Summations Only

Again. Why is it either based on religion or ignorance?You don't think there are people who circumcise their children for purely non-religious reasons and in full understanding of the possible benefits and medical risks?Casting everyone who circumcises their children as superstitious ignorant Jews doesn't help get your point across.It only serves to confirm what those of us on the other side of the fence already know: you just be hatin', man.And to be honest, seeing anyone so passionately concerned about someone else's kid's dick is just disturbing.Let people be. The decision isn't yours to make.Jon

There is no such minority right as the permission to do what you want to your children. Parental discretion is VERY wide but it does have limits. I am simply arguing that this is one of them.As for the rest of your argument, we are so far off the same page I don't even know what to say to you. Sorry.

Well this topic IS about circumcision.

And to the people who are comfortable in utelizing the procedure based on anecdotal recommendations from their doctor?Who are you to tell them they can't do it because you're not convinced that its worth it?

Nothing you said has anything to do with the subtopic, that you brought up, which was challenging my definition of mutilation.If you and ringo think that the freedom to take a sunday drive is the same as the freedom to slice off body parts, then I cannot concieve of anything I could say that can talk you down from that position.

Some only remove the clitoral hood. Others involve full clitorectomy. Still other involve cutting of the labia.I would fully agree, that a clitorectomy is not the same thing as what we are considering as male circumcision for the purposes of the discussion.What some cultures do to their women is truly horrifying.

Of course there is. It's the one you're trying to revoke. Parents have the right and the responsibility to decide, in collaboration with medical practitioners, what's best for their children's health. There's no fundamental difference between that right and the right to decide, in collaboration with religious practitioners, what's best for their children's souls.

I have never advocated for it being my decision. But I do believe that society can enforce parental responsibility and reasonably so.We do so with regards to education, excessive discipline, neglect, etc.I am simply advocating that this should be included. Genital mutilation of all children should be outlawed for non-medical indications.I understand that you disagree, but frankly implying that have some interest in the dicks of other people's kids is not only not convincing, is not an argument, and a bullshit response of someone who can't have a rational discussion.

Jazzns, that is one of the funniest juxtapositions I have ever read on this forum.

But they don't count as 'other people', as others have already pointed out to you. Because those harmed are other people. Children aren't 'other people'. I never started to argue about it. What I started to 'argue' about was your application of the word 'mutilation' to the procedure of circumcision, which doesn't meet any of the criteria to qualify it as a mutilation despite your repeated insistence that it is. What 'individual'? I thought we were talking about children. Who cares? It's a function no one circumcised at birth misses (unless, as I've already mentioned, they are psychologically disturbed). Can you chart a circumcised man's life and an uncircumcised man's life and show me just exactly how the former's life was 'impaired' ?Can you tell a circumcised man from an uncircumcised man? Which man in the below photo is circumcised? How can you tell? What horrible, devastating, and obvious impairment made it so easy for you to spot the man without a foreskin?I'm dying to know how you do it!

I am nobody. I am just one person. I am simply making an argument for a common sense, science based restriction of the mutilation of unconsenting children. I simply hope that someday, society stops with the double standard which seems mostly to do with cultural and religious reasons.

Factoid: More people are killed in car accidents than by circumcisions.(My condolences on you lack of imagination. )

No, I am sorry, I meant for what other reasons is female circumcision done. I mentioned the virgin and cheating reasons. Any others? Yes, seriously, it is sometimes beyond horrifying. Did you catch the Nat Geo magazine article about Afghan child brides. About six months, one year ago? There are graphic photos. It made me want to cry.

Guess I just dislike the idea of a society where the majority can take away rights from the minority simply because it suits them to do so. And yet you still offer no convincing evidence for why circumcision should be regarded as 'mutilation'.

Well no, not you all by yourself. But if you're supporting outlawing it then you're saying that you have the right to tell people they can't do it. You not being convinced of the benefit is not a good reason for that. I don't think its mutilation nor that the children need to consent. But doctors do recommend it for non-cultrual and non-religious reasons.