Mr. Sidaris’ films are characterized by modest budgets, beautiful tropical locations (along with the occasional trip to LA or Las Vegas), utterly gratuitous explosions from grandiose weaponry, and more than a handful of former Playboy Playmates.

They usually decompress after a hard day by hanging out in their (undercover) friend’s bar, a hot tub, or both.

You’re still doing nothing more than saying “no”, without support. If you don’t need to prove anything, you at least need to offer a rebuttal when your position’s (fatal) flaws have been exposed. Pointing to peer-reviewed papers, and only the ones you prefer, is just an argument to authority. I’m unimpressed with logical fallacies.

What’s interesting in the context here is that I haven’t said the evidence doesn’t matter. (Or MATTER, if caps implies something different.) All of those peer-reviewed studies? Despite various flaws, I’m willing to grant you any and every possible benefit found in those studies. Decreased risk of UTI in the first year of life? Yep. Decreased risk of female-to-male transmission of HIV in high-risk populations? Check. (Note that the HIV studies were conducted on adult volunteers, not non-consenting children.) Name another study and I’ll probably acknowledge it, as well. So? None of that proves that it may be imposed on a healthy child. Ethics are a part of science.

What I have said is that circumcision inflicts objective harm on the recipient. Where it is non-therapeutic, there is no justification for allowing one person to impose that on a non-consenting person. You are saying that some evidence doesn’t matter, since the first relevant piece of evidence involved in proxy consent is the individual’s health and lack of need for intervention. You ignore that, and the resulting harm inflicted. You’re pretending that circumcision is a free lunch of possible benefits without negatives.

You didn’t prove those grounds are nonsense. You said “No”, and let that stand as your argument. In comment #61, I offered the argument about loss of function. I’m interested in a rebuttal, but so far you haven’t offered one.

If one is merely offended, yes, that’s the person’s problem. We’re not talking about offending sensibilities. Circumcision in this context is non-therapeutic surgery, which involves imposing permanent harm. (Even if you pretend that there is no loss of function.) Children have rights, so society has a legitimate role in setting limits on parents. We should define those limits as clearly as possible, of course, but sharing DNA doesn’t grant parents plenary control to do whatever they want because they deserve “tolerance” from the rest of us. Teaching your child your beliefs, however ridiculous others might find them, is legitimate. No intervention is justifiable. But purposely and permanently harming your child, even with the good intent I assume parents have, is not acceptable.

What? You pointed out they were different? By implying (via no sourcing) that one was a follow-up to the other? Bravo, mr. logic wiz. I’m in doubt as to whether you are showing supreme ignorance or supreme arrogance, but in any case, just go ahead and continue to ignore me, you are probably happier in Leon Wolfeson World, where you are always right and everybody else is wrong.

There’s no debate possible when one side is arguing from grounds which are nonsense. If you have a personal problem with it, fine, but from grounds saying that it’s equivalent with something which DOES reduce function is, quite simply, noise. And I will ignore it.

If you’re offended, that’s your problem. The study has been done over and over, the evidence is quite clear.

Many types of society practice measures which others find uncomfortable. The moment you start outlawing those practices, you’re moving rapidly away from a society which is tolerant (and I’m willing to go to great lengths for tolerance) in favour of a moral code being imposed by the super-majority. Anyone else in this thread not a member of white, small-c christian culture?

Great comment. I just made a similar (though not as good) post on the poppy-seed thread, since it seemed to circle back to similar questions.

Regarding vaccinations, I was thinking the alternate route: parents who refuse to vaccinate their child. Is that acceptable? What risk do they impost on their child? I suppose it is still only a potential threat, though a complete lack of vaccinations has a high likelihood of consequence and very severe consequences in many cases. Yet, it’s hard to legislate against inaction. (This ignores the free-riding those non-vaccinated folks do on the backs of vaccinated folks; I assume there would be fewer of the former if there was more of the former… if that makes any sense…?).

So, yea, circumcision should be outlawed. I think we also need to look at gradations. Do we lock up every parent who grabs a Happy Meal for her kid after a long day at work? No. Do we consider taking action against a parent who hasn’t fed their child anything even remotely healthy in months? Maybe. I dunno. Such a difficult conversation. Ideally, we would address most of these issues with education and information rather than prosecution but, alas, there isn’t much money or opportunities to power trip in the former…

You ask where do we draw the line at laws restricting what parents may do. It’s a valid question, and one that doesn’t have a simple answer. The problem, I think, is that a common libertarian response to children, parents, and the state is lacking. It would be foolish to pretend that parents aren’t the best judge, usually. As you point out, most parents act with the best intentions. Some against circumcision may reject that. I don’t.

But you’re correct to assess the divide at outcome outweighing intent. That’s how I see the rough answer to where we draw the line. We have to weigh objective outcomes to children from parental decisions. Non-therapeutic circumcision causes objective, permanent harm to the child, without an objective pursuit to balance it. Yes, potential benefits exist, but they are merely potential and often prevented or resolved with lesser methods. Most other parental acts commonly cited don’t meet that criteria. Vaccinations cause minor harm, but it’s permanent and/or severe in only a few cases, for example.

What I’ve seen demonstrates that circumcision has only been proven to be truly effective in areas with high incidence of HIV/AIDs and with limited access to other means of protection and only in protecting men from contracting it from female partners, which is already one of the more rarer forms of transmission. So, if circumcision works to prevent HIV/AIDs, it could possibly be effective in Africa, but not in the US. And is far less effective than condoms. That argument holds little weight in a conversation regarding US laws, though is a point worth investigating further for its possible impact elsewhere.

You are correct, that was most shoddily said of me. I didn’t mean to imply that you or any other here advocated that.

That said, bringing up how circumcision reduces the odds of contracting HIV, you implicitly advocate it as protection, why else bring it up? It’s a gripe I have with using it as an argument for circumcision, not with you bringing it up. I hope you understand what I’m trying to convey, I do try to avoid straw men and admit to them if I inadvertently do and am called out on it.

Cops shoot first because they all have the smallest penises in the universe.

About circumcision:

Everyone seems to think that because the current concept is a ban, it’s good because it leaves things up to the individual.

Turn it around. What if the government decides everyone HAS to have a circumcision. If you allow the intrusion in one direction, do not get up on your high horse if it goes in an opposite direction. You agreed with the first position allowing the government to control personal decisions.

Strawman. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has advocated that.

The HIV defence is a sop that keep kids from using condoms, the only true protection against HIV. As you write, the data on this is even conflicting, but if it has that effect, it’s a by-product of the desensitisation of the glans by making the skin thicker and thus a little less susceptible to small scratches. It’s insanity to advocate this instead of condoms when having sex with someone you are not exclusive with.

Good points all around. As I said to Leah, I think the best tact is an education/information campaign.

As for the sexism… I do realize that there is an obvious difference between the response to male and female circumcision, but I think it is for reasons other than sexism. First, male circumcision is practiced by predominant Western religions; female circumcision is practiced by non-Western religions. It is much harder to rally opposition to something that is so ingrained in a culture. Secondly, opponents of female circumcision have launched a much more successful campaign to bring attention its danger. I’ve seen multiple specials on 20-20/Dateline/Primetime/etc. on female circumcision but none on male circumcision. Third, accurate or not, our mental images of female circumcision usually conjure up African medicine men slicing and dicing young girls; our mental images of male circumcision conjure up doctors or rabbis snipping the tips of babies. The former generates far more outrage.

I can’t say objectively whether the damages/risks of female circumcision are worse than those of male circumcision, but that seems to be the general perception. I think, ultimately, that is a much bigger cause of the difference in our response to the two than sexism.

Ideally, no person should alter another persons body without their consent. Practically, no, I would not advocate making ear/nose piercings on small children illegal, but purely form a standpoint that I am weary of having gov enforcing such regulation. Piercings can get infected and infections are a bad thing in a small child, there is also the growing in of the piercings and then repiercing that Leah writes of. Each ingrown piercing leaves a bit of cartilage in the earlobe giving minor cauliflower ear, for what? A parent’s vanity.

Circumcision is an unnecessary and with 100% certainty damaging procedure in how it decreases the sensitivity of the glans. There are also several other negative outcomes that can stem from circumcision, some described as testimonials here in the comments plus there is a small risk of death due to complications, once again from a medically unnecessary procedure.

With regards to Acksiom’s claim of sexist bigotry, I can see where they are coming from, as female circumcision is not tolerated, only male. Therein lies the sexism.

Indeed. I was referring to the tone of conversation here. I think a campaign of information and education is the way to go.

(Re: tongue tie; I’m sure that is the case. But shouldn’t a 5-year-old be done breast feeding?)

(Sidebar on the tongue tie thing – most people who have it never find out that it hampers breastfeeding, they are told to switch to formula for other reasons like not effectively transferring milk, not making enough milk, too much pain, etc. It’s not well-diagnosed in babies because breastfeeding hasn’t been that important of a goal for most of the 20th century to now, so people thought it was their fault when often it’s a mouth mechanics issue.)