CircumcisionFollow

False argument. Who here said circumcision is medically necessary? The most that was said is that there's some degree of protection against infections and STDs from it. Of course it's not necessary; that doesn't mean it should be banned.

Funny, people are saying the same about male and female circumcision. You decided you're the sole arbiter of what's mutilation now?

Not at all. I was questioning the notion that we were going to start throwing the word "mutilation" around without any agreed upon definition. I would say the physical effects upon my cousin were much more dramatic than the effects of a standard circumcision but you seem to think that it doesn't count as mutilation.

I could make the same analogies towards myself.

I have a condition called Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita. Amongst other things I was born with clubbed feet and severely limited use of my hands. I underwent surgeries from the time I was 18 months old until I was 15, to give me the ability to walk, run, use a pen, type and almost everything other people can do.

The surgeries were very invasive and have left me with numerous scars. Likewise with your cousin, I wouldn't consider this to be mutilation, because they were necessary for me to live a 'normal' life.


Circumcision, on the other hand, as I've said above, is not necessary to live a 'normal' life. Also, as I said above, the benefits gained can be achieved by other means, without the need for surgery. This is why I would classify it as genital mutilation. It is unnecessary. I would consider most cosmetic surgery to be mutilation, too, by the way. All though most people arrive at that decision by themselves, it's not forced upon them by a parent or guardian.

Why do it at birth, rather than waiting for that man to be able to make the choice for himself? Is he at risk of having sex before he's mature enough to make that decision?

From my perspective it's your ***** that looks funny. I don't think there's a non-Jewish/Muslim state outside of the US where circumcision is the norm.

Neonatal circumcision offers more benefits and less risks than adult circumcision. Prevention of penile cancer, for example, is observed only in neonatal circumcision cases. Likewise, healing is much quicker and risk of scarring and infection is much less.

No.

For that matter the ******** may have played a more beneficial role in our pre-loincloth days that overshadowed its potential drawbacks.

Anyway, no one is suggesting that having a ******** means you'll be riddled with disease and complications. Circumcision is more a "quality of life" issue.

I suppose the absence of a ********, even if it did make the species more survivable, isn't a trait that could be bred in/out or smaller or bigger.

Foreskins are part of the Axis of Evil.

Something like that.