There Is No Morality Without Religion


There are no words ...
David also posted about this 30 mins ago.
Christians shouldn't read the "Old Testament". Jews know enough to hire a mohel who's a physician, and they have it done when the child is 8 days old and won't remember it.

The Old Testament should be treated as a controlled substance.
A Schedule 1 controlled substance at that, fnarf.
i've always wanted a very straightforward example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
got one.
Which should have been followed with:

"...but you are a fucking idiot that should never have any right to raise this child, let alone procreate in the first place."
Pro tip:

DIY paint job = yes
DIY circumcision = no
Religion strikes again!
Effing christ. Anyone know if there's any permanent damage?
Effing christ. Anyone know if there's any permanent damage?
Yeah, I'm afraid so: The RCC, The CoE, the Southern Baptist and the Tea Party.
She shoulda hired this guy:…
@3: Well said.
Aren't there trained medical professionals who perform circumcisions? What's next: DIY open heart surgery?
There are trained medical professionals who perform circumcisions, which is akin to, albeit an order of magnitude less abominable than, physicians who perform executions. I suppose I can see the argument for harm reduction, but it seems to me like it's a pretty clear violation of the Hippocratic principle.
That poor kid. I have a feeling he'll be writing Dan for tough advise in 15 or 20 years.

@15 wait what? How is a circumcision is in anyway akin to death? I really think you're overstepping.
@15: Would it then be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to perform an appendectomy on a currently healthy subject?
"Obviously" she meant no harm ... why, because she got the idea from reading the bible. In what other circumstance would a mother taking a knife to her baby's genitals be considered an act of love/kindness/good parenting? FUCK.

(oh and to those who were wondering, the story says that the baby did make a full recovery).
In what way can "applying a dangerous medical procedure - for which you need training and some sort of a license - on your own child" not be considered as a proof of wanting to do harm? If she really didn't want to do harm, she had to go to a doctor.

Next thing you know, they'll let child killers off free if they say "It was a sacrifice to God".
@ 17 - Actually, yes, as they've come to realize that the appendix plays a role in the development of the immune system. It's not as useless as they believed.
Religious people shouldn't be allowed to raise children.
Fundamentalism isn't religion; it's the absence of thought.
@22 But all religion necessarily entails the acceptance of some dogma, which is a clear demonstration of the absence of critical thinking.
The only way this could have a happy ending is if mom is charged and the judge disbarred.
I hope she doesn't get any of those kids back. But giving the deluded statements by the judge...

How difficult is it to figure out that non-consensual circumcision is unethical???

Was the phrase "order of magnitude less abominable" a little too much for you? Let me rephrase in a way you'll understand:

"Two things both bad in same way. One much more bad than other one, but same kind of bad."
@20: Yes, there are medical benefits to having an appendix. There are also medical benefits to NOT having an appendix. It's a trade-off, same as with (not) having a foreskin.
For fucks sake.

If the judge is willing to allow that she meant no harm then surely he is acknowledging that she doesn't have the mental capacity to assess what constitutes harm.

The poor little blighter should be taken away from this woman.

@18 spot on, if her defense had been "I read on the internet that this was something I should do" I'm betting the outcome would have been different.

@28 I'll take your word on that, happily I'm a (mostly) grown up person so if my physician ever suggests I get circumcised I can weigh up the pros and cons myself before making an informed decision.

How much input did this 3 month old (or indeed the many 8 day old) infant/s get into the decision to hack off a piece of their body?
I will have to let Steven Weinberg (a Nobel Laureate in physics) respond to this one:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
@ 28 - As long as you don't get the appendix removed (except in case of an emergency) until your immune system has fully developped.

And as a circumcised man, I fail to see any benefit to not having a foreskin. In any place that has soap and water, it's generally a pretty useless procedure (yes, there are exceptions). It's no coincidence that it's prescribed by two religions that developed in desertic lands... but that was a long, long time ago.
Awww, isn't that cute? Dan Savage still doesn't understand logic or reason or rationality!

Once more, Mr. Savage, since syphilis appears to have rotted your brain- One christian/dog owner/youth pastor/heterosexual parent doing something bad or stupid or evil doesn't logically indict the rest of them. Just as one stupid, irrational, priviledged, pervert homosexual like you doesn't make all homosexuals bad. Just you.

@ 33 - Funny you should be the one talking about people who don't understand logic, reason or rationality.

Of course, you're an expert on the subject.
Parenting should require a license. Ideally.
I'm gonna quote you on that "most homosexuals are not bad" thing in other threads, Sb.
Fine with me.

If you quote that to mean 'homosexuals made the right life choices' that isn't fine.

If you misinterpret it as a condoning of an inherently self destructive lifestyle, that wouldn't work for me either.

But if you simply say that sometimes good people make bad choices, among which can be the choice to be a homosexual, that's no problem to me.
@37: My lesbian cousin and her partner have a happy, healthy household together. They have two sons, one the biological child of each. They broke a glass under the chuppah together before many family and friends, all of whom support them and love them for who they are.
How, exactly, are they being self-destructive by being gay?
@17, 28 Having recently undergone an appendectomy (albeit having been an emergency) I would say that yes, removing an appendix from a healthy person violates the Hippocratic oath. The recovery was worse than the appendicitis.

No need to cut into something that doesn't absolutely require being cut into.

"the CHOICE to be a homosexual"


You're a f*cking idiot.
@37 Drunk again? At least this time you're making false generalizations, rather than making false accusations which you've done previously.