So according to your point of view, we shouldn't get piercing, tattoos, esthetic surgery, make up, etc.

Did you tried?

you'll discover later by yourself that the purpose is to make it harder

Probably the real reason why it's so popular in the US.

While I can respect your view, Nil (which you have shared with us in many posts in this thread), your argumentation is a bit ridiculous at times imo.

Babies don't get pierced or tattooed at birth. Grown-ups decide for themselves about such things. So it should be with circumcision imo.

But, my dear, I can say the same about your silly arguments.

Pssst, yes IMO, babies get piercing at birth in MANY differents cultures. You should do yourself a favor and do some research before to talk and critised other's views...

Happy reading

http://www.drmomma.org/2010_07_01_archive.html
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/06/cost-...cumcision.html
http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/funct...rposes-of.html
http://www.drmomma.org/2009/08/prote...on-expert.html

To quote a wise man.. "It is like a babies arm holding an apple"

CK

It is a bit difficult to take this person seriously when the first thing he/she does is to compared the circumcision with the female genital mutilation....

@CheesyKiwi: Thanks for the links.

@Nil: Let's just say I oppose any irreversible mutilation of healthy babies, no matter if male, female, what kind or which culture.

Nope. They never do...

Sigh...

@Carlos R: This is 99.9% reversible. If she doesn't like it she'll take it out and it will be pretty much as if it never happened. You can't say that about the missing foreskin, can you?

But I can see that many here will defend their circumcised penises to death.
Maybe I'd do the same if I was circumcised.
I can see that it's hard to admit that something is wrong when you didn't make the decision yourself and can't do a thing to reverse it now.
Maybe that's the real reason why this thread will never end.

But in practise it surely won't be reversed. And stop sighing as if you're the only one in the world who sees the light. We have hospitals for people who think that.

Sigh, another mistake (on your part) based on (incorrect) assumptions by you. I'm a Cavalier. Ho hum. Carry on.

Well, in all fairness, they can both involve cutting off what is or would be in an adult a nerve rich section of genitalia for reasons of culture and tradition. Now I'll be the first to agree that many sorts of FGM are significantly worse than circumcision. But this is a bit like saying that stealing $10 is ok because it isn't stealing $1000.

From an anatomic point of view, the labia and the foreskin serve similar protective roles, and they are also both far more sensitive than plain skin. Are you sure that you are evaluating circumcision and FGM with the same eyes?

Nah, it's more like saying that getting hit in the face is getting hit in the face, whether it's by a stiff Autumn breeze or by a shotgun blast.

Seems logic is taking a big hit on this thread.

Well certain self-thinking people find barbaric behaviours justififed by silly religious notions illogical.

Just because your perverse logic is taking a hit, doesn't mean logic itself is.

Your moniker is well suited.

Your only logic seems to be that it simply isn't a big deal. And in some sense perhaps it isn't. But when people say that I tend to wonder if they've actually researched, say, the reported sensitivity of them.

When I was 10 and first heard about circumcision I assumed that my parents hadn't done it to me because I couldn't imagine them doing something so stupid. I was wrong, and if they thought that they were doing something that I would want, then they were (very) wrong. This was one of the first times that I was forced to admit to myself the fallibly of my parents.

I finally decided that if this is the worse mistake your parents make, then you are blessed. But it took time for me to come around to this point of view. My opinion of the practice itself has only gone downhill since then.

The ethic guideline "it is wrong to cut healthy bits off of babies unless it is a foreskin" sounds off to me. I think it sounds much better without the "unless" clause.

Please explain.

Please keep it civilized.
Also, that's an incorrect interpretation of my sigh.
It was the "why do I get involved in a discussion about a very loaded topic that I don't even care much about (unless someone tries to do it to my future children) with people that I don't know that can't just accept my opinion but constantly try to attack me on a Tuesday night when I really have better thing to do"-sigh.

I never said you were circumcised.

Why can't you let your children decide with 16 or 18 what they want to happen to their body?

The logic I see in this is...
"Physical manipulation" of a child is "physical manipulation" to whatever degree, the effects in the future life of that child can of course vary but it is still sick to think it should be done for any other reason than the childs own direct wellbeing.
Nobody seems to consider the psychological effects of that manipulation simply becaue they don't recognise them....
I may be unusual in being able to remember clearly things that I experienced as a child of 18months but I doubt that I am the only 1.....
If I had been circumcised I am sure I would have remembered it as being an extremely uncomfortable experience..... or I would have blocked it because of the negative experience it would have been..... a psychological effect would still remain....

Just for clarification did you mean renegade not cavalier, or did you mean cavalier as opposed to roundhead , or cavalier as in cavalier attitude towards sex?

Because with any fanatical, barbaric behaviour, you know if you let the individual decide based on rationality, they won't do it. Best to nip it while you can. These are the same people who will criticise the cultural traditions of others as barbaric, who do so for the same illogical reasons of religion/tradition.