I am asking, and this is my main point, which you need to address, can parents make any decisions related to cosmetics? Or is it limited to what you and I use as our subjective standards? For example, can a parent have the earlobe removed because it will make the baby more beautiful/handsome to the parent? It is, after all, reasonable to point out that both are harmless cosmetic adjustments. (And why note that a parent has a right to have one cosmetic surgery but be a hypocrite and say that the same parent does not have the right to have another.)

Can a parent have a harmless lip-reduction done on a child? Or how about removing the nipples on boys? I ask because some parents do have these surgeries done... and it seems you are fine with them...because they do not leave trauma.

Also, we can speculate a bit on the extent of damage, but damage to the body does rewire the brain. You blind a man, you just don't take his sight, his brain rewires to the physical trauma...

Some studies suggest that ripping an infant's dick skin off creates aggressive tendencies later in life. Do I "have an idea of" how far that damage or violence caused might be. No. But we all DO know that physical trauma does propagate violence.

And removing some of the earlobe is not like removing all of the foreskin. All the earlobe and all the foreskin. Just because you leave actual dick skin, that doesn't equate to the foreskin...

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw
Read the link I posted if you'd like to know how to get rid of your scar. It explains the procedure pretty clearly (and is apparently painless).
I understand that you don't believe ear piercing and male circumcision are equivalent. That doesn't mean they aren't equivalent, though. You just don't agree with me, just as I don't agree with you that circumcision is akin to chopping off earlobes. I'd say shaving the earlobes a little bit would be a better comparison and I suppose it is just a quirk of fate that such a cosmetic change is not considered aesthetically pleasing by any particular cultural group. So, on that point I think we're pretty much at a draw.
As to your second point, it doesn't matter that "you have no idea what happens" to the brain during a circumcision. The medical consensus is that it isn't harmful physiologically or psychologically to children. If there's no evidence, how can you legislate against it? You have no idea if eating apples causes cancer, do you? There's no medical evidence for it. Do you see my point here? Saying "you have no idea what happens" isn't a defensible argument in any way.
My primary concern is the medical consequences of the procedure. If there are none (and there don't appear to be so far--who knows what they'll find in the future) and if the process is reversible (which, if you read the link I posted apparently it is) then I don't see the need to legislate against it other than because of someone's Don Quixotic profound interest in interfering with how other people live their lives. There are far better and more serious issues to campaign for than this.

Are you circumcised?
>> ^SDGundamX:

WALLOFTEXT

I would say the parents are materialistic for doing something like piecing their child's ears, but hey, we are speaking about Americans...

However, I would not say piecing your baby's ear is equivalent to circumcision. An adequate comparison would be removing the earlobe from a baby's ear completely. After all, who needs the extra skin? And we both know Gundam, that is definitely illegal.

Secondly, you have no idea what nerves do to the brain when functioning to trauma--even when unremembered. If a baby is beaten until they are two-ish, remember nothing of the beatings and are otherwise healthy, don't you still think his/her brain will actually form based on its experiences? I do. You read to a child, his brain actually grows differently than when you would not. You chop off his dick's skin...

Lastly, you can pull out earrings. How the fuck is my scar ring supposed to be fixed? Or for that matter, what about those with really botched, fucked up shit?

>> ^SDGundamX:

Just to echo what I wrote on the Penn and Teller Sift regarding circumcision:
I feel it's a cosmetic choice. It's not a crime to pierce your kid's ears when they are born--and that's done without anesthetic. There are people who clearly have medical benefits from having it done (see nanrod's comment at the Penn and Teller video) and if it's done at a hospital anesthetic will often be used so that it's not nearly as traumatic as the pundits are making it out to be. Even if anesthetic ISN'T used, no child ever remembers the experience. If you belong to a culture that supports male circumcision and want your kid to fit into that group then by all means, have it done. It's not going to do any permanent damage to him. And if he really, really wishes you hadn't done it, it can be undone.
I agree with DerHasisttot, legislating this is just stupid. Even if it passes, it won't be seen as anything except an anti-Semitic attack and--unless some new compelling medical research appears that shows it is harmful to have the procedure done--will likely be overturned. Educate people about the truth--that for most people it's medically unnecessary and let them decide for themselves how they want to raise their kids.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot
Pfff I'd say: be complicit in baby torture for the time being rather than take steps to prevent it


What about all the torture babies put the rest of the world through? I'd say they've got it coming!

>> ^MaxWilder:

I disagree @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot, the push for legislation can be a fantastic way of grabbing people's attention, thereby legislating and educating simultaneously. Despite the fact that every professional medical organization in the world (such as the AMA) finds no medical justification for circumcision, it is still routinely performed without question. A legal rumpus may be just what this issue needs to enter the public consciousness.
But you may be right in that this will take several attempts to pass before enough people realize what barbaric bullshit they are using as justification for mutilating their children. Perhaps it will morph into a bill where there are special exemptions for religious purpose. I'd be fine with that. The point is to get people to stop thinking of it as normal and medically justified. In fact just the opposite, the procedure carries the risk of death (rare as it may be). All of the supposed risks that are used to justify circumcision can be remedied by basic hygiene, and it's long past time that people were aware of that.


I fully agree. In my mind I compare it with the drive to legalise Marihuana, which is somewhat comparable, in the way that both issues are depending on widespread support.

I grant you the attention-grabbing possibilities, but to be honest, the activist in the video was not the right man for the job.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.
of course I'd like to be proven wrong.

Is there an exemption on statutory rape to religions that condone it?


Nope. BUT tell me one piece of greater civil legislation in the history of the USA that did not have a large popular movement behind it. I misspoke on the matter that one should educate instead of legislate. I was wrong.
One should first educate, then legislate. Attempts to ban it now will be killed in flight, because only a small group is behind it. Plus they will inevitably be called antisemites because male circumcition is undeniably linked to an influential social group. When education reaches a large threshold in society, legislation can go through. Then it will be peachy.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.
of course I'd like to be proven wrong.


Is there an exemption on statutory rape to religions that condone it?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot
Pfff I'd say: be complicit in baby torture for the time being rather than take steps to prevent it


Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.

of course I'd like to be proven wrong.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^hpqp:
@apologists: you have NO ethical nor medical arguments on your side

Pfft...
It seems your opinion was considered very popular back in 1971. I had no idea.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/385.full


Did you read the part about cultural bias? The article you linked starts off promisingly:

"The American public remains resolute in its support of newborn circumcision despite negative recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)." Oh, so if the majority wants it...

The writer of the article: Edgar Schoen, Jew, maintainer of medicirc.org and member of the "Hill of Foreskins" society (Gilgal society). Noooo bias whatsoever there.


As for the actual "medical benefits" of circumcision, give me a f*cking break. "Prevents phimosis"? That's exactly like saying removing your toes prevents ingrown toenails. Phimosis is not only rare, but usually easily cured, as are most cases of UTI (btw, all the other fancy names that follow phimosis in the article are variations of the same thing). No need for mutilating your baby.


The most horrible and aberrant argument is the one concerning STDs and HIV... seriously, wtf?

Kids should not be having sex before the age of consent*; argument null!

(*that includes not being sucked off by some herpes-infested mohel.)



After that, it comes down to three things: hygiene, condoms and choice. Personal choice, not parental or communal pressure.

If it's all about prevention (a big effing lie), why not take out their tonsils? Or appendix? Or cut off the earlobes? Why not sterilize anyone who already has HIV? See where this goes?

What does he think, there's this religious cabal out there plotting ways to make atheists look bad? It just seems to be a bit paranoid to think of a bunch of imams, rabbis, priests, pastors, shamans, etc. getting together in some smoky room to figure out ways to screw atheists over. - SDGundamX


Um, Yes, That's exactly their plan - have you not been to church lately?
The only plan that's in place is conversion. Every "non-believer" out there has a target for religion painted on their forehead. And for those that are dissident enough to actually stand up and be vocal that something is wrong about religion, they become targets for degradation.

If you have not "found God yet", then religion takes pity on you and offers you the "Kingdom of God!"
If you see through religion, you are looked down upon as a lost soul. You will not be invited to be with all your friends and family in the afterlife and will be tortured in Hell for eternity.

So, Yes, I'd say there is some "Plotting" going on...

@MilkmanDan

I agree with everything you said. It's too bad there are atheists who do the same exact thing in reverse--make stereotypical judgments about people who are religious, such as they're all uneducated, domination-seeking, closed-minded, deluded bigots.

Also, he thinks "it's a trap deliberately set" for atheists? Set by who? What does he think, there's this religious cabal out there plotting ways to make atheists look bad? It just seems to be a bit paranoid to think of a bunch of imams, rabbis, priests, pastors, shamans, etc. getting together in some smoky room to figure out ways to screw atheists over. MilkmanDan's point that all labels can be used both descriptively and pejoratively seems way more plausible.

Finally, I think there is definitely a need to distinguish atheists (i.e. people who don't believe in a deity or deities) from people like Sam Harris and the other "new atheists" who are on a crusade to destroy religion. The term militant atheism is not an attempt to subvert Sam's argument; it's a practical necessity to differentiate his ideas and the people who share them from those atheists who aren't hostile to religion.

So, a rabbi, a priest, and a....

>> ^poolcleaner:

Ohhhh, atheists are the parasites. I guess I had that backwards. But seriously, what a mind-numbingly absurd thought. People of all faiths (and lack thereof) have all contributed to the collective worth (which is still somewhat lacking) of humanity. When the true physical form of our gods rise from the frozen depths of this planet, we'll see who the parasites are! Atheists will see and believe, but what of the false-theists? Will they yet cling to their pathetic doctrines?


I think everyone lives in a glass house on this one. Christian organizations do a tremendous amount of charity in the world. You might see it as something with strings attached, but a meal and a school house in a remote corner of Africa isn't something to exclude in this formula of benevolence. A score card of self-righteousness surely isn't going to help matters any. I think it is more fair to say that a great deal of people around the world, faith or no faith, are motivated by factors that tend to be self motivated...and there are a few people, of faith and not, that are truly motivated with a good to do to others...and actually act on that. I know I haven't gone down town recently and built a house for someone who needed it, or invented some great gadget that saved a million lives. In the end, I don't think it matters on average who did the greater amount of goods...the real question is...did you.

Some of the most influential, intelligent, world renown people are or were atheists. This rabbi is a fucking lunatic. I say that atheists have contributed far MORE to this world than religious people by a huge margin. Here is a pretty solid list of more "famous" atheists. That list contains some of the most important scientific and intelligent people in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

Religious people contribute hate, bigotry, backward, bronze-age logic and fear. How many billions of people have died throughout history because of religions wars and bigotry? Too f-ing many. I am more afraid of religious people like this rabbi than I am of just about anything else.

>> ^Skeeve:

I'd like to see some stats on the amount of scientific research done by atheists as opposed to research done by religious people. We already know that the majority of people in academia are non-religious, does that carry over into the research? In that case, I think it would show that the religious people are really the parasites.


Yeah, the vast majority, 'today' being the key word. It seems only correlative though. I don't see how its relevant except in the kook's eyes. Playing to that game, the vast majority of scientific discoveries throughout history were made by people who HAPPENED TO HAVE HAD religious beliefs and would only further strengthen his bizarro logic. Its just not relevant at all. Progress is made in spite of this vile shit, not because of it.

Speaking of parasitism, something something about tax-exempt status in America while demanding even more special privileges and contributing virtually nothing. Not enough? How about Ultra-Orthodox Jews who dedicate their lives to Torah study in Israel basically being on payed state-welfare for their entire lives? The only group who holds such a privilege in the entire country; these fucking nutters who think Armageddon can't come soon enough and are purposely trying to steer the Middle-east towards conflict. All the while trying to erode/undermine the remaining secular values their government guarantees and that the normal every-day WORKING folk there pay for, not these fucking leeches scratching and clawing to hold on to their remaining power as it increasingly slips through their fingers.

Hypocrisy is basically a prerequisite if you want to be a part of their club. I have to live with this ignorant crap everyday, family dinners are a fucking ball and a half! It really disturbs my family for them to know that they're related to a "Nazi", err I'm sorry, a "Natzi". Do these idiots not realize the similarities in rhetoric they share to a certain someone who basically sought to eradicate them completely, not too long ago? Have they no sense of decency/self-respect, no sense of history?

These people are out there in droves. America is in for some rootin' tootin' good times if these people are genuine about their desires for "revolution". Tea-baggers fucking disgust me. Big surprise that they also scare the ever-living shit out of me and most other sane, rational folk. Its impossible to argue with these people in good faith, stop by for dinner with the family if you doubt me.

/toggle ramble off