Summations Only

No, I stand for the position that circumcision is not Genital Mutilation.It really is that simple.

But it is not only that. You go further to suggest that because it is not genital mutilation, that is is therefore okay to inflict upon little boys.The claim that it is not genital mutilation is laughable. It is by definition genital mutilation. It is simply a specific kind of genital mutilation that you happen to be okay with, apparently as long as we call it by another word.If using the tools of modern medicine we are able to make female circumcision as "risk free" as male circumcision, would you support allowing that practice?

Circumcision is not mutilation by any reasonable and standard definition of the term 'mutilation'.Just because people call it 'genital mutilation' doesn't mean it is actually a form of mutilation.

Correct, since circumcision is not genital mutilation it is none of my business and should be left up to the parents and their doctors.That would depend on the specific female procedure and once that was determined then I would decide if I considered it mutilation or not.In general though my position is that unless a very compelling reason can be shown to outlaw any procedure that it is simply none of my business and should be left entire up to the family and their doctors.

We should be allowed to tattoo are children too?
How about breast implants for 10 year olds?Either we allow parents to permanently mutilate their children or we don't.
I prefer that we don't.But I guess that's just an atheist's point of view.

A healthy dose of misinformation that is.

On Tattoos, I have no opinion and so believe that should be left up to the parents and their doctors.On breast implants for 10 year olds...see above.I believe that I am not qualified to make judgements about what other folk do, but maybe that is only a humanists point of view.

And so far the arguments for in this thread have mostly been either dismissive or semantic.If not calling it genital mutilation makes you feel better about it then fine. But its not convincing.People know what genitals are.
People know what mutilation means.Redefine all you want...

You are welcome to think that. But your not doing youself any favors in terms of convincing anyone else. You essentially admit that you are making a semantic argument. Amazing. How about removal of the clitoral hood, one of the tamer versions of female circumcision. The one most akin to male circumcision. Would you be okay with that if the risks were the same as male circumcision? What about branding? Would you be okay with parents branding their kids for religious reason? What about slicing off the pads of their fingertips? Okay with you? Neither of those things would leave a kid disfunctional and done properly would be very low risk.What conditions do you have before something, anything is considered child abuse that society has a vested interest in stopping?

Wow, compelling counter point Jon.I understand that some people try to make cases for it on health grounds but there is currently no clear indication in terms of risk-vs-reward in the medical community currently.But I see instead of even going down that road, potentially enjoining an interesting discussion, you would rather go with, "Nu-uh!"Interesting choice.

Clearly not. Because there is nothing in removing a foreskin that 'mutilates' a male.

quote:

---

mutilate from Wiktionary:

​

1. To physically harm as to impair use, notably by cutting off or otherwise disabling a vital part, such as a limb.
2. To destroy beyond recognition.

---

Does being circumcised impair a man's use of his penis by cutting off a vital part of it?Does circumcision destroy a penis beyond the point of recognition?No and no.Circumcision doesn't even come close to meeting the basic criteria for being classified as 'mutilation'. Arguments for what?

Well first, I would need to be convinced that it is child abuse. Again, that should be left up to the parents and their doctors. It really is none of my business. Yup, okay with me. Those seem really none of my business.

Parents do 'brand' their kids actually. Not any for religious reasons that I am aware of, but I do have a cousin who was given a permanent birth mark when she was born to distinguish her from her identical twin.Do some research before shooting your mouth.

Huh?You said: "There is no reason to do it other than as a brutish old age superstition about making a war god happy."To which I replied "A healthy dose of misinformation that is."Do you really think the only reason people have their children/get circumcised is out of 'a brutish old age superstition about making a war god happy'? Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Don't you think a child has a right not to be tattooed against their will?