Replies

You want to go back to the beginning, then? You cited a liberal newspaper that made claims with very scant proof. You go on to insert liberal personal opinion into it. Here it all is:

This raises an interesting question:

Some Jewish orthodox sects require a mohel to suck blood from a just-circumcised penis as part of their religious obligations. Recently, this practice caused the death of a child in New York:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-03/news/31120453_1_circumcision-rabbi-yitzchok-fischer-contracting-herpes

How far can the State go in forbidding this practice (and thereby violating the religious freedoms of that sect)?

On the other hand, how can it be okay for someone to mutilate the genitals of an individual (the child), without consent?

The (brief) NYDN article did not prove anything, nor did the JTA article. The NYDN article could not name who performed the circumcision. The NYDN has an extremely liberal bias (but here you are coming onto a conservative board pretending that “liberal” is a mere label when it is not).

Next, you inject personal views into the post, of a nature that are not conservative and certainly not religious (circumcision is “mutilation”, babies have the power of consent and parental consent does not/should not exist, et cetera). That shows a confrontational attitude. Also shows extreme prejudice on your part rather than open-mindedness. Perhaps you should have looked up all the details about “metzizah be’peh” before coming to such rapid conclusions, too.

So what is to argue, when nothing you present is valid? Most unfortunate. However, it seems that all you purposed was to come on here and fight for no reason.

I am from Australia and it is a tad difficult for people down here to be familiar with what kind of a "liberal" source NYDN would be. However, we are familiar that Fox News (NewsCorp over here) can hardly be described as "liberal". Fox News cited the NYDN article. Likewise, the Jewish newspaper JTA did so, too. And they don't claim NYDN as their source. Instead, they claim another Jewish news agency as their source. Now are you saying all of this amounts to "liberal bias" regarding the incident? All of them are citing the incident because they don't hold any truth? Really?

Next, you inject personal views into the post, of a nature that are not conservative and certainly not religious (circumcision is “mutilation”, babies have the power of consent and parental consent does not/should not exist, et cetera). That shows a confrontational attitude. Also shows extreme prejudice on your part rather than open-mindedness. Perhaps you should have looked up all the details about “metzizah be’peh” before coming to such rapid conclusions, too.

It is not a "personal" view to see a problem with genital mutilation. Also parental consent has boundaries - a parent cannot cause permanent physical harm to a child - and I specified as much, but you pretend to ignore, and hope that I don't notice your deletion and selective quotation. Tsk tsk.

As others have mentioned before, the entire argument is about how much of your body's physical structuring you have a right to, and how far others can go in lopping off sections of it. This is a core aspect of the rights an individual possesses, and the failure to recognise as much hardly makes you a conservative. In fact, your claim to the same would be HIGHLY suspect.