Summations Only

Ringo says: Cute, but a False analogy. No one has ever been born with a handgun. And you surely know that many Canadians have hand guns, rifles & knives. Likewise, at the other extreme, you might hyperbolically argue I argue that it is somewhere in between.I had a biology teacher in high school who had a twin brother. He was asked "What's it like being a twin?" He shrugged & said something like "I dunno - never had any other experience." (P.S. - he was RAZD's homeroom teacher.)Besides, the earliest experiences of infancy having an effect of major psychological proportion down the road are very poorly understood at this time. Things may yet come to light showing vast effects, positive & negative, I might venture to guess.

So should we ban everything that parents do that might cause some inconvenience in the future? Smoking? Going to church? Sunday drives?

How do you know the cleanliness issue is a myth?

Jon says: I would ask for documentation, but it doesn't matter here with something like 90% of Americans believing in some kind of a magical Sky God. That huge amounts of this country are being stupid is not an issue I would disagree with. You may want to rethink that. It makes a difference.

Irrelevant. A loss is not a loss unless you notice it. Donald Trump doesn't miss a nickel, whether he was born with one or not.

Sorry, I don't know how you connected the dots of what I wrote to that.I was talking about the definition of 'mutilation'.Some men are in fact mutilated (using Jon's criteria) by their circumcision and and argument can be made that all men are.We make risk versus reward scenarious every day. I let my son play soccer because the reward in terms of physical, emotional, and social development outweighs the risk of a sports injury. There is a purpose.The risk versus reward scenario for circumcision is very clear. There is no reason to do it and the risks are high enough, I argue, that it warrants that even making it permissible is wrong.We widely recognize that female circumcision is wrong and condemn it at the highest levels in our society. Yet there is some strange change in how we view it for males.The why seems pretty obvious. Culture and religion. Yet even that gets challenged by the relativists in this thread.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

CS asks: Because keeping clean is a separate issue that can be easily done.True - there are those parts of the world where there is not clean enough water or whatever, but in those cases to even proceed with this procedure would be very risky, medically.

Ringo says: I think every circumcised boy probably noticed it.Maybe you'd like to talk with Helen Keller?- nate

That's a very odd statement if you take it at face value.Common sense makes me know you don't take exactly what you said to cliched extremes like human sacrifice and other nonsense. So what exactly do you mean by this? And if you do indeed place a border on it, like I think you would, why then ''no such thing as a human right''? Not to mention the German ruling that places priority on a child's body is pretty much '' established by a State'', yet in this topic you made arguments that seem to be pro-circumcision.

When I was in Vanuatu (a Melanesian Pacific Island), I found out that boys were circumcised around the ages of 10-12 years old during their manhood/initiation rites. During their recovery they stayed in 'sacred huts' for a week or so. Not sure about the 'surgical' procedure they are using today, but the boys WERE cut, without anesthesia, using broken/sharpened seashells a fact that makes me, . . . ummm, . . . 'recoil' . . . in terror to this day!Anyways, . . . the women seemed to be horny little islanders. They were surprisingly outspoken FOR the ritual. They said they prefer the taste.

quote:

---

JERRY SEINFELD: Ever see one [uncircumcised penis]?
ELAINE: Ya.
JERRY SEINFELD: What'd you think?
ELAINE: (shakes her head) No, . . . had no face, no personality. It was like a martian. But that's just me.

---

Well, we can start with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
A quote from: Circumcision Policy Statement | Pediatrics | American Academy of Pediatrics Protection from urinary tract infections is 1% in baby boys unable to clean themselves. I don't think there is any other surgery you would have your child undertake to reduce their chances of getting sick by 1%, for a limited amount of time, when there are simpler and free alternatives.

My pediatrician told my parents to circumcise me so that it would be easier to keep the penis clean and avoid infections. You don't want bits of feces getting lodged up in there and its kind of a bitch to pull it back or swab it. I thought it was more about the kind of explosive shits that infants have that get all up in everything possible.

Some are scarred by their parents' smoking. Some are mentally scarred by being taken to church. Some are injured on Sunday drives. Should we ban everything that has the potential to harm our children? You don't get to decide for everybody what is a valid purpose and what is not. The only obvious difference is one of degree. It's like the difference between taking your child on a Sunday drive or deliberatey running over him.Edited by ringo, : Speling.

I doubt if many of them remember it a week later.

Little evidence to affirm it doesn't mean its wrong.And I'll go with this quote from your source:

quote:

---

In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

---

My pediatrician said to do it for cleanliness. It was my parents decision and they went with the doctor. Even without published scientific data, doctors make recommendations to their patients based on their own experiences. He was a good man and if he thought it was beneficial then I'll go with him. I don't think there was anything wrong done that anybody need to be blamed for. A surgery that almost everybody here does, that has been done forever, and that makes you more sexually appealing! Count me in