Latest Breaking News

Orrex

(67,405 posts)

26. Oh?

Fri May 22, 2015, 02:20 PM

May 2015

Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Your comparison between circumcision and female genital mutilation is both ignorant and wrong-headed. I invite you to demonstrate that I am incorrect in this assessment.

Your invocation of Roe v. Wade is both ignorant and wrong-headed. I invite you to demonstrate that I am incorrect in this assessment.

Simply stomping your feet and crying "NOPE" is hardly a cogent rebuttal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mom signs consent for son's circumcision to get out of jail � but now faces new criminal charge [View all] Nine May 2015 OP

I don't know what the father's hard-on is about the circumcision cosmicone May 2015 #1

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #53

What a horror story! PatSeg May 2015 #2

I hope the judge shows some discretion. She has obviously learnt not to mess with the law. Joe Chi Minh May 2015 #3

Signing under those conditions is the same thing as not signing at all. StevieM May 2015 #4

Actually she did Major Nikon May 2015 #13

I am referring to the second signing that the judge demanded, something that he did so that StevieM May 2015 #14

That's another accusation of fraud Orrex May 2015 #37

Lying to a child does not constitute perjury. StevieM May 2015 #39

Coercing an adult under false pretenses does Orrex May 2015 #43

I am saying that the law is a bad one. And all laws, to some extent, are based on emotions. StevieM May 2015 #54

Pay wall. Orrex May 2015 #66

At this point I have to be honest with you about something. StevieM May 2015 #70

Thank you for the gracious words. Orrex May 2015 #74

LOL, there are about 25 of them (at least) that have all been started in the last 24 hours. StevieM May 2015 #77

re: "Again, her change of mind doesn't trump her previously signed legal contract." Nine May 2015 #44

That comparison is obviously false. Orrex May 2015 #49

It already was a mutual decision Major Nikon May 2015 #40

First of all, my point is that the courts are wrong IMO. I do think she should have been allowed to StevieM May 2015 #45

How do you know the courts are wrong when nobody here has all the facts? Major Nikon May 2015 #56

I don't always agree with the law and even if the courts had the right StevieM May 2015 #57

She was not bullied, she was just ordered to comply with cstanleytech May 2015 #58

First of all, they didn't need her signature since they could have simply ruled against her, which StevieM May 2015 #62

Clearly they did need it still otherwise she wouldnt have been be facing potential jail time. cstanleytech May 2015 #71

Plenty of arrangements are contingent upon avoiding jail time. Orrex May 2015 #16

Because she wasn't honestly looking for her son to be circumcised. The point to the signing StevieM May 2015 #18

Did she or did she not sign the original consent agreement? Orrex May 2015 #20

That isn't the subject of this thread. The thread is about whether the mother truly backed down StevieM May 2015 #21

You summarily dismiss a legal contract? That's very interesting. Orrex May 2015 #25

I don't recognize that a child's penis is subject to a "legal contract." StevieM May 2015 #27

Well, it's hardly up to you. Orrex May 2015 #32

I am aware that it is not up to me. StevieM May 2015 #36

The first thing I thought when I read this rock May 2015 #59

The boy has risk factors for seizures and keloids with the surgery! riderinthestorm May 2015 #5

That was NOT brought up in the trial.... happyslug May 2015 #22

The child doesn't have any medical condition requiring circumcision riderinthestorm May 2015 #46

I am the one who pointed that out. Nine May 2015 #47

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #55

Circumcision can be done for medical reasons perdita9 May 2015 #6

But he's not Jewish. Thus, no, there is NO satisfactory closeupready May 2015 #12

But not usually on 4-year olds. subterranean May 2015 #15

True, but the article didn't say WHY it was being done perdita9 May 2015 #82

Traumatizing a four year old for this? Laser102 May 2015 #7

And on top of that, he has a mom who wasn't willing to go to jail for his sake Orrex May 2015 #10

She DID go to jail for his sake. Nine May 2015 #24

She copped a plea to get out of going to jail for his sake. Orrex May 2015 #28

It doesn't sound like you are familiar with the history of this case. (nt) Nine May 2015 #48

I imagine that it's easier for you to think that's true. Orrex May 2015 #50

I fully support her. In my non-lawyer opinion, she has caselaw on her side. closeupready May 2015 #8

Except that it isn't Android3.14 May 2015 #17

What are the medical benefits of circumcision? Doremus May 2015 #52

You say circumcision is not only equivalent to FGM Android3.14 May 2015 #78

Absolutely not the same thing at all. Orrex May 2015 #19

NOPE. Wrong answer. closeupready May 2015 #23

Oh? Orrex May 2015 #26

Why isn't it the same thing? Nine May 2015 #31

Then the distinction must be made by the claimaint. Orrex May 2015 #35

Then you acknowledge that they can be equivalent? Nine May 2015 #51

I don't believe that that was my assertion. Orrex May 2015 #64

And it's been said before, but what kind of deity demands mutilation closeupready May 2015 #9

One theory says it had to do with AIDS. happyslug May 2015 #30

in a desert, it's hard to wash up between the oases wordpix May 2015 #34

I'm not understanding the AIDS theory. AIDS is contemporary closeupready May 2015 #38

AID being SPREAD is new, its actual age is debatable. happyslug May 2015 #61

It looks like a bit of a leap of logic to date AIDS back centuries. Chemisse May 2015 #72

You do understand the theory of evolution do you? happyslug May 2015 #81

Looks like the stupid is in both branches of the tree Android3.14 May 2015 #11

Judge "granted full custody and parental decisions" to Father. Now she has no say in the med. issue Sunlei May 2015 #29

Any doctor who performs it now is getting sued the moment the kid turns 18. McCamy Taylor May 2015 #33

On what possible grounds? Orrex May 2015 #41

Since the court ordered the mother to comply with the agreement she had cstanleytech May 2015 #60

For what? You can only sue for MONEY DAMAGES and any damages here would be speculative happyslug May 2015 #65

what are the respective arguements from each parent? Kali May 2015 #42

I wonder... deathrind May 2015 #63

Yes. She wants to piss the Father off. nt COLGATE4 May 2015 #67

I was just asking so I could understand deathrind May 2015 #68

Why is it so hard to believe the mother is sincere? Nine May 2015 #76

The Mother's actions allowed the judge to give solo custody to the Father. TerrapinFlyer May 2015 #69

As a guy, delta17 May 2015 #73

I was about 4 YO madokie May 2015 #75

If it's true that the boy had complications TDale313 May 2015 #79

Your right, this situation screams out for a guardian ad litum nt riderinthestorm May 2015 #80