XPost: uk.legal, soc.culture.irish, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.religion.druid   
   From: deadmailbox@beeb.net   
      
   On 21/9/12 10:45, Norman Wells wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   It isn't an "assault" because English law permits parents to make such   
   decisions and to impose circumcision on their child. However if you   
   believe it should not be lawful it is reasonable for you to say that you   
   view it as an assault. It should hardly be necessary for me to point out   
   that if you take a complaining child out of a car, that too could be   
   viewed as an assault in the same way. That cutting its hair or its   
   toenails without express consent could likewise be viewed as an assault.   
   That operating on an unsightly birthmark or harelip could be viewed as   
   an assault. Or removing a painful splinter from the skin.   
      
   As it happens I disapprove of religious circumcision and I think   
   religious communities should be encouraged to abandon this practice, but   
   it takes the argument no further to accuse these people of "assault".   
   You will be no more persuasive than if you kept telling them that   
   smacking a child is an outrageous assault. All they'll say in reply is   
   that you are an idealist who understands neither children nor religious   
   cultures and whose view should be disregarded.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)