Summations Only

Exactly what the paper points out. That there have been very vocal advocates for cutting bits off other people's sexual organs under a whole variety of pretenses throughout the last two centuries. So's the article. It's about people who are, quite frankly, so hung up - and creepily so - on what happens with the penises of other people's children that they want to cut bits off all of them.

What is wrong with "Culture" as a justification of "circumcision"?If your culture thinks it is "mutilation" then simply do not circumcise your children.But if another culture believes circumcision is not mutilation and that it should be done, then why should YOUR culture take precedence?

Anything that's ever been done in any part of the world could be justified on that basis. Infanticide probably still goes on in some cultures. I could hang, draw and quarter people on the basis of English historical precedence. We have groups of African migrants in Europe for whom female circumcision is traditional. Our modern culture overrides that, and they are not allowed to follow that tradition.So, in the O.P., what should the German courts consider? Modern German culture, or Middle-Eastern traditions? And if some refugees from Afghanistan arrive in America, and decide that one of their number should be stoned to death for adultery, will you be arguing for laws to be changed in order to accommodate their culture?And how can newborn babies have culture, let alone believe that circumcision is part of it?

But we are not talking about everything, rather about circumcision.Nothing else is even relevant.

Ah. Including culture?

And they're not the topic. Nor do the last two centuries have anything to do with what is right today. And this thread's not about those people.Try to be relevant.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Ah, another sophomore it seems.No, culture is relevant.Behaviors were what were being discussed, specifically circumcision.

Circumcisors and the circumcision lobby are definitely on topic. If the people who want to cut bits off other people's genitals didn't exist, the thread wouldn't exist. Try to learn what relevant means.

I haven't seen anyone provide any benefits of circumcision other than oni who cited the anecdote of the increased frequency of blowjobs.The medical associations tasked with providing guidance as to the benefits of circumcision have trouble finding these mysterious benefits also. Maybe you could inform us and them so we can all be on the same page.

I see, my last few message pertinent points have not been responded to; must be nobody has a valid responses, or what?Edited by Buzsaw, : change "the" to "my"

You are absolutely full of shit Jon! We would be equally as incensed by any kind of ritual mutilation regardless of body part.Your insistence on attributing sick motive to other people totally reveals just how BADLY lacking your arguments are.In this thread, you have consistently chosen bad reasoning and ad-hominem over honest debate.

Just like the clitoris right? You okay with that? I have asked multiple times now.What about if a parent doesn't like how the dice rolled and wants to do FULL gender re-assignment?You okay with that?Do parents have NO limitations on what unnecessary surgery they can do to their child?

Well, make up your mind. Yes. And what is your point? If culture is not a justification for any behaviour, then how would mentioning it on its own argue for the justification of a specific behaviour? Is that sad attempt at an insult because I questioned your statement that nothing other than circumcision was relevant when you'd clearly just brought up something other than circumcision?Edited by bluegenes, : missing word

Circumcision is the topic, but maybe you had not noticed.Each specific behavior should be judged within the context of the specific State, culture or society.There was no attempt at insult.

Who needs another benefit after that one? The. Ladies. Love. It - end of discussion.The medical association can take a hike on this one.- Oni