Summations Only

Hmh, I coulda swore the vagina contained the vulva... oh well. On the street, 'vagina' means that whole mess down there Yeah, I think so. That's what I'm familiar with and that's how I like it. It seems to be well thought out and works just fine. I don't see any good reason to move it from where it is. Scientific consensus has lead to bad times too. I only clicked on the 'American' links But they seem to agree with me:

quote:

---

...parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

---

quote:

---

...parents should be given very complete information about circumcision so that they can make an informed decision...

---

. I don't have any children. When I asked my mother why I was circumcized, she said that my doctor recommended it for cleanliness. When you're wearing diapers all the time and shitting your pants, you can get bits of feces stuck under the foreskin and it can get infected. Its easier to keep the penis clean if the foreskin is removed. Since we wear clothes n'stuff, so you don't really need it.I don't mean to be telling people that they should be circumcizing their kids and I don't have any problem with people who want to stop doing it, or even people who want to try to convince other people to stop doing it. I'm just against outlawing it. The doctors should be advising what they believe is best for the individual in the particular case. I wouldn't advocate turning them into droids that recite stock phrases like that.

So - still no answer.I'll ask again, just in case you ever feel the urge to debate honestly:
Shouldn't individuals be afforded the personal choice of whether to have their penises circumcised or not?{abe}
Actually, don't bother.
You clearly can't answer a simple question.
Asking you to do the impossible just "annoys the pig".Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I'm sure we're all glad to know what you "would have said" but you're missing the point. Where does society stop in its quest to protect children from their parents? Do we ban mothers from dressing their kids funny? Do we ban fathers from embarassing their teenagers?Or do we just mind our own damn business on matters that do no significant harm?

Huh? We didn't start it.. No, its not only the doctor. Its the parents decision and they should be following their doctors advice. That's just how we do medicine 'round here. Okay, and I don't think we should be comparing male circumcision to FGM. It could be better I think your argument could be used against ear piercing too. I misspoke about the vagina. I was thinking vulva. To me, Female Genital Mutilations is an African practice of removing most of the vulva... sometimes with a rock... just scraping the labia off. It fucking barbaric and terrible. I don't think that should be being compared to circumcision.If there's also female circumcision, where the clitoral hood is trimmed back or something, then I'm not sure about that one. I guess I'd have to hear the doctors case for why it should be done. I haven't seen a justification for outlawing that either tho. Required by law? I dunno. I think people should be consulting doctors for medical decisions. I don't think the particular reasoning of the parents is all that improtant as long as the child isn't being harmed. Yeah, I did. As I said to Mod, on the street "vagina" just means that whole mess down there. I should have typed "vulva". Chopping the whole clit off? No. Trimming the hood back? I suppose that could be justified, but I'd want to talk to the doctor recommending it.

No, an individual that is still an infant should not be afforded the choice of whether or not they will be circumcised.It really is that simple.

So now you're going to legislate objectivity? Good luck with that. As I already said, my parents didn't have my brothers circumcised for religious reasons. And it hasn't been established that there's any abuse.

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?

In the case of malpractice, the parents have the right to sue the doctor. We're talking about infants, remember? When you're talking to your doctor before the birth, you should ask him, "Oh, by the way, do you circumcise?" He might reply, "I do recommend it but it's entirely up to the parents." Then you say, "Well, whatever you think is best."If the doctor says, "Well, I usually change the baby's sex but it's entirely up to the parents," you might want to shop around for a different doctor. He'd have more room in his pockets for all of the money from the lawsuit.

Harm is being done to every parent whose freedom is restricted.Female circumcision is an entirely different subject and irrelevant to this thread.

Maybe English isn't your first language. You're misconstruing the use of the word "individual" in this thread.An infant is in no way considered a decision-making "individual" (or other word of your choice) under the law. That's why we have expressions like "age of consent". You can't legally consent to having sex before age X, so anybody who has sex with you before that age can be charged with statutory rape. Similarly, you cannot consent to medical procedures (or even religious rituals) before age Y. Somebody has to make the decsion for you. The question is, should those decisions be made by the parents or the dictator?Edited by ringo, : Speling.Edited by ringo, : More pelling.

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

I'm sorry but that question makes absolutely no sense.The harm is that yet another parental right has been restricted.

That's nice, crash.There's apparently no connection to the topic, and you are apparently unwilling to provide one. But I guess we all know how this ends, don't we? Fifty posts devoted to you trying to weasel out of your argument with empty appeals to your 'integrity' in debate.Have fun with that. You can count me out.

Ringo writes: Exactly. Yes, yes. I agree. So let's just wait until I reach age Y. How about NONE OF THE ABOVE? Why does anybody have to make the decision for me? Why can't the whole shebang just be postponed until I reach age of consent Y? Anytime you can wait with nobody really getting hurt, you should wait until the individual, upon reaching the age of consent Y, can make the decision for himself. There is no need to make any decision when the individual is still only an infant.

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.