THIS (http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews ... ks_fa.html) could be a somewhat "touchy" subject for the E.A.

However, as I read this all that I could think about was the story on the E.A. called Tommy's Exam (http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/T/newtommy.htm).

What sorts of assholes fight over this kind of thing? I mean, don't get me wrong, why in the hell is this man demanding this for his son against his ex-wife's wishes? This story (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision. ... ppeal.html) seems to be generating a life of its own.

I am sorry, I do not buy into the 'religion' thing. Furthermore, if carried to its ultimate end (http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/C44AE927- ... B2C7B1877/) (no pun intended) somebody is bound to die as a result of this.

In addition, if a father has a so-called 'right' to do this to his son, then does he have the same 'right' to "DO" it to his daughter? (http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/6F8AB01A- ... 0CCB7E066/)

Talk about your child abusers, this shit scares the hell out of me. I mean, the practice should be banned across the board, especially in hospitals on newborn infants, and on females with no say so over their own bodies and future sexual enjoyment and it is a practice perpetuated upon both sexes by many myths and questions of hygene or lack of it and by sexual hang-ups that people develop for whatever reason.

So, my friends, give the world your opinion on this. I would bet that the views expressed here in the E.A. is more rational than those that you will find anywhere.

Hmmmm, Let's see now. "Son, I've converted to Judaism, so I need to cut off YOUR foreskin."

Crazy.

Falcon

Court blocks father from circumcising 12-year-old son

Posted by The Oregonian

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:25 am (http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/

about.html) January 25, 2008 08:14AM

Categories: Top Stories

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:25 am (http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/

top_stories/)

The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday blocked a divorced former Southern Oregon man from circumcising his 12-year-old son against the wishes of the boy's mother.

The court ruled that the trial judge failed to determine whether the boy wanted to have the procedure. The child's mother, Lia Boldt, claims that circumcision is dangerous and that her son is afraid to say he doesn't want the procedure. Go here for the court's decision (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm).

The court ordered the case back to the trial judge to determine the boy's wishes.

James Boldt, who converted to Judaism several years ago, wants to circumcise his son. As the custodial parent, he argued that he has wide latitude to make decisions for the boy.

The lower courts sided with the father.

The case attracted national attention. An anti-circumcision group based in Seattle said the practice was dangerous. Jewish groups joined the fray out of the concern that the Oregon court would restrict circumcision.

-Ashbel "Tony" Green (tonygreen@news.oregonian.com)

This problem is easily solved - execute the father. Slowly.

Paolo wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:54 am This problem is easily solved - execute the father. Slowly.

It would solve only one problem... :-\

May be the problem is not person, but religion?

So would it better to execute judaism (slowly).

This reminded me about comparison of religions with computer viruses...

From what I've studied, by ancient Jewish Standards that boy is a MAN at 12 years old... Therefore, even according to the Father's own religion, it is completely and totally HIS SON'S decision, not his!!!

I'm totally on the court's/mother's/boy's side in this...

Also, I might add, TO HELL with any tradition -- religious, social, or otherwise -- which would force painful mutilation such as (male or female) circumcision onto others. Such things should be your own personal decision, only made when you are old enough (ie: an adult not a child) to fully understand what circumcision is, exactly what it does, the risks, and the long term consequences.

It is ridiculous, illogical, improbable, and an outright blatant lie, for any "God" who would call himself compassionate, loving, just, or fair, to require his followers to circumcise their children. Furthermore, the obvious question arises: if foreskins or clits or labias are so bad, then why the hell did God create them in the first place?

The fact that circumcision exists in some religions means one of the following MUST be true:

1. The God of this religion isn't the one true God (ie: the original creator of the Humans).

2. The God of this religion is not compassionate, loving, just, or fair. This so-called "God" is an evil entity which enjoys inflicting pain and suffering on children (and as such, absolutely and totally DOES NOT deserve any worship or respect from us Humans!!!)

3. The passages in the religious book(s) that demand circumcision were not “inspired” or “written” by God, but rather were added in by some human (man or woman) who either had something against genitals, something against sexual pleasure, and/or was power-hungry in a sick way, and expressed their desire for dominance through inflicting genital pain on children (and diminishing their ability to feel sexual pleasure in the future).

4. Circumcision actually isn't part of the religious book(s), and is not created or instituted by God. Rather, circumcision is a tradition which was instituted by some human like the one described in #3.

SO WHICH IS IT?

For me, I'd go with #3... Because, the God I believe in is our loving and compassionate Creator, and would never instruct or demand us to inflict pain or suffering on eachother. We all have Free Will and Free Thought, thus we are permitted to inflict pain on eachother without interference (from God), if we so chose... But that is our own sin, our own sickness, our own decision... God would never instruct or demand it, and in fact strongly discourages it.

B.F.D.

I was circumsized at less than a week old. The Jewish doctor told my mother it was health reasons.

I don't miss the foreskin. Though if it's anythig like my golf score, I'd be yelling 15

According to Jewish Law the boy is not considered Jewish if his father is Jewish, he is only considered Jewish if his mother is Jewish and the boy is less than 13 years old (12 if a girl). There is no requirement to circumcize the boy when the father converts. Older children are customarily given a choice when a parent converts. This is strictly an attempt to exercise authority on the part of the father over the mother, not a religious matter. --FLO--

When it comes time to find out the boy's wishes, I would hope that it be done quietly, privately, and completely confidentially. Neither parent, nor their attorneys, should have access to the boy's testimony. The kid should feel completely free to be honest, without regard to either parents feelings or wishes. The judge's decision should not mention which way the kid responded, except to note that his wishes were heard and taken into consideration.

Personally, I'd completely prohibit the circumcision.

Circumcision is a sensitive procedure that no one should undergo until he is old enough to decide for himself. I wasn't given that choice, and I don't like the choice that was made for me.