Summations Only

I agree with you in principle. I think where I may differ is in the pragmatics. It's going to be much more acceptable to people to eventually ban circumcision before they would ban ear piercing if ever.It's also a recognition that there is a real difference. No one should pretend that there is zero daylight between female circumcision, male circumcision, and ear piercing. There is a big difference in risk, pain, permanence, etc.

If your going to interject, please follow what CS and I were discussing. It was he who suggested that we would need a good reason to stop. Your reply makes no sense because I wasn't the one suggesting that we need a reason. I believe we have plenty of reasons to stop the practice. Well actually yes I did. You stopped responding to my posts about what constitutes mutilation and started being a troll and calling me a pedophile. Remember?We can go back to that if your would like but I think in need to insist you stop being such an asshole just because we are having a disagreement about something. CS and I are trying to get on the same page with respect to what we mean when we talk about circumcision. Our discussion is actually progressing which is a nice change for this thread. If you would like to assist with that, I believe the main point that was under discussion was what actually happens in the various forms of FGM, that there are different forms, and yes I do believe it is relevant to point out that the justification for both male and female mutilation come from the same cultural superstitions.

Moreover Jon, In fact I did that. I did exactly as you suggest IN THE MESSAGE you are replying to. See... What is your problem exactly?

Heck I remember them doing it themselves with a lighter and a sewing needle. For on thing at least, if there were some kind of restriction on ear piercings, I am sure the age of consent could be pretty dang low. Again given the issue of reversibility, risk, etc. Right. And the IRS won't fine you for paying your taxes late if they are under $1000. We draw lines in the sand in gray areas all the time. I think that is the point I am trying to make back to you.

Nearly all of which consist of you simply re-stating, and re-stating, and re-stating your opinion on the matter.What about the question of "Why"?The rest of us have provide justification our opinion as to why circumcision should be banned. But rather than even join a debate about those justification, or provide your own, you seem to be quite content to simply fill up this thread with your, "as simple as that" broken record of letting us all know what you think.Don't it get boring for you?Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

And you maintain no interest in defending that belief? Only repeating it?

Oh good. If you would please indulge me, which post(s) do you think best defended your opinion? I must have missed it which is not surprising given how fast his thread as moved. Please forgive me and kindly point me in the right direction.

Thanks jar, What harm is the state doing and to whom is it doing it to?Also, is the state currently causing harm by outlawing female circumcision?

What harm? Please enumerate the harm done to a parent by restricting their freedom to circumcise their child.

Somebody did. But you are saying we need a good reason to stop it.How about recognizing that circumcision didn't have any good reason for it to have BECOME such a widespread thing in the first place. Why is that not a good enough reason to stop? I have consistently said that FGM and male circumcision are different. Ear piercing is not comparable because its not the same although I will grant, and have to xong, that there are dilemmas there also.I don't think people normally have much of a problem distinguishing a penis from an earlobe or what functions those body parts have. For the few that do, I am sure there is an internet site somewhere for them.Both kinds of circumcision have their roots in dampening sexuality or masturbation, are non-reversable, and are scientifically unnecessary even when we go look for reasons.Ear piercing is entirely decorative, mostly reversable, and even though it is also unecessary, nobody tries to justify ear piercing for bogus reasons.See. Look. Comparing and contrasting. I agree it can. I am against both in principle, but because there are real differences the practical position would be get rid of circumcision for its own right, based on those very real similarities. I haven't, and I haven't seen anyone else, make the argument that we should ban male circumcision because it is exactly the same as the worst of FGM. Its not exactly the same especially with regards to severity, but it does have analogues as I have described and I believe the same justification for banning one applies to the other.They are both bad practice, based on bad reasons, that only harm children permanently when done routinely.

Well I was talking about your tendency to assign sick motives to people who disagree with you when you in the middle of loosing an argument.Just because you can be perfectly happy with it doesn't make you any less mutilated. It has a definition you know, YOU abandoned that discussion. I didin't start using the term FGM, CS did, as far as I can tell looking back at the history.So you tell me Jon, what words am I supposed to use? First you complain about me using the words female circumcision. I stopped doing that ON MY OWN ACCORD in the very post you complained about. NOW you seem to be complaining about the use of the term FGM.Furthermore, I am consistently said in this thread that those things do in fact refer to a range of procedures all the way from the mildly disturbing to the truly horrifying.Show me where I have been not clear on this issue. And if you think I am being off topic, stop replying to me. I wasn't talking to you I was talking to CS.

My argument has never been just that there is no good reason. There is no good reason PLUS the risk of the surgical procedure. My argument has always been about risk versus reward.We have, I hope, a virtue in this society where we think its not okay to cut off other people's body parts without their permission. We are even very explicit when it comes to certain body parts of female girls. I just think the exact same moral, logical, and scientific argument should apply to boys. Well thats great for you. But you aren't bothered by the fact that you didn't get a say?

Just a friendly FYI.A baby boy's foreskin actually adheres to the top of the penis. Getting diaper gunk in there is pretty much a non-issue. The foreskin detaches somewhere in their toddler years.One of the particularly painful parts of the procedure is not even necessarily the cutting, its ripping the foreskin off the shaft years and years before it is supposed to. Uncut boys who accidently rip it off (or have it ripped off by OCD parents) too soon can actually injure themselves pretty good. Not for babies. Its exactly the same. Kids maybe, but its a 5 second addition to a normal bathing routine.

Children are not the property of their parents and no one has suggested in this thread that parents should not remain in charge of their kid's well being with rather wide latitude. The only thing that has been suggested, is that ritual circumcision of boys be treated in exactly the same manner that have, correctly, treated the ritual circumcision and mutilation of girls. We outlawed it.Why? The same reason why we do not allow parents to beat a child to within an inch of its life, give a child illegal drugs, lock a child in a basement for their entire lives, or force them to marry their uncle. Parental rights have limits which end at common sense boundaries that protects society as a whole.Someone could have taken the banner of trying to claim that male circumcision has some benefit and if you look out at other debates and on the internet, you will see that there are many who have tried to argue this. It is telling that very few in this thread decided to try that line of argument. It is because there is no benefit for circumcision that can be identified that would make it worth the risk of doing it as has been shown by our many medical associations who have examined this issue.Circumcision is genital mutilation, done for ritualistic purposes, embeded into our society from another age where people thought that masturbation was going to cause the collapse of civilization and could be treated with corn flakes.Unfortunatly, it is probable that it won't be outlawed due to how prevasive it is. Its end will likely only come as parents realize that don't need to subject their baby boys to this barbarism.Edited by Jazzns, : Finished the post.