Consent Bill Would Make Male Circumcision a Personal Choice

[star2589]

Bill proposals in Congress and 16 states would protect male infants and boys from forced circumcision. (http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/1/emw496289.htm)

San Diego, CA (PRWeb) January 9, 2007 -- Nearly 3,000 federal and state lawmakers received proposed legislation via email, fax, and postal mail this week that would require men to be eighteen years old before undergoing circumcision. The bill proposals were submitted to lawmakers in Congress and sixteen state legislatures by members of MGMbill.org, a San Diego based health and human rights group.

Matthew Hess, the group’s president, said that MGMbill.org’s proposed legislation is designed to give men control over their own bodies. "Although some men may prefer to be circumcised, there are at least as many men who resent that part of their penis was amputated without their permission. Enactment of the MGM Bill would address this injustice by letting men make their own choices about circumcision when they become adults."

Male circumcision is the only medically unnecessary surgery in the USA that is performed without obtaining consent from the patient. The latest statistics from the National Hospital Discharge Survey indicate that nearly 60% of U.S. newborn males are still being circumcised, down from an estimated high of 85% in the 1960s. Circumcision and genital cutting of girls has been prohibited since 1997 when the U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act took effect, but that law does not apply to boys.

Text of Bill (http://www.mgmbill.org/usmgmbill.htm)


what are your thoughts on this? Protection of a fundamental human right? Government intrusion into medicine?

[Wolfcounsel]

It means less money for doctors, that's for sure. It's a needless operation, and 18-year-olds will have a painful time healing if they choose to undergo circumcision.

[CountryGent]

Sure glad to see the politicians worrying about the well-being of foreskin now........:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[star2589]

Sure glad to see the politicians worrying about the well-being of foreskin now........:rolleyes::rolleyes:

why shouldn't it? tatoos and piercings anywhere but the ears are illegal on minors in most states, and most people agree that its not right to perform unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a minor without their consent. why should foreskins be treated any differently?

[Rhino]

Sanitary.

[DoctorDoom]

why shouldn't it? tatoos and piercings anywhere but the ears are illegal on minors in most states ...How about on mental midgets?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Strange/Uglies.jpg

[Kathy30]

There has been enough studies performed on the benefits of circumcision for parents to be able to make this decision for their children.

This is so much poppycock (no pun intended).

[Rhino]

This is so much poppycock (no pun intended).It was a good one, though. :rotflmbo:

[Air-Warrior]

Don't tell me how to raise my child, statists.

It's easily considered a religious choice and has solid grounding in the Bible. Worry about your own penis that of YOUR child's.

The same people are voting to remove your right to know if your minor daughter is having an abortion. (Red Flag)

[star2589]

There has been enough studies performed on the benefits of circumcision for parents to be able to make this decision for their children.

This is so much poppycock (no pun intended).

Like the one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4371384.stm) that said that circumcision reduces one's risk of getting HIV by 60%?

the study participants were self selected, condom use, number of sexual partners, sex practices, and socioeconomic variables were not controlled for.

even if it really did reduce the risk of HIV by that much, in the US that only adds up to 2 one hundredths of a percent.

the other studies are no different.

[Kathy30]

If parents, the guardians of their children's well being, are against circumcision then it should not be performed.

[Eagle1]

why stop parents from deciding this?

if someone is cut and later on they wish they weren't tough luck, stop being such a pussy

[Rhino]

If parents, the guardians of their childrens' well being, are against circumcision then it should not be performed.It isn't.

[Rhino]

Like the one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4371384.stm) that said that circumcision reduces one's risk of getting HIV by 60%?Never heard of that one. We made our decision based on sanitary issues.

[Kathy30]

I can just see some Rostafarian wanting a law passed that no one can get their hair cut until their 18 and can decide that for themselves.

These guys are so ashamed of their little weenies that they think circumcision made a big difference.

No guys, you would still have a little weenie.

[cerberus]

I can just see some Rostafarian wanting a law passed that no one can get their hair cut until their 18 and can decide that for themselves.

These guys are so ashamed of their little weenies that they think circumcision made a big difference.

No guys, you would still have a little weenie.

Hair grows back, foreskins do not. If some parents from Africa wanted to perform female circumcision on their kid would you feel the same way?

I don't think hacking off park of some kid's genitalia without their consent is particularly the right thing to do and the state if it chooses certainly has a right to regulate it based on protection of minors.

As for the sanitary argument, there is something there, but with proper hygiene shouldn't be an issue.

[Wolfcounsel]

Every time the subject of circumcision comes up, I've noticed there is a "sanitary" issue. Presumably it means the smegma collected under the foreskin of males and the vulval skin of the female. How does a female keep clean then, if there is no circumcision performed on her? Washing? Oh, Like something a male can be taught to do, eh? I'm presuming wrongly? Okay, shoot, people.:evilgrin:

[DeclinetoState]

How does a female keep clean then, if there is no circumcision performed on her? Well, there is "female circumcision (http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm)."

[Wolfcounsel]

The prepuce of the clitoris is the counterpart to the prepuce of the male glans. Why is it okay not to remove the female prepuce, but some people object when a male baby does not get circumcised, and all kinds of evil things like cervical cancer and unhygienic states rear their heads? Smegma is smegma, and the male's smegma is often named as the culprit that causes cervical cancer.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

I believe something else besides hygiene is involved for people who are strongly pro-male circumcision.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: I don't see what the big deal is. I've never needed a foreskin. (PS, if this offends anyone, remember, this is a thread about circumcision.)

[Wyatt_Junker]

If someone wants the canoli look, they should be able to look retarded. Even if they aren't Italian.

[Riverboat]

:unsmile: I don't see what the big deal is. I've never needed a foreskin.I never needed a backskin, either. Skin is skin, and when the skin is in, it does't matter what shape it's in.

[DesertFox]

Time an uncirked man gets all excited, it's the same as if he were circked.

[star2589]

:unsmile: I don't see what the big deal is. I've never needed a foreskin. (PS, if this offends anyone, remember, this is a thread about circumcision.)

There are a great number of body parts that a person doesn't need to survive, and an even greater number of body parts that a person doesnt need to live a happy and fulfilling life. That doesn't make it ok to remove them during infancy or without consent.

Parents should never have the right to consent to permanent body modifications to their children without a compelling medical need where no less invasive options are available.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I didn't circumsize. I supersized.

Huzzah.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Riverboat:
I never needed a backskin, either. Skin is skin, and when the skin is in, it does't matter what shape it's in.

:moo: Yeah, well, when you get to be our age, that backskin is in pretty embarrassing condition. I wouldn't mind having a little removed, or tucked, or something. Nothing looks tackiër than a pair of jeans where the back pockets are three feet apart & it's all I can do to avoid that.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

star2589:
There are a great number of body parts that a person doesn't need to survive, and an even greater number of body parts that a person doesnt need to live a happy and fulfilling life.

:unsmile: Name them.

[Riverboat]

Um, well, when I said skin is in, I meant, well, never mind.

[star2589]

There are a great number of body parts that a person doesn't need to survive, and an even greater number of body parts that a person doesnt need to live a happy and fulfilling life.
:unsmile: Name them.

to survive? lets see...

toes, feet, legs, fingers, hands, arms, ears, noses, appendices, breasts, tonsils, left kidneys, left lungs, the entire reproductive system... you get the idea.

to live a happy and fulfilling life?

we've all heard amazing stories of people who have been severly disabled and led happy meaningful lives. of course, they have it harder than everyone else, but it is possible.



nonmedically indicated circumcision in order to conform to some standard of beauty is no different than any other ritual that various other culturs have done on children.

footbinding, artificial cranial deformation, tatooing, breast ironing, scarification, female genital cutting, etc... without informed consent, all are violations of a persons right to make decisions regarding their own body.

[DeclinetoState]

star2589:
There are a great number of body parts that a person doesn't need to survive, and an even greater number of body parts that a person doesnt need to live a happy and fulfilling life.:unsmile: Name them.

Judging by the success of these people, the brain comes to mind:

http://www.wma.com/al_franken/imgs/Al_Franken_main.jpg http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-02/08/xin_22020408083666722161.jpg http://www.vh1.com/shared/media/images/movies/people/s/streisand_barbra/150x223.jpg http://www.michael-jackson.com/mj2002.jpg http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070103/070103_hilton_vmed.widec.jpg

[libertyman]

why shouldn't it? tatoos and piercings anywhere but the ears are illegal on minors in most states, and most people agree that its not right to perform unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a minor without their consent. why should foreskins be treated any differently?

My problem is that this legislation is probably being written by Congress, Can't the states decide for themselves how to deal w/ this issue?

[DesertFox]

I was gonna git a tattoo on my foreskin but then my wife ... but that's best not repeated.

[star2589]

My problem is that this legislation is probably being written by Congress, Can't the states decide for themselves how to deal w/ this issue?

The right to bodily autonomy is fundamental. Infant circumcision is unacceptable everywhere.

[DesertFox]

Even if it would save the baby's life?

[star2589]

Even if it would save the baby's life?

maybe if its born with gangrene, but have you ever heard of a baby being born that way?

I don't oppose a parents right to consent to a medically needed circumcision on their children's behalf. the issue is that a medical need for circumcision does not exist... except perhaps for a few freak instances.

[Riverboat]

Okay, after all that's said and done, this procedure has been performed for thousands of years for religious reasons by observant Jews and then Christians. Good luck to the solons if they can get around the moyls, never mind the fact that this procedure has no medical objections. Maybe they should consider a law against clipping babies' fingernails.

[Trevelyan]

I am not exactly sure how many 18-year-olds would be comfortable going through with the procedure even if they wanted to be circumsised.

Anyway, this issue is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with parents deciding.

[star2589]

never mind the fact that this procedure has no medical objections. Maybe they should consider a law against clipping babies' fingernails.

The foreskin has many functions, not the least of which is that it is highly erogenous. It also protects the glans, and has immunological properties.

What is lost after circumcision? (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html)

I am not exactly sure how many 18-year-olds would be comfortable going through with the procedure even if they wanted to be circumsised.

considering that 29% of pediatricians, 54% of family practitioners, and 75% of obstetricians (http://www.medscape.com/content/2003/00/45/36/453637/453637_tab.html#Table%201.) don't use any form of anesthesia or analgesia, I think its safe to say that the infant experiences far more discomfort.

More importantly, the 18 year old has a choice. What about the circumcised 18 year old who wishes he was intact?

I think its grossly unjust to force infants to undergo the procedure just so that adults dont have to go out and get it done themselves.

Anyway, this issue is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with parents deciding.

If another form of body mutilation became fashionable in the US, such as earlobe amputation, would you find anything wrong with parents making that decision on their children's behalf?

[Trevelyan]

considering that 29% of pediatricians, 54% of family practitioners, and 75% of obstetricians (http://www.medscape.com/content/2003/00/45/36/453637/453637_tab.html#Table%201.) don't use any form of anesthesia or analgesia, I think its safe to say that the infant experiences far more discomfort.

I believe anesthesia should be incorporated, however, in the end that individual is not going to retain any recollection of the procedure, so momentary pain will not result in a traumatic experience.

More importantly, the 18 year old has a choice. What about the circumcised 18 year old who wishes he was intact?

Well they would simply be SOL. However, this is not an issue that warrants any degree of outrage, let alone legislation.


If another form of body mutilation became fashionable in the US, such as earlobe amputation, would you find anything wrong with parents making that decision on their children's behalf?

Hah, "body mutilation?"

Anyway, there are hygienic benefits to circumcision. Beyond this, religious convictions may also be cited as grounds for a parent's right to choose.

[BEST45CAL]

While we're at it, we should petetion to have our umbilical cords and placentas left intact, too. Bad enough mom loses our water just before we come out.

:rolleyes:

[Proud American]

Good luck to the solons if they can get around the moyls, never mind the fact that this procedure has no medical objections. Maybe they should consider a law against clipping babies' fingernails.

Fingernails grow back. A foreskin doesn't.

[Kathy30]

Ah yes protection of the chhiilllldddrrreennn. Give me the UN charter on the rights of the child will ya. The state is the sole authority on what protections the children need. If the state isn't good enough, the WORLD is the best authority on what protections children need.

There is something sinister in the concept of the state being the sole authority of what protects children.

[Proud American]

Ah yes protection of the chhiilllldddrrreennn. Give me the UN charter on the rights of the child will ya. The state is the sole authority on what protections the children need. If the state isn't good enough, the WORLD is the best authority on what protections children need.

There is something sinister in the concept of the state being the sole authority of what protects children.

We aren't talking about protecting children who are scarred for life because they saw Janet Jackson's nipple on television. Hell that was used by some as a justification to restrict what adults can watch and listen to over the airwaves. They are talking about permanently removing a part of someone's body for no medical reason.

Now I am a libertarian who believes in a small limited government that leaves citizens alone but there is a justifaction for laws to protect children.

Let's say a new cult arises and cult members have decided to remove their small left toe in homage to the one true deity. Now it isn't just adult members who are removing the small left toe in honor on the one true deity. They are doing this to all infants at midnight on the second full moon after birth because that is what they believe the one true deity has commanded them to do.

Would the state have a right to prohibit the parents from removing the toe of their children? If not the state who would you propose to be the authority?

[BEST45CAL]

We aren't talking about protecting children who are scarred for life because they saw Janet Jackson's nipple on television. Hell that was used by some as a justification to restrict what adults can watch and listen to over the airwaves. They are talking about permanently removing a part of someone's body for no medical reason.

Now I am a libertarian who believes in a small limited government that leaves citizens alone but there is a justifaction for laws to protect children.

Let's say a new cult arises and cult members have decided to remove their small left toe in homage to the one true deity. Now it isn't just adult members who are removing the small left toe in honor on the one true deity. They are doing this to all infants at midnight on the second full moon after birth because that is what they believe the one true deity has commanded them to do.

Would the state have a right to prohibit the parents from removing the toe of their children? If not the state who would you propose to be the authority?
Then we would have to define what a cult is and what a religion is. That would open up a whole new bag of worms.

Most people think that cults are religions, but they are not.

[star2589]

I believe anesthesia should be incorporated, however, in the end that individual is not going to retain any recollection of the procedure, so momentary pain will not result in a traumatic experience.

unanesthesised circumcision is not "momentary pain". During infancy, the foreskin is fused to the glans in a similar manner that fingernails are attached to the nailbeds. after the opening of the foreskin is widened using forceps, a blunt isntrument is used to seperate the foreskin from the glans. Imagine someone shoving something under your fingernails.

the foreskin is then clamped, and a slit is made through the foreskin. imagine someone making an inch long incision in your're scrotum (perhaps for a vasectomy) without anethesia.

an instrument will be put over the glans to protect it from being cut. and the foreskin will be clamped around the instrument. after a few minutes, the foreskin will be cut off. imagine someone cutting off your earlobes.

the glans, which at that point is supposed to be an internal organ is then left exposed, raw, bleeding, making wetting the diaper very painful. like rubbing salt in the wound. it usually takes a few weeks to heal.

only when discussing circumcision is it ever argued that sinse it wont be remembered, that it's ok. infants and young children are giving anesthesia for every other surgical proceure. we don't give amnesiacs to adults in substitution of anesthesia, and we dont say it's alright to rape someone as long as a amnesic date rape drug is used.

It's well known that memory is not required for one to experience trama. drugged rape victims experience just as much trauma as other rape victims. trauma that occurs in infancy and childhood can permanently physically alter the brain.

studies have shown that circumcised infants are more sensitive to pain, and behave differently than other infants:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The researchers tested 87 infants at 4 months or 6 months of age. The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys...

An article titled "The Psychological Impact of Circumcision" reports that circumcision results in behavioral changes in infants and long-term unrecognized psychological effects on men. The piece reviews the medical literature on infants’ responses to circumcision and concludes, "there is strong evidence that circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic." The article notes that infants exhibit behavioral changes after circumcision, and some men have strong feelings of anger, shame, distrust, and grief about having been circumcised.

Hah, "body mutilation?"

what else would you call the amputation of healthy skin for cosmetic benefit?

Anyway, there are hygienic benefits to circumcision.

maybe, maybe not. no research has shown smegma to be harmful, and frankly, females produce a lot more of it than intact males do. not wanting to practice basic hygiene is not an excuse for surgery.

Beyond this, religious convictions may also be cited as grounds for a parent's right to choose.

religious freedom has always been limited when it infrindges on another persons rights.

[star2589]

Then we would have to define what a cult is and what a religion is. That would open up a whole new bag of worms.

Most people think that cults are religions, but they are not.

it doesn't matter whether it's a religion or a cult. what matters is whether or not the practice is infrinding on someone's rights.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Then we would have to define what a cult is and what a religion is. That would open up a whole new bag of worms.

Most people think that cults are religions, but they are not." --BEST45CAL

This question seems to have kicked the crap out of most of our public servants. Either that, or like robotic dumbasses, they recognize a certain cult of death from Hell as a religion of peace.

Sorry for the topic detour. Okay. Back to the topic of trying to correct one of God's mistakes when He created the male human body.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Air-Warrior]

The foreskin has many functions, not the least of which is that it is highly erogenous. It also protects the glans, and has immunological properties.

What is lost after circumcision? (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html)



considering that 29% of pediatricians, 54% of family practitioners, and 75% of obstetricians (http://www.medscape.com/content/2003/00/45/36/453637/453637_tab.html#Table%201.) don't use any form of anesthesia or analgesia, I think its safe to say that the infant experiences far more discomfort.

More importantly, the 18 year old has a choice. What about the circumcised 18 year old who wishes he was intact?

I think its grossly unjust to force infants to undergo the procedure just so that adults dont have to go out and get it done themselves.



If another form of body mutilation became fashionable in the US, such as earlobe amputation, would you find anything wrong with parents making that decision on their children's behalf?Cry me a river. Raise your kids and stay away from mine. I'm not telling you what to do with your kid's foreskin. Shut yer piehole about my kid's...lest I find a way to abridge one or more of your 1st Amendment rights.

[star2589]

Cry me a river. Raise your kids and stay away from mine. I'm not telling you what to do with your kid's foreskin. Shut yer piehole about my kid's...lest I find a way to abridge one or more of your 1st Amendment rights.

would you say the same to a parent that had their girl's clitoral hood removed?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Cry me a river. Raise your kids and stay away from mine. I'm not telling you what to do with your kid's foreskin. Shut yer piehole about my kid's...lest I find a way to abridge one or more of your 1st Amendment rights." --Air-Warrior

These laws are made up by public assholes whether or not the public wants them. It's time to start overthrowing the SOBs who legislate for the hell of it, because it makes them feel superior, and I may add, money exchanges hands somehow. These buttholes don't work with our interest in mind. Most of them have their bank accounts primed to receive thank you money from the parasites who want the laws made.

[star2589]

These laws are made up by public assholes whether or not the public wants them. It's time to start overthrowing the SOBs who legislate for the hell of it, because it makes them feel superior, and I may add, money exchanges hands somehow. These buttholes don't work with our interest in mind. Most of them have their bank accounts primed to receive thank you money from the parasites who want the laws made.

who is benefitting from outlawing circumcision? With a typical circumcision costing between 100 and 200 dollars, plus the cost to treat complications resulting from them, it's certainly not the medical community.

thank you money? who can afford to pay thank you money for outlawing circumcision, and what are they getting back for their investment? this is nothing but conspiracy theorizing.

[Wolfcounsel]

"thank you money? who can afford to pay thank you money for outlawing circumcision, and what are they getting back for their investment? this is nothing but conspiracy theorizing." --Star2589

That's very entertaining, Star. But one should look at long-term investments. Try to get a circumcision when you turn eighteen, and find out what it entails. Anyway, if they manage to pull this scam off, the door is wide open for more bullshit.<!-- / message -->

[BEST45CAL]

If I have it done as an adult, isn't there the chance that an erection will make the stitches blow out? LOL

[BEST45CAL]

it doesn't matter whether it's a religion or a cult. what matters is whether or not the practice is infrinding on someone's rights.
I don't think babies have rights, really. Some of them get far worse treatment before they're even born.

Gee...I don't seem to remember being circumsized. Does it really matter?

[Wolfcounsel]

"If I have it done as an adult, isn't there the chance that an erection will make the stitches blow out? LOL" --BEST45CAL

The doctor could award you with a built-in French tickler, a la the bumpy scar tissue that will occur in most cases. CHUCKLE-CHUCKLE!
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[BEST45CAL]

oh dear lol

[Longhorn_Platinum]

star2589:
to survive? lets see...

toes, feet, legs, fingers, hands, arms, ears, noses, appendices, breasts, tonsils, left kidneys, left lungs, the entire reproductive system... you get the idea.

:unsmile: Well, I hardly consider circumcision on a par with dismemberment.

to live a happy and fulfilling life?

we've all heard amazing stories of people who have been severly disabled and led happy meaningful lives. of course, they have it harder than everyone else, but it is possible.

:moo: Okay, so what's the problem with circumcision? By your own admission, people with far greater disabilities have "led happy meaningful lives". But, since you're so concerned whether newborns have rights, how do you feel about abortion?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

BEST45CAL:
Gee...I don't seem to remember being circumsized. Does it really matter?

:moo: Yeah, neither do I. And I've never felt cheated by it.

[star2589]

That's very entertaining, Star. But one should look at long-term investments. Try to get a circumcision when you turn eighteen, and find out what it entails. Anyway, if they manage to pull this scam off, the door is wide open for more bullshit.

have you not noticed that a large number of intactivists are women? they stand absolutly nothing to gain.

this guy
(http://www.circumcisioncenter.com) charges $2000 for a normal adult circumcision. 10 times the cost of an infant circumcision. In order for outlawing infant circumcisions to have financial benefits, a full 10% of intact men would have to opt for an adult circumcision, but the vast majority do not.

[star2589]

:unsmile: Well, I hardly consider circumcision on a par with dismemberment.

its obviously much more mild than removing someone's leg, but it is an amputation, and without medical need it is a mutilation. its no different than removing a girl's clitoral hood, exept that more tissue is removed.

:moo: Okay, so what's the problem with circumcision? By your own admission, people with far greater disabilities have "led happy meaningful lives".

sure, but that doesnt mean I think its ok to disable them.

my problem with it, is that there are men out there that have suffered a great deal from their infant circumcisions. I personally know a few of them, but most of them dont talk about it much because as soon as they open their mouth most people will tell them to "stop being such a pussy."

[star2589]

I should add, that if intact were to become normalized, far fewer men would opt for circumcision than those that already do. an 18 year old is much less likely to opt for a circumcision when all of his friends are intact. surgeons that do adult circumcisions will not gain anything by outlawing infant circumcision.

[Wolfcounsel]

"In order for outlawing infant circumcisions to have financial benefits, a full 10% of intact men would have to opt for an adult circumcision, but the vast majority do not." --Star2589

How about the vast majority of circumcised-at-birth (non-intact) men? What do they say? I don't believe "intact" will become normal in our great-grandchildren's lifetime, heh heh.<!-- / message -->

[DesertFox]

While they're circumcising they can just go ahead and whack off them little baby pee pees. The feminists will love it and so will PETA and China and Iran.

[Wolfcounsel]

"While they're circumcising they can just go ahead and whack off them little baby pee pees. The feminists will love it and so will PETA and China and Iran." --DesertFox

No. I think China would opt for killing baby girls, and Iran would trade one baby girl for one camel or a sheep or a goat. PETA will continue with their thumbs up their butts and their little shit fits.
<!-- / message -->

[Trevelyan]

I don't think babies have rights, really. Some of them get far worse treatment before they're even born.

Yes, I would be interested to know his position on abortion. If he gets all hot and bothered by a piece of skin being removed...

Gee...I don't seem to remember being circumsized. Does it really matter?

No it really does not. Anesthesia should be administered, but ultimately it is only to offer transient relief. You will never know if you had received anesthesia or not.

[Riverboat]

would you say the same to a parent that had their girl's clitoral hood removed?You’re turning into a One-Note Johnny. Once again, circumcisions have been performed for thousands of years by a respected religion known, among all things, for its fastidious attention to cleanliness. It's not mutiliation. The organ is quite able and, apparently, more than willing, to perform all functions related to its physiological calling.

Whenever an issue regarding religion rears up, whether it’s prayer in school, or a nativity scene or a cross in a public place, people like you invariably howl, “But, what if a religion like the Aztecs want to use the public square for a human sacrifice? Who are we to refuse them if we allow a Christian symbol?”

But, since you brought it up, you can be sure that if we allow the Mooselems to gain control, clitorectomies will be the least of the problem.

Infant circumcision is unacceptable everywhere.This is nuts. And if you believe this, YOU'RE nuts.

Incidentally, I looked over the link you provided for NORM: "Our goal is to provide information, instruction and support to any man who is circumcised and wishes to make his penis more fully functional by means of non-surgical foreskin restoration."

I'm guessing the best place to harvest that skin is the wattle under some old geezer's chin. Or maybe some old woman's chin. Maybe even her sagging breast. Why be picky? Hey, we're talking about a restoration of slidin' around skin. Me, I'd want to throw on some chrome and a headlight. Be nice to have some detailing with it, like a big flame roaring out behind it. Or, better yet, have Old Glory tatted on. Comes with its own flagpole, too.

[Wyatt_Junker]

The no-cirk crowd is just the latest in a long line of designer issues along with no-immunizations, eating range-fed meat only and the ressurection of hemp.

They're all such brilliant, novel ideas. Gosh, where do we start first in our progressive quest to improve society?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Gosh, where do we start first in our progressive quest to improve society?" --Wyatt_Junker

Well, first, we kick the crap out of the candy asses who don't like smoking.

OOPS! Topic detour.

[Rhino]

As for the sanitary argument, there is something there, but with proper hygiene shouldn't be an issue.Shouldn't be, but it is. Young boys aren't exactly world renowned for their cleanliness. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. That was the basis of our decision, and considering the sanitary habits of our sons, it was an extremely wise one.

[Kathy30]

Infant circumcision is done for medical and sanitary reasons. But, watch this being classified as wholly a religious reason and incorporated in the End Christian Tyranny movement.

The only thing that surprises me is that the anti Christians aren't trying to rescind laws against murder because it happens to be one of the Ten Commandments. Or, maybe I'm just premature and that's coming.

[Rhino]

Unless you're Jewish, I don't see what religion has to do with it.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Young boys aren't exactly world renowned for their cleanliness." --Rhino

Neither are young girls. :crazy:

Kids are kids. Good hygiene needs to be ingrained in them.

[Rhino]

We 'ingrained' until we turned blue, but it didn't take. Young girls are generally much cleaner than boys, but there are exceptions to every rule.