Well stated…hopefully someone will read your letter and take heed. And while I fully agree in combating the incremental (although lately seems like huge leaps) downward spiral of society by voicing opposition, I often wonder if much of what we do as Christian’s will have an effect. Can the heeled-over ship be righted? At some point when the sails hit the water we end up in the drink. Will your letter have any effect? I am doubtful. My sentiment isn’t intended as a lay down or being weak in fortitude (we must continue to fight for the Lord in such… Read more »
bethyada
6 years ago
What such a surgery does is remove a perfectly healthy, functional organ, doing so in an irreversible way. This is being done on the basis of the expressed subjective desires of the patient, or perhaps the patient’s parents or guardians. Objective damage for the sake of a subjective desire. What happens when the later changes? Can the former change back?
Good argument.
This does happen and they keep tying to modify what they do. They won’t be happy until they can grow organs at will and transplant them every other year.
I would argue that male circumcision is bad as well, and should be illegal for people who aren’t required to do it as a religious/ancient cultural practice. The health benefits are minimal and it causes actual damage to the reproductive organ without the consent of the child.
All circumcision is child abuse if you don’t have Hebrew ethnicity or similar. White people should never have to go through it; the ancients considered it a mark of a slave, and it was ridiculed by our forefathers up until around 100 years ago.
God told the ancient Hebrews to do something otherwise harmful as a sign of their covenant with Him. You wouldn’t usually give your child a tattoo without the child’s consent, but if God needed you to do it as a sign of dedicating the child to Him you would.
But he didn’t tell whitebread American Christians to do it, and the cons arguably outweigh the pros when you look at loss of nerve endings etc., so why do Americans still do the procedure?
I was extremely grateful that our only child was a girl because I knew this would otherwise be a very difficult issue for me and my Jewish husband. My Jewish brother-in-law refused to have his sons circumcised, but this is still very much a minority position. Did you know that some doctors are now refusing to perform this procedure unless there is clear medical necessity?
I am being slow here, but I don’t understand how it is racist. Presumably God gave the Jews and their descendants the command to circumcise their male children. Pepe seems to me to be saying that only obedience to such a command justifies inflicting this procedure on a child. If the command was given to the Hebrews and not to us, we don’t need to be doing it.
Pepe seems to me to be saying that only obedience to such a command justifies inflicting this procedure on a child. If the command was given to the Hebrews and not to us, we don’t need to be doing it.
pepe actually said:
All circumcision is child abuse if you don’t have Hebrew ethnicity or similar.
So pepe’s argument seems to be that child abuse is justified, if you have the right ethnicity. He doesn’t say how ethnicity determines whether child abuse is morally acceptable or not.
I think ethnicity was the wrong word, but I certainly grasp the concept. If circumcising male infants is indeed child abuse, the only thing that could justify it is a belief, supported by scripture, that God requires it of the Jews.
Katecho, I have a major theological issue with this, and my thoughts are not fully developed. I find the idea of circumcising newborns quite appalling. Although I was a very agreeable wife, my husband and I would probably still be arguing if we had given birth to a boy instead of a girl. I can’t find an argument against the genital mutilation of girls which does not apply with equal force to boys. This is a topic which has been placed off limits for me and my Jewish friends because we will never agree. Yet. What do I do with… Read more »
And how will the hospitals deal with the wave of malpractice suits in civil court at the behest of the next of kin after the inevitable suicides of many victims of this abuse?
Only the lawyers win; mental illness is treated to a good blood-leltting, and everyone’s insurance goes up.
I was amazed to learn that this kind of surgery has been taking place since the early1970’s! I don’t know what suddenly brought it into public awareness so much. The suicide rate post-surgery is apparently higher than it is for living with gender dysphoria without having the surgery.
David Reimer is the first case I have ever heard about. This case was prompted by a terrible accident/malpractice event. But it evinced the same raging hubris and fundamental rejection of natural law that we are manifest today.
Jill Smith
6 years ago
Gender reassignment surgery is not performed in this country on patients under the age of 18. People under that age can receive hormones, but not actual labial reconstruction. Aetna’s requirements, which are typical of most major health insurance carriers, demand: Two referral letters from qualified mental health professionals, one in a purely evaluative role (see appendix); and Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria (see Appendix); and Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment; and Age of majority (age 18 years and older); and If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably well… Read more »
That law could change tomorrow with the “right” kind of public pressure. So it is still worth asking whether Pullman Regional would extend these abominable practices that far.
A boycott could be a powerful tool. Just get your medical work done elsewhere. I wonder if you can legally refuse service to a “doctor” for performing such surgeries at your business. In Idaho you can almost certainly do so under state law.
That surprises me. I checked with the AMA and a few other websites, and they said that no surgeon in the U.S. was currently operating on people under 18. I suppose Oregon is leading the way in lowering the age.
pepe
6 years ago
There are few abominations that I could even imagine that are greater than transsexualism. Burning your own kin alive in the maw of Moloch, perhaps. But America has abortion which is already pretty close to that, some even suspect the global elite is using abortions as a proxy sacrifice in that regard.
Transsexualism is the destruction of the very fundamental nature of human sex, and tears down society in many ways. It deserves 100% zero tolerance.
“But America has abortion which is already pretty close to that, some even suspect the global elite is using abortions as a proxy sacrifice in that regard.”
Paul Ehlrich and his ilk seem to believe that mass abortion (especially sex selective abortions of females – they are far more effective at limiting fertility) is an offering that could appease the nature deities, like some sort of of modern sanitary, institutional, Bacchanalia.
Andrew Lohr
6 years ago
“Science” is the god that decrees you can change what sex you are, but you can’t change what sex you want to have sex with. Right?
Thank you.
Well stated…hopefully someone will read your letter and take heed. And while I fully agree in combating the incremental (although lately seems like huge leaps) downward spiral of society by voicing opposition, I often wonder if much of what we do as Christian’s will have an effect. Can the heeled-over ship be righted? At some point when the sails hit the water we end up in the drink. Will your letter have any effect? I am doubtful. My sentiment isn’t intended as a lay down or being weak in fortitude (we must continue to fight for the Lord in such… Read more »
What such a surgery does is remove a perfectly healthy, functional organ, doing so in an irreversible way. This is being done on the basis of the expressed subjective desires of the patient, or perhaps the patient’s parents or guardians. Objective damage for the sake of a subjective desire. What happens when the later changes? Can the former change back?
Good argument.
This does happen and they keep tying to modify what they do. They won’t be happy until they can grow organs at will and transplant them every other year.
I would argue that male circumcision is bad as well, and should be illegal for people who aren’t required to do it as a religious/ancient cultural practice. The health benefits are minimal and it causes actual damage to the reproductive organ without the consent of the child.
All circumcision is child abuse if you don’t have Hebrew ethnicity or similar. White people should never have to go through it; the ancients considered it a mark of a slave, and it was ridiculed by our forefathers up until around 100 years ago.
The health benefits are minimal and it causes actual damage to the reproductive organ without the consent of the child.
Are you arguing that God asked the Hebrews to damage their children?
God told the ancient Hebrews to do something otherwise harmful as a sign of their covenant with Him. You wouldn’t usually give your child a tattoo without the child’s consent, but if God needed you to do it as a sign of dedicating the child to Him you would.
But he didn’t tell whitebread American Christians to do it, and the cons arguably outweigh the pros when you look at loss of nerve endings etc., so why do Americans still do the procedure?
I was extremely grateful that our only child was a girl because I knew this would otherwise be a very difficult issue for me and my Jewish husband. My Jewish brother-in-law refused to have his sons circumcised, but this is still very much a minority position. Did you know that some doctors are now refusing to perform this procedure unless there is clear medical necessity?
“All circumcision is child abuse if you don’t have Hebrew ethnicity…”
Really? What a racist thing to say!!
I can’t decide between ” Nobody cares if it’s racist.” and “Why do you say that it’s racist?”
I am being slow here, but I don’t understand how it is racist. Presumably God gave the Jews and their descendants the command to circumcise their male children. Pepe seems to me to be saying that only obedience to such a command justifies inflicting this procedure on a child. If the command was given to the Hebrews and not to us, we don’t need to be doing it.
Jill Smith wrote:
pepe actually said:
So pepe’s argument seems to be that child abuse is justified, if you have the right ethnicity. He doesn’t say how ethnicity determines whether child abuse is morally acceptable or not.
I think ethnicity was the wrong word, but I certainly grasp the concept. If circumcising male infants is indeed child abuse, the only thing that could justify it is a belief, supported by scripture, that God requires it of the Jews.
Jill Smith wrote:
Is Jill joining with pepe to justify child abuse, if one has the right lineage (notice I didn’t use the wrong word, ethnicity).
Katecho, I have a major theological issue with this, and my thoughts are not fully developed. I find the idea of circumcising newborns quite appalling. Although I was a very agreeable wife, my husband and I would probably still be arguing if we had given birth to a boy instead of a girl. I can’t find an argument against the genital mutilation of girls which does not apply with equal force to boys. This is a topic which has been placed off limits for me and my Jewish friends because we will never agree. Yet. What do I do with… Read more »
And how will the hospitals deal with the wave of malpractice suits in civil court at the behest of the next of kin after the inevitable suicides of many victims of this abuse?
Only the lawyers win; mental illness is treated to a good blood-leltting, and everyone’s insurance goes up.
“blood leltting” – its like a blood letting, only more danglerous ;-)
I was amazed to learn that this kind of surgery has been taking place since the early1970’s! I don’t know what suddenly brought it into public awareness so much. The suicide rate post-surgery is apparently higher than it is for living with gender dysphoria without having the surgery.
David Reimer is the first case I have ever heard about. This case was prompted by a terrible accident/malpractice event. But it evinced the same raging hubris and fundamental rejection of natural law that we are manifest today.
Gender reassignment surgery is not performed in this country on patients under the age of 18. People under that age can receive hormones, but not actual labial reconstruction. Aetna’s requirements, which are typical of most major health insurance carriers, demand: Two referral letters from qualified mental health professionals, one in a purely evaluative role (see appendix); and Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria (see Appendix); and Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment; and Age of majority (age 18 years and older); and If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably well… Read more »
That law could change tomorrow with the “right” kind of public pressure. So it is still worth asking whether Pullman Regional would extend these abominable practices that far.
A boycott could be a powerful tool. Just get your medical work done elsewhere. I wonder if you can legally refuse service to a “doctor” for performing such surgeries at your business. In Idaho you can almost certainly do so under state law.
Jill Smith wrote:
What is the basis for this claim? Jill seems to be confusing insurance requirements with legal requirements. The age of legal medical consent in Oregon is apparently 15. Parental consent isn’t even required. See http://www.medicaldaily.com/gender-reassignment-surgery-now-available-oregon-minors-without-parental-consent-342670
That surprises me. I checked with the AMA and a few other websites, and they said that no surgeon in the U.S. was currently operating on people under 18. I suppose Oregon is leading the way in lowering the age.
There are few abominations that I could even imagine that are greater than transsexualism. Burning your own kin alive in the maw of Moloch, perhaps. But America has abortion which is already pretty close to that, some even suspect the global elite is using abortions as a proxy sacrifice in that regard.
Transsexualism is the destruction of the very fundamental nature of human sex, and tears down society in many ways. It deserves 100% zero tolerance.
“But America has abortion which is already pretty close to that, some even suspect the global elite is using abortions as a proxy sacrifice in that regard.”
Paul Ehlrich and his ilk seem to believe that mass abortion (especially sex selective abortions of females – they are far more effective at limiting fertility) is an offering that could appease the nature deities, like some sort of of modern sanitary, institutional, Bacchanalia.
“Science” is the god that decrees you can change what sex you are, but you can’t change what sex you want to have sex with. Right?
Right. If you’re homosexual you’re born that way, but if you fancy yourself a different gender, something went awry with your birth.
Jill, don’t you remember Dog Day Afternoon?
I never saw it. I will look it up.