The dichotomy of various groups never ceases to amaze me

[RobinFinderson]

You want to avoid the abortion question based on current law, to assume away the ethical consideration.

You want to examine the circumcision question, to question whether the current law (allowing it) is ethical.

Ahhh, I got you. But the point of the argument is to get someone who would outlaw infant circumcision to realize that the same reasoning could also be used to outlaw abortion. And perhaps the anti-circumcision person already opposed abortion. You would still be left with the ethical question about circumcision. In other words, that is an argument about abortion, based on one's view about circumcision. It doesn't get us any closer to the ethics of circumcision.

PAC, I'll accept that you are more accurate in your description of fetal rights, but with birth should come the right to protection from mutilation.

Folks, I just don't understand how anyone can argue that circumcision isn't mutilation. The operation basically takes what is supposed to be a moist tissue area similar in characteristics to a woman's inner labia, and turns it into a dry and crazed marshmallow. The dried out version is a very different thing. And why the heck to believers think that God put that foreskin there on accident?

Imagine taking your 17-yo son to get circumcised against his will. You are still his legal custodian, so it is your right to hire some muscle and haul him to a willing doctor to cut off his foreskin. Imagine the struggle, with a 17-yo boy, fighting to save his penis. Well a baby has the same rights in this situation as that 17-yo, but the baby is more vulnerable.

[wuapinmon]

Both of my grandfathers were circumcised as adults. They both told me that nothing changed for them sexually.

[Moliere]

I've got no skin in this game

[RobinFinderson]

Both of my grandfathers were circumcised as adults. They both told me that nothing changed for them sexually.

Right. They still weren't getting any.

[Eddie]

Tattooing babies is bad. Piercing ears is also a mutilation, but it isn't disfiguring, and a child who decides in the future that she doesn't want to wear earrings can easily stop wearing them, and no one will know.

But there are adults who have chosen to be circumcised, and from what I have casually read over the years (primarily in reading about circumcision) is that sex is drastically different after circumcision. It is a disfiguring choice, and that is where I personally draw the line.

So - the argument for allowing parents to disfigure their daughters with ear piercings is that she can stop wearing them and no one will know.

In my mind I'm trying to figure out how everyone knows which men have been circumcised and which have not. If that is the criteria, I think it's safe to say circumcision is OK.

I would say that if you are going to argue infant mutilation, you have to be all in or all out. I don't think you can say that one is OK and the other isn't. It doesn't make much sense to me to try to draw a line with how much mutilation is OK.

[statman]

Sex is awesome without it; I don't buy this argument. I actually think that anti-circ groups use it as a guilt trip for parents. "you don't want to ruin his sex life, do you?"

Yeah - you know how little interest circumcised males have in sex - why it's almost a chore!

We did the knife thing on the first son, skipped it on the next two...

[RobinFinderson]

So - the argument for allowing parents to disfigure their daughters with ear piercings is that she can stop wearing them and no one will know.

In my mind I'm trying to figure out how everyone knows which men have been circumcised and which have not. If that is the criteria, I think it's safe to say circumcision is OK.

I would say that if you are going to argue infant mutilation, you have to be all in or all out. I don't think you can say that one is OK and the other isn't. It doesn't make much sense to me to try to draw a line with how much mutilation is OK.

Well I've already taken the position that I don't care about the issue enough to actively fight for the end of infant circumcision, so my thoughts about piercing baby's ears are not inconsistent. But sure, people shouldn't be punching holes in their babies either.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Child mutilation seems like a pretty good line. For example, if a woman had breast cancer and had to have a mastectomy, and if both her mother and grandmother had died of breast cancer, she might reasonably conclude that she would pass on a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Now, imagine the uproar if parents were to perform an infant mastectomy, preventing the girl from ever developing breasts. How would the reasoning behind this hypothetical be different than the reasoning employed by those who circumcise based on the few health benefits that are experienced by a tiny fraction of all circumcised boys?

Circumcision for aesthetic reasons, imo, is indefensible in the same what it would be wrong to tattoo a baby's face. Body mutilation is a choice for ADULTS to make about their OWN bodies.

Looks like Robin has found something to take up his time since leaving CUF.
bloodstained-men-and-their-friends.jpg

[imanihonjin]