Summations Only

A thread on this was begun over at FA, where I have been participating heavily: Religious circumcisions are crimes says (German) courtI have to agree with jar on this.

There are a lot of permanent body modifications that I find perfectly acceptable for parents to do to their childrenear piercing, for example.And a foreskin is just that: a foreskin. So what if the parents want to cut it off their kids? It does no more harm than many of the other sixty five gazillion decisions parents make for their kids during their childhood. I think you have foreskin envy.

Invasive? Do you know what a foreskin is?And what does it matter what the child wants? We don't live in a societyhell, we don't even live in a worldwhere infants get put in charge of their own medical care. Even up to adolescence, almost all medical decisions are made for the child by their parents. And sometimes even the parents don't get to have a say (kids having to get physicals and shots to enter certain grade levels in school, for example).We simply don't live in a world where children are given say in how they are to be medically treated.Whether a child wants or doesn't want a medical procedure matters not one bit.You are living in a fantasy universe if you think otherwise.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

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.

A healthy dose of misinformation that is.

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?

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.

Plenty of cultures tattoo children.It's really a non-issue.

Evidence? If they really hate who they are so much, they can have one made.But I really can't imagine anyone hating that they are circumcised except for people with other underlying psychological disorders.Psychologically healthy people are happy with who they are. No. They're children.

And it's not for me or you to decide whether or not they should.

Really? That's why people circumcise their kids? To keep the religious leaders in power happy?You have spoken to every parent who ever circumcised their child...And this is what you have found to be true?Really? Obviouslymore Americans are circumcised than not.But the need for lubricant has nothing to do with whether there is a foreskin or not.

My apologies. I thought you were speaking in a general sense of permanently marking a child for purposes of identification.Intentionally burning children is considered a no-no in this locale.Jon

I would ask for documentation. And I'm going to.

So you agree that it is done for reasons aside from religion?