XPost: uk.legal, soc.culture.irish, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.religion.druid   
   From: hex@unseen.ac.am   
      
   The Todal wrote:   
   > On 21/9/12 09:38, Norman Wells wrote:   
   >> GB wrote:   
   >>> On 21/09/2012 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On the contrary, they are _all_ to do with parents wanting to   
   >>>> impose their will on their children.   
   >>>   
   >>> And black is white. I think we all understand you, Norman. You find   
   >>> a position and stick to it against all reason.   
   >>   
   >> The truth is absolute.   
   >>   
   >> And your reasons are non-existent.   
   >   
   > I hesitate to ask you whether you have children, but surely this   
   > notion of the parent imposing his will on his child applies to just   
   > about every aspect of parenting. Asking the child to brush his teeth,   
   > eat up his food, tie his shoelaces, do his homework, tidy his room,   
   > all that stuff. Even before the child can speak he is asked to eat   
   > his food, not throw it at the walls, and stop kicking his mother. And   
   > to go to bed and stay there when it is night time.   
      
   Not many of those, however, are mutilating assaults which, if anything   
   similar to circumcision were done to a child, would result in criminal   
   prosecution.   
      
   > Having a child circumcised for religious reasons is essentially no   
   > different from having it christened.   
      
   Except that one is a mutilating assault on a defenceless child whereas   
   the other isn't.   
      
   > The aim is to ensure that the   
   > child is accepted as part of a community. Not imposing the parent's   
   > will for its own sake.   
      
   Yes it is.  It's precisely that.  If the child wants to join that   
   community when he is competent to decide then that should be his   
   decision and his decision alone, not his parents'.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)