themselves be a comprehensive solution to mortality statistics? No, I don't believe that would be possible in *any* country.



Maybe I am not being clear. The issue is whether or not court-ordered medication is justifiable when a patient has the capacity to consent to or to disallow medication.

I don't see how it is justifiable in cases where the patient is not a threat to them self or society. Many mentally ill patients are never a threat to anyone, including themselves... forcing them to be on medications by court order is meaningless in such cases because it fails to accomplish anything but to remove the consent rights of the patient. Now someone with a history of violent actions against society is a whole other situation and I suspect *most* court ordered medication cases are of this type but that is just a guess on my part.



But if a mentally ill patient has done his time and refuses to be medicated, forcing medication on him IS justifiable for the public good? Because he represents a threat to society, no?

See above, that would depend on the case. If we're now talking about people that are mentally ill that have been found to have had a past involving violent actions then I still think it depends on circumstance; depression is a mental illness yet if someone who is clinically depressed gets in a bar fight I hardly consider it logical to require them to be on paxil for life, especially if the violent action in question had nothing to do with their specific condition...



Federalism is a political philosophy. Not only that, but it is often (but not always) in contrast with libertarianism. Republic may refer to the structure...

And I was responding to your statement that our country is a federal republic... the republic part is obviously unrelated since that is pertaining to structure and, per the federalism part- as you stated yourself does not have to contrast with libertarianism. Which makes your statement that our system is a federalist republic meaningless and unrelated per the scope of this thread.



...The central government, at least here in the U.S., undoubtedly has a responsbility to provide social provisions and to promote the general welfare of its citizens, which is all that I am asserting.

This isn't being contested in this thread, the libertarian perspective is based on governmental duties and actions being as minor and hands off as practical (as practical being the key word here), that doesn't mean there are no governmental duties, responsibility, or actions- just that they are as minor as practical.

I would argue, that within the scope of what is necessary from an "as minor as practical" perspective includes certain things, one of which being some level of social provisionism... the extent of which, now that is open to debate. But I don't think I have anywhere said there should be no such provisions.



how you believe that libertarian theory should be applied in a federalist state (or confederacy) where citizens are subject to state and federal laws intended for the public good.

It is pretty simple really. The constitution was to be a listing of all the federal government's powers, duties, responsibilities and so on. The original use of said document was pretty simple; the ONLY powers/responsibilities/duties/etc of the federal government were outlined in said document.

As time has went on we have abandoned this -dare I say- libertarian use of the document to an authoritarian one where unlike the original use of the document, today- the document is used as a system of outlining the things in which the government can not do (note the difference). Aka "there is nothing saying we can't do it" logic runs contrary to the original use of the constitution and allows for more federal governmental actions et al than what is truly needed (thus running contrary to libertarianism). Unknown to most in this country today, there actually was a debate among the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) in terms with rather or not to have a bill of rights... there were two schools of thought on this issue.

The first was a fear that if a list of rights was constructed, time would allow the federal government to view the list as a comprehensive list (which it was never intended to be) and thus the document would become an exclusionary document (aka if the civil liberty is not on the list, it is not recognized). The list was never supposed to be a comprehensive list, Amendment #10 eludes to this.

The other position was that the list was required, again not to be comprehensive but to list the most important civil liberties/protections/etc out of concern that if no such list existed, the people would fail to care as such rights were slowly eroded.

We can clearly see where things ended up today.

Per the states, again the same basic principle applies- the original states have constitutions, charters and other such documents just as the federal government does- to establish its responsibilities/duties/etc- the philosophical origins and evolution has been mirrored, however I will note that the states appear to be quicker in becoming authoritarian then the federal government has... things such as gun control, prohibitionary laws (be it alcohol or certain plants/drugs/etc) usually are only touched on the federal level after enough states do similar things per to make it "mainstream"... this is how the drinking age was standardized at 21, so many states had decided to make such a change individually to make it the norm, and the Reagan admin stepped in to use threat of removal of highway funding to "force" the last state holdouts to adopt the same policies.



Did you ever learn that correlation does not constitute causation?

Did you read my post where I specifically mentioned both genetically caused AND genetically linked conditions? There are both out there.

Eugenics is just over glorified selective breeding to "breed out" traits such as genetically caused conditions... usually such programs are extended to include genetically linked conditions as well, but not always.



Just because eugenics programs have historically been used to justify forced sterilization of persons who appear to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized, and genocide, does not mean that sterilization programs constitute eugenics.

True but my point, in case that has been missed, is that forced sterilization programs have globally been seen as a civil rights violation even when they are based out of good intentioned concern for the public health.

Eugenics of conditions proven to be caused by genetics would save lives. That doesn't mean we need or should run around forcing everyone of said segments of the population to be sterilized... and I would argue, that this does relate to the mortality statistics we are talking about in this thread because your posts indicate that you would support such a forced sterilization program out of similar concerns. It is the same argument, just different semantics.



These programs are not intended to "perfect humanity", serve as drastic population control, or anything that you keep trying to paint them as.

Really? You honestly believe that? Forced sterilization to prevent mothers from "having kids repeatedly one after the other until they kill themselves in the process" is a population control. The mortality stats you're talking about are NOT about mothers dying while giving birth to their first or even second child... you're talking about population control and controlling size of families rather you realize it or not. No where did I say such programs or your proposal would disallow citizens from having multiple children, that would depend on how many children a mother would be allowed to give birth to before someone like you would have them forced to have their tubes tied against their will.