Judge upholds NYC law restricting incredibly sick & disgusting Hasidic practice

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I won't even describe what it is...you just have to read the article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-usa-newyork-circumcision-idUSBRE90A00N20130111

What's amazing is that:

1-The law merely requires additional parental notification and consent for this type of circumcision, not banning it outright and
2-That this f**king sick thing is even legal in the first place. Just reading that gave me the shivers. Vile vile vile.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, it's weird, but I wouldn't call it "vile".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah, it's weird, but I wouldn't call it "vile".

How is it not pedophilia?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, it's weird, but I wouldn't call it "vile".

How is it not pedophilia?

Because there is no sexual interest.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That doesn't make it any better, considering that it's still inherently unsafe (as the article notes and the whole reason for the law.)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That doesn't make it any better, considering that it's still inherently unsafe (as the article notes and the whole reason for the law.)

OK, and I'm not arguing that.  I'm not saying the law is a bad law.  I'm simply saying that your characterization of it is unfair.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Ironically, the belief that this ritual of sucking out the blood was helpful to the health of the child was most likely a major reason for its development in the first place. 

[politicallefty]

I cannot say that I at all like the practice of circumcising a non-consenting infant male against his will (as is far too common in the US), but the fact that a law like this would even be opposed is entirely disgusting.

[MaxQue]

Ironically, the belief that this ritual of sucking out the blood was helpful to the health of the child was most likely a major reason for its development in the first place. 

Oh, great, let's allow hospital to do bloodletting, too.
It's Middle Ages medecine.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct decision, I guess.

And Red's brand of Antisemitism is every bit as vile as the Antiislamism that we have sadly allowed to poison the Western World over the past decade.

[Holmes]

Yeah, it's weird, but I wouldn't call it "vile".

How is it not pedophilia?

Because there is no sexual interest.

That is an interesting definition of pedophilia.

[Brittain33]

Whatever you think of this practice, and the less I think about it the happier I am, one could hardly argue it's something the baby experiences as sexual abuse.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, it's weird, but I wouldn't call it "vile".

How is it not pedophilia?

Because there is no sexual interest.

That is an interesting definition of pedophilia.

It's the one psychologists use.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct decision, I guess.

And Red's brand of Antisemitism is every bit as vile as the Antiislamism that we have sadly allowed to poison the Western World over the past decade.

Huh? Mainstream Jews (the vast majority) do NOT do this and in other articles on this you'll find some Rabbinical Association has condemned it.

Whatever you think of this practice, and the less I think about it the happier I am, one could hardly argue it's something the baby experiences as sexual abuse.

But does pose a health risk. And find this and reading about it at work made me nauseous. It's just...terrible.

[afleitch]

It does pose a health risk, so the current law is reasonable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That doesn't make it any better, considering that it's still inherently unsafe (as the article notes and the whole reason for the law.)

It actually does. Although this particular practice is still pretty, uh, unnerving seems like a good word to use here, any situation you could name obviously is made better by subtracting sexual interest in infants.

[TJ in Oregon]

That doesn't make it any better, considering that it's still inherently unsafe (as the article notes and the whole reason for the law.)

It actually does. Although this particular practice is still pretty, uh, unnerving seems like a good word to use here, any situation you could name obviously is made better by subtracting sexual interest in infants.

In this situation it clearly makes a big difference as it's akin to the difference between getting a physical examination of your private parts or getting sexually abused. The difference is in the presence or lack of sexual interest when you do the action.

Just considering this scenario, I think the judge made the right decision here. While there is a right to religious freedom, this doesn't actually restrict that freedom at all, just requires parental consent for something that is... well... revolting. Parents ought to know if this is being done to their child and ought to have a say in the matter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My problem is that this is even legal in the first place. I doubt this law will even prevent many instances of it.

[minionofmidas]

My problem is that this is even legal in the first place. I doubt this law will even prevent many instances of it.

It will prevent none. It is purely a spiteful discriminatory law  - looks like it anyways, and was certainly understood as such by those who sued. (Then again, they do see prosecution everywhere. Then again, there's a history behind that.) Banning the practice would be out the window in an American court faster than you can say "duh".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well it's hard to see how it's an "anti-Semitic law" considering one of the briefs defending it from what I read somewhere was filed by a mainstream rabbinical association.

[memphis]

Ideally, infrant circumcision would be completely illegal. Cutting off a piece of a baby's penis isn't cool. I guess this is a tiny step in the right direction.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, it's weird, but I wouldn't call it "vile".

How is it not pedophilia?

Because there is no sexual interest.

That is an interesting definition of pedophilia.

If there's no sexual interest, then what is pedophilia?  If simply touching a child's genitals is pedophilia, then every pediatrician is a pedophilia.  You HAVE to have some type of sexual aspect of the act to make it pedophilia.