Summations Only

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

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

From what I understand, female circumcision is done to remove the pleasure aspect of sex from the women to inhibit her from having pre-marital sex so she can marry as a virgin, and to inhibit her from wanting to cheat on her future husband.For THESE reasons, do you still believe there is a credible comparable parallel to a man being circumcised?

Questions that once again, have nothing to do with that I was talking about which was the definition of mutilation. Your right. I never said I did. But society does have that right through our democratic processes and I am simply advocating for the position that infant circumcision should be outlawed for all non-medical purposes.Just like how we outlaw smoking in public, driving too fast on our roads, and failing to give children a civil education. WE DO get to decide. I think your analogy is wrong. Both circumcision practices involve the medically unnecessary excision of a human being unable to consent. I cannot connect the dots to the different between taking a ride in a car and being run over. Your just not making any sense.

Well we generally don't prohibit people from doing things based on risks. We just try to make the stuff they do safer. Only someone who is otherwise psychologically impaired misses something as trivial as a foreskin, especially when they never had it to begin with.

The political tap dance that the AAP and other groups do around the issue is unfortunate. If they were to take the same stance that we have against female circumcision there would be an outcry and public pressure for them to retract it.Changing minds is a slow processes.If you want to have a cut dick to impress women, I am all for it! You want it pierced, tatooed, split down the middle, go for it! But it should be your choice as consenting individual.

You questioned me and I clarified. Yes.But I don't think cultural naivety based on that very same religion, or just plain ignorance as I described rescues the situation.

There's plenty of medical procedures done on children that they don't consent to. Many of them, like, say, immunizations, are ones that you don't want to wait until they can consent to do. In my case, circumcision was the same way. My doctor and parents saw a benefit that was not worth waiting for my consent on. It was done at infancy because that's when you're shitting your pants and having trouble keeping it clean. Waiting until the age of concent removes all the reasons for doing it.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : apalling spalling

I don't agree that the majority has a right to infringe on the freedom of minorities - especially on such minor matters as circumcision. Those are clear and present dangers. Circumcision isn't in the same league. Both driving practices involve the use of a motor vehicle to put a child at unnecessary risk.

There is unfortunatly a variety of kinds of female circumcision that I will readily admit are NOT comparable.That being said, they are both an unnecessary practice involving children unable to consent.Its hard to study sexual satisfaction, but there is some indication, not the least of which involves the obvious physiological removal of nerves, that men can and do suffer loss of sexual pleasure as a result. I don't have them handy but there are also claims that some of the original purpose was to inhibit sexual activity of males including masturbation.So yea, I do believe it is reasonable to compare.

Hey, to impress women, I had mine pierced, tatooed, split down the middle, and have little dancing bears come out on the hour to chime my balls.Amazing what you have to do to compete with the multi-billion dollar entertainment business these days.(If Oni isn't going to do any dick jokes, somebody has to)Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

Do you forget so easily your own arguments? You asked: "And what of the few who HAVE had impaired use, disability, or destruction, or even death as a result?"Ringo's point, and mine in my other post, is that there are many things that parents force on their children that have no degree of necessity whatsoever and are every bit as risky if not more so than circumcision.Your argument cuts both ways and all ways.If we outlaw circumcision on the basis that it somehow a risky procedure for which there is no established medical necessity, then we outlaw everything else risky and medically unnecessary: going to church, Sunday drives, etc.Many decisions that parents make involve opening their children up to risks, and those decisions don't always involve medically necessary procedures. Yet you rally on about circumcision. While earlier the accusation was made that those in favor of letting parents choose were special pleading the case of circumcsion, it is more clear now that it is those who support a ban on infant circumcision who are the ones doing the special pleading.Getting their panties all wadded up just because this risk and procedure involves peepees. But that's a function of their own attitude toward sexuality, and they, quite honestly, have no fucking right whatsoever to shove their stupid-ass, prudish beliefs down everyone else's throat.So grow up and get over it.Jon

Really? Thats news to me.And you are not taking into account the notion of risk TO OTHER PEOPLE. Namely, the children being mutilated.We do in fact restrict people from doing things on these ground all the time. A good example is smoking in public/businesses. Personally missing foreskin is not the same thing as being impared. If I was born without my pinky finger I may not miss it, but I would be impared. We were talking about the definition of mutilation, which you started to argue about if I recall.Foreskin has function, removing it impares that function. The personal importance of that function to the individual is irrelevant. They are not given a choice in the matter. That is what the argument is about.

I am only aware of the type I previously wrote about. What are the others?

Sure. But as I have said consistently in this thread, it is a risk-vs-reward situation. The risk-vs-reward scenario for vaccines comes heavily down on the side of vaccines. It comes down so heavily in favor of vaccines that one could argue that it is child abuse NOT to vaccinate children.If there was a clear, straight forward, evidenced based, and effective intervention based on circumcision, I would have to re-evaluate my position.But there is not.