really? banning a religious ritual that causes zero harm doesn't bother some of YOU PEOPLE? really?

5/20/2011 6:44:35 PM

^Protecting the 1st amendment bothers you?

5/20/2011 7:48:40 PM

Quote :

"You know, this debate has come up on the wolfweb several times. In no instance of it have I seen anyone say, "Damn my parents, I wish they hadn't had me circumcised!" Nor have I ever heard any uncut people say, "Why, why didn't my parents circumcise me?!" "

I resent my parents for having me circumcised without my consent. I don't entirely fault them for falling for tradition and religious bullshit. I understand how powerful these are. Powerful enough to make otherwise reasonable people think cutting parts off your dick is a normal thing to do.

Quote :

" A friend of the family had this kid with a giant fucking mole on his forehead. Looked ridiculous, but medically it was benign. They had it removed when he was a few months old. Did they damage him? "

Yes, and for entirely cosmetic reasons.

Quote :

" Severing it is. Tying it into a ridiculous knot that may develop into an equally ridiculous-looking outie is not. "

The umbilical cord will eventually fall of on its own. Tying it and applying alcohol or silver nitrate are medical efforts to prevent infection. My son's didn't fall off fast enough and he developed pustules which thankfully did not become infected. The act of tying it is not what causes an outie vs. an innie. It's how it is severed, which will happen naturally anyway.
---

Quote :

" My issue is that I'm not seeing much evidence of circumcision doing actual harm. If anything the evidence suggests that it does some little bit of good. I can't help but feel like this is another one of those issues people want to get worked up about because it has religious overtones, not because it's actually hurting anybody."

It causes pain to the child, and scars them for life. I can't help but feel like this is another one of those issues that people don't see it for what it is because it has religious overtones.

If I take a knife to any other part of my son's body, you'd want me locked up. Why the fuck do you let me scar his penis?

An actual circumcision. Warning: disturbing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9C6T9QoLTM
From the description and I totally agree:

Quote :

"Male circumcision is logically a human rights abuse for these reasons: 1. The patient? cannot decide whether he wants the surgery or not 2. The operation removes healthy, highly sensitive tissue 3. The procedure is painful and carries risks"

Cosmetic and religious traditions reasons are absolutely not a good reason to take a knife to a newborn's penis. Prove that there is any medical benefit to someone who has good hygiene and practices safe sex. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Quote :

"really? banning a religious ritual that causes zero harm doesn't bother some of YOU PEOPLE? really?"

What kind of fucking bizarro world do we live in where cutting the skin of a person's penis does not cause harm?

Quote :

"^Protecting the 1st amendment bothers you?"

Harming others is not protected by the 1st amendment.

Honestly, how can you three (Grumpy, aaron, The E Man) argue that cutting a newborn does not cause immediate physical harm?

5/20/2011 7:59:11 PM

I was arguing with aaron that the right to not have your body irreversibly changed for religious modifications should be up to the individual and not something parents do to their children.

When this happens, the individual can never remove the markings of that religion thus has no freedom of choice.

5/20/2011 8:40:24 PM

Quote :

"What kind of fucking bizarro world do we live in where cutting the skin of a person's penis does not cause harm?"

yep, my life has really been destroyed by having been circumcised. yep. It's all sucked since then.

Quote :

"Harming others is not protected by the 1st amendment."

This is true. and there is zero harm occurring here.

Quote :

"I was arguing with aaron that the right to not have your body irreversibly changed for religious modifications should be up to the individual and not something parents do to their children. "

Parents force their children in to all kinds of religious shit. Are we going to ban all of them, too? Look, there is ZERO harm occurring here. Absolutely zero. The infant doesn't remember shit, there is zero harm. That's just how it is. IIRC, others are perfectly OK with killing a fetus because it "feels no pain." Is minor pain that isn't capable of being remembered felt, either? I'd say no. We give shots to infants. That causes pain, and they have no say in it. How is this ANY fucking different? Right, it isn't.

Quote :

"When this happens, the individual can never remove the markings of that religion thus has no freedom of choice."

And yet, his junk is left in his pants, where no one can see it. If a significant other does ask why his junk is circumcised even though he isn't Christian/Jewish/Muslim, he can just say "My folks did it when I was born. Woopty." Honestly, of all the shit to be getting up in arms over, this is easily the least important of them. Zero harm occurs. Zero. Get back to me when you have a beating or something that is actually causing harm.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2011 9:11:36 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, of all the shit to be getting up in arms over, this is easily the least important of them. Zero harm occurs. Zero."

QFT.

5/20/2011 9:16:25 PM

Tomorrow may very well be the end of the World. Kris and I agree on something

5/20/2011 9:23:19 PM

He loves going on the religious angle. Raise your hand if you have argued in favor of this thread and are Jewish.

[does not raise hand] I'm so profoundly anglo-saxon that it hurts, and am Christian.

Raise your hand if you are part of any religion that encourages circumcision.

[does not raise hand] I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it's rare among the Orthodox. Probably comes across as too Jew-y to people from the old country.

Raise your hand if you were circumcised by a cleric or other religious official.

[does not raise hand] It was a medical doctor who apparently did not think it was a bad idea. But apparently disco_stu knows better than a doctor.

Raise your hand if you were circumcised for any religious reason at all.

[does not raise hand] Dad the atheist was all for it, as I understand. Hell, it was probably his idea.

5/20/2011 10:32:56 PM

^agreed.

TSB, revealing crazy people every day

5/21/2011 12:12:32 AM

You know, even though I have my own opinion on this, it really is amazing to hear how many people think that precedent automatically makes something ok. That exact justification has been used by a couple people at this point, and I wish I could say I am surprised, but...this is TSB.

5/21/2011 12:41:17 AM

^3

As I said in the OP, the thing that I found peculiar is that most people I've spoken with (and indeed most people in this thread) who oppose such a ban do so based on the idea of religious freedom. It is those people, not those who argue that there are worthwhile medical benefits, that I take issue with. And they bring it on themselves, so don't blame us.

If circumcision is done for religious reasons, it seems to me that this has a net negative impact on religious freedom. Granted, I understand that both the parents' and the child's religious freedom are on the line, but I think you have to consider who the biggest stakeholder is here. And I would say the person about to have his physical form permanently altered is clearly the bigger stakeholder, and thus the one whose liberty needs to be protected.

And pooh-poohing the issue as "not a big deal" is not a serious argument. Whether or not physically branding a person into this or that clan or religion is ok deserves, I think, more than such a frivolous response.

5/21/2011 7:05:49 AM

There are other things that should be banned well before circumcision... you know, things that actually harm children and people of all ages, drain the economy, cripple people for life, and in millions of cases, kill.

[smoking, fast food, junk food, etc]

5/21/2011 7:51:33 AM

Zero harm? Because they don't remember the pain of getting their dick severed there's no actual harm? What in the fuck is wrong with you people? Can I beat the shit out of my infant children or perform other unnecessary surgery on them as long as they don't remember it? No harm. What in the fuck is wrong with you people where you could possibly believe having your foreskin removed is not being caused harm.

5/21/2011 4:34:17 PM

we're sorry you miss your foreskin so much- we really are.

5/21/2011 5:17:46 PM

Quote :

"As I said in the OP, the thing that I found peculiar is that most people I've spoken with (and indeed most people in this thread) who oppose such a ban do so based on the idea of religious freedom."

so, are you just saying that you don't give a fuck about the First Amendment? Is that what you are saying?

Quote :

"Because they don't remember the pain of getting their dick severed there's no actual harm? "

No, because their dick still functions in exactly the same way as it did before. They can still pee. They can still have sex and enjoy it to the same degree. What is the big fucking deal? Get back to me when babies are being castrated or having legs chopped off.

Quote :

"Can I beat the shit out of my infant children"

did you miss it earlier when I said "get back to me when children are being beaten?"

Quote :

"or perform other unnecessary surgery on them as long as they don't remember it?"

Unnecessary to you. Some people's religions deem it necessary, and given that zero harm is occurring, what the fuck is the problem?

Quote :

"What in the fuck is wrong with you people where you could possibly believe having your foreskin removed is not being caused harm."

FTFY

5/21/2011 5:56:42 PM

Quote :

"No, because their dick still functions in exactly the same way as it did before. They can still pee. They can still have sex and enjoy it to the same degree. What is the big fucking deal? Get back to me when babies are being castrated or having legs chopped off."

Wrong wrong wrong. It cannot possibly function in exactly the same way it did before. It has no foreskin. Obviously there will be physiological differences in the function and enjoyment of masturbation and sex.

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Quote :

"Circumcision Decreases Sexual Pleasure A questionnaire was used to study the sexuality of men circumcised as adults compared to uncircumcised men, and to compare their sex lives before and after circumcision. The study included 373 sexually active men, of whom 255 were circumcised and 118 were not. Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision. There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings. Kim, D. and Pang, M., "The Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexuality," BJU International 99 (2007): 619-22. Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis. In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis. This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity. Sorrells, M. et al., ?Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis,? BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869."

The big fucking deal is that you are cutting a newborn with a knife in an incredibly sensitive part of the body for no damned reason. Forget any lasting effect, forget the scarring, forget the decreased sexual enjoyment, forget all else; is cutting a newborn with a knife causing harm or not? Is doing it for non-medical, non-health reasons justified?

Quote :

"did you miss it earlier when I said "get back to me when children are being beaten?""

But why? Why is it ok to lop off a part of a dick but not superficially harm them in a way that won't leave permanent damage?

Quote :

"Unnecessary to you. Some people's religions deem it necessary, and given that zero harm is occurring, what the fuck is the problem?"

And people ask me what damage religion does to this world. Your claim of zero harm is absolutely wrong. Cut off part of your dick right now if you think it will do no harm.

Oh, and actually read the page. Here are all the topics:

Pain, Trauma, Sexual, and Psychological Effects of Circumcision
Circumcision Results in Significant Loss of Erogenous Tissue
Circumcision Affects Sexual Behavior
Researchers Demonstrate Traumatic Effects of Circumcision
Circumcision Study Halted Due to Trauma
Circumcised Penis Requires More Care in Young Boys
Poll of Circumcised Men Reveals Harm
Psychological Effects of Circumcision Studied
Expressions from circumcised men are generally lacking because most circumcised men do not understand what circumcision is, emotional repression keeps feelings from awareness, or men may be aware of these feelings but afraid of disclosure.
Serious Consequences of Circumcision Trauma in Adult Men Clinically Observed
Anatomy and Function of the Foreskin Documented
Male Circumcision Affects Female Sexual Enjoyment
Male Circumcision and Psychosexual Effects Investigated
Surveys Reveal Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Circumcision
Foreskin Reduces the Force Required for Penetration and Increases Comfort
Survey of Men Circumcised as Adults Shows Mixed Results
Survey Finds Circumcision Contributes to Vaginal Dryness
Early Adverse Experiences May Lead to Abnormal Brain Development and Behavior

Tell me again how it does zero harm. Maybe if you capitalize ZERO it'll make it true.

And Grumpy, your father did it for cosmetic reasons but the only reason anyone ever did it in the first place was religion. For the non-religious that do it, it is still a religious issue.

It's like the anti-vaccers. Their absolutely retarded behavior is based off a study which has been proven to be fraudulent. That study, the source of their misinformation is the core of the problem (well that and critical thinking skills on the part of the people making terrible decisions regarding their children)

And besides that, cosmetic reasons are also a terrible reason to cut your son's dick.

[Edited on May 21, 2011 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2011 8:17:54 PM

ITT disco_stu reads minds. It's impressive.

5/21/2011 10:53:06 PM

I didn't even know I was circumcised because I don't look at other guy's dicks.

My circumcision had no affect on me before or after I was told I was circumcised by my first girlfriend.


People who are offended should educate themselves about life and its unfairnesses.

They should worry about how their ugly god given face fucks up their chances as getting laid before they worry about excess skin on their dicks.

[Edited on May 21, 2011 at 11:06 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2011 11:04:14 PM

I have a circumcised dick. It's impossible for me to get upset over being circumcised when I don't know what it's like to have a uncircumcised dick. Seriously, how can you miss something you never had?

disco_stu, you must have a ton of free time to get upset over having a circumcised dick. I wish I had such a leisured life that I could worry about the most insignificant things...

You say that harm is being done, yet you can't even quantify the actual harm. If you always had a circumcised dick, how do you know that you should be upset over it anyway? How do you even know what you're missing...

I follow your logic, I just don't follow your concern.

5/21/2011 11:34:34 PM

Stop being trolls guys... it is a well-known fact that men with uncircumcised penises derive greater pleasure from sex as the penises are more sensitive.

This is backed up both scientifically and anecdotally. There is no arguing that.

Exactly how much more pleasurable it is, no one knows, as it is not possible to imagine the extra pleasure if you are cut, or to imagine the decreased pleasure if you are uncut.

So yes, reducing someone's sexual pleasure by surgical methods is definitely "causing harm".

Whether the reduction in pleasure is justified by the benefits of circumcision, I guess that's up to speculation. There do exist numbers about how many more men (especially in Africa) would have AIDS if they were uncut... so the harm has to be weighed against that.


[Edited on May 22, 2011 at 12:21 AM. Reason : ]

5/22/2011 12:20:41 AM

Quote :

"You say that harm is being done, yet you can't even quantify the actual harm. If you always had a circumcised dick, how do you know that you should be upset over it anyway? How do you even know what you're missing..."

Can't quantify the harm? Did you even look at the website I posted? And beyond that, explain to me how taking a knife to an incredibly sensitive part of a newborn for no medical reason is itself not causing harm.

5/22/2011 10:53:16 AM

You obviously don't know what I said. Look up the word quantify and revise your statement.

Quote :

"explain to me how taking a knife to an incredibly sensitive part of a newborn for no medical reason is itself not causing harm."

You keep insisting that there is no medical reason. Yet even in light of medical evidence being presented that shows that there is a medical benefit, you choose willful ignorance. You may not agree with the medical evidence on a personal basis, and that's fine. You have the option of doing what you like with your child. Just keep your damn nose out of other people's business when it has no bearing on you.

5/22/2011 11:25:45 AM

I would argue the other way. I accept undeniably that circumcision causes harm. Same goes for piercing your daughter's ears. However, so does sending your child to bed without dinner. So does spanking the child. Some parents never inflict any bodily harm, but indoctrinate the child into destructive behavior.

It is my opinion that Parents have a right to harm their children a pre-determined amount. They don't have the right to kill them. But certainly they should be allowed to torture them a reasonable amount (what else is spanking but torture used as punishment?)

So, the question is not whether circumcision is harmful, the question is whether is constitutions sufficient harm for the state to intervene, which I think is a resounding "No."

5/22/2011 11:36:41 AM

Well, I think it is a resounding "Yes." I think cutting parts off your children is child abuse. I guess that's unreasonable.

5/22/2011 12:09:07 PM

Everyone's position here seems pretty clear and there is no objective way to solve the conflict (this is a battle over opinion, science cannot end it).

But I am curious. What about cutting off a third nipple, correcting a cosmetic birth defect, or an adjoined twin? Does cutting off these parts of your child constitute child abuse?

5/23/2011 12:48:12 AM

Cosmetic birth "defects" yes, IMO, but not as serious as circumcision given the evidence how circumcision affects sexual pleasure. Any type of cosmetic surgery is submitting the child to a painful process in addition to a painful and sensitive recovery.

Adjoined twins would definitely be a case by case basis. And don't get me wrong, you would still be harming the children, but the harm may be justified.

5/23/2011 8:49:56 AM

Ok, so you "think cutting parts off your children is [NOT] child abuse" unless the thing being cut off is foreskin. The issue I guess orbits around the word "defect" and what body parts constitute a defect.

5/23/2011 9:16:30 AM

Uhhh, I said yes. The issue hinges entirely on whether the harm is justified through medical necessity.

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

5/23/2011 9:21:34 AM

Bunch of people trying to justify their mutilated penises ITT.

5/23/2011 9:33:58 AM

bunch of dudes arguing about dicks ITT.


~

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

5/23/2011 11:22:24 AM

Shit aint gonna hold up in court.

Move along, folks.

5/23/2011 12:05:06 PM

Quote :

"Cosmetic birth "defects" yes, IMO, but not as serious as circumcision given the evidence how circumcision affects sexual pleasure."

1) I hope disco's kids all come out normal-looking, or else they're gonna have a real rough childhood.
2) I love the "affects sexual pleasure" argument. If I enjoyed sex any more than I do now I'd never get anything done.

5/23/2011 12:21:47 PM

Yeah, my kids are having a terrible childhood having fun, learning how to read and math, and about the Universe.

My son's foreskin is really getting in the way of drinking bottles and laughing at the raspberries we blow on his stomach.

Oh, and they get to sleep in on Sundays (not that they do).

I totally misread your post.

So surgery to prevent kids from picking on you is justified? I remain unconvinced this is a good reason to physically modify your children without their consent. Yes, I understand you make decisions for your children, but cosmetic surgery should not be one of them.

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2011 12:33:07 PM

I said I hoped they look normal, because apparently correcting birth defects is child abuse, too. Glad they didn't have a cleft palate or anything.

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM. Reason : of course you're gonna be nice to them. It's their peers what's the issue.]

5/23/2011 12:36:09 PM

Oh, cleft palates have absolutely no medical reason to correct...

Oh, and I knew kids with corrected cleft palates. The correction did not stop the kids for picking on them.

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2011 12:39:31 PM

I'm sure people circumcising their children would call it a "correction" too.

5/23/2011 1:14:27 PM

The arguments for circumcision in this thread are as follows:

1. It reduces spread of HIV - Wear a condom? Know what diseases your partner is carrying before you have unprotected sex?
2. Prevents various diseases - What diseases? I need proof of this.
3. Kid will get made fun of for having foreskin - Stupid.

Benefits of keeping foreskin:
http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

To me, it seems like people do it out of tradition. "My parents circumcised me, so it's okay for me to circumcise my child."

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2011 1:36:27 PM

^^This isn't difficult.

Medically sound justification? Not child abuse.
No medically sound justification? Child abuse.

If circumcision had a medically sound justification, it would not be child abuse. It has not been proven that it has any health benefits for people with an ample supply of running water and safe sex practices.

Hell, it hasn't even been proven that it's more than a correlation in 3rd world countries in Africa where every cited study is derived from. What other social and economic factors may align with circumcision that would have an impact on disease spreading? Do rich people get cut with a greater frequency than poor people?

Maybe you misinterpreted my italics of the word 'correction.' I was noting how even though it was "corrected" there were still children making fun of the "correction." Thereby making the "well your kid is going to get picked on" argument stupid because kids will pick on even "normal looking kids." Additionally, "your kid is going to get picked on" is not a medically sound justification for surgery in an infant who cannot consent by any reasonable definition of consent.


[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2011 1:37:29 PM

So if anyone in the world is willing to proclaim correcting a cleft pallet is not medically necessary then you should go to jail for doing it?

I accept undeniably that circumcision causes pain and therefore harm. Same goes for piercing your daughter's ears. However, so does sending your child to bed without dinner. So does spanking the child. Some parents never inflict any bodily harm, but indoctrinate the child into destructive behavior. Are you similarly in favor of having these people arrested, even though they didn't cut anything off their children? If not, why not?

5/23/2011 1:53:05 PM

No, if science-based medicine's consensus was that correcting a cleft palate did not have medically sound justification, then it should be considered child abuse.

I don't feel any differently about piercing an infants ears, by the way. It's absolutely child abuse.

Comparing either of those to sending your child to bed without dinner is absolutely ridiculous. We're talking about physically modifying your child with surgery (which I suppose you could refer to ear piercing as).

There is a line regarding corporal punishment where it should be considered child abuse. It's somewhere between smacking them on the hand and causing welts and bleeding. There's a line regarding psychological abuse where it should be considered child abuse. I'm still not sure how this relates to cosmetic surgery for infants, however.

5/23/2011 2:01:25 PM

Quote :

"However, so does sending your child to bed without dinner. So does spanking the child."

In my opinion, these are both child abuse. Do I think the parents should be punished? Depends on the severity of the situation. Could be minor or severe.

These situations are different than permanently disfiguring your child, although if the spanking is harsh/frequent enough, there can be lasting psychological damage.

Quote :

"So if anyone in the world is willing to proclaim correcting a cleft pallet is not medically necessary then you should go to jail for doing it? "

You're comparing a cleft pallet, which is a birth defect, and affects a person's image on a daily basis, to the foreskin, an evolved part of the penis that has many functions.

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2011 2:03:25 PM

Quote :

"In my opinion, these are both child abuse."

oh god you're one of those.

5/23/2011 2:18:21 PM

Quote :

"oh god you're one of those."

Please explain to me how inflicting physical pain on your kid is okay. Do you think shock collars for dogs are okay?

5/23/2011 2:22:25 PM

You mean one of those people that thinks that you shouldn't shear parts off of or stab holes through an infant's body? Yep, one of those.

^To be fair, I think inflicting minor physical pain is ok if the result is immediate prevention of greater physical harm. Smacking a hand when they're reaching for something that will seriously injure them, for instance.

I don't agree with spanking as punishment (nor going to bed without supper for that manner) but I would be hesitant to label every instance of each as child abuse.

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2011 2:23:27 PM

yep.

5/23/2011 2:24:01 PM

Quote :

"^To be fair, I think inflicting physical pain is ok if the result is immediate prevention of greater physical harm. Smacking a hand when they're reaching for something that will seriously injure them, for instance. I don't agree with spanking as punishment (nor going to bed without supper for that manner) but I would be hesitant to label every instance of each as child abuse."

I agree with you there. The spanking I'm thinking of is when a kid does something wrong and you beat them on the ass afterwards. Going to bed without supper once is kind of mean and a childish thing for a parent to do, but not really abuse. Doing it often would be abuse.

5/23/2011 2:31:09 PM

Kids can be very unreasonable at times. Discipline shouldn't inflict physical harm, but sometimes children (especially at young ages) will only respond to pain.

5/23/2011 3:30:42 PM

Children need punishment when they're misbehaving. There's nothing wrong with sending them to bed without dinner or a good spanking.

5/23/2011 3:38:54 PM

The lack of merits for corporal punishment belong in a different thread. Comparing corporal punishment to cosmetic surgery for infants is ludicrous.

5/23/2011 3:53:10 PM

Quote :

"Children need punishment when they're misbehaving. There's nothing wrong with sending them to bed without dinner or a good spanking."

There are non-physical ways to punish children. Time-out, removal of privileges, and scolding are a few. Hitting your child or depriving them of nutrition are examples of lazy and cruel parenting.

5/23/2011 3:54:32 PM