• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Alabama "conservatives" outlaw circumcision, passed senate and house

 
 
 
none

none

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,330
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
https://www.al.com/news/2021/05/ped...ansgender-bill-could-outlaw-circumcision.html
Pediatricians say Alabama transgender bill could outlaw circumcision

A controversial bill that would outlaw some hormonal and surgical treatments for transgender youth could also inadvertently ban routine infant circumcisions, according to the Alabama Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
...
The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes bills to regulate the medical care of transgender youth. In March, Academy President Dr. Lee Savio Beers released a statement on the issue.
...
“Several state legislatures have introduced bills that would prohibit gender-affirming care for gender-diverse and transgender youth and forbid transgender youth from participating on sports teams according to their gender identity,” Beers said. “These bills are dangerous. If left unchallenged, there will be transgender teens in certain zip codes who will be unable to access basic medical care, and pediatricians in certain zip codes who would be criminalized for providing medical care.”
...
Rabbi Yossi Friedman, executive director of Chabad of Alabama, said a bris is one of the oldest Jewish traditions.
...
“What would happen if this law passed?” Friedman said. “I’m going to go jail. That’s what’s going to happen. Because I’m not going to stop practicing my Judaism.”
...
“The very people who support this law in most cases would be very hesitant to come along and have the government tell us what to do as parents and how we raise our children,” Friedman said.
...
“Every time a law is passed, every time the government takes a step, there are unintended consequences,” Friedman said.
Click to expand...
science based medicine versus theologian
Alabama, lol
 
It strikes me as ridiculous that they are making a law that bans consensual alterations to genitals, while debating specifically how to and whether they need to make a just-so cutout to allow non-consensual genital alterations.

This strikes me as absolutely inverse of what would be sane, to ban non-consensual genital alterations while protecting consensual alterations.
 
none said:
https://www.al.com/news/2021/05/ped...ansgender-bill-could-outlaw-circumcision.html
Pediatricians say Alabama transgender bill could outlaw circumcision

A controversial bill that would outlaw some hormonal and surgical treatments for transgender youth could also inadvertently ban routine infant circumcisions, according to the Alabama Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
...
The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes bills to regulate the medical care of transgender youth. In March, Academy President Dr. Lee Savio Beers released a statement on the issue.
...
“Several state legislatures have introduced bills that would prohibit gender-affirming care for gender-diverse and transgender youth and forbid transgender youth from participating on sports teams according to their gender identity,” Beers said. “These bills are dangerous. If left unchallenged, there will be transgender teens in certain zip codes who will be unable to access basic medical care, and pediatricians in certain zip codes who would be criminalized for providing medical care.”
...
Rabbi Yossi Friedman, executive director of Chabad of Alabama, said a bris is one of the oldest Jewish traditions.
...
“What would happen if this law passed?” Friedman said. “I’m going to go jail. That’s what’s going to happen. Because I’m not going to stop practicing my Judaism.”
...
“The very people who support this law in most cases would be very hesitant to come along and have the government tell us what to do as parents and how we raise our children,” Friedman said.
...
“Every time a law is passed, every time the government takes a step, there are unintended consequences,” Friedman said.
Click to expand...
science based medicine versus theologian
Alabama, lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the problem with the Alabama legislation. :rolleyes:
 
weird weird word "controversial", meh English
why would the article say it's controversial?
 
Jarhyn said:
It strikes me as ridiculous that they are making a law that bans consensual alterations to genitals, while debating specifically how to and whether they need to make a just-so cutout to allow non-consensual genital alterations.

This strikes me as absolutely inverse of what would be sane, to ban non-consensual genital alterations while protecting consensual alterations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. If we were to "steel man" the side that opposes these treatments, I suppose they would argue that children cannot meaningfully consent to these treatments. I don't think I agree with that, but it certainly would be a case that I would make carefully.

I do think routine infant circumcisions should be banned, in any case.
 
Do foreskins aid in making a better sex change operation?

Checkmate, Rabbi!
 
I'm missing something. (In two senses.) I read the OP a couple times over, and I don't understand the "inadvertent" ban on infant circumcision. What is there in the bill that would do this? There must be more to the original article that explains how some restrictions on transgender surgery compromise the custom of circumcision.

(I personally think it's a weird custom, but if God favors the sporty, no-frills penis, then...well, God should be circumcised first. I suspect there was more than just trimming in God's original order -- that seems so, well, incomplete, clipped. I think you were supposed to have some saying like 'Jehovah's Mighty Hammer' tattoed on the shaft with maybe cactus spines dipped in pomegranate juice. The priest's junk, known as the bishopric, would have an entire Bible verse inscribed on it.) (I have no proof, tho'.)
 
ideologyhunter said:
I'm missing something. (In two senses.) I read the OP a couple times over, and I don't understand the "inadvertent" ban on infant circumcision. What is there in the bill that would do this? There must be more to the original article that explains how some restrictions on transgender surgery compromise the custom of circumcision.

(I personally think it's a weird custom, but if God favors the sporty, no-frills penis, then...well, God should be circumcised first. I suspect there was more than just trimming in God's original order -- that seems so, well, incomplete, clipped. I think you were supposed to have some saying like 'Jehovah's Mighty Hammer' tattoed on the shaft with maybe cactus spines dipped in pomegranate juice. The priest's junk, known as the bishopric, would have an entire Bible verse inscribed on it.) (I have no proof, tho'.)
Click to expand...
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_2021-2022/bills/4047.htm
...
Section 44-139-20. (A) Except as provided in subsection (B), no person shall engage in, counsel, make a referral for, or cause any of the following practices to be performed upon a minor if the practice is performed for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor's perception of the minor's gender or sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor's sex as defined in this chapter:
...
(6) removing any healthy or nondiseased body part or tissue.
...
Click to expand...
 
ideologyhunter said:
I'm missing something. (In two senses.) I read the OP a couple times over, and I don't understand the "inadvertent" ban on infant circumcision. What is there in the bill that would do this? There must be more to the original article that explains how some restrictions on transgender surgery compromise the custom of circumcision.

(I personally think it's a weird custom, but if God favors the sporty, no-frills penis, then...well, God should be circumcised first. I suspect there was more than just trimming in God's original order -- that seems so, well, incomplete, clipped. I think you were supposed to have some saying like 'Jehovah's Mighty Hammer' tattoed on the shaft with maybe cactus spines dipped in pomegranate juice. The priest's junk, known as the bishopric, would have an entire Bible verse inscribed on it.) (I have no proof, tho'.)
Click to expand...

The bill bans all removal of "healthy" genital tissue. All of it. Which includes circumcision.
 
J842P said:
Jarhyn said:
It strikes me as ridiculous that they are making a law that bans consensual alterations to genitals, while debating specifically how to and whether they need to make a just-so cutout to allow non-consensual genital alterations.

This strikes me as absolutely inverse of what would be sane, to ban non-consensual genital alterations while protecting consensual alterations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. If we were to "steel man" the side that opposes these treatments, I suppose they would argue that children cannot meaningfully consent to these treatments. I don't think I agree with that, but it certainly would be a case that I would make carefully.

I do think routine infant circumcisions should be banned, in any case.
Click to expand...

Of course, children cannot meaningfully consent to circumcision either, especially in the epoch it happens, Nor can they meaningfully consent to any direction or character of puberty if they cannot consent to (in reality, pursue, rather than merely passively "consent to") an alteration to puberty.

There's no way for conservatives to have their cake and eat it too.

Assholes need to quit gatekeeping puberty as a function of genitals and instead gatekeep as a function of personal conviction towards this particular form of bodily autonomy.

And kids below 18 aren't doing any kind of surgical genital alterations beyond the occasional late-life circumcision anyway. So they didn't even "ban" surgical transition for minors because no sane medical provider was allowing for that in the first place.

The only thing this law will actually change with regards to surgical intervention is application of it's restrictions to circumcision.
 
anyways...
pediatricians.... at least those mentioned in the article didn't mention circumcision, rather the statement was about minor's access to medical care.
the rabbi mention circumcision.
so what is it??
 
Many women have their outer labia reduced surgically for cosmetic reasons.

This would effect that as well.
 
Baby boys can't consent to having their genitals mutilated, so this is a beautiful unintended consequence of the legislation. (Of course, the intended consequence is also worthy).

I assume the only barrier to this becoming law is assent by the governor?
 
Metaphor said:
Baby boys can't consent to having their genitals mutilated, so this is a beautiful unintended consequence of the legislation. (Of course, the intended consequence is also worthy).

I assume the only barrier to this becoming law is assent by the governor?
Click to expand...
FROM WHAT i UNDERSTAND THE BILL IS "POSTPONED".
from what I understand the bill is postponed as of ~may 8 2021, I dunno something to do with "legislation" and "conservatives" who may or may not be attorneys, pediatricians, or rabbis or all of the choices.
it is just so confusing with all this "CRT" and "intersectionality".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom