Why did the Rabbi put his mouth on the baby's penis?

[hey]

I didn't call them wackos, i called them delusional.

I referred to them as such, because what i said applies to all delusions, not just religious delusions.

[Siatdiat]

I didn't call them wackos, i called them delusional.

The truth hurts sometimes.

If someone is paranoid schizophrenic, people wouldn't mind you calling them delusional.

If someone thinks that god answers their prayers, crystals can heal you, or that angels and demons are warring on earth for our eternal souls, and you call it delusional, you are being an asshole and should show a little respect.

[Ryko]

Are you saying that believing in magic isn't delusional?

I'm saying that when discussing the legal ramifications and precedent, bringing up your own personal beliefs regarding religion actually work against you establishing good rhetoric. If you want to make a solid argument, you're doing yourself a disservice. The court wouldn't give 2 shits about what you personally think about religion so when arguing how the law should react to something you keep that shit out of it.

I personally could not care less about anyone's religious beliefs or lack thereof one way or another, but what you think about any of them does not matter in this discussion. I was annoyed by you taking the low road when the actual facts stand so strongly by themselves. Don't read between the lines, I said what I meant.

[Ryko]

The truth hurts sometimes.

If someone is paranoid schizophrenic, people wouldn't mind you calling them delusional.

If someone thinks that god answers their prayers, crystals can heal you, or that angels and demons are warring on earth for our eternal souls, and you call it delusional, you are being an asshole and should show a little respect.

Yeah, that's totally what I meant.

[Niiro]

I love you Ksandra, but there is no case-by-case. Murder is murder, be it by asphyxiation or cutting a throat or a bullet to a head or some stupid antiquated religious bullshit. There's no case-by-case needed here. This man killed a child through his actions. He's a murderer.

I understand what you're going for here (a passionate statement) but in legal (and imo, moral) terms; no he's not a murderer.

The term murder generally implies intent, there is no reason to believe he had any intent to kill the child (I hope that's obvious to everyone).

Which is why we have things like manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The circumstances of death and the motives and intents of those involved are relevant and material when determining the consequences, as difficult as they may be to interpret sometimes.

[hey]

I'm saying that when discussing the legal ramifications and precedent that bringing up your own personal beliefs regarding religion actually work against you establishing good rhetoric. If you want to make a solid argument, you're doing yourself a disservice. The court wouldn't give 2 shits about what you personally think about religion so when arguing how the law should react to something you keep that shit out of it.

from my edit above:

I referred to them as such, because what i said applies to all delusions, not just religious delusions.

I would have said the same thing if the guy was putting his herpes infected mouth on a baby's bleeding penis for any other reason that he thought it would be a good idea, religious or otherwise. The law applies to everyone, even if they think it shouldn't. I don't really care that his reasons were religious, just that they were delusional. If he had an actual, valid, reality-based reason to do something like this, then he might have a case.

[Sera]

I see what he's saying: if the facts are on your side, why slum it? It makes no difference if the religious people are wacko or not. They're engaging in a practice that endangered and resulted in the death of an infant. Those are the facts. There's no need to assign a value judgment to WHY they did it. There's no point in slinging mud when you have a slam dunk based on the FACTS presented.

[Lucavi]

I understand what you're going for here (a passionate statement) but in legal (and imo, moral) terms; no he's not a murderer.

The term murder generally implies intent, there is no reason to believe he had any intent to kill the child (I hope that's obvious to everyone).

Which is why we have things like manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

You're arguing terms of which he can be jailed for. I'm arguing for whether or not he killed a child due to his actions, which he did, which makes him a killer.

When you talk of "term", you talk of "how will this stick in the courts". He killed a child, so if you want to throw out "murder", it still makes him a killer.

[Blarg]

Ok, but the human mouth is DISGUSTING. Seriously. It is a very dirty place. We're talking about infections in general, not just the herp. It is DEFINITELY a risk. Have you ever been in an OR? Hospitals go to GREAT lengths to minimize infections during surgical procedures by keeping a STERILE or at LEAST sanitary environment. The human mouth is neither sterile nor sanitary.

I know this. What is the actual risk added to the circumcision though? I searched for statistics on the infection rate of this kind of circumcision but only got statistical info on the spread of herpes. I found nothing on increased infection from the saliva. Of course this doesn't mean that there isn't a greater risk but if there was a large increase in infection rates I think I would have found something to that effect considering this practice happens often enough for statistical analysis to be done. I tried googl'ing for the bacteria kill rate of rubbing alcohol but I didn't really know what the actual disinfectant used in the operation was to find out. If the disinfectant they do use completely kills saliva bacteria what then?

Since your job is a nurse or something like that what sorts of disinfection are used for cuts/open wounds the size of that in circumcision.

[Niiro]

You're arguing terms of which he can be jailed for. I'm arguing for whether or not he killed a child due to his actions, which he did, which makes him a killer.

When you talk of "term", you talk of "how will this stick in the courts". He killed a child, so if you want to throw out "murder", it still makes him a killer.

Agreed, I was just outlining the semantics relevant to how it would be prosecuted in a court.

[hey]

They're engaging in a practice that endangered and resulted in the death of an infant. Those are the facts. There's no need to assign a value judgment to WHY they did it.

Well, i disagree, as does the law. He killed someone, his motive makes all the difference. If he was trying to kill him, then that is murder. If not, then there are a few things that need to be considered. If he could be reasonably expected to know that what he did was dangerous and could have led to the child's death, then it is criminally negligent homicide. If not, then it's manslaughter. If a reasonable person would have considered what he did perfectly safe, and he had no way of knowing that anything bad could possibly happen as a result of his actions, then it is what we call an accident, and he deserves no punishment.

In this case, a reasonable person would have known that what he did was incredibly dangerous. The fact that a delusion (religious or not) prevented him from seeing that makes no difference. He should have known, and thus is responsible for the child's death.

He killed a child, so if you want to throw out "murder", it still makes him a killer.

Yes, but being a killer isn't necessarily a bad thing. Murder is always wrong, killing is not.

[Siatdiat]

Yeah, that's totally what I meant.

I just want to point out that this isn't a court room where we are making an argument before judges. This is a forum originally started for people who played FFXI going on a decade ago. This site hasn't been around this long for the purpose of discussing and debating current events, although over time it has evolved to this. There is a wider range of education, knowledge, and intelligence levels participating. I can appreciate you are probably well educated, intelligent, and knowledgable but just as you are "annoyed" by religion being insulted in some arguments, I am annoyed you feel the need to wave your dick in this thread and preach to everyone here that we aren't doing it right. Final result? I guess we are both annoyed.

[Ryko]

I just want to point out that this isn't a court room where we are making an argument before judges...

That's nice. Has every single last person in this thread not been arguing the legal ramifications and circumstances surrounding this event? You just tried to make the rhetorical equivalent of "why do I have to spell correctly, this isn't english class". Stating that something is a weak argument or weakens an argument when applied to the context of the argument at hand is not dick waving.

[Mertron]

im not a doctor, but i play one on the internet

[Siatdiat]

That's nice. Has every single last person in this thread not been arguing the legal ramifications and circumstances surrounding this event? You just tried to make the rhetorical equivalent of "why do I have to spell correctly, this isn't english class". Stating that something is a weak argument or weakens an argument when applied to the context of the argument at hand is not dick waving.

I brought up similar situations where children are endangered because of their parents superstitious beliefs. I think those are pertinent to the discussion, and a key aspect of this conversation has been just that fact... that because of religious belief, people feel compelled to perform antiquated medical procedures on children. Additionally, in regards to faith healing, people refuse to seek health care for their children and let them die. My own personal motive for even being involved is to underline the fact that religious belief can be dangerous, and that irrational behavior shouldn't be protected just because it is backed by an ancient religion.

When Ksandra mentioned that it was all ok because its an old religion, and not just some new wacko doing something crazy, how would you have responded? At this point she opened up for debate what even constitutes proper religious belief. The topic has opened a can of worms, and has been included in the ongoing discussion.

[Lucavi]

Agreed, I was just outlining the semantics relevant to how it would be prosecuted in a court.

Understood, of course.

/monocle

@Hey: Was this killing wrong, in your opinion?

[Siatdiat]

Fucking grade school debate team baby town frolics going on in this piece, fuck.

Also, yes I think this qualifies you as dick waving. It makes you look like an arrogant asshole, which may not be far from the truth.

[Ksandra]

Well, i disagree, as does the law. He killed someone, his motive makes all the difference. If he was trying to kill him, then that is murder. If not, then there are a few things that need to be considered. If he could be reasonably expected to know that what he did was dangerous and could have led to the child's death, then it is criminally negligent homicide. If not, then it's manslaughter. If a reasonable person would have considered what he did perfectly safe, and he had no way of knowing that anything bad could possibly happen as a result of his actions, then it is what we call an accident, and he deserves no punishment.

This I actually agree with and have stated as such, just rather poorly. There are different degrees of "killing" and intent is a huge factor. I don't think all states have an accidental killing law, but should, and as I said earlier what I think went wrong in this was the rabbi having herpes and doing it anyway. If it was a situation that the rabbi took all medical precautions but something unforeseen happened anyway then it would be an accidental killing not a murder. I don't think that this practice is something that should be made illegal, though I would not be against any laws that try to require rabbis that do the act test for infections and not be allowed to do so if they have a disease. This would be a decent compromise imo as it attempts to protect the safety of the child without making the practice flat out illegal.

[Ksandra]

When Ksandra mentioned that it was all ok because its an old religion, and not just some new wacko doing something crazy, how would you have responded? At this point she opened up for debate what even constitutes proper religious belief. The topic has opened a can of worms, and has been included in the ongoing discussion.

You didn't understand me if that's what you think. I didn't mean it was ok because it was old, I meant that that was one of many factors to look into when judging whether someone actually believes it versus using religion as an excuse. It wasn't nearly supposed to be an end all be all answer, but you have to admit that if something has been practice for hundreds of years it lends to the credibility that people are doing it because they believe it. Not 100% obviously and not the ONLY factor. I'm pretty sure I put in an etc. in that statement, but I'm too lazy to look back at this point. It is hard to judge whether someone believes something or not, which is why I said case by case basis (and by that I mean the gov't not me or people on an internet forum), just that I think that might be something people may look at when trying to prove belief.

[Siatdiat]

If it was a situation that the rabbi took all medical precautions but something unforeseen happened anyway then it would be an accidental killing not a murder.

I think a key point being missed here is that as soon as he decided that the best way to remove the kids foreskin and clean up blood was to use his mouth, at that point he was purposefully not taking all medical precautions to prevent risk of infection.