How old do you have to be to have human rights?

by Featured Guest on February 23, 2012

by Lillian Dell’Aquila Cannon

Every human being has the right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.  These rights do not come from the government; they are natural.  This right is so basic that we often aren’t even aware of it, but think for a minute: does anyone have the right to permanently alter your body without your permission?  Could a stranger force you to get a tattoo?  If someone did drug you and tattoo you, they would have committed a crime against you.  Recently a parent was arrested for allowing her 10 year old son to get a tattoo of his choice, and yet she likely legally forced the permanent body modification that is routine infant circumcision on him at birth.  It is illegal to cut an infant girl’s genitals and has been since 1997.  Every year, though, 1 million baby boys are circumcised in America.  Their rights have been violated, and no one cares, and no law protects them.  Routine infant circumcision is a human rights violation.

The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights states:

“The autonomy of persons to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy of others, is to be respected. For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests.”

“Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”

“In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account. Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.”

“The fundamental equality of all human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and equitably.”

Routine infant circumcision violates all these principles.  The patient cannot consent to the treatment, and no one is representing his rights in the decision to circumcise.  It is commonly assumed that the parents’ wishes are congruent with the child’s wishes, but since the child cannot speak for himself, we have no way of knowing if this is true.  Saying that “He’ll be happy with the decision when he’s an adult” is NOT prior consent.

Babies most definitely qualify as specially vulnerable – they can neither speak nor act.  Their inherent powerlessness makes them the most vulnerable members of society, which we recognize in every other aspect except for routine infant circumcision, and protect with child abuse laws.

And that brings me to the last point: are babies human beings, or not?  Does their age make them have less rights?  Is it just to abrogate their rights simply because they cannot speak nor act?  Do males have fewer rights?  Is it equitable to deny male babies the right to bodily integrity which females have enjoyed in this country since 1997?  It is absolutely not.  Commonly held perceptions of the comparative degree of harm of female and male circumcision are irrelevant: the only issue is basic rights and consent.  Female circumcision is seen as beneficial in the cultures that practice it, yet is illegal under all conceptualizations of human rights law and U.S. law.

Could a parent take his adult child to the doctor, tie him to a table, and have him circumcised?  Of course not.  The very idea is abhorrent because we understand that the man himself is the owner of his body.  What if the child was 14?  Would that be okay?  How about 6?  This is the age that circumcisions are commonly performed in Turkey.  They have a big party and take lots of photos full of the anguished faces of the young boys.  Take a moment to follow that link.  Does it disgust you?  Would you do that to your school-age son?  If not, why not?  Is it because he is aware of what is happening?  Is it because he will remember?  Does a lack of awareness or memory make an assault okay?  Of course not.  Rape is punished even when the attacker drugs his victim.

At what age does it become okay to tie down a baby and cut off part of his genitals?  How many or few years or days old does a person have to be to not have the most basic human right?  Apparently in the U.S., the commonly accepted answer is infancy, in its original meaning of “not talking.”  Not being able to talk means (usually) not having conscious memory, and that is why we circumcise babies.  We know it is terrible – even the most pro-circumcision parents know that their son is going to suffer – but somehow, we pretend that causing them pain and violating their most basic right is okay when they are very young and most vulnerable, perhaps because this is the only time where we could get away with it.

Babies are human beings, and all human beings have the same rights.  Age and sex do not determine one’s rights, and parental ignorance, delusions or wishes do not abrogate those rights.  Routine infant circumcision violates the rights of men and should be illegal based on all human rights law.  Many other developed countries like Sweden and Holland understand this and are moving to make all circumcision illegal.  We in the U.S. like to think that we’re the guardians of human rights, yet we cannot keep our own house in order.

Note: A common argument against my position is that “parents make decisions for their children all the time.”  The two examples usually given are haircuts and vaccinations.  I dismiss the haircut argument out of hand because hair grows back.  The vaccination argument appears at first blush to be more persuasive, but falls apart under scrutiny.  Most vaccinations given during infancy are to protect the child from diseases that are only dangerous during infancy.  If you don’t vaccinate your child against these childhood diseases during infancy, many of the vaccines won’t be required or given in childhood or adulthood.  The few vaccines that are given during infancy for diseases that don’t occur until adulthood are very controversial; these include Hepatitis B (transmitted through blood and sex) and HPV (transmitted through sex and hotly debated now.)  Circumcision is not time-sensitive – you don’t have to do it in infancy or not at all.  All of the purported “benefits” of circumcision either:

  • Are spurious, like the idea that a circumcised penis is easier to keep clean.  The infant foreskin should not be retracted for cleaning and is much easier to care for than a circumcised penis.
  • Would redound to the patient in adulthood and thus could be delayed until the adult can make the decision for himself, such as the claim for lowered STIs.
  • Or could be achieved through much more conservative and less invasive measures, such as the claim of lowered UTI rates, which is based on one contested study and could be treated more conservatively with antibiotics; or achieved by simply wearing condoms, which men should do anyway in non-monogamous encounters.

{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }

J February 23, 2012 at 06:09

Hmmmm, you should throw in the maxim that no one can tell a man that he should have to pay child support for a child he did not want! His body, his choice! Of course that is making a decision for the child too I guess right? The child is too young to decide if it needs money to survive! Or a father in its life, but how many mothers care about that when they know they can get all the taxpayer has too offer for riding life on her back?

If a woman can give a child for adoption up to thirty days no questions asked, abort it, or choose to keep it irregardless of what I say as its father……what about my “natural” rights? Have they not been violated? I will have half of my future earnings taken without my consent, is that a violation of my pursuit of happiness? Or my defenseless baby will be murded by a sexist, marxist, fascits little b()*^&, have my baby’s and m rights been violated? My “natural” right as a parent is trampled in family court, and my finances destroyed, is that “natural?”

I understand your argument. Whether everyone would agree or not….I guess that is based on their beliefs, and personal prejudice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Observer February 23, 2012 at 06:16

Yeah, I think we can safely disallow this practice outside of religious reasons. There is no good medical reason to do that to anyone.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 8
Troll King February 23, 2012 at 06:24

One thing that needs to be pointed out in the anti-circ debate is that about 250 baby boys die every year from botched procedures or complications due to circumcision.

That may not sound like much considering out population, even if you compare it to other types of death, but these are healthy babies.

That is basically about 15 daycare centers full of boys dying each year.

If something else were causing that many babies to die each year people would be up in arms about it.

I think the circumcision issue is really based around male disposability.

I don’t know of anything that highlights male disposability better than this issue.

This is offtopic but interessting:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/02/gloria_allred_womens_rights.php

Allred claims that the first amendment is a woman’s right and that women should have the right to sue their ex bfs for cheating and should have the right to spread rumors and trash talk their exs online.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Aharon February 23, 2012 at 06:37

Good article. You’ve brought some very valid points for consideration. I don’t have an opinion yet since I just don’t know. Another thought: why do government laws grant women the freedom to have abortions or not, and yet men must sign up for selective service, and risk being ordered into war and murdering or at least killing other people?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Rumour February 23, 2012 at 06:51

@ troll king – “about 250 baby boys die every year from botched procedures or complications due to circumcision. … That is basically about 15 daycare centers full of boys dying each year.”

this must create quite a dilemma for the feminist hamster wheel. on the one hand that is 250 less men each year who will use their violent natures to degrade, control, and abuse women. but on the other hand that is 250 less men who could be supporting women’s programs with their hard earned tax dollars.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Davd February 23, 2012 at 07:11

” Does a lack of awareness or memory make an assault okay? Of course not. Rape is punished even when the attacker drugs his victim.”

It is possible, is it not, for a woman to drug a man and impose sex to which he might not consent if in his right mind? The recent “redefinition” in your country, as best this non-lawyer can infer, makes such an imposition “non-rape” for anatomical reasons. Gender equality? Penis-hate? or perhaps a willingness to play with words so as to privilege the female?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Angelo February 23, 2012 at 07:29

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 49
SMH February 23, 2012 at 07:34

That’s why I don’t support any human rights charities. “Human Rights” = “Women’s Rights”. They don’t care about us.

Last year a classmate asked me to run a 5K to stop sexual violence against “women and children”. The conversation went like this:

Classmate: Want to run a 5K to help stop violence against women and children?
Me: What about men?
Classmate: *eye roll* What do you mean?
Me: Shouldn’t we be trying to stop violence against everyone?
Classmate: Barely any men are sexually violated.
Me: So sexual violence is okay as long as it “barely” happens?
Classmate: Never mind.

So called “human rights activists” cannot defend their position on anything. They just walk away with a “he just doesn’t get it” attitude.

I take solace in the fact that all this nonsense operates on the belief that money grows on trees. When American and European economies crash harder than ever seen before, they will have no choice but to give up their feminist ideals. Starving people don’t have time to listen to bullshit about rape culture.

I’m sure you’ve all seen the recent news articles on how women are increasingly turning to prostitution in America. This is happening when things haven’t even gotten that bad yet. I’ve seen horrifying poverty in Nicaragua, and the average Ameriskank could never deal with something like that. Prostitution is what Ameriskanks turn to now because they still want to believe that they are “strong and independent.” But when that doesn’t work, men will see them begging to be housewives again.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
Somehow Somewhat February 23, 2012 at 07:37

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 34
Art Vandelay February 23, 2012 at 07:38

Yeah, I think we can safely disallow this practice outside of religious reasons.

Does a child not get to choose whether to practice religion or not?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
Somehow Somewhat February 23, 2012 at 07:43
Ryu February 23, 2012 at 07:48

I don’t understand this fascination with “human rights.”

Whoever has the most money and the biggest guns makes the rules. Always. Even if it is god or the US or multiculturalism that holds the whip hand.

Instead of obsessing about what you are owed, focus on increasing your personal power, money and strength. Sometimes I point out inequalities to get men off their asses. That is different from a woman or affirmative action boy whining about their rights. Chances are taken, not given. That’s the male code.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 26
Troll King February 23, 2012 at 08:05

@Somehow Somewhat

If I understand you, big if, then it looks like you have your reasoning backwards.

There are a number of male oriented issues that feminists have been trying to co-opt over the last year or two. Circimcision is just one of them.

Circumcision tends to be one of those singular male issues that gets people involved in the manosphere but tends to be somewhat isolated from the greater MRA framework to some degree.

Infact, there are man “intactivists” who don’t consider themselves MRA but do support various male issues and they have made quite a bit of progress as far as getting their voices heard….little as far as outcome goes.

I am not really against circumcision, I just don’t think it should be pushed on non-consenting children.

If a adult wants to have it done, then fine. We shouldn’t be doing permanent cosmetic surgery to infants and boys.

This issue is really more about bodily integrity than the procedure itself.

I always wonder how this issue intersects with other male issues.

If you look at male rape victims, of false rape victims for that matter, then it is obvious we live in a misandric culture that views men as disposable. Same with work place deaths, war deaths, suicide, life expectancy, etc..

It isn’t just women or society in general that view men this way but often times other men too. I wonder whether or not circumcision plays a role into men viewing themselves as disposable, and other men, considering that many literally have a first experience in this world of having 50-70% of their sexual based nerve endings cut off.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
keyster February 23, 2012 at 08:10

“A common argument against my position is that “parents make decisions for their children all the time.”

That’s true.
They’ll often make decisions for their children before they’re even born, as to whether they’ll be allowed to live or not. What about the “human rights” of those boys?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
Opus February 23, 2012 at 08:19

It is my view that Human Rights are entirely Metaphysical – they don’t exist. I am thus in agreement with Jean Alain Milner, the French Philosopher who maintains that they are not really rights but Permissions, and as Ryu says above, whoever has the most Power makes the rules. Much as I might sympathise with those who later regret the operations inflicted on them by their parents (and I, in that, include myself as I nearly died as a child from a Tonsilectomy – very dangerous operation, which – as now is known, but not then – eating ice-cream only exacerbates) parents must I think have the power to make such decisions as they see fit.

The author seems to be confusing, that parental authority, with her dislike of circumcision. As usual women are good on emotion and not so good on logic, IMHO.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 19
Somehow Somewhat February 23, 2012 at 08:28

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 30
Traveller February 23, 2012 at 08:34

Circumcision is favoured by women and states because it decreases the sexual pleasure men feel.

So, it is a mutilation and a humiliation for men. Hence, the joy of men’s enemies.

The keep clean argument is only stupid. Why not cut arms to everyone to better keep armpits clean?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 4
Lovekraft February 23, 2012 at 08:48

There have been those pre-pubescent girl beauty contests for decades but have recently started showing up as reality shows.

I have not seen a single father play a dominant role in the decision to have his daughter prance around painted to look like you-know-what.

So if mothers are the motivators, will feminists still try to blame them, or will they somehow structure any negativity as ‘they are trying to fulfill men’s expectations.’

In other words, sensible men consider these pageants extremely creepy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Druk February 23, 2012 at 08:52

Opus, much as I might sympathize with those who regret the inability to force some operations on their children, children must I think have the power to make such decisions as they see fit.

See, that was easy to turn around because it wasn’t a logical argument in the first place. You seem to be confusing governmental authority with your dislike of parents being told not to unnecessarily maim their children. It’s just as much an emotive argument as the author’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
The Truth February 23, 2012 at 08:53

That picture of the horrid little girl gleefully peeking in on her cousin’s circumcision made me think that western feminism has reached Turkey alright.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
keyster February 23, 2012 at 08:56

“It is my view that Human Rights are entirely Metaphysical – they don’t exist.”

The most despotic leaders throughout history would agree. But then many people believe in Equality too, (even if it’s government enforced outcomes for select groups).

Once we win the worldwide war against murder, rape and starvation – – we can then fight against bullying and cruelty to animals. It’s all about priorities. Utopia is within reach, if we could only convince mean and selfish people to stop being so darn mean and selfish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
Opus February 23, 2012 at 09:11

@Druk

In so far as I can understand your invective, you appear to attribute to me in your second paragraph views that I did not express.

@Keyster

The most despotic leaders throughout history would never have heard of Human Rights, as it is a recent invention (along with Racism) and I am sure in time – not too long – will be consigned to the dustbin of daft ideas. The only rights that I am aware of those based on property that is to say ownership. Children are in the custody of their parents, and do not have legal power, being in their minority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Rebel February 23, 2012 at 09:21

This is a very interesting subject on the intellectual level.

For all intents and purposes, I would rather trust the old sage: George Carlin. (a wise man disguised as a stand up comic).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E&feature=artistob&playnext=1&list=TLj_VSGR2q20M

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Rocco February 23, 2012 at 09:31

Certainly the philosophical views of those who wrote the US constitution believed men are seperate agents with these rights as being inherent for humans natural bestowed at the time of birth.

They went so far as to say that a man should die rather than live in such tyranny. They even stated that the worse form of tyranny was being forced to pay for your own oppression.

From that flowed the US which, for all it’s faults, is at least somewhat open and more fair than say Syria, currently bombing it’s people to death.

So, Opus and Ryu you are for might makes right.

Ghandi and Martin Luther King would disagree.

Hitler would agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9
Rocco February 23, 2012 at 09:34

@ Opus

Children are the property of the state.

And can be removed at any time for any reason.

Those tasked with doing this, social workers, are fully immune, just like the spanish inquisition.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
J February 23, 2012 at 09:42

@rocco

LOL……It is too bad the Hitler quote has been overused. Too true about fascizm though Rocco. However, most of our world leaders were devoutly “sympathetic” to marxist-socialist” utopian ideals. Most of what were are in, and the two you quoted above, are against that sort of thing because it (IT being socialist ideology) is aimed squarely at us! Its always painful looking at the greeen grass on the other side, but even when our situation gets to the otherside I am convinced we will find what the feminists have as covered with $#(!.

Unfortunately, might is what most people use to make right. becuae its easier. I don’t think they mean that.

What I think the mean, and Opus in particular I agree with, is that people in the “good ol’days” did not see people by color, sex, religion, or whatever to “oppress” them. I think they only used those arguments so as to better be able to exploit their targets (blacks, Irish, women, children, blue collar/working class peoples)of “opportunity!” That was their reason, opportunity, and that is the feminists desire, we are their target of opportuinity! Cheap arguments like these, are very possibly, what they use to keep us divided, and therefore..conquered!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
AfOR February 23, 2012 at 09:46

nobody mentioning the use of circumcised foreskin tissue in wimminz cosmetics….. tut tut

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Art Vandelay February 23, 2012 at 09:49

There have been those pre-pubescent girl beauty contests for decades but have recently started showing up as reality shows.

That’s probably one of the creepiest things ever. But to be fair, those “reality” shows are meant to shock people and usually show behavior that a majority disapproves of. Controversy means ratings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Master V February 23, 2012 at 09:55

Syria is not bombing its own people, that is NATO/US/UK/FRANCE ie
IMF/UCB sponsored mercenaries doing that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
keyster February 23, 2012 at 10:01

“The only rights that I am aware of those based on property that is to say ownership.”

Government seizure of private property or “eminent domain” can be and is used, as long as its “in the public’s interest”. So while you have the right to own property, the government reserves the right to take it away.

You also must pay an annual fee (property tax) or the government will take the property through a lien process.

You have certian rights or a “bundle of rights”, but “ownership” is limited under the auspices of State control.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Rebel February 23, 2012 at 10:12

The featured guest said: “These rights do not come from the government; they are natural.”

There are no “natural” rights.

Unless you live alone in the middle of the Amazonian rain forest.

Just wait for WW3 to begin and see if you have any rights….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Troll King February 23, 2012 at 10:23

OT:

Have you guys seen this Jezebel Article?

http://jezebel.com/5886947/fuck-marry-kill-the-romney-sons

One of the more interesting comments to me are the ones by women pointing out that none of the sons look alike.

There is so much that can be said about this. I have seen articles in the MRM talking about paternity fraud and how women tend to know better than men and will go along with it to help other women. Those particular comments on the Jezzy article seems to bear that observation out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Chris February 23, 2012 at 10:43

Learning about the effects of circumcision is the primary issue that got me interested in MRA.

I was circumcized as an infant, and have had several physical complications because of it, that I only realized recently were due to a poorly performed circumcision. It has caused me a lot of grief and depression, and has caused a huge rift between me and my parents whom I confronted about it.

I know that a lot of people have no issue with being circumcised. While I personally think that people are more affected by it than they realize, I do respect people who want it done for themselves. However, please don’t ever force this upon your children, who are more and more growing up in an intact USA. Circumcision rates a dropping substantially, and soon circumcision will be seen as the bizzare cultural practice it really is.

There’s an organization called Foregen that I’d like to recommened everyone check out. It’s a nonprofit specifically run to use regenerative medicine technologies to recreate foreskin for circumcised men. If I’ve broken any rules regarding promoting another website please feel free to edit my post as necessary. However I’m a paid member of the organization, and I do want to promote it as I see it as my best potential to have an intact body in my lifetime.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Troll King February 23, 2012 at 10:56

Somehow Somewhat February 23, 2012 at 08:28
@Troll King,

It is men who adopt the feminists’ male circumcision battle. Since when did men invite the government to regulate men’s bodily choices? If a man does not want his own children circumcised, what government has to do with his choice?

The three links above are quite telling: it is all about women. If we were to adopt feminism, at least in part, why not also take “keep your laws off my body?”

Circumcising one’s boy is one of the lasting gifts a parent can give to their children. Some parents may find it unsuitable for their children. Cool. Why do they need the government to ban ALL circumcision?

Fortunately, there is hope! H.R. 2400: Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 is on the way to ensure the rights of men to circumcision are protected.

“No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order that prohibits or regulates the circumcision of males who have not attained the age of 18 years and whose parent or guardian has consented to the circumcision, unless such law, regulation, or order–

(1) applies to all such circumcisions performed in the State; and

(2) is limited to ensuring that all such circumcisions are performed in a hygienic manner.”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2400

Press Release: http://bradsherman.house.gov/2011/06/sherman-to-introduce-bill-to-protect-male-circumcision.shtml
_______________________________________________

I don’t even know what to say.

As far as those links you posted, I don’t understand how you are trying to argue that women are using men against men on this male issue. If anything it is apparent to me that these women are trying to co-op male issues for their cause, which they obviously care more about women than men which is why I don’t trust women who claim to be interested in male issues because it always becomes apparent that they usually don’t have mens best interest at heart, because they don’t really have any issues left. Feminists fought the man and now they have become the man….so to speak.

As I said, I am not against circumcision as a cosmetic surgery. It’s your body, you can cut it, tattoo it, pierce it, or whatever you want. It JUST NEEDS TO BE YOUR CHOICE!

Circumcision is a cosmetic surgery that permanently alters sexual form and function and it is done on baby boys who do not have the ability to consent. This isn’t about religion. This is about bodily autonomy.

It actually goes further than that. We biofarm baby boys for their foreskins which are sold to cosmetic companies where they harvest special cells from the foreskins that are then used to make anti wrinkle cream for ungly ass cougars.

We sexually mutilate baby boys for profit and for womens vanity.

How fucked up is that? Even worse is that women and society(which is mostly created by women) doesn’t seem to give a fuck because of male disposability and the idea that male sexuality is inherently bad and needs to be contained through circumcision.

As far as your comments about government, that doesn’t make any sense to me?

You claim we shouldn’t have government intruding in our lives and then you quote/link to a law written and soon to be enacted by government???? How does that make any sense?

What I am talking about, along with most if not all on the anti-circ side, is protecting the rights of the individual against the desires of medical professionals and/or families and/or religious institutions.

In my opinion pretty much all male issues boil down to some form of individualism or the rights, freedoms, liberties, and privileges/protections of the individual. Most women’s issues seem to be framed from a collectivist or communitarianism perspective, which just shows how herd based their mentality is(team woman), which usually cares more about the collective than the individual.

Anyways, I can’t really tell what you are on about or why.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Ryu February 23, 2012 at 10:58

I am for might makes right. That does not change even if I am on the bottom.

Everything else derives from strength and martial ability. We in the MRM are now victims of a more powerful enemy, the feminists. They do not care about logic, feeling or justice. They want power, pure and simple. They do what it takes to obtain it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 12
MRA February 23, 2012 at 11:30

People and feminist tend to justified male infants circumcision arguing health issues, I always point out that there is never an excuse to do something on female infants no matter is about health issue related, the vagina is sacred untouched but there is always a excuse to do something on males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself February 23, 2012 at 11:37

How old do you have to be to have human rights?

Shouldn’t common sense have completely annihilated this question by now?

Shouldn’t the question be, “how (un)LUCKY do you have to be to (not) have human rights?”, as a feminazi, not the fetus(es)’ father, opts to terminate a pregnancy. In many instances the mother is motivated by the fetus(es)’ biological sex or presence of males in a multiple birth including members of both biological sexes. From birth onwards, it’s a crapshoot with too many variables to list here without someone saying tl;dr.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
MRA February 23, 2012 at 12:25

“I’m sure you’ve all seen the recent news articles on how women are increasingly turning to prostitution in America. This is happening when things haven’t even gotten that bad yet. I’ve seen horrifying poverty in Nicaragua, and the average Ameriskank could never deal with something like that. Prostitution is what Ameriskanks turn to now because they still want to believe that they are “strong and independent.” But when that doesn’t work, men will see them begging to be housewives again.”

The SAME shit happened to the USSR, when the money stop flowing selling the pussy was the only things women in the USSR could do to survive, how many gender and women studies graduated will be on the street selling the as for 50 bucks? many my friend, many.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Boxer February 23, 2012 at 12:43

Rebel is pragmatically correct, when he says:

There are no “natural” rights. Unless you live alone in the middle of the Amazonian rain forest. Just wait for WW3 to begin and see if you have any rights….

I actually could not have said this better.

On a physical level, you have a positive duty to try and survive, you have no rights. In modern North America, the philosophical underpinnings to the concept of “rights” have been so stripped away as to leave them baseless except to the masses of mindless “consumers” (that’s all there is these days, citizenship is gone too, there are only consumers).

The state has privileges it will grant you, in return for being its servant, for consuming and for only expressing yourself through state-approved channels (the OWS crowd are doing this now, as are we). Deviate and you lose everything, either with a long prison sentence, death by police (or Army if you’re outside North America) or through a punitive IRS action.

The concepts of “natural rights” have been established in various works (Thomas Paine and V.I. Lenin both invoked them in their writings, Hobbes and Kant preceded them) but they remain philosophical concepts, not practical realities, anywhere.

Man is a social animal. As Rebel wisely suggests, if you want to be left alone, you can go out and live in the wilderness. There you can do whatever you want. If you’re gonna live in an organized society, you have to know the rules (and it’s best to study the fine print, so you can bend them).

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Troll King February 23, 2012 at 13:19

“I’m sure you’ve all seen the recent news articles on how women are increasingly turning to prostitution in America. This is happening when things haven’t even gotten that bad yet. I’ve seen horrifying poverty in Nicaragua, and the average Ameriskank could never deal with something like that. Prostitution is what Ameriskanks turn to now because they still want to believe that they are “strong and independent.” But when that doesn’t work, men will see them begging to be housewives again.”

Got any links? I have seen a article or two but not too much. Links would be appreciated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay February 23, 2012 at 13:32

We biofarm baby boys for their foreskins which are sold to cosmetic companies where they harvest special cells from the foreskins that are then used to make anti wrinkle cream for ungly ass cougars.

Wait, what? Got a link on that topic?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
SMC February 23, 2012 at 14:14

“Rights” exclusively come from authority (yours or some elses). That authority is called government.

There is no such thing as “natural rights”.

When someone says “nat rights’ they mean state created rights that use someone’s spin of Nature as reference.

There is no such thing as “natural rights”. To bodily sovereignty or anything else.

I like how conservative believe in rights but they don’t believe in government. LOL.

(Only intelligent people should be speaking. Democracy is the destruction of the neo cortex.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Oddsock February 23, 2012 at 14:46

Troll King

“I’m sure you’ve all seen the recent news articles on how women are increasingly turning to prostitution in America”

Wow! Do you mean there has been a sudden increase in marriage and dating ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Troll King February 23, 2012 at 14:55

@ Art Vandalay

Here you go buddy:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/47421

It is literally a multi-billion dollar international business. One foreskin can generate up to 100K worth of Fibroblasts which are what is grown and produced to make skin which is used on everything to burn victims, to cosmetic surgery for lips, to what is also used in various anti-wrinkle creams. Oprah has even endorsed and sold such creams on her show.

http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2011/11/boys-sacrificed-for-female-vanity.html

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/06/01/the-fountain-of-youth/

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=foreskin+face+cream+&psj=1&oq=foreskin+face+cream+&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v1g-b1g-bm2&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=890051l895201l2l911420l2l2l0l0l0l0l5870l5870l9-1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=16f39898f400eaae&biw=1024&bih=427

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Troll King February 23, 2012 at 14:58

@oddsock

There really isn’t much of a difference is there?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Hugh Intactive February 23, 2012 at 15:08

I don’t see why this has to be a male vs female issue at all. If you believe human beings have equal rights, and that the right to autonomy/ownership over one’s own body is one of them, then cutting normal, healthy, integral, functional, non-renewable parts off without pressing medical need or informed consent is a breach of those rights. As an MR issue, men should simply demand equality with females, Federal protection against any such cutting.

@Somehow Somewhat: “H.R. 2400: Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 is on the way to ensure the rights of men to circumcision are protected. ” Fortunately it seems to have been stalled in a committee, because it says nothing about men’s right to have themselves circumcised. It’s all about adults’ legal ability to cut parts off helpless (male) children. And circumcising is not a “gift”. It only takes away something intact men value, and circumcised men would if they only knew what they are missing.

@Ryu: “I am for might makes right. That does not change even if I am on the bottom. ” So you are in the wrong when you are bullied? Makes no sense to me.

@Keyster: “Once we win the worldwide war against murder, rape and starvation – – we can then fight against bullying and cruelty to animals. It’s all about priorities.” No it’s not. We can multitask. We’d never do anything if we couldn’t do the second most important thing till we’d finished the first. Anyway, who sets the priorities? You?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
crella February 23, 2012 at 15:20

TK, that Jezebel article is full of all kinds of hypocrisy. Objectification (whether they’re ‘f*ckable’ or not) and violence (‘Kill him’).

I’m thinking that this ‘F*ck, Marry or Kill?’ is the form the feminist ‘beauty contest’ should take. The exact form, and watch their heads explode…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
crella February 23, 2012 at 15:22

After all ‘….it’s just a game — we are not honestly advocating actually doing the things listed in the game’s traditional name to any of Romney’s sons (we’re talking to you, Secret Service)’

That makes it A-ok.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Eric Wolf February 23, 2012 at 15:28

This is for all the commentors claiming anti-circumcision is for female benefit and that MRAs are being duped into supporting women’s interests.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2009/03/26/why-women-should-favor-circumcision-to-prevent-hpv-infection

Check-and-mate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Hf February 23, 2012 at 21:12

It’s not wether or not I want to, but rather- I should have the right to circumcise my own son if I so choose.

My father circumcised me, and so shall I circumcise my own son or sons. I have had absolutely zero ill side effects from it, and I certainly don’t have any deadened sensation due to it. In fact, Im glad it was done to me as a new born, because who in the hell would go and get themselves circumcised after the age of 18 unless for some extreme reason.

My money is on Code Pink for this article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14
evilwhitemalempire February 23, 2012 at 22:25

Angelo February 23, 2012 at 07:29
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Of all of the inequalities that have been built up over time, I think that this particular one is of relatively low importance.

****************
what? the size of yours?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Dubcik February 23, 2012 at 23:19

There is no difference between male or female genital mutilation. Other than female genital mutilation is against the law and abhored by all, while male genital mutilation is endorsed, excused and the skin ripped off the penis of baby boys is made the subject of jokes and laughed about. Read the attached link to see who the “father” of circumcision was, and his initial reasoning behind doing it. It makes the 60% of N. Americans who do this to their sons look pretty foolish.

http://triggeralert.blogspot.com/2012/02/28000000-africans-to-be-genitally.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6
Opus February 24, 2012 at 01:04

@Rocco

I have to say I regard Gandhi as a fraud (thrown out of my own Inn for Terroristic activities – although regrettably now let back in as he has achieved Sainthood), and from what I learn of your Martin Luther King I do not find much to impress me there either. I have no idea what Hitler would have thought as I have not read Mein Kampf but whenever his name is mentioned I realise that we are approaching Godwin’s Law.

It is unusual here for the author of an article to be a female. Airy-Fairy stuff is usually what women provide and Miss Cannon’s article is no exception to that general rule. Are any of the commenters on this thread also female, I wonder?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
Oddsock February 24, 2012 at 01:40

Oddsock
Troll King

“I’m sure you’ve all seen the recent news articles on how women are increasingly turning to prostitution in America”

Wow! Do you mean there has been a sudden increase in marriage and dating ?

Troll King
@oddsock

There really isn’t much of a difference is there? ”

The only difference is the length of contract and the job title. Although, the terms and conditions with a prostitute are much more honest transparent and negotiable.

Todays western woman is no different than a back street second hand car salesman trying to trick you into buying a very high mileage ex rental car that’s had a recent paint job.

Course, NAWALT. Cupcake is different, she is not like that, honest. Pftttt! My arse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
crella February 24, 2012 at 02:23

When I got married, and later found I was pregnant, when I told my best friend, the first thing she said to me after ‘Congratulations!’ was ‘Promise me you won’t circumcise your baby if it’s a boy’. She was a nursing student and she had just seen one, she was still crying about it. The next time I went to the doctor I asked for info (no internet then) and learned a lot, and decided it was not something I wanted to do….got home and talked to DH, and he agreed.

The Japanese don’t circumcise, many countries in Asia do not have this custom. It doesn’t seem to make any difference in STD rates or anything else people use as ‘reasoning’ to continue the practice. Whole regions of the world don’t circumcise and they all live perfectly normal lives.

What always struck me as odd about the religious aspect is that , well, you’re practically saying The Big Guy made a mistake creating men with foreskins…why would God ask you to cut a piece of a body he designed? Seems wacky to me…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Pbwriter February 24, 2012 at 06:41

It seems that Lillian and many others commenting on her entry have little and probably no medical training nor any understanding that circumcision has many benefits. Performing the procedure on infants is certainly more humane than doing it on children and adults. We still live in a free country so if you wish to withhold a sensible procedure from your male children, so be it. And, oh, by the way, Crella, does the maiming of skin as seen in all the tattoos and piercings seem to be what God asks from us? Just a thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14
Observer February 24, 2012 at 07:17

@Art Vandelay
“Does a child not get to choose whether to practice religion or not?”

I think we all know the answer to that one. There are no laws forbidding parents from forcing religion onto their children. If you want to go the distance and force Jews to administer this only after the age of 18, then I think you’d need a tweet from Moses himself.

man’s gotta know his limitations.
Afterall, it was an overwhelmingly patriarchal system that brought about mandatory ritual circumsion for males. Can’t exactly unload all of this on the fems. However, there is an odd strain on the Christian side that somehow wishes it could be everything to everyone, especially when it comes to Jews. They get a false sense of kinship that circumcision for medical reasons provides. This is wrong and should be corrected.

a man’s gotta know his limitations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Hugh Intactive February 24, 2012 at 11:47

@Hf: “It’s not wether or not I want to, but rather- I should have the right to circumcise my own son if I so choose.”
The word “own” gives the game away. You don’t OWN him. You only borrowed him, and at 18 or so you have to give him back (to himself). Your duty of care includes giving him ALL back.

“My father circumcised me, and so shall I circumcise my own son or sons.”
I don’t understand your use of the word “so” in that sentence. One might as well say “whipped”, “tortured” etc. instead of “circumcised”.

“I have had absolutely zero ill side effects from it, and I certainly don’t have any deadened sensation due to it.”
And you know that how?

” In fact, Im glad it was done to me as a new born, because who in the hell would go and get themselves circumcised after the age of 18 unless for some extreme reason.”
Absolutely! An excellent reason not to do it at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Hugh Intactive February 24, 2012 at 11:57

@Pbwriter: The “benefits” of circumcision are all either totally bogus or wildly exaggerated – slight reductions in rare ailments of late onset that can be prevented by other means or treated as they arise. The rest of the developed world does not circumcise. Most of it never has. The English-speaking world all began doing it together, but only the USA continues. Everywhere else they realised it was doing no good and gave it up, with no ill-effects. Australia and New Zealand used to cut babies as enthursiastically as the USA. Now it’s hard to find a doctor willing to do it, and they have less STD than the USA, and New Zealand’s HIV rate is one of the lowest in the world. It would be illegal to tattoo a child (a Fresno man is doing time for that) or to pierce his or her genitals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Art Vandelay February 24, 2012 at 14:39

My father circumcised me, and so shall I circumcise my own son or sons. I have had absolutely zero ill side effects from it, and I certainly don’t have any deadened sensation due to it.

[emphasis mine]

How do you know?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Pops February 24, 2012 at 14:42

There are no laws forbidding parents from forcing religion onto their children.

But that same child can choose to cease or change those religious beliefs at some point in life. The forskin is basically gone forever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
crella February 24, 2012 at 15:49

‘And, oh, by the way, Crella, does the maiming of skin as seen in all the tattoos and piercings seem to be what God asks from us? Just a thought.’

That’s sort of an odd question…circumcision IS what ‘God asks of us’ according to those who follow the Bible, and citing the Bible is the primary rationalization Christians and Jews give for circumcision. On the other hand I have yet to meet anyone who says God says to get tattoos….in fact there are several passages in Isaiah that say one should NOT get piercings and tattoos.

Tattoos and piercings are not in a league with circumcision in any way. Circumcision can maim and kill, and tattoos and piercings are generally the decision of those having them done, by their own free will outside of some cultures in South America who pierce their daughter’s ears at 3 months old. Body modifications are chosen by those who get them, and you have to be 16 to get your ears pierced in many states, and 18 to get a tattoo….poor babies have surgery on the most delicate part of their bodies without their consent.

Go to YouTube and watch a circumcision. Everything in the world is on there, I’m sure you can find one. The baby is strapped naked to a hard board, hands and legs splayed and strapped at the wrists and ankles. With no anesthesia, a clamp is put over the glans and rotated, severing the foreskin. If you really believe that babies feel no pain, explain the arching of the back, struggling and screaming that starts when the surgery begins. It doesn’t compare to the initial crying at being strapped down. It’s barbaric!

It just proves that people are basically dishonest when it comes to religion, citing the Bible or completely ignoring it to suit their needs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
crella February 24, 2012 at 15:52

‘What always struck me as odd about the religious aspect is that , well, you’re practically saying The Big Guy made a mistake creating men with foreskins…why would God ask you to cut a piece of a body he designed? ‘

My point being, that those who espouse religion on one hand say that we are made in God’s image, God is perfect etc while at the same time saying that we have to cut off a piece off of boys’ penises to ‘please’ him. If foreskins are so offensive, and God is so perfect, why the hell are they born with them? A design flaw? By our Creator? A lot of religion makes no sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price February 24, 2012 at 16:12

My point being, that those who espouse religion on one hand say that we are made in God’s image, God is perfect etc while at the same time saying that we have to cut off a piece off of boys’ penises to ‘please’ him. If foreskins are so offensive, and God is so perfect, why the hell are they born with them? A design flaw? By our Creator? A lot of religion makes no sense.

-crella

The old-world religious origin of circumcision is ancient Egypt (although some primitive tribes such as Australian natives practiced it as well). However, both male and female circumcision were practiced simultaneously. Even today, Egypt is probably the epicenter of both male and female circumcision, which just goes to show how culture and genes can resemble each other in many ways.

The ancient Egyptians were fanatics about hygiene, and parts of this were passed on to the Hebrews and Jews, influencing both kashrut and circumcision. As I see it, if you’re going to practice circumcision but not kashrut, you’re being a hypocrite. Therefore, to maintain cleanliness according to ancient Jewish scripture, you shouldn’t advocate one without following all the rules (of the Covenants), and few people can claim to do so.

For Christians, the old Covenants are irrelevant, of course, so the only justification is medical hygiene. Maybe some arguments can be made for this, but then let the individual decide when he can consciously do so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Sam February 24, 2012 at 17:01

If 250 female children were dying from circumcision, there would be an uproar. Boy don’t count. The will, desire, religion of the parents trumps a boys right to body integrity, but not a girls?
The CDC continues to spew out “facts” about the “benefits” of circumcising boys, many of which “protect women”. This has turned into another women’s issue at the hands women at the CDC helm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Observer February 25, 2012 at 08:50

@Welmer
“The old-world religious origin of circumcision is ancient Egypt (although some primitive tribes such as Australian natives practiced it as well). However, both male and female circumcision were practiced simultaneously. Even today, Egypt is probably the epicenter of both male and female circumcision, which just goes to show how culture and genes can resemble each other in many ways.

The ancient Egyptians were fanatics about hygiene, and parts of this were passed on to the Hebrews and Jews, influencing both kashrut and circumcision. As I see it, if you’re going to practice circumcision but not kashrut, you’re being a hypocrite. Therefore, to maintain cleanliness according to ancient Jewish scripture, you shouldn’t advocate one without following all the rules (of the Covenants), and few people can claim to do so.”

This goes beyond syncretism. I know it’s all the rage to point at shared practices in religions and say one ripped off the other, but this is denying that they have a right to claim their own identity. It’s way off the mark to assume that all Abraham was doing was merely following an Egyptian tradition; circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and the Jewish people. You know that. It’s a central part of their identity! There are similarities but the Egyptians and the Hebrews carried out the act with completely different mindsets. We’re not talking about mere cleanliness here, we’re talking about an absolute requirement for membership into the community and good standing before their diety.

If ever there was an example of ancient patriarchal religions, Judaism was it. To suggest that the Jews need to amend their oldest practice simply to avoid being hypocrites next to the Egyptians is kind of crazy, Price. You can mash all religions together if you insist, but it looks about as sloppy as a child’s first birthday cake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price February 25, 2012 at 08:55

If ever there was an example of ancient patriarchal religions, Judaism was it. To suggest that the Jews need to amend their oldest practice simply to avoid being hypocrites next to the Egyptians is kind of crazy, Price.

-Observer

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I think Jews can practice circumcision without being hypocrites, but should also follow kashrut and Mosaic Law if they do so. Christians, on the other hand, need more justification, because it isn’t part of the Christian Covenant.

The reason I don’t support a ban on circumcision is that I think there is the issue of religious freedom here. However, that won’t stop fanatics on both sides of the issue from bashing me — this is one of those no-win topics, which is why I rarely address it here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Observer February 25, 2012 at 09:38

Okay, that sounds alot better.

There’s always room for improvement as far as consistency goes, especially considering the age in which we live. Proponents of every major religion out there will inevitably feel the tug of the left or hear the plaintive wail of the woman-worshippers.

That, and I don’t think the Talmud was meant to be read. Have you seen the prices for those things?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
John David Galt February 25, 2012 at 12:47

I don’t see any good reason to make an exception for religion. If the believer, after he becomes an adult, chooses to give up his OWN foreskin, more power to him.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason most Western men finish too quickly to really satisfy their women is that the foreskin provided a useful delay function that is now missing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
nilk February 25, 2012 at 18:21

1. It is all about women[2]:

(a) Circumcised men are perceived to have reduced sexual urge which dwindles the number of potential women’s pack-mules.
(b) Circumcised men care less about women than the uncircumcised, therefore are not easily manipulable.
(c) Women get allegedly less than satisfactory intimacy from circumcised men.

Somehow somewhat, as a woman I’m going to say that’s the biggest load of dingo kidneys I’ve ever heard. I don’t see the need to provide any gory details, but I call bull shi’ite on each of those.

My personal position on circumcision is that ultimately it should be a man’s choice to make. I can appreciate the religious aspect of it for Jews and Muslims, but that’s a rant for another blog.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Observer February 25, 2012 at 21:05

@Galt, Hugh Intactive

It’s called freedom of religion and as I’ve said before you can’t really separate that practice from the Jews. You’d be much better off dressing up like Hitler and saying that Auschwitz was really a summer camp. At least it would be more entertaining.

Get realistic folks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Boxer February 26, 2012 at 09:00

Course, NAWALT. Cupcake is different, she is not like that, honest. Pftttt! My arse.

This is the hardest thing to educate a brother on. Even if NAWALT is true, it makes no difference, since nobody can tell the future, and there’s no way to know when your precious little snowflake will suddenly have a change of heart and take you to the cleaners.

I always like to point out to the recalcitrant brother that the women he’s searching for got married at 17-21 and the faithful ones (those who are supposedly “not like that” will stay married, precisely because they aren’t the ones to cat around. Unless you want to game some teenager’s dad, then the best bet is to stay single and play the field, getting the sex you want from the usual sluts who *are* like that. The ones that are available *are* like that, and the ones that aren’t have been snapped up already.

The reality is that even if you found the one-in-a-zillion woman who was decent, marriage is slavery for a man. Who wants to spend his whole life as some woman’s serf, going to work every day killing himself so she can stay home and enjoy the good life. Better to stay single, and keep one’s disposable income for himself. Marriage and cohabitation is for the weak.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Carlos The Jackal March 29, 2012 at 21:41

Some good points on body autonomy and why circumcision is wrong. I liked them better when feminist blog Jezebel made them 2 years ago.

http://jezebel.com/5520743/circumcision-and-abortion-the-case-for-body-autonomy

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: