Post a controversial opinion

shock the shookables

I'll take "Underrated Peter Gabriel Outtakes" for $200, Alex.

controversial opinion in 'causing controversy' shocker

Wait I mean to type dogs not dongs

The mental and physical well-being of dependents should always trump first amendment protections im(controversial)o.

yep

That depends. Commencement addresses are repulsive. I wish I'd walked out of mine.

Yeah. But according to whom? The collision of religion and medical ethics can't be reduced so easily. See, for instance, any of the wrongful birth cases. Note: I agree with y'all that first amendment rights are surpassed by a right to health.

i don't oppose wrongful birth lawsuits any more than i do any other sort of malpractice suit (says the guy who will be buying malpractice insurance soon). what's the first amendment issue?

Well, I guess the broader version of my controversial opinion is that religion shouldn't be imposed upon anyone who doesn't have the legal right to opt out, but I don't even know how that would work outside of my cycle of utopian fantasy novels soon to be published by the good people at Tor.

i think "religion shouldn't be imposed upon anyone who doesn't have the legal right to opt out" is unworkable in a society that wants to protect religious practice

there is a line to be drawn, mordy. that line is harm to children or other people. really not difficult to grasp this

Agree with Old Lunch on dependents; meaningful sexual consent is not unrelated. Absolutely not a First Amendment absolutist here; other considerations can override it, and often do.

I have tended to be because my job and profession demand it, often for worse, but I've loosened a lot.

what are some examples of your softened stance?

e.g. the discretion that even public universities can exercise when hiring speakers.

booking speakers, that is

yeah that seems fine to me. not the same as, say, a municipality selectively deciding who can speak or march in public

can someone post a statement from the left claiming that we should all should be okay with female genital manipulation because I'm curious where that idea comes from

― frogbs, Monday, 5 June 2017 15:08

Female genital MANIPULATION? I did a search and some people use this instead of female genital mutilation but it just sounds like genital massage.

Personally, I think male circumcision is bad enough.

Groups of men age 18-24 looking to beat each other down in the street are very bad for the country even when their politics are sympathetic

oh whoops, the autocorrect in my brain malfunctioned

female genital manipulation is fun, provided it is consensual!

e.g. the discretion that even public universities can exercise when hiring speakers.

what do you think about a state funded public university cancelling a speaker that was booked by a student organization?

When I was about four or five I had to be circumcised as my foreskin wasn't retracting properly. This was in the UK, where circumcision isn't so common, and in the early 1970s, so I'm sure surgical techniques have improved in this area. Nonetheless, the whole experience was worrying, embarrassing and quite painful - I was pretty sore for a few days afterwards. Ever since, I've been utterly opposed to the circumcision of kids on religious (or 'cultural') grounds and I'm amazed that parents would prioritise their own belief in a supernatural entity over the emotional, psychological and physical wellbeing of their children.

(neonatal) male circumcision is very safe and is associated with a decreased risk of infectious disease later in life

butter knife, shot of vodka, done

Any operation can go wrong; an uncircumcised penis can be kept clean; an awareness that your own parents have sanctioned the mutilation of your body is not always easy to erase. And if the child grows up to be an atheist, I would imagine the resentment of such an act would be all the greater.

what do you think about a state funded public university cancelling a speaker that was booked by a student organization?

I think it's against policy at every state university I'm familiar with, it's bad, and that's why it seldom if ever happens

What does happen (but also not that much, to be honest) is "1. student organization invites speaker 2. other students plan to protest speaker 3. speaker decides not to show"

(neonatal) male circumcision is very safe and is associated with a decreased risk of infectious disease later in life

― k3vin k., Monday, June 5, 2017

This is highly debatable. Outside of the US, at least.

Most frequently what happens is "somewhat cranky student org invites "controversial" speaker, hoping to stir some shit, no one cares, speaker comes and talks to 30 kids and takes home $3000" which basically seems fine to me

an awareness that your own parents have sanctioned the mutilation of your body is not always easy to erase

or maybe they are human beings who can make a mistakes like anyone else and sometimes have to make educated guesses when confronted w the often speculative/risky medical realities.

Any operation can go wrong; an uncircumcised penis can be kept clean; an awareness that your own parents have sanctioned the mutilation of your body is not always easy to erase. And if the child grows up to be an atheist, I would imagine the resentment of such an act would be all the greater.

― Bernie Lugg (Ward Fowler), Monday, June 5, 2017 11:25 AM (two minutes ago)

this is why in medicine decisions are made based on evidence and not hypotheticals or anecdotes

the best thing about atheism nobody talks about is how when you grow up you have a complete knowledge of all fields of medicine unlike those superstitious rubes

lots of medical interventions could go wrong or are associated with certain adverse effects. take a look at the back of your pill bottle tonight if you don't believe me. these are acceptable if the benefit at least outweighs that risk

But not even all medical associations recommend male circumcision. Even the Canadian Paediatric Society recommends against it as a routine practice.

(neonatal) male circumcision is very safe and is associated with a decreased risk of infectious disease later in life

― k3vin k., Monday, June 5, 2017

This is highly debatable. Outside of the US, at least.

― pomenitul, Monday, June 5, 2017 11:27 AM (four minutes ago)

i live in the US and can't speak firsthand on the safety of procedures in other countries. that is a risk/benefit discussion for those communities to have, not for me to decide

can't we all just get along and agree that circumcision is OK but mohel sucking baby penis afterwards is problematic

I'm not objecting to circumcision when (as in my case) there is an obvious medical need to carry one out - a non-retracting foreskin is more painful than any quick snip! But I'm guessing the vast majority of circumcisions carried out in the US have no medical need.

Male circumcision should be consensual unless there's an overriding medical reason. It's the best way for everyone to get what they want in terms of their own bodies. Some men who were circumcised wish that they hadn't been. Some men who were not circumcised wish that they had been. The second group has something they can do about it.

Not to mention that the former is far more common than the latter.

metzizah b'peh in almost all cases is practiced with a straw but just for the record even among ppl who literally use their mouths there's no sucking on the penis - it's sucking at the wound to draw blood from the cut. nb this might be a distinction without a difference but the former makes it sound pedophiliac and the problem with it is almost certainly medically related and not related to sexual abuse. obv i think it should be legal even tho i would never let it be practiced on my kid.

But not even all medical associations recommend male circumcision. Even the Canadian Paediatric Society recommends against it as a routine practice.

― Tomorrow Begat Tomorrow (Sund4r), Monday, June 5, 2017 11:32 AM (fifty-seven seconds ago)

i never said it should be mandatory. it is an example of an intervention whose risks and benefits closely approximate one another, so either decision is reasonable

Some men who were circumcised wish that they hadn't been.

just out of curiosity, why

delete the controversial opinion thread

luv too have medical debates with people who don't care to look at the evidence

gonna bow out now, i've been as clear as i can be

sorry mordy was lulzing, obviously i know this is not about a rash (SEE WHAT I DID THERE) of pedophilic mohelim

actually did not know about the straw

that was badly punctuated; should have said "sorry, mordy, I was lulzing"

protecting religious practice in a strong sense is unworkable in a society that wants to maintain the most basic human rights

circumcision causes sexual dysfunction, like erectile dysfunction and/or impotence

no it motherfucking doesn't