Pharyngula

Posted by: eddyline | December 3, 2009 11:09 AM

Oh, but PZ, religion MUST be allowed complete freedom! Including the right to sacred mutilation by a loving father. After all, it's what the Patriarch would do.
/sarcasm

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 3, 2009 11:11 AM

"There ought to be a qulaifying exam for parenthood."

You would have one hell of an enforcement problem.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 11:13 AM

And here I was just about to start lunch...

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 11:18 AM

A detective testified that in March 2008, McGehee, concerned about the family's financial state, decided to circumcise his other son at home, using a filet knife.

Most people look down the back of the sofa.

I will be most interested to know how attacking a child with a filet knife leaving him with considerable damage did not lead to charges.

Clearly quite a few people aren't doing their jobs and deserve to lose them, then spend time in prison for failing to stop known child abuse.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 11:21 AM

oran utan is a legitimate spelling.

The word comes from an Indonesian language, and there are several variations of spelling as a result of transliteration issues.

Posted by: Endor | December 3, 2009 11:25 AM

"concerned about the family's financial state, decided to circumcise his other son at home, using a filet knife."

this blows my mind. Wtf is so important about mutilating your son that the cost isn't probative, it's an incentive for DIY?

And how the hell is that NOT enough of a red flag that this dude should be no where near children?

technical question: is it an elective procedure, or do hospitals just do it when a boy is born and have the parents foot the bill?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 3, 2009 11:26 AM

subsequently endured extensive reconstructive surgeries, and more are expected.

I suppose Mr. McGehee isn't concerned with his children's dignity of safety, but if he was really so worried about finances, he might have left the baby's willy intact, at least until the family could afford to pay a doctor.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 11:28 AM

What is the penalty for commenting on the wrong post?

I have already disenvoweled myself.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 3, 2009 11:30 AM

What is the penalty for commenting on the wrong post?

Are you referring to Matt's comment?

Posted by: Michelle R | December 3, 2009 11:36 AM

Why can't these people understand that DICK + KNIFE + BABY= BAD?

Poor kid... His short life must've been terrible. If these are the two highlights the media caught I wonder what ELSE was going on in there.

Posted by: chgo_liz | December 3, 2009 11:37 AM

From the link:

Bethany then wrapped the baby in a blanket and drove to her pastor's home, where someone called 911.

Asked why Bethany didn't take the child to the Wyoming Medical Center, Tweedy said the couple indicated that "they thought the pastor could breathe life into him again."

Oh, and according to the link, the man has now been charged for that previous crime (the "circumcision") as well.

Posted by: Alessa Mendes | December 3, 2009 11:39 AM

Reminds me of an article I blogged about where the Orthodox Jews had given a handful of babies herpies from their unconventional methods to perform circumcision - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=1

The mayor said, "[It] is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion."

There's your answer, PZ.

Posted by: AF Comm Guy | December 3, 2009 11:42 AM

When a parent proves themselves to be unfit to raise children then they should be forcibly sterilized. I don't care if someone Godwin's me on this one but it has to be said. Congratulations, you had a kid... something even dogs can do. Can you raise the child? If not then it is time to get snipped.

Why is it that a child rapist has to register as a sex offender, go around they neighborhood they live in and tell everyone about themselves but a child murderer does not? Or am I wrong?

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 3, 2009 11:44 AM

Alessa Mendes, unconventional? I'll say:

The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

Posted by: Michelle R | December 3, 2009 11:46 AM

@#25: Oh, I thought it was the same kid.

I hope that boy is not with his mother.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 11:48 AM

When a parent proves themselves to be unfit to raise children then they should be forcibly sterilized. I don't care if someone Godwin's me on this one but it has to be said. Congratulations, you had a kid... something even dogs can do. Can you raise the child? If not then it is time to get snipped.

YEAH!! And while we're at it, lets give intelligence exams for voting!!! And lets decide who can and can not marry!!!

Oh wait we're already doing that.

Awesome!!! Problem already solved!!

Why is it that a child rapist has to register as a sex offender, go around they neighborhood they live in and tell everyone about themselves but a child murderer does not? Or am I wrong?

sigh

Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | December 3, 2009 11:54 AM

I've studied female genital mutilation and it's almost always done "at home." No real doctor would take part in that.
I'm Jewish and have long been against circumcision. True, there are cases when it's medically necessary, but that's rare. Judaism (and other religions, too) not only practice this unnecessary and painful surgery, but celebrate it with a fancy party! Hurrah! I just cut my kid's penis! Yay!
Yep, people who manage to conceive are ipso facto experts in parenting, right?

Posted by: Uncle Glenny | December 3, 2009 12:00 PM

FUCK! This is different from some other whacko case I remember (thaks to PZ??) is it? Some guy tried to do himself firrst I think, botched it, went to the hospital, then did his son using soe nasty veterinary chemical cauterization stuff.

I'm never going to get to sleep now. I'm going to go read about Diaper David Vitter providing mammographies for young women.

Well, maybe not.

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | December 3, 2009 12:03 PM

uh..but..um..eggg... OUCH?! WTF is wrong with people? This child should have free reign to beat his father's head in at an appropriate age (that right can be extended to any female who's undergone genital mutilation as well, I'm sure that's more common).

No, that wasn't a sensitive comment. No, I don't personally care either.

Posted by: Lola | December 3, 2009 12:05 PM

That's the one problem with natural selection - no quality control program. Nature just cares that you can reproduce, not if you should. That's why there are too many of us and no effective way to control population globally.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 3, 2009 12:09 PM

Perhaps the judge should sentence him to a botched vasectomy, followed by terminal waterboarding?

After all, the previous President assured us waterboarding was not torture.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | December 3, 2009 12:14 PM

Q: So what else other than a severe mental disorder would cause a parent to do this to their child?

A: Religion.

Posted by: amphiox | December 3, 2009 12:21 PM

"That's the one problem with natural selection - no quality control program."

That's because it is a blind process without foresight.

But humans, now humans are bona fide, scientifically documented and replicated, intelligent designers (the only ones known).

Who should know better.

Posted by: SmilingSkeptic | December 3, 2009 12:27 PM

PZ, here's another tale of home circumcision. It's pretty graphic, but it does give a lot of details about the man and why he did it to himself first and then his own son.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/10/16/bc-home-circumcision-charges.html

And this, the actual court ruling on the "D.J.W.", which is even more detailed: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/13/2009BCSC1397.htm

It's pretty ghastly.

Posted by: WMDKitty | December 3, 2009 12:28 PM

I hope the surviving child gets all the help -- medical, psychiatric -- he needs to deal with this. "Daddy" needs to be locked up, and both "parents" need to be sterilized. In fact, I'd be happy to do it myself, with a dull rusty soup spoon....

Posted by: Kemanorel | December 3, 2009 12:33 PM

Bethany then wrapped the baby in a blanket and drove to her pastor's home, where someone called 911.

Asked why Bethany didn't take the child to the Wyoming Medical Center, Tweedy said the couple indicated that "they thought the pastor could breathe life into him again."

The pastor told investigators that when he saw the body, "his jaw was stiff, he couldn't get his mouth to open," suggesting that rigor-mortis had set in, Tweedy said.

W
T
F
?

Rigor doesn't set in for at least 3 hours.

I don't know what's worse. The fact that the parents killed thier kid and thought that a preist could help, or that the preist thought he might be able to do it and was actually going to try.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2009 12:42 PM

Sick Fuck!

Frankly, we could have stopped this thread right there, after the first two words in the first comment.

Well, comment 8 bears repeating, too.

However, I have SIWOTI syndrome!!!

All I want to know is if the supposed relationship between circumcision and a lower rate of STDs is true and causal.

Comes up in every single circumcision thread, so you could just look it up… from what I remember, the comparisons to the control group were rather naïve.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | December 3, 2009 12:52 PM

For the record, the procedure is entirely elective in the United States, and there's no pressure about it. It's on one of many forms you fill out at the hospital, and I think someone actually asks you in person (thought I don't recall) but once you say no, that's the end of it. No one pressured me. They did bill me for the procedure they didn't do though. They billed my dad for mine that wasn't done either.

Now, if you want to ask whether we should ask people about it, or just assume the answer is no unless otherwise instructed, or why it is so common that they automatically bill you for it, then make you correct the billing after? That's a good question.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | December 3, 2009 12:55 PM

Here in the UK the children would be taken into care and any other children taken off the mother at birth. Unless and until the couple managed to persuade social services that they were fit and proper people to take responsibility for children.

It's a no brainer really, parents do not own their children and those showing themselves incapable should have their children removed for their own safety.

Posted by: Uncle Glenny | December 3, 2009 12:57 PM

fishyfred:

The graphic article SmilingSceptic left above (which hadd been the other bizarre case I was thinking of I think) had two related articles on that so go there to look (my keyboard is fried, cannot type or paste)

Posted by: Katharine | December 3, 2009 1:01 PM

When a parent proves themselves to be unfit to raise children then they should be forcibly sterilized. I don't care if someone Godwin's me on this one but it has to be said. Congratulations, you had a kid... something even dogs can do. Can you raise the child? If not then it is time to get snipped.

YEAH!! And while we're at it, lets give intelligence exams for voting!!! And lets decide who can and can not marry!!!

Oh wait we're already doing that.

Awesome!!! Problem already solved!!

Why is it that a child rapist has to register as a sex offender, go around they neighborhood they live in and tell everyone about themselves but a child murderer does not? Or am I wrong?

sigh

Chimp, if someone's doing DIY circumcisions on their kids and mutilating their kids' genitals and then kills 'em, I think that builds a pretty good case for sterilizing 'em.

If you're insane enough to do this to your child, you ought to be sterilized so you don't inflict it on any more children. It's a just solution.

There's a fine line between okay and not-okay regarding this, but I think that's solidly in the realm of dude-needs-to-be-sterilized-and-fast.

You're constructing a slippery-slope argument.

Posted by: Sarah | December 3, 2009 1:09 PM

What kind of woman stays with such a man after the first incident (and I doubt the do-it-yourself circumcision was the first), let alone leaves her child(ren) with him?

True, ethical decisions are difficult, but leaving them undone because there might be a "slippery slope" is in itself a decision. As a responsible adult, I have to make a decision to protect a child, to act ethically. I have undertaken a responsible search for truth and meaning and am accountable for my actions as well as my inactions.

I would expect the same of everyone; society has to act where such ethical action has been abrogated.

Posted by: Don | December 3, 2009 1:10 PM

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Except for the genitals. For some reason he messed those up and so they have to be modified by whatever sharp object comes to hand.

And he saw that it was good.

Posted by: Dianne | December 3, 2009 1:13 PM

What kind of woman stays with such a man after the first incident (and I doubt the do-it-yourself circumcision was the first), let alone leaves her child(ren) with him?

One who is too abused and isolated herself to be able to think of any way out of the situation? Or she could be just evil. But women have been known to stay with men who were dangerous to themselves and their children because they felt helpless to do otherwise. Or felt morally obliged to stay: isn't a "good" Christian woman supposed to stand by her man no matter what? Maybe she was so heavily propogandized that she thought she was doing the right thing-even if she knew he was crazy and wrong, maybe she thought that she and her children were displaying martyr-like qualities by forgiving and helping him.

Posted by: anti-theist | December 3, 2009 1:15 PM

Male theist parents should be castarated while females ought to have their tubes tied - by force if necessary. Theism is dangerous, delusional and disgusting; it instills fear, guilt & hate. On top of that the intention of theism is to brainwash children and without question if not hidden under the cover of theism the vast majority of the actions of such parents would be considered abusive.

Posted by: Keenacat | December 3, 2009 1:19 PM

Sarah @64:

Lots of women do stay with their abusive husbands, even if their kids are being harmed. Lots do return time and time again as they hope he will change and his promises are true this time.

Reasons are multiple, but many of these women suffer from being brought up in some or other kind of "marriage is sacred", "it's your own fault", "you are worthless without someone with you", "you are unfit to handle life, somebody must guide you" kind of environment.
Getting women out of abusive relationships can be really hard.
http://www.stoprelationshipabuse.org/barriers.html

Posted by: Rich Stage | December 3, 2009 1:19 PM

I actually blogged about Tim Tebow and circumcision the other day. As a father of a young (15 months) son myself, I can't understand why anyone would want to mutilate their child's genitals. Neither my son nor my daughter shall have any part of their genitals sliced. Unless, of course, they choose to. To each their own, after all.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | December 3, 2009 1:23 PM

What I find stunning is how bad he was at it. He cut the scrotum? That's not where the foreskin is, moron! Was he drunk when he did the mutilation? Or was it not intended to be a circumcision at all? Maybe he was going for castration.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 1:27 PM

-Male theist parents should be castarated while females ought to have their tubes tied - by force if necessary.-

Too late?

Anyway, this guy would have been nuts with or without religion. I mean come on, this is America, whats the chance a lunatic isn't religious given the numbers who believe.
Of course, if the original attack on the first child (and it was an attack) was ignored because his religion is sacred...well then that someone should be in deep trouble.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | December 3, 2009 1:29 PM

I will assume that the following quote was meant as hyperbole:

"Male theist parents should be castarated while females ought to have their tubes tied - by force if necessary"

Setting aside all the other moral and ethical issues with that statement, you don't know when they will change their opinion on religion, or whether their children will grow up to be atheist in spite of them, and maybe even be great scientists who change the world for the better.

Posted by: maddyhatter | December 3, 2009 1:36 PM

And this, the actual court ruling on the "D.J.W.", which is even more detailed: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/13/2009BCSC1397.htm

That guy is NUTS. OK he's legally sane as in he knows what he's doing, but he gets a brain injury from a car accident and becomes obsessed with "blood sacrifice" and covenants? when he was never religious before. I didn't realize he'd gone to multiple doctors who refused to do it. Everyone would have been better off if they had, it's just they didn't realize he was insane enough to do it himself.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | December 3, 2009 1:51 PM

Starbuck - PZ never said anything about "all Christians". One jerk comment, which may well have been the work of sock puppet or troll, and you say the rest of us are full of hate? Sorry, the rest of us don't stand behind that statement, and I dare say neither does PZ. One should not judge a blogger by what someone else says in reply to him.

Posted by: Dianne | December 3, 2009 1:53 PM

The hate coming off this blog is very telling.

The technical term in psychiatry for this sort of statement is "projection". Starbuck starts out reasonable-ish: anti-theist was being obnoxious-but quickly degenerates. For example, apparently failing to notice that several people had already taken anti-theist to task for his/her comment. Yet starbuck feels the need to pretend that everyone commenting or even reading the blog agrees with anti-theist's position.

If my child is unruly, no I wouldn't beat them to death.

Interesting comment. It implies that you would beat them-just not to death. I disagree with that position. I don't think beating someone who is in your power and probably physically smaller than you is a good idea. But what do I know. I'm just an immoral atheist.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 2:00 PM

If this is the same Starbuck that sometimes shows up here I'm calling a sock-puppet on anti-theist giving Starbuck a reason to spout off while conveniently ignoring those making comments against the very thing he is so upset about.

Posted by: Rob Jase | December 3, 2009 2:12 PM

From the original article -

"Asked why Bethany didn't take the child to the Wyoming Medical Center, Tweedy said the couple indicated that "they thought the pastor could breathe life into him again."

The pastor told investigators that when he saw the body, "his jaw was stiff, he couldn't get his mouth to open," suggesting that rigor-mortis had set in, Tweedy said."

Am I the only one wondering if the pastor found out the child's mouth wouldn't open because he believed he could breathe life back into the child?

After all, religious nuts generally learn their nuttiness from teachers like their pastors.

Posted by: Crux Australis | December 3, 2009 2:23 PM

To think I was nervous about painting my bathroom walls.

Posted by: Dianne | December 3, 2009 2:24 PM

Ok, I'll admit it. This story makes me want to attack McGehee with a filet knife myself. After putting a coat over his head. I think it's an understandable impulse. But that doesn't make it RIGHT. McGehee should have been prosecuted for his original act of abuse (and any previous acts) and if he had been he might have spent much of his life in prison instead of being out there looking for more children to abuse. But I still can't get behind the parental license/sterilization thing. If for no other reason than because sterilizing him wouldn't stop him from abusing other children and influencing other parents to become abusers for Christ.

Posted by: strangest brew | December 3, 2009 2:28 PM

And Wtf...? How come it was a pastor that they run to when their god declined to lift a pinkie to help?

I was under the impression that it was the rabbinic dark arts that dinged daddies bell?
Or at least the idea came from that area!

Did he decide that seeing as his sky fairy had gone AWOL he might as well give the other joker a go and drove to a Pastor?

Anyway after the earlier attempt at DIY surgery, would it not have been prudent for the Pastor to inform matey's wife, cos apparently it was a Pastor that was her delusional liar in chief, that if daddy dear ever went in that direction again with the abuse jollies then hell and damnation await the pair of them?

And where was the fuckwad death cult that gave daddy dear the thumbs up for this sort of nonsense in the first place? quite prevalent by their absence so it seems.

Methinks the authorities got intimidated after the first attack and backed off in deference to religious sensibilities.
Maybe a change in attitude would save a few more kiddies lives, seems the religio nuts cannot stop themselves from being viscous sadistic little cretins just like their sky daddy.

"Just before noon on Nov. 15, Bethany McGehee went shopping at the Eastridge Mall with her daughter and friend, leaving her two young sons at home with their father."

So much for strict religion...since when was Sunday shopping A.OK?

Seems religion can, and is, used as a way of shirking responsibility, in fact you do not have to actually believe the bullshite just pretend you do in front of your peers...is that why religion lingers I wonder?
It is a get out clause from life for mainly mentally dim and incompetent fools?
And for others so afflicted it seems just a very nasty habit they find difficult to shake...like a stubborn STD.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | December 3, 2009 2:34 PM

OT (and perhaps blissfully so), but...

...perhaps non-Canadians just aren't that familiar with the works of Robert Service.

This non-Canadian has fond memories of his parents' set of little individual volumes of Services's poems, including not only Sam McGee but also The Shooting of Dan McGrew. They also had a chapbook of another poem, not by Service but in more or less the same vein, called The Face on the Barroom Floor. Once when visiting relatives in Colorado, we visited a bar that had an old, faded painting of a woman's face on its floor, which it claimed was the inspiration for that poem.

We now return you to your regularly schedule ration of horror....

Posted by: Orakio | December 3, 2009 2:59 PM

Dutchdoc @#47

My apologies, it'd been several years. Finnish law against genital mutilation is not gender specific, and there had been a successful suit, reversed on appeal by their Supreme Court contending that this specific case of circumcision was some form of child abuse. I had not heard of the reversal.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 3, 2009 3:32 PM

Since i'm a nasty bit of business sometimes, I like to point out to such people that sex would feel 40% better if the penis were intact.

I don't think I am emotionally equipped to handle 40% better. I'm needy enough as it is.

Posted by: Starbuck | December 3, 2009 3:42 PM

"Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 2:00 PM

If this is the same Starbuck that sometimes shows up here I'm calling a sock-puppet on anti-theist giving Starbuck a reason to spout off while conveniently ignoring those making comments against the very thing he is so upset about."

Yes I am the same Starbuck that shows up once in a great while.

I don't know why the html tags don't work for me on here. They seem to work for other people. Logic would say that I am the problem not the server.

Anyways. I was "projecting" my distaste for PZ Meyers by the posts he puts up. He is Extremely Anti-God/anything religious. That is fine, I don't care if he does. But he gets these little twists in that "projects" that all Christians are religious kooks. And no I am not embellishing it.

And sure enough the posters just sing away at how great it is to be godless. And that is fine too, that is their decision. Freedom of religion and all that, even if it includes freedom from religion.

But I have been reading the blog posts and the reply's here. Like I said, replace religious/christian with black/gay/female and you would be so put off and offended you would be spitting nails and calling for someones head on a platter - metaphorrically speaking of course. I'd have a hard time believing this lot would condone murder.

Sorry to repost on this as I promised not to. So this troll will go back to lurking. I just wanted to clarify what was IN my head. I got a feeling I muddied my post because I was trying to type as fast as I could think. Never happens.

And as for beating? Um no. I didn't beat my kids. However the punishment usually fit the crime. And sometimes it required a spanking. I refused to use a switch/paddle/belt. I used my hand.

I know some people have a real problem with spankings, but sometimes that kid needs one so bad it amazed me. I loved my kids more then I loved life. I would never hurt my kids, and a little sting on the behind is not hurting your kids, nor is it abuse. Some people disagree with that, but I have seen some of these kids that never got spanked because they were just so perfect. Only thing I could figure out from these spoiled brats is they were really good at fooling their parents.

And yes, if there is no disipline, then the kid will probably be spoiled brats. If the kids never stepped out of line, then yea, they wouldn't be disciplined. (damn, I think I am thinking faster then I can "hunt and peck" forgive me if it got disjointed... I hope you get my point.)

Posted by: BG | December 3, 2009 3:49 PM

I am late to the party, but it doesn't look like anyone has mentioned the site:

http://whythefuckdoyouhaveakid.com/

Posted by: Starbuck | December 3, 2009 3:52 PM

One more time.. .really really sorry.

As for the topic, that guy that did that stuff to his son. I really feel for those two boys. One is dead, the other scarred for life.

And then for this clown to use religion. Even if you don't believe in God, I sure hope God comes and talks to this degenerate and puts the good old fashion fear of God into him. And still keep him in prision for life. Then let him explain to his living son what he did. When the son is 18 years old.

I think that part would be the hardest for that twisted man.

Posted by: dolores | December 3, 2009 3:58 PM

To Gus, comment#76:
Maybe the scrotum damage happened because certainly the little boy must have struggled, fought, and tried to escape the attack.
When circumcision is done to infants in the hospital, the baby is strapped to a board (called a circumstraint). The board has to be BOLTED to the table or the baby's struggle will cause the whole thing to buck and move.
It is really a sick commentary on our culture as a whole; that a man could cut up his child's genital with a knife and not be held accountable! If he cut his son's ear, finger,or any other body part...but in the USA, the penis is fair game!
And by the way....EVERYONE who participates in circumcisions believes they are doing the child a FAVOR. Parents who allow circs, doctors who do circs, and clergy who promote or perform circs, all believe they are "helping" the boy. They are just like the father in this article; convinced and sure that what they are doing is okay!
It doesn't matter what the motives are of the people who cut baby's genitals. The fact is, the act of circumcision is child abuse, it is sexual abuse, and it is wrong.

Posted by: Cathy | December 3, 2009 4:14 PM

Look, the notion that anyone should ever be allowed to forcibly sterilize someone else is disgusting. Have you forgotten that we live in a country where it was legal until the 1970's to forcibly sterilize people with disabilities or mental illness, including queer people who were viewed as mentally ill. Native American and black people have often been sterilized without consent. This happened to poor people as well. These people were presumed unfit parents simply because of their ability status, economic class, or color and deemed to be the carriers of unfit genes, not because they had or ever would harm a child (Read the Buck v Bell opinion of the US Supreme Court http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=200)

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."

This is from the Buck v Bell, the federal case that held until the 70s. The word for wanting to forcibly sterilize those you see as inferior is EUGENICS. You do not get to perform sterilizations of people against their consent, regardless of their crime (recall that castration used to be a not uncommon punishment for sodomy). It may be the case that if the parent has ALREADY harmed this child or another child, that they should be denied custody on those grounds, but in no way should it follow that you have the right to perform forcible surgery on any person's body.

When we start advocating forced sterilization, it will not be the Christians, the whites, the able bodies, the heteros, even those who are child abusers who will be the target, it will be the same targets that coercive sterilization policies have always had in the US; the poor, people of color, people with disabilities, and queer people. Many states pre-judge me unfit to parent because I'm a low income,disabled queer, should we now allow them to also start cutting at my organs to ensure I never reproduce?

The last thing I want is a return of the polices that could have resulted in me being forcibly sterilized before having a large part of my frontal lobe knocked out with an icepick via my eye socket (look up Freeman Lobotomy, nothing pacifies us crazies like killing all higher thought!).

Posted by: strangest brew | December 3, 2009 4:32 PM

Point is there will seemingly always be dip shits with warped senses...if the authorities would get a backbone and dismiss the plea of religious freedom from an abuse of a minor...and anyway you cut it(sic) it is Actual Bodily Harm...them more kids will live and less dickheads like jeebus clone will be temptred to inflict god inspired parental violence on them.

When is it going to be 'enough is enough'...what is the accreptable death statistic due to jeebus blinded fuckwads excersising their religiious rights 1...10...50...1000...10000?

This guy slices one child and nothing happens.....a year later he suffocates his other child and fucking religion sits all smarmy and vacant with an attitude that a jeebus lolly would not melt in their mouth.

Total irresponsibility towards mentally screwed up clowns that sing their songs and fill their coffers.
I hope their god loves 'em no one else with a modicum of compassion ever could and remain human!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 4:35 PM

And then for this clown to use religion. Even if you don't believe in God, I sure hope God comes and talks to this degenerate and puts the good old fashion fear of God into him. And still keep him in prision for life. Then let him explain to his living son what he did. When the son is 18 years old.

That whole fear of imaginary people thing doesn't seem to be working out very well does it?

How about instead of fearing retribution, religious people did the right thing because, and here is a tough concept to grasp,

IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

Shocking idea, I know.

Posted by: strangest brew | December 3, 2009 4:52 PM

Starbuck ...Your religion is a total and utter disgrace and you have the bare faced temerity to judge us by your standards.

'ye shall know them by their fruits' Matt 7:16.

And we shall know supercillious shallow and typical christians by the 'love' they demonstrate every time they are allowed out!

Prey to your fairy for forgiveness...but do not expect it!

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2009 5:00 PM

Stupid me. Obviously you used < and >, or we'd see your failed code. I should just go to bed.

Maybe you wrote "quote" instead of "blockquote"?

Posted by: IaMoL | December 3, 2009 5:20 PM

Starbuck is Charlie Wagner

Posted by: North of 49 | December 3, 2009 6:07 PM

@ Starbuck *83

Do I own my children? In a sense, yes.

Like Hell. Children, even very small ones, are sovereign individuals with all the inalienable rights that status entails. As they get older they acquire more rights, in stages, but there is never a time when they have no rights, and there is emphatically never a time when they are in any sense whatsoever yours or anyone else's property.

I am responsible to raise them to be responsible adults.

Yes you are. But that in no way implies ownership in any sense.

Not to abuse them, not to gratify myself. Not to force them into something they don't like. Or to force them away from something they do like unless it is harmful.

"Unless it is harmful"? Depends on how harmful it is and how old they are. Never forget, even when you, as a parent, are intervening in a child's life, even if you do so to protect them from harm, you are infringing on their sovereign rights. It's a dilemma; you're a parent, it's your duty, you must do it, but it is important to remember that what you are doing is only right in the sense that it is the lesser of two wrongs.

Oh, just to be clear, by "child" I am not in any way implying "fetus".

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 3, 2009 6:19 PM

Starbuck is Charlie Wagner

If so, then he's one hell of a viper pilot, but not so good with the reading.

You are no better then shit.

What happened to 'turn the other cheek'? It's a direct fucking quote from Jesus in two fucking Gospels (Matthew 5:38-40 and Luke 6:28-30, in the very likely case you've never read the book, you judgmental trog.) You know, if even a sizable minority of Christians focused on living this one direct commandment from the man they name themselves after, they'd reap a lot less scorn. But no, you call yourself Christians and yet we never hear you living out his commandments, instead focusing on how much you hate homosexuals, Liberals, and the problems inherent in society because you're not allowed to command children to pray in school.

I tell you this: if 5% of the so-called Christians in this country spend more time reciting Matthew 5:38-40 and Luke 6:28-30 and less time clamouring for the right to pray in public (on the streets like the hypocrites, according to Christ in Matthew 6:5), you wouldn't have a recruitment problem; you'd have a problem building big enough churches.

But you don't, and you won't. You'd rather be a bunch of pissy little cowards, whining that not enough people respect you because of the religion you claim to be a member of. Rather than trying to be Christ-like, you're satisfied with calling yourself a 'Christian' and demanding you be respected for it.

What a loathsome little man you are, celebrating the most loathsome aspects of your religion while trying to cloak yourself in the most laudable aspects.

By all means, lurk. Lurk on this blog, and lurk in society. Because it seems the only time someone like you isn't being a hypocrite is when you don't say or do a fucking thing.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 3, 2009 6:30 PM

Beat them when they got big? Not yet I haven't. If they start running out in the road or shoving knives in the electrical outlet like they did when they were 3 years old, then yes I would probably give them a spanking. Could I do it? Yes, right now I could. But in a few years, no I won't be able to. But I must have taught them well, because they do refrain from doing stupid stuff.

In other words, you beat them now but when they're too big for you to bully them any more and maybe kick your ass if you hit them then you won't.

Another bully for Jebus.

Posted by: Carlie | December 3, 2009 6:43 PM

But not gays? You say they are born that way, no proof. I say they choose to be that way, no proof.

So when did you chose to be straight?

My pet hypothesis is that people who say things like "gays choose to be that way" have to re-convince themselves every day of their straightness. "I am straight I am straight I am straight OMG look at John Barrowman's ass in that photo I mean I am straight I am straight..."

Posted by: Soren | December 3, 2009 6:52 PM

My son is 2 1/2. I have never hit him, spanked him or beat him, and never will. I have scolded him, but nut by yelling at him.

If I have to get very serious with him, I tell him to look at me and then look him in the eyes whilst telling him what he is doing wrong. In serious cases I ask him to repeat what I said.

Believe me, this gets a lot of respect, and he remembers his lessons very well.

I was never spanked as a child, neither was my wife, nor most of our friends, in fact it is illegal in Denmark to beat your children.

Somehow we still exist as a nation.

Posted by: stptrck75 | December 3, 2009 7:10 PM

When my sister was about six she fell off a horse and got a concussion. True to her faith, before taking her to the hospital my Mom took her to our pastor's house. He prayed over her. Oil may have been involved too, I don't remember (I was around 10y/o). My sister is fine now. She doesn't follow any religion. Maybe the fall knocked Jebus out of her.

People are nuts.

Posted by: Nanu Nanu | December 3, 2009 7:25 PM

Hey folks, if you don't like circumcision don't have one"

The whole point is that circumcision is being performed without clear medical reason on those that have not given, and can not give, consent.

The "Don't want one don't have one" thing is similar to the (valid) argument for abortion but in the case of abortion we have the interests of a real person, the mother, weighed against the non existent interests of some potential person. In the case of circumcising kids the child is already born (and presumably healthy enough to live the next few years) and certainly DOES have interests to be considered.

This is in no way a case of you being able to do what you want with your body, it's doing something with another person's body and regardless of what Starbuck thinks you do not own your child.

Posted by: Katharine | December 3, 2009 8:13 PM

There is plenty of proof, actually, that gay people are born that way. There is NO proof that they choose to be that way. It's partially genetic, partially developmental (i.e. gestational and hormonal).

Do a little searching on Google Scholar, you bigoted blowhard.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 3, 2009 9:18 PM

Screw that. Just make it a downpayment on child support.

Posted by: ml66uk2 | December 3, 2009 9:37 PM

If he'd mutilated any other part of his son's body, or any part of a girl's body, don't you think he'd have been charged?

Why is cutting parts off male genitals treated differently?

Posted by: Pablo | December 3, 2009 9:51 PM

if you don't like circumcision don't have one.

Good suggestion. I choose not to...oh wait, too late. I was not consulted beforehand.

The biggest problem I have with circumcision is the question of, why do it? The question of circumcision and HIV transmission in epidemic regions with high heterosexual transmission rates is, I think, reasonable, and in that case, it's probably not too crazy of a strategy for cutting back the transmission. Of course, that doesn't apply to the US, where the reasoning is more like

1) when he gets older, kids in the shower will laugh at him. I love this because parents basically invented the phrase "If all of your friends are doing it, does that mean you should?" yet here they are using it themselves.

2) He would look different from his dad. And? Does that mean I have to shave my son's head so he looks like me, too?

3) Well, there's no good reason to do it, but there's no reason not to, so we are going to do it.

Seriously, how many surgeries do we do because "there is no reason not to?" In any other case, we don't do medical procedures unless there is a reason to do it. Circumcision is basically the only surgical procedure that is taken as a default position (in the US, at least), where "opponents" are expected to provide a reason NOT to do it. What better reason to NOT do it than "there's no reason to do it?"

Then, of course, is the fact that it is obviously a _cultural_ issue. Circ rates in the US are high (2/3), whereas those in Europe are low (1/10 or less). So why is that? Next post.

Posted by: Pablo | December 3, 2009 10:07 PM

Now for the cultural problem.

One might think that the high incidence of circumcision in the US results because american doctors thought it medically beneficial and therefore promoted it.

Well, yes and no. Circumcision was not all that popular in the US until the late 1800s (the jewish population has never been large enough to have an impact on it nationwide). Recall that the late 1800s was the time of the temperance movement. It is not coincidence.

A certain Dr. Kellogg, the brother of the cereal guy, was the one who started it. He started promoting circumcision as a means to prevent masturbation. In the era, that was a high enough priority that people started doing it for that reason. Once it caught on, it became a cultural norm, one that is hard to stop. Oh sure, over the years, there have been many attempts to try to justify it using science, and these go on today, but none have stood the test of time. Everytime some supposed benefit is claimed, subsequent work shows that it doesn't hold up. Yet, the cultural practice continues. All because people wanted to stop boys from masturbating. How's that for a good reason?

Of course, the typical circumcised guy response is, "It didn't seem to affect me!" Which is fun and snarky, but also not scientific at all. Individual experience does not provide any insight into the general population. Men are taller than women on average, but that doesn't mean that there aren't short men or tall women. Moreover, it's not like guys compare their masturbation habits, so how do you know if you do it more or less than someone not circumcised? Moreover, how do you know you wouldn't do it more if you weren't? I'll get to that next. Personally, I don't know of any studies at all that have examined masturbation habits between circumcised and uncircumcised boys. Then again, I don't care. More to the point, I don't confuse my ignorance of the subject with knowledge one way or the other. All I know is that my personal experience with masturbation doesn't mean anything in terms of knowing whether Kellogg was right, and more importantly, I don't care whether he was right or not. I have a hard time supporting a cultural activity that originates from the goal of trying to prevent masturbation. I don't care whether it does or not, that's why the US started circumcising, and damnit, it's wrong.

More on sex in the next post.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 10:26 PM

black, no female, no gay, I say yes, you would probably say no.

But even if it was a choice, do you have the right to be prejudgice towards them?

Would that be RIGHT?

Nothing, not one thing points to it being a choice.

But to answer your question, yes i can be critical of Christians because the things that they choose to believe in are ridiculous and if you delve into fundamentalists, demonstratively wrong. Prejudice has nothing to do with it. When you make assertions about reality that are so far from .. well.. reality.. then being critical of those assertions does not mean you are being prejudice, it just is calling a spade a spade. Religious people, Christians included, cling to mythology in spite of reality. If all they did was keep to themselves then fine, i have no problem. But when they assert their mythology as fact and want us to accept this, that is when I have an issue.

Making a a choice based on opinion (which is what religion is when you boil it down) does not shield you from criticism of said opinion, especially when you try to force that opinion on everyone else.

But back to my point, choosing a religion and being gay or black or female or whatever you are born with are two different things. And you trying to make the comparison with choosing a religion shows exactly how weak your critical thinking skills are.

Posted by: Pablo | December 3, 2009 10:40 PM

I have nothing whatsoever against CC that is done for hygiene(science on it is not clear btw)

I'm not keen on the hygeine argument either. For example, we don't amputate a toe to prevent pernichia (in-grown toenail) - we teach people to cut their toenails.

Although there is a problem that too many doctors in the US have grown up in a culture of circumcision and don't actually have any experience in proper hygeine of an uncircumcised penis, and it's not clear how much they are taught in med school. Because circumcision is so common in the US, it's just not something they are used to. Doctors in Europe have much more familiarity with the subject.

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | December 4, 2009 2:23 AM

I'm quite happy to spend a significant amount of time and energy opposing circumcision, just like I have no problem spending the time and energy I do opposing whaling and cetacea in captivity. Both are worthy causes. If, in casual discussion, I can show people the error of their beliefs regarding either, I'll do just that. One less kid gettiing chopped up due to a discussion on a Pharyngula post is a good thing, not a waste of time.

Also, PZEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! You has a new troll to toss!

Posted by: "GrrlScientist" | December 4, 2009 8:32 AM

reminds me of my parents. i always thought if the parents abused me and me alone (as i thought they did), they'd leave the rest of my siblings alone.

WRONG!!

i met my brother for the first time a month ago, after several decades of not speaking (i was made ward of the courts; he was not and the parental units did not allow us to speak) and learned they were nearly as vicious to him as to me. he struggles to this very day with self-esteem issues and thinks daily about suicide. it breaks my heart to realize he experienced the same sort of hell that i did, simply because he (and i) were born to vicious people who used religion as an excuse to beat the hell out of innocent kids. if there are any miracles in this world, it's a miracle that we both are still alive. it disgusts me that the evil parental units are also still alive, free and seemingly happy, newly established in their nazi enclave in northern idaho.

Posted by: Holly | December 4, 2009 11:53 AM

@#155

I think that outside Jewish/Muslim circles, and the handful of largely Christian countries (USA, S.Korea, ??) in which it is common, it is already viewed with horror. Alas, no nation has the guts to ban it because they fear the inevitable cries of "anti-Semitism" (even though it's not necessary for a Jewish child to be physically altered in such a way in order to be regarded as Jewish).

Fortunately, rates of genital mutilation are decreasing all over the world. I expect that even in my lifetime, the only people who will continue to subject their children to the ritual will be members of the most conservative sects of the Abrahamic religions.

Posted by: toth | December 4, 2009 12:39 PM

@Tis Himself: We'll keep complaining about circumcision until it stops (or at least becomes a shameful practice in mainstream society). Deal with it.

Posted by: Hugh Young | December 4, 2009 9:03 PM

@Tis Himself: My word, you have a lot of energy for thwarting discussion about circumcision, haven't you?

The relevance here is that there is no law to prevent Magehee from circumcising his sons - as long as he doesn't pretend to be a doctor when he does it. That is an anomaly unique to infant male circumcision. (Another man who "only" had his son tattooed had the book thrown at him.) That is probably why nothing was done to him after he botched the circumcision of his first son, and one reason his second son is dead. Clear now?

Posted by: cathy | December 8, 2009 9:42 PM

On the born gay argument...

I'm not a fan of this, because I think it is predicated on gender essentialism. If a trans woman has sex with an intersex person, are they gay? Sexuality is far more complicated than we tend to treat it as.

But, to homophobic haters, the burden of showing why sex with those of similar genitals is evil while sex with those of less similar genitals is great is on you. Homophobes do make factual claims about the existence of only two sexes and genders, as well as the 'naturalness' of sex between them or within them. 'You can only have sex with a person of those genitals!' Er, why? I'll bet you that every response to that why is going to be pretty asinine.

'They can't reproduce!' Erm, queer people aren't all sterile. Besides, last time I checked the world did not have a people shortage. PS, bisexuals exist too, as do pre-op/non-op trans lesbians, gays, and bis.

'God says no' No such thing as god, and isn't it a coincidence he holds all the same prejudices as you?

"It will make you women too manly and men too womanly!' Er, what's your problem with butch ladies and femme guys? They're pretty awesome, in my experience.

'Next will be sex with ducks' Is it really just hating queers that makes you have a human partner instead of a duck? You must not think highly of your romantic partner if a duck makes a perfectly fine replacement.

'Sex with children!" The majority of men who molest boys are heterosexual, and the most common abuser is a man in a heterosexual relationship with the child's relative. See the APA and other credible science sources, sexuality is not a predictor for child abuse. Also, the same point as the one above, is it only discrimination against gays that keeps you from replacing your wife with a four year old? If so, you're the one with the real issues, aren't you?

'It will lead to more gays!' So what?

Religion is built on a false premise, what false premise is queerness built on? That ladies can be hot? That dudes can be hot? That sex with dudes is not inferior to sex with ladies (or vice versa)?