Author Topic: Republicans Who Can’t Oppose Child Mutilation Should Get Out Of Office  (Read 1501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sled Dog

  • The Ultimate Weapon: Freedom - I Won't
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,138
That's odd, it involves injections of drugs and surgery under anesthesia and it's being taught in medical schools as the appropriate "treatment" for gender dysphoria, with a lot of them silencing faculty who suggest that treating gender dysphoria in the same way we treat other psychiatric ailments involving delusions is more appropriate.

Your argument vitiates the state's ability to suppress harmful quackery of any sort.

Ya know, I recall when they used to recommend, and perform lobotomies to "treat" certain psychological issues.

That's frowned on, now.

But then they want to treat other clearly psychological issues with the knife.   

SSDD.
The GOP is not the party leadership.  The GOP is the party MEMBERSHIP.   The members need to kick the leaders out if they leaders are going the wrong way.  No coddling allowed.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
Maybe I am living under a rock, but I do not know a single Christian faith that has the practice of circumcision.  Not one!  Yes, folks that are Jewish and Muslim, that is a part of their thing, but not one Christian faith. 

Now I went out and searched it, and the net said Coptic Christians, Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians practice circumcision.  All three of these Christian religions are small numbers when considering the global population.

The USA is the ONLY COUNTRY that practices circumcision, and we are slowly moving away from it.  At this time, only about half of America is having it done on their male children.  It is mutilation, plain and simple.

I have one son.  When my wife was pregnant, the woman teaching the Lamaze class suggested to the future parents in the room, which there were about 15 couples, like father, like son when asked what one should do.  My son was born on a Friday, and I brought my wife home on Monday, and flew out to my consulting project that night halfway across the country.  My mother in law was there to help my wife.  I flew back in early on Friday.  We sat down and had lunch.  The baby was in his crib while we ate.  And he started to stir.  I was done eating so I went to check on him.

He was wet, so I went to change his diaper.  When I laid the front part of the diaper against his body, he laid there and went OUUUUGH!, lips pursed in pain, like the diaper merely brushing up against his penis caused him severe pain.  I knew then I had just done the worst thing I could have ever done to my son.  We had two more kids, and I told my wife no more circs if we have a boy.  She wanted to fight with me over it, and I said over my dead body.

We are doing so many things wrong in this nation to harm folks.  The argument that children do not feel the circumcision, so it is no problem, THAT IS A BLATANT LIE.  I saw it first hand with my son.  It is mutilation, and no other nation does this.

I was present for the bris on both my sons. I was intimately involved from one end to the other, and I did not see much more than the initial pain, which was over quickly and within a day there was little discomfort. Perhaps you weren't tending to it right.

And the reason 'this country' circumcises is BECAUSE of it's Judeo-Christian (Protestant) identity. ALL the Protestant countries circumcised, pretty much across the board. And I dare say the drop in circumcision directly correlates with that Christian identity diminishing.

But that is all beside the point. The point is a state imposing itself. The illustrative demonstration is how easily a state can move from a legitimate concern to a direct imposition against enumerated rights, given the power to do so.

A good friend of mine was accused of sexual improprieties against his daughters in the course of a divorce.
Without trial and without any recourse as determined in two separate attempts at regaining visitation at the least (which cost him thousands), his parental rights were summarily stripped from him and he didn't see his daughters thereafter for 10 years.

As his daughters grew old enough to become independent each of them in their time, The first thing both of them did was to go back to their dad and rekindle a relationship they had longed for the whole time. I have personally sat with his daughters, and his daughters have told me point blank and without coercion that the entire accusation was bullcrap. The whole thing was a manipulation of them in their naive youth, a concoction of their vindictive mother, and and all too willing state child-welfare system. For the 'safety of the children', his custodial right was summarily overturned, and they took his damn children from him.

That same guy (and many others I can point to) had his fortune taken from him too in the form of a decreed child support payment imposed upon him without recourse, and owed monthly whether he was making enough to cover it or not.

His whole damn life was horror-highway For more than a decade in the midst of his best money-making years as he was all but enslaved. And what little he had left he spent trying to get his daughters back... Hell he may STILL owe the state and lawyers. And his is by no means a story beyond the current norm.

The TOOK his honor, his children and his fortune. TOOK it without recourse.

Giving the state that kind of power is flat wrong, and I will always be damnwell against it. This 'for the children' bullcrap always has to be taken with a bucket of salt. Just because 'children' gives no right to the state to strip persons of their unalienable rights and fortune. And they DO.



Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
What does this jackassery even mean @roamer_1 ?


Exactly what it says @Right_in_Virginia

Quote
What he balked at was fabricated to try and cover his ass.  Whoever called him with a warning will be outed soon enough.

Prove that then.

I have not read the bill. Have you? I have read his statement on the thing. If what he says is true, then I agree.

He is not *FOR* this gender reassignment. He is more sympathetic that I would be, but he is not for it. And some of his sympathies are legit.

What his bitch was about was state overreach. And that should rightly be protected against regardless of the circumstance.

Offline LegalAmerican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,124
  • Gender: Female
Why, why, are people so obsessed with our most private of parts?  Those parts need to be left alone!   STOP MESSING WITH  PEOPLE.  This obsession started in turd world countries.  It needs to stop. Just stop.   GFM in Africa, with razor blades. 

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
That's odd, it involves injections of drugs and surgery under anesthesia and it's being taught in medical schools as the appropriate "treatment" for gender dysphoria, with a lot of them silencing faculty who suggest that treating gender dysphoria in the same way we treat other psychiatric ailments involving delusions is more appropriate.

Your argument vitiates the state's ability to suppress harmful quackery of any sort.

As a matter of law, that it is quackery has to be determined. The hitch here is that the medical community has swallowed this one whole, hook, line, and sinker - But it is the medical community that must be employed to refute the practice. And because of that, this will be challenged.

And  no, the state has the right to control or ban any medical procedure. Except abortion it turns out. And soon, this too, I bet. Because stuff like this will give the state control over your children against your objections. This is not about controlling medicine. It is about state powers, and that it seems, is Hutch's point.


Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Asa has handed the governorship over to Sanders.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
Not any more.

Conservatives recognize the role of the state exists to protect children, both born and unborn.

PC RINOs do not.  All they care about is stopping American in its tracks.

And your Argument From Authority is a clear fail, anyway.   I know what a conservative is because I are one.   I know what a conservative is not, and one of the exclusionary criteria is permitting the abuse of children for any reason.

Oh.  You didn't realize you were playing the Argument From Authority Game.   You lost it anyway.  Everyone that plays that game loses.


Exactly wrong. The use of 'protecting the children' is often a thin disguise for the imposition of more state control. Because everyone gets all emotional the minute you say 'It's for the chidren' Hell, that's been the mantra of the left all the way along.

So when y'all come up singing the same song, my ears perk up...

Especially when a Conservative governor, specifically noted for his life long 'small-government' stance says the problem is one of government overreach - Well that makes me wonder what he's talking about.

And when I stand on that question as a point of order, and no one addresses it as that, but keeps beating the conversation back around to 'it's for the chidren' when that is not the point, well... Been there before with the liberals.

So no, the protection of children is not a reason to endanger liberty... And no, liberty need not be sacrificed in order to protect them. The two can coexist. And should.

You would think folks would go find out what Hutch is taking about - hear him out. Just like folks should have done for Noems.

If he says the bill is dangerous, find out why. But I guess it is more fun to go off half-cocked and join the hyena pack. Questioning and investigation ain't the strong suit of forums anymore.

Twitterpated.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
Oh.

Giving pills that castrate a child for life is not a "procedure".

YES, actually it is.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
So, no.  Children are not property, and as sovereign individuals

Children are not sovereign.

Quote
It's no big deal to tell the Jews that they can't hack at their baby boys' penises, but they'll have to wait until the bar mitzvah to let the "young man" decide for himself is he wants to bear a physical mark showing his allegiance to his family's God or not.

The commandment is on the eighth day. Not the eighteenth birthday.
Congress shall make NO LAW... Isn't that what it says?


Offline Sled Dog

  • The Ultimate Weapon: Freedom - I Won't
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,138

Exactly wrong.


So people DO NOT form governments for protection?

They form them to become slaves?

And what part of child abuse is absent in the practice of chemically castrating or surgically castrating children that makes it abhorrent to you for the government to protect them?

Know who the only other people are who are demanding the unrestricted torture and mutilation of children?  The abortion nazis.
The GOP is not the party leadership.  The GOP is the party MEMBERSHIP.   The members need to kick the leaders out if they leaders are going the wrong way.  No coddling allowed.

Offline Sled Dog

  • The Ultimate Weapon: Freedom - I Won't
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,138
Children are not sovereign.

The commandment is on the eighth day. Not the eighteenth birthday.
Congress shall make NO LAW... Isn't that what it says?

So human sacrifice to Satan is acceptable?

Mutilating the Child is perfectly acceptable, unless the child yells fire in a crowded theater?

Child ownership stopped with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.  Perhaps you didn't know this?

Parents do not own their children any more.

They can't brand them.  They can't beat them.   What is magical about the boy's penis that makes it the special exception to a VERY clear rule:  First, do no harm.   Hmmmm?

Ancient superstitions aren't reason enough to hack at a baby's body parts.   Get better superstitions.
The GOP is not the party leadership.  The GOP is the party MEMBERSHIP.   The members need to kick the leaders out if they leaders are going the wrong way.  No coddling allowed.

Offline LegalAmerican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,124
  • Gender: Female
So human sacrifice to Satan is acceptable?

Mutilating the Child is perfectly acceptable, unless the child yells fire in a crowded theater?

Child ownership stopped with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.  Perhaps you didn't know this?

Parents do not own their children any more.

They can't brand them.  They can't beat them.   What is magical about the boy's penis that makes it the special exception to a VERY clear rule:  First, do no harm.   Hmmmm?

Ancient superstitions aren't reason enough to hack at a baby's body parts.   Get better superstitions.

 888high58888. Right on. 

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
So human sacrifice to Satan is acceptable?

Mutilating the Child is perfectly acceptable, unless the child yells fire in a crowded theater?

There you go again, bending the focus back to child abuse, where there is little  argument.

Quote
Child ownership stopped with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.  Perhaps you didn't know this?

Parents do not own their children any more.


Ahh... That's great. So since sovereignty involves independence, if my kid goes and damages someone's property, HE is liable for it, and not me. What a relief.

And in fact, you've talked yourself right in a circle - because sovereignty also involves self-determination, so if the child is sovereign, the child has the right and free choice to mutilate himself however he sees fit.

But in fact, the child is not sovereign. The child is a dependent. And that is where the argument lies. Historically, and  traditionally, throughout all of history, that child is the natural ward of his parents, and of their larger family. The authority over the child rests in his parents. With his family.

Now, it is TRUE that the state has authority to breach that natural authority - To make the child a ward of the state in the case where the natural authority of the parents has grievously failed and endangered the child. But even in such a case, it should be that a formal charge be raised against them with evidence presented at trial, and a chance to challenge their accusers with a defense provided as needed. That is how it is supposed to go. Because the natural authority over the child rests in the parents, and not in the state.

Already now, that is not how it is going. I gave an example for the purpose of demonstrating the overreach of the state as it already exists...  And when a stawart Conservative governor says there is another state overreach that is worthy of inquiry.

To extend your argument, to deny the natural authority of the parents and allow the state to become the 'sole authority' - which is Hutchinson's charge in this case - requires the admission that the child is first the ward of the state, above all others which is a very, very dangerous idea.

THAT is our disagreement, not the abuse.

Quote
They can't brand them.  They can't beat them.   What is magical about the boy's penis that makes it the special exception to a VERY clear rule:  First, do no harm.   Hmmmm?

Ancient superstitions aren't reason enough to hack at a baby's body parts.   Get better superstitions.

Ahh... the hubris of modernity... The very same modernity that promotes this gender reassignment... What a conundrum that must be... And in defiance of the very God who legally endows your liberties. Be careful what you wish for. You'll wind up with a chain and a collar around your neck. But you can be assured, your big government will take good care of the children in your stead.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
So people DO NOT form governments for protection?

They form them to become slaves?

And what part of child abuse is absent in the practice of chemically castrating or surgically castrating children that makes it abhorrent to you for the government to protect them?

Know who the only other people are who are demanding the unrestricted torture and mutilation of children?  The abortion nazis.

More tubthumping and chest-beating trying to shift the focus back to the abuse. The abuse is not the argument.

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,322
And the reason 'this country' circumcises is BECAUSE of it's Judeo-Christian (Protestant) identity. ALL the Protestant countries circumcised, pretty much across the board. And I dare say the drop in circumcision directly correlates with that Christian identity diminishing.

You can dare say anything, but you're so wrong.    Circumcision coming to the US had nothing to do with the Judeo/Muslim religious custom.  Thank Queen Victoria.

http://www.circumcisiondebate.org/past-and-present

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
You can dare say anything, but you're so wrong.    Circumcision coming to the US had nothing to do with the Judeo/Muslim religious custom.  Thank Queen Victoria.

http://www.circumcisiondebate.org/past-and-present

You might want to check out Geneva.

Offline Sled Dog

  • The Ultimate Weapon: Freedom - I Won't
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,138
More tubthumping and chest-beating trying to shift the focus back to the abuse. The abuse is not the argument.

The abuse IS the argument.

No wonder  you have to insist that it is not.

What's your stance on murdering babies before they are born?
The GOP is not the party leadership.  The GOP is the party MEMBERSHIP.   The members need to kick the leaders out if they leaders are going the wrong way.  No coddling allowed.

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,322
You might want to check out Geneva.

Stop digging ... you're wrong.

Offline Sled Dog

  • The Ultimate Weapon: Freedom - I Won't
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,138
There you go again, bending the focus back to child abuse, where there is little  argument.


You defend child abuse.   So does Hutchinson.

Just because you both want to pretend otherwise isn't surprising, because all the normal people are opposed to child abuse and don't accept BS excuses to promote it.
The GOP is not the party leadership.  The GOP is the party MEMBERSHIP.   The members need to kick the leaders out if they leaders are going the wrong way.  No coddling allowed.

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,322
To extend your argument, to deny the natural authority of the parents and allow the state to become the 'sole authority' - which is Hutchinson's charge in this case -

If you believe this was Asa's charge in this case ... then you must explain why Asa didn't make this charge with female genitalia mutilation and signed a bill banning it.

And spare me the crap that it was due to the differences in procedures.  After all, a true principle is etched in stone.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
The abuse IS the argument.

No wonder  you have to insist that it is not.


No it is not. Show me anywhere that I defended abuse - With the exception of circumcision which is not abuse - on that we will no doubt disagree, and in the matter of corporal punishment (within reason) which I also consider a necessary part of child-rearing - On that we may likewise disagree... As to the OP and the horrors of gender reassignment, and especially on children, I have not a single sympathy. I consider the whole issue an entertainment of delusion, and that delusion is broadly indicative of a desperately failing grasp on reality. It's nuts, in a word, and to impose it upon a child should be a criminal matter. It is FAR beyond the pale.

All I have defended is limited government and the natural authority of parents. From the start my arguments have been toward Hutchinson's statement of governmental overreach - A thing he separated from the abuse, and the thing he vetoed the bill for. He said he would sign off on the abuse part of it in a second. He then said there is an overreach leaving the state as the sole arbiter and authority.

That is what I rose to defend against. The state is not the natural guardian of the child, and cannot supplant the natural authority of the parent. if the state does intercede, it should necessarily have to prove its usurpation of that natural right with proffered charges, and a full trial, with the right of the parent to raise a defense, and being represented by council, just like any other matter of law anywhere covered by the Constitution of the United States.

That s the only recourse given to the state in exercising its power against its citizens, as a matter of law. To ordain itself the 'sole arbiter and authority' in any matter is flat wrong, and a direct assault against limited government and the liberty it provides... Regardless of the issue. To do otherwise is operating under the color of law. As I said early on, that structural matter is the problem.

I will not readily destroy Hutchinson for a veto for that reason, separate from the abuse... And in fact, if found to be true, I would agree with him.

Quote
What's your stance on murdering babies before they are born?


Wholly against. to include rape and incest. A slight sympathy for the 'life of the mother', where the situation is dire, and the physical life is truly threatened. But something as reasonable as that has proven impossible to provide, as Reagan found out from the get-go.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
Stop digging ... you're wrong.

No, I am not. But I will cede the point, as it is tangential to the issue in the OP, it would become a religious study against the stated desire of the management, and in order to mount a defense, I would have to go to books, which would take days. Suffice it to say, in a long study toward historically annotating Bible-believing Christians, and tracking the people that 'keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ' through the breadth of two millennia, one of the ancillary indicators was indeed circumcision.

As an aside, in the link you gave me, one of the illustrations showed that circumcision in the United States is most heavily practiced in the South and right across the Bible belt... But I suppose that is merely coincidence.  :whistle:

Whether the case. I cede. The point is yours.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
If you believe this was Asa's charge in this case ... then you must explain why Asa didn't make this charge with female genitalia mutilation and signed a bill banning it.

And spare me the crap that it was due to the differences in procedures.  After all, a true principle is etched in stone.

It isn't a difference in procedures. If you go back and watch the vid, he said that if it was a matter of banning procedures he would have signed it in an instant. The banning of procedures was not his problem.

He signed a bill banning female circumcision.
He said he had no problem banning the procedures in this case.

That seems to be consistent to me.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,296
You defend child abuse.   So does Hutchinson.

Just because you both want to pretend otherwise isn't surprising, because all the normal people are opposed to child abuse and don't accept BS excuses to promote it.

No, I most certainly DO NOT.

Online bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,513
  • Gender: Male
  • One day Closer
She asked me name my foe then. I said the need within some men to fight and kill their brothers without thought of Love or God. Ken Hensley