Summations Only

I didn't claim that it was. This is just your traditional practice of being disingenuous, unfortunately. I didn't make any of these arguments, either. Try to keep up, Jon!

See it with your own eyes, then. Where is the foreskin on the penis on the right?

Circumcision of females generally has nothing to do with the vagina, and those that do affect it, do not 'destroy' it (sometimes it's narrowed or otherwise modified, but never destroyed - women are for making babies after all). A nitpick, I know.Just so I'm clear, would you be OK with infant female prepuce removal at the consent of a parent and their doctors?The WHO estimates that 18% of these procedures are carried out by healthcare providers. These people probably strongly believe this is a decision between them and their doctors (and maybe some important relatives). But why?I mean I presume you agree that society has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of its children, so really it's a matter of drawing a line. Do you have any reason for drawing it where you do? Anecdotal evidence from doctors led us to circumcise women for mental health problems and to castrate men that were caught masturbating.I'm not sure those were fun times.A single doctor versus American Academy of Pediatrics, The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Canadian Paediatric Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Central Union for Child Welfare in Finland etc.I'm sure there are groups of doctors who are pro circumcision but I couldn't find any. If your doctor advises you to circumcise your son as a matter of routine, they may well be going against the consensus of their peers either medically or ethically.In a country where circumcision at the parent's discretion is legal, a doctor should be advising 'While there are some benefits to circumcision, they are small and there are associated risks and reported drawbacks. It is generally not recommended to do it unless there are clear and particular benefits, which in this case there are not.'

Of course it's impossible to ask an unnamed doctor anything, but the evidence that Jazzns and others have produced make it pretty clear that doctors are performing the procedure - often without anybody's consent, including the parents - without being able to articulate any medical reason at all beyond "well, that's just what we do."CS has put forth the position that even though no medical rationale has been identified, that doesn't mean that there isn't one. But medical procedures can't be justified by nonexistent justification - no credit is given for arguments that aren't being made. The burden of evidence is on those who support the widespread practice of amputating a completely functional and normal part of the penis, without the consent of those undergoing the amputation.That alone justifies an immediate end to the procedure. Amputations with no stated justification? If it were happening to anyone other than infant males, and to any other organ but the penis - say, a practice of having the pinky toe or the earlobe removed at birth - the process would be decried as a brutality. What's so special about circumcision that we should grant it the exemption from scrutiny that you and Jon are so desperate to defend?

Irrelevant. The question was about "disfigure".

We've been through that already. You're getting boring. The parent has both the right and the responsibility to make individual choices on behalf of the child until the child is capable of making those individual choices on his own. It's like the power of attorney. It's no less individual just because it's being done on behalf of an individual.

There's an implied consent for the doctor to do what he usually does. Parents ought to be responsible enough to consult with their doctor beforehand if they have strong feelings pro or con circumcision.

So we started the practice with no justification but now we need a justification to stop? How does that make sense whatsoever? So now its only on the doctor? The cultural practice alone isn't enough? Thats besides the point that there have been doctors who advocate for the chelation.What is it exactly about this magical doctors stamp of approval that make a ritualistic incursion into a child's physiology okay? No. I am uncomfortable with it but since it is pretty much reversable and far more minor in comparison, I would be hard pressed to make an equivalent argument.Look, there is a continuium of things a parent can do to a kid. Somewhere on that continuium I believe there is a line which should stop allowing things. For me, ear piercing and circumcision fall on opposite sides of the line and I believe my argument justifies that opinion.Additionally, no one is making any particular claims about the medical benefits of ear piercing. So either you or I are vastly misinformed about what constitues female circumcision. It can range from only removing the clitoral hood to clitorectomy to also cutting off the labia. So yea, there is different extremes of it. If you think that description is wrong then perhaps you should clarify what you think a female circumcision is. ANd what about no evidence? What if a parent just wants to do this for no reason other than their culture or religion? Or is a doctors note required for you? I have no idea what you are talking about regarding 'scraping off the entire vagina'. Not trying to be offensive here but you may want to brush up on your female anatomy.Lets back up to just a clitorectomy. What about that? It can likely be done just as safely as a male circumcision and has its original justification for the exact same reasons. If a doctor has a bogus reason based on his "practice" is that an okay enough reason for you to allow it?

I don't see the phrase "in favor" in the extract that you quoted from me. You've certainly been attempting to defend the practice. You mean that you were fully conscious when you contradicted yourself?

Good. Then perhaps you can explain why you brought those things up. Then why did you bring up that crap about CPS and science fiction novels?

You should probably address your arguments, then, toward people who 'support the [supposedly] widespread practice' of circumcision.Folk like Buz and oni (though I think he's just messin' around).No one else in this thread supports circumcision.

No, I have not been defending the practice.Please learn to read.

Of course we don't need a justification to stop. No one is asking you to justify your decision to not circumcise your male children.If the entire country stopped circumcising their infant males tomorrow, no one in this thread would demand justification for people making that decisionBuz and oni being possible exceptions. In comparison to circumcision?No one has yet provided any evidence to support the often repeated claim that circumcision is a major procedure that 'disfigures' or 'mutilates'. Nothing at all; except, of course, the oft-repeated claim. Don't you know? Guys love a girl with pierced ears like chicks love guys with cut dicks.Have you read any of oni's posts? The reason there is confusion is because 'circumcision' is a term meant to refer specifically to the excision of foreskin from the penis and its application to the female genitalia is loose, vague, and by personal discretion. In other words, if it's a clitorectomy you want to discuss, talk about a clitorectomy. Don't call it 'female circumcision'because it's obviously difficult for people to pin down exactly what you're talking about. We aren't talking about 'original justifications'. Stop trying to bring other people's arguments into the discussion.Jon

Yes, you have been defending the practice. Defending what you perceive as the right of others to circumcise is defending the practice. Please, learn to understand your own ramblings and their implications.

No it's not. Stop being a disingenuous tit.