Repeated Assertion is not Proof

I often hear “Circumcision is not illegal” repeated... But repeatedly insisting that it's not illegal is not what would make that statement true! You have to provide reasons to support your assertion! To that, I often hear “anything not explicitly made illegal by the laws is legal.”

Here's an exercise I want yous to try. Open another tab in your web browser, and locate the web site where you can search the text of the statutes for your state. Now search for the word “Volkswagon.” Chances are very good that, no matter what state you live in, you'll not find any laws mentioning “Volkswagons.” Can you thereby conclude that it's not illegal to own or steal a “Volkswagon.”?

Now try searching for “automobile”. Chances are you'll find laws that pertain to them... but do any of them prohibit automobile theft? Here in Utah, at least, there appears to be no law that prohibits theft of automobiles, and so then, is it not illegal to steal a car? We already know that's probably not a valid conclusion.

Because it's practically impossible for lawmakers to create an exhaustive list of every make and model of automobile, or more generally, of every kind of item that might be stolen... So if it's illegal to steal an automobile, there must be a general purpose law that prohibits the theft of somebody else's high value property. So it's that law that is violated when somebody steals an automobile, whether it be a Volkswagon, a Ford, a Buick, or a Chevrolet.

Now search for phrases such as “permanent disfigurement”, “loss of normal function”, “mayhem”, or “battery” and read the statutes that search turns up. Clearly, there are laws that prohibit those things... but again, lawmakers can not create a comprehensive list of every possible weapon that could be used, every possible part of the body that might be injured, and sew froth. (Oh, say, can yous see where this is going?) Tweety birds... and turtles with tingling tails... but no turtle necks... Just like bull dog tails and doberman ears? Seriously? On who's authority was this inflicted upon us again? What in the hell kind of work ethic was that?

Some advocates of the prepucial guillotine will inevitably attempt the argument that “circumcision” is not “disfigurement” and that it does not cause “loss of normal function”... Perceptions of the argument rely upon a fundamental assumption regarding the nature and extend of the reader's knowledge of normal (intact) adult male sexual anatomy. We rebut by asking them what Anatomy textbook they are referring to in making that determination? Or perhaps, what pamphlet from what doctor paid for by whom with money obtained by what means? Does the word “fraud” ring any bells? How do you think Any Reasonable Person feels about the words “sexual mutilation”? How does the legal concept of “strict liability” relate to all of this? How do the penis butchers feel about the words “good luck finding a lawyer who can get you out of this one”? (What in the hell kind of work ethic would that be, right?)

Given true and complete knowledge of the true anatomy and normal function of the penile prepuce, I believe that it is impossible to not conclude that amputation of the penile prepuce most certainly causes permanent disfigurement and loss of normal function. There is no such thing as a circumcision that does not cause this irreparable harm, therefore the doctrine of strict liability must apply here; it is not necessary to prove mens rea but only that the primary features of the actus reas were committed by the defendant.

Here comes the fraud part.

If you survey a number of Anatomy textbooks published in the USA, you're likely to find that the diagrams of the penis do not display an intact “foreskin” or “prepuce”, it's medical name. The one I own doesn't really explain very much about what it actually is! For some reason, the prepuce has been “cut out of the picture”, even in Anatomy textbooks used to teach college level courses to medical students!

So, are they correcting the babies to match the faulty diagrams? Do people intelligent enough to become doctors actually not question why they are being expected to learn to amputate something that their textbooks don't explain? Are they given to believe that it's vestigial and not necessary? Really? Is there a gun to their heads while they do it? And when the baby cries at the top of his lungs, passes out and dies of pain and fear induced shock, is that “SIDS” or some other alleged cause of death that we should mine for in the records? Many of these defendants may be guilty of infant homicides!

The next assignment in this exercise is to visit http://doctorsopposingcircumcision.org and read what they have to say. At the very least, watch their Anatomy lesson video. Then visit http://cirp.org and spend at least an hour learning even more about the true Anatomy and normal function of the prepuce. You may also like to visit http://sexasnatureintendedit.com to learn what a female author has to say about how male circumcision affects the quality of sex for females as well as their male partners.

The next assigned exercise is to read the statutes that pertain to crimes against the person, and in particular, to sexual crimes against children and minors. Minors are not considered to be competent to make their own decisions regarding consent to engage in sexual intercourse, especially with adults. When a person who is in a special position of trust or authority over the victim commits a sexual offense, the offense is enhanced to “aggravated” status; it is here in Utah, and I'm assuming that the laws in every state must have similar language.

No adult has the right to impose prepucial amputation upon a child. It affects not only that child, but even more importantly, it affects the autonomous adult he will someday become, and will be for most of his life.

You might want to check into the statutes concerning fraud right about now, because Mothers got lied to... the people selling and shilling for circumcision managed our Mother's perceptions of what the “foreskin” is, and of what amputation of it supposedly did for us. They were given to believe that it was in our best interest to have a circumcision performed. If you are one of those women, how do you feel about it now that you've read the reading assignments and performed the lookup exercises I've given above?

What are we going to do about it, Posse? (Remember the distinction between a posse and a lynch mob, please. If they are hanging the horse thief, they are a lynch mob. A posse brings the horse thief to trial. We are *not* a lynch mob. We are a Posse.) I believe that if the local courts do not view “circumcision” as a crime today, they are much likelier to after being lead through the above argument and lessons by the short grass roots. If nobody takes the initiative to do this, it will never happen. Don't wait for some “duly authorized officials” to come along and do their job... Prompt them to do their jobs... If they think it's not their job, then who's job is it? What in the hell kind of work ethic is that?

Seriously, what gives anyone the “authority” to determine that it's not illegal to butcher a baby boy's pee-pee tail? What in the hell kind of work ethic is that? How difficult is it to actually read a few pages and learn something that will seem obvious in retrospect? Any Reasonable Person will certainly not ignore the evidence when presented with it. Also, who are the “authorities” who “verify and validate” the information provided by the Anatomy textbooks wherein the foreskin has been cut out of the pictures? Are they correcting the babies to match the faulty diagrams? What in the hell kind of work ethic is that?

Remember that many of the men who are members of law enforcement agencies, district attorneys' officers, and other legal justice system offices are also victims of infant male genital mutilation. Please help them through this learning and grieving process. Many of the women in those offices are mothers of sons, wives of victims, and will feel just as angry about this as we do. There's no way out. They have a duty to rescue. To do nothing about this is misprision of felony.

The legal-latin phrase “Ignorantia legis nemenem excusat” is not meant to be interpreted as meaning that if the people don't know that officials who represent the State have committed a crime, then those officers are thereby excused from prosecution for that crime. The other officials must see to it that the crime does not go untried and unpunished. That's the kind of work ethic expected to fulfill the Standard of Care required of public officials.

Yeah, it's safe up here on these uptown hills, well, at leased for now; Any time that horde out there could come hunting for... the howitzers they think we have aimed at their lowly huts... Uhmmm, yeah, so probably we should go whip and beat them to make sure they don't do that, right? Oh, Good Plan, uh, Captain America!? Really? What in the hell kind of work ethic is that? Riot up your alley, eh? News Flash: Election Results: Maytag Repairman Elected District Attorney! Flash! Pop! Flashbulb! Blink! Blue spots in front of your eyes... What are you going to say now?