Summations Only

Circumcision is in no way a form of mutilation. Removing a child's tonsils when not necessarily would be more mutilative to children. It's is a Biblical procedure for a good purpose. It is to tone down a child's desire for sex before maturity. It likely lessens criminal rape incidents, etc,God commanded his messianic nation, the Jews to have this done on the eighth day. Providentially, the eighth day is the day when the proceedure is the less painful and heals the quickest. This is just another evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record.We had our boys circumcised, though we are not Jewish, since we knew there had to be a good reason to have it done or God wouldn't have required it of the Jews.History attests to the fact that Jews, for the most part are a special people, capable of great feats, though they are a very tiny nation. The have a way of acquiring wealth, protecting themselves and surviving for centuries of dispersion globally. Circumcision, likely is just one of many reasons they are superior to Gentiles in many ways.The child gets his first corporal spanking at birth, rendering no harm, yet our laws forbid parents, teachers and principals to apply this effective way of correcting bad behavior. Government meddles in too many things which should apply to parents.Baby rights pertaining to matters as trivial as circumcision is as non-sensical as pet rights.

I've read all of the responses to my last message, narry a one containing any substance significant for a response from me, except the unsupportable belief that some babies have died from this alone.FYI, hospitals these days do not wait 8 days. My two boys were circumcised at birth, with no adverse effects and certainly no significant amount of bleeding. Of course, they were immediately coddled and observed by my wife and I. Other than some short lived crying, nothing significant at all.Hospitals do this as an accomodation to parents who see it's benefits. Certainly, if there were all this so called mutulation and death etc, our hospitals and MD's nor law inforcement would have none of it.One definite benefit is to the woman in intercourse. Body contaminants accumilate underneath the foreskin. Likely, often males who are not careful to keep these cleaned out would contaminate their partner in intercourse inside of her. Circumcised organs would not have this problem.

We all have our opinions. The author's opinion, also, is just that - an opinion. What are the facts, supported by evidence, in any of this? So far, I've read of none.

Can you cite one bonafide example of lunatics having purposely caused injury or death via circumcision? How about an example of a circumcision which has not been performed, exacting a precisely shaped cut on the infant with 99.98% accuracy.

Divine revelation, since the eighth day would require nothing.

Banned?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have yet to establish that circumcision mutilates a child. You have yet to refute the cited benefits of circumcision.

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"