1) It assumes doing things to kids without their consent is always moral. I would disagree.
2) It ignores the fact that circumcision is irreversible: it affects future adults, not just kids.
3) It all depends on the age, but even a baby’s will can be often guessed from its expressions and screams; so they can give consent to some degree. (And those babies scream as their member is mutilated.)

I don’t believe in teachers but who needs to know anything beyond their immediate experience anyway?

I don’t believe in doctors but who wants to survive even a common illness anyway?

I don’t believe in judges or the law but who wants to protect us from the dangerous elements of society anyway?

It’s so sad that tragedies like what happened to this baby keep happening.

Except when they are performing circumcisions. sorry, personal bugbear of mine.

Sorry to thread-jack. Just a word to defend my colleagues here.

Some docs refuse to perform male circumcisions on moral grounds. So not ALL MD’s are in the weenie-wacking bizness. No doctors in america perform female circumcision that I know of.

Unlike its female counterpart, male circumcision actually has some demonstrable and potential benefits. Decreased rates of penile cancer being one. Sometimes circumcision is required later in life due to a condition called phimosis – you sacrifice the foreskin to prevent gangrene. mmm, think about that for a while…

Also, there was some very interesting data out of africa that circumcised males were less likely to contract and spread HIV. It seems counterintuitive, but the numbers are there.

Not that any of this necessarily justifies taking off a part of a boy’s penis without his consent… but some doctors think they are helping people by performing this procedure, and there’s data to back them up. And BTW, pretty much everything doctors do for/to kids is, by definition without, their consent. Circumcision, if done properly – i.e. in a sterile environment with appropriate local anesthesia – can be a somewhat humane procedure.

That being said, I don’t do them (anymore)…
cheers.

Not used enough these days, imho.

These sorts of incidents remind me of an old joke:

A man is standing on the roof of his house while his neighborhood floods. A helicopter comes by and asks if he wants to be rescued, but he refuses, saying God will save him. A while later, a boat comes by, and it’s the same story.

Finally, the waters are over his ankles and ANOTHER helicopter comes by and he again refuses rescue. The waters overtake him and he goes off to heaven. While there, he asks God “Why didn’t you save me? I was waiting for you!” and God replies “Dumbass, I sent 2 helicopters and a boat.”

I used to use this story when I was a Christian. I think a lot of Christians see it as an effective way to state that “God performs miracles, you just have to be watching.”

Since I’ve been an atheist, this story bothers me in that it implies that normal, rational events can be passed off as “miracles”, which by definition, should have a distinct, supernatural aspect.

That being said, the death of this child is horrific.

Freedom to practice their religion, yes. Not the freedom to willfully neglect the care of their child. They may as well have smothered her with a pillow. Laying on of hands my butt.

Worse yet is apparently that church has a history of willful neglect and killing it’s parishioners with prayer. Ava’s not the first and it seems, until the laws change and the people of the church change their views, she’ll not be the last. It’s sickening.

A man is standing on the roof of his house while his neighborhood floods. A helicopter comes by and asks if he wants to be rescued, but he refuses, saying God will save him. A while later, a boat comes by, and it’s the same story.

Finally, the waters are over his ankles and ANOTHER helicopter comes by and he again refuses rescue. The waters overtake him and he goes off to heaven. While there, he asks God “Why didn’t you save me? I was waiting for you!” and God replies “Dumbass, I sent 2 helicopters and a boat.”