It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge rules in genital mutilation case on kids

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

Meanwhile, the other charges stand.




posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yeah man, it will be.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yup, so I'm sure there will be a rush to mutilate underage non consenting girls before it gets changed.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Breakthestreak

He's not defending fgm.
He is pointing out that states have rights to rule themselves.
Same as the judge.

But like abortion, the Feds do still have power to influence state laws




Out of curiosity, where do we draw the line? We allow FGM mutilation all the time. Only we call it gender reassignment surgery. We do the same to men too, and the push is on to allow it on younger and younger people all the time.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MisterSpock

Meanwhile, the other charges stand.


Those charges are a joke which will end with a slap on the wrist.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Breakthestreak

He's not defending fgm.
He is pointing out that states have rights to rule themselves.
Same as the judge.

But like abortion, the Feds do still have power to influence state laws




Out of curiosity, where do we draw the line? We allow FGM mutilation all the time. Only we call it gender reassignment surgery. We do the same to men too, and the push is on to allow it on younger and younger people all the time.



I draw the line at minors.
If you can't vote you can do this.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   
The rights of the individual are being infringed.

Of course, there will be those who don't think that individual rights matter.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Either the judge is a total moron, an sash#le or doesn’t even have a clue what FGM is or why it’s done.

Maybe the judge should watch a fricken video of the ‘operation’ being carried out.

What an imbecile.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Breakthestreak

He's not defending fgm.
He is pointing out that states have rights to rule themselves.
Same as the judge.

But like abortion, the Feds do still have power to influence state laws




Out of curiosity, where do we draw the line? We allow FGM mutilation all the time. Only we call it gender reassignment surgery. We do the same to men too, and the push is on to allow it on younger and younger people all the time.



I draw the line at minors.
If you can't vote you can do this.


Either way we're talking about the wholesale removal of otherwise healthy body parts for the mere perception of individuals.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The rights of the individual are being infringed.

Of course, there will be those who don't think that individual rights matter.


Parents have the legal say in what happens to a minor.

But how does that work when a parent denies a child life saving medical care in the name of religion? I know its happened, are they charged?

If they are, and its considered neglect, why is it ok to allow parents to ok non necessary medical procedures?



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual
Activity. - A person who knowingly transports an individual who has
not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce,
or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United
States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or
in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a
criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned
not less than 10 years or for life.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The rights of the individual are being infringed.

Of course, there will be those who don't think that individual rights matter.


Parents have the legal say in what happens to a minor.

But how does that work when a parent denies a child life saving medical care in the name of religion? I know its happened, are they charged?

If they are, and its considered neglect, why is it ok to allow parents to ok non necessary medical procedures?


There are those religions that don't allow blood transfusions and such for medial conditions.


But having female genitalia is not a medical condition.


That's just like saying you could create a religion where you must stab 11 people everyday in the eye with a dull fork.


It's insane.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Good luck proving this constitutes prostitution or sexual activity.
It was a medical procedure.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

My point was that in past cases where a child has died due to being restricted from life saving medical treatment due to religion. How was that treated. Iirc, it was not only socially and morally condemned, but possibly resulted in charges?

How is this different? Yet it seems the ruling would dictate otherwise.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

If convicted it is not a "slap on the wrist."



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Breakthestreak

He's not defending fgm.
He is pointing out that states have rights to rule themselves.
Same as the judge.

But like abortion, the Feds do still have power to influence state laws




Out of curiosity, where do we draw the line? We allow FGM mutilation all the time. Only we call it gender reassignment surgery. We do the same to men too, and the push is on to allow it on younger and younger people all the time.



I draw the line at minors.
If you can't vote you can do this.


Either way we're talking about the wholesale removal of otherwise healthy body parts for the mere perception of individuals.


I don't really care if adults are mutilating their bodies.
Children are a different story.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluntone22

If convicted it is not a "slap on the wrist."


Haven't you seen our legal system?

First of all that's one big damn "if"

And when this does go anywhere near a trial it will be a plea bargained down to some lesser charge. They won't see a day in jail.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock


I see the parallel you're trying to draw, and how it would compare.


I see no justification, Constitutionally, for female genital mutilation. There can be no religious exemption for it. Hell, snake handlers aren't allowed to do their thing and it's a religion.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Breakthestreak

He's not defending fgm.
He is pointing out that states have rights to rule themselves.
Same as the judge.

But like abortion, the Feds do still have power to influence state laws




Out of curiosity, where do we draw the line? We allow FGM mutilation all the time. Only we call it gender reassignment surgery. We do the same to men too, and the push is on to allow it on younger and younger people all the time.



I draw the line at minors.
If you can't vote you can do this.


Either way we're talking about the wholesale removal of otherwise healthy body parts for the mere perception of individuals.


I don't really care if adults are mutilating their bodies.
Children are a different story.


They are, legally and morally.

Should I be allowed to remove my childs arm if I feel it will be good for them, at their protest.

Logically that's absolutely asinine as it serves no obvious medical purpose.

It sounds like something that would fly 2000(or more) years ago. Where is human progress?



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


So, you don't think the Government will appeal?
edit on 11/20/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/20/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join