How often is the choice of circumcision a choice of life and death? You are exaggerating the issue, and the decision to circumcise a child is nowhere near as crucial as you make it out to be.
That's
twice you took my statement out of context. Again, I never said that circumcision was a life or death situation. I said SOME medical procedures are. You can't spell circumcision with the letter "e", nor is it a one-syllable word. Stop putting words in my mouth. I know you don't agree with me, but form your arguments more honestly.
I'm sorry, can you offer any example in which someone would question a parents' decision to not have had their child circumcised?
"This boy has a foreskin...WHERE WERE THE PARENTS?"
The way you twisted that comment out of proportion is so laughable, it's not even worth addressing. Again, stop replacing selective words in my statements with the words you would rather read in order to create your rhetorical lob bombs. I never implied or ever said that.
Ultimately, it hardly matters whether a person was circumcised or not, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a decision left up to the owner of the body to make. Nobody's gonna blame a parent if their kid turns out to have phimosis.
Heh... in some circles parents are blamed when their kids are born gay even though that is out of their control too. But I digress, you still assume that I'm against your position and I'm not. If that's what you want to do with YOUR children, then do that. If someone else wants to do another thing within legal limits then they should be able to do that too. THAT is the concept of choice you will be engaging in as an adult who is bringing life into this world. Don't deny another adult their choice.
It's the law, so it's right. Gotcha. Darn those silly folk always trying to change the law.
Sorry if you're mad that the law is on my side of the argument and not yours. It's a fact that makes a lot of the moralistic banter pointless. As the current law stands, you as a parent (or a potential one in the future) can now weigh the options, look at the pros and cons and come to the conclusion to leave a bay boy intact or have him circumcised. In fact, you have already done that before you or I ever started this debate. However, by fighting to outlaw circumcisions you deny future parents the right to do the same. Regardless of what they would conclude, they wouldn't be able to exercise their full rights because people like you would have already determined that for them. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if people who were for circumcision tried to push for legislation to make the procedure mandatory for all newborn baby boys. So why try to force your will on others by trying to get the legality of the procedure reversed?
Therein lies the big hypocrisy.
Do you get it now?
Oh, really? What about my foreskin threatens my life, hmm? If nothing, then I don't see why it'd ever be medically necessary to have had it removed.
You really need to stop acting as if I'm your enemy here. I respect your decisions to let a male decide when he gets older and I have stated vehemently that I don't care either way. However you don't respect my decision to let responsible parents do what they can within the law. I don't give a damn if you're uncut either. Good for you. I was circumcised when I was an infant and don't hold any psychological damage or issues because of it. Alas, the way some of the anti-Circs voice their disdain I should be throwing myself off a bridge for being an abomination against nature.
You just wrote that because it's supported by the law, that's why parents should have that choice. Essentially, they should be able to do it because they can is what you're telling me, ie. "I'm the child's parent and I want it circumcised". I'm just going on what you're telling me.
If you want to put it more bluntly, then yes.
So much for trying to be civil...
No need to be so catty, dear VinylBoy, it's simply a discussion.
And this is coming from someone who provided literary gems such as:
"It's the law, so it's right. Gotcha. Darn those silly folk always trying to change the law," and,
"Oh, really? What about my foreskin threatens my life, hmm?"
Irony noted. Please continue.
Whoa, whoa, how can you brush off such an important point? The surgery is irreversible. It can't be reversed. Once it's done, it's done.
Again, many surgeries are irreversible. Using this as a gripe for banning circumcision does little to better your argument.
If the receiver of said surgery turns out unhappy in the future as a result of the surgery, there's nothing they can do about it. Capiche? Don't try and pass that off as trivial. It's not.
I already did, and I will do it again. It is a trivial point, not unique to circumcision or many other surgeries that can be done to a human.
However, ask yourself this
honest question... if a baby boy was circumcised, when do you think they will realize it and be able to equate it to being a human deficiency? When will the baby associate a lack of foreskin as being less than someone else or imperfect? These thoughts are not inherently born into ANY child. They are taught or acquired by vengeful people who hold onto these bigotries. So where do they learn them?
If a child is left uncircumcised and they turn out unhappy with that decision, guess what? They can have themselves circumcised. Shocking, isn't it?
Gee, how unbelievably catty of you.
Sarcasm noted as well. Don't say that I didn't warn you.
I have no problem with people being circumcised, I'd just rather they have the right to make that decision for themselves. Please, don't put words in my mouth again.
So if you have no problem with people being circumcised, then why are we even arguing? Also, you've done nothing but put words in my mouth in this exchange of words and taking comments that clearly state one view out of context intentionally. Stop being so dishonest and kill the ridiculous projections.
You're confusing necessary with beneficial. Circumcision is debatably beneficial for so and so reasons (just as the opposite has its own pros and cons), but that doesn't make the surgery medically necessary. If it ain't life-threatening, it ain't necessary, not necessary, unnecessary. It's not opinion, it's fact. There is no case in which circumcision is necessary, required, compulsory (in the context of a fully functional foreskin, that is) that has been medically proven.
How arrogant of you to assume what medical procedures are necessary and beneficial. Are you a doctor? What are your credentials in medicine and pediatric psychological development to warrant such an opinion? Better yet, are you going to be there to help the millions of expecting parents of baby boys to help raise their kids the way you see fit? If not, shut up and stick to the real facts. Not your opinions disguised as one.
Exactly, so stop trying to degrade peoples' opinions by calling their ideologies slanted when even your own are slanted.
Stop being a hypocrite, because you've done the exact same thing. There are no saints on this board, and certainly not on this issue.
VinylBoy, you don't need to be so angry. Again, it's just a discussion.
Take your own advice.
Who says it even needs to be a choice made at birth? You haven't explained why it can't be put off for when they're older.
I don't have to explain why it can't be put off because I don't disagree with it. At the same time, I understand that there's more than one opinion on the subject matter and since neither one of them are the definitive answer for every person in the world it should be left to responsible adults to decide.
The power is in the choice. Even when you think you're leaving it up to the boy to decide when he gets older, the adult is making that choice to pass the responsibility onto the child. Doesn't matter what your reasoning or the outcries of moralistic garbage may be. ULTIMATELY,
YOU ARE MAKING THAT CHOICE FOR YOUR NEWBORN BABY BOY. Don't be a hypocrite and deny another adult the same choices just because of what you believe in.
Damn... this is precisely why I stay out of circ threads. 
