NationStates

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
If there was a temple and you did to all of them at once, knowing some would die, it would be far more clear to you. Why does prolonging the ritual change matters for you? Every year, in the US alone, 200ish children die from it. That's with moder medicine and science. Cast that projection backwards thousands of years and calculate how many dead children result from the practice.

It absolutely is a matter of child sacrifice, child mutilation, and adherence to dogmatic religious views that are anti-thetical to human wellbeing.

There may even be more dead Jews from circumcision than the holocaust. In terms of impact on the numbers of current Jews, Abraham is undoubtedly the bigger culprit, given the tendency to multiply over time.

(A dead baby 3000 years ago could amount to hundreds or thousands of modern people, compared to dozens for a dead baby from 1945.)

Sacrifice is intended to kill. Circumcision isn't supposed to kill babies, the fact that that happens is an anomaly and not supposed to happen.
Circumcision is not sacrifice because parents aren't trying to kill their children for the sake of God (SWT).

Given the background of the ritual is in lieu of child sacrifice, that doesn't much impress.
"Instead of killing your children, just offer me a piece of their flesh (And also some will still die, but that's an accident resulting from mutilating them.)"
In either case, the deaths show how ridiculous the argument that it isn't mutilation are.

It is a sacrifice of flesh intended to appease a bloodthirsty god, and sometimes it kills the victim. That strikes me as sacrifice. The covenant is one based on a ritual of partial child sacrifice, and your argument is that just because that partial sacrifice of children goes too far and fully sacrifices them that doesn't make it a ritual of child sacrifice.

It plainly is. What's more absurd about it is that viewed in this context, your god is plainly lying to you.

"Instead of killing some of your children to appease me, just cut bits off them, I promise it'll be fine."
So then imagine all of you doing it in the temple at once, and multiple ones of them still end up dead.

He must have known that would happen, right? He's omniscient, apparently. So he's effectively still demanding you kill children to appease him.

So basically his covenant is one that allows the practitioner the gift of denial and self-deception. It's a nod and a wink that "We aren't sacrificing children.", quite the character isn't he.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Sacrifice is intended to kill. Circumcision isn't supposed to kill babies, the fact that that happens is an anomaly and not supposed to happen.
Circumcision is not sacrifice because parents aren't trying to kill their children for the sake of God (SWT).

Given the background of the ritual is in lieu of child sacrifice, that doesn't much impress.
"Instead of killing your children, just offer me a piece of their flesh (And also some will still die, but that's an accident resulting from mutilating them.)"
In either case, the deaths show how ridiculous the argument that it isn't mutilation are.

It is a sacrifice of flesh intended to appease a bloodthirsty god, and sometimes it kills the victim. That strikes me as sacrifice. The covenant is one based on a ritual of partial child sacrifice, and your argument is that just because that partial sacrifice of children goes too far and fully sacrifices them that doesn't make it a ritual of child sacrifice.

It plainly is. What's more absurd about it is that viewed in this context, your god is plainly lying to you. (It's because he doesn't exist.)

"Instead of killing some of your children to appease me, just cut bits off them, I promise it'll be fine."
So then imagine all of you doing it in the temple at once, and multiple ones of them still end up dead.

He must have known that would happen, right? He's omniscient, apparently. So he's effectively still demanding you kill children to appease him.

So basically his covenant is one that allows the practitioner the gift of denial and self-deception. It's a nod and a wink that "We aren't sacrificing children.", quite the character isn't he.

I'm not arguing in support of circumcision, just saying that it isn't sacrifice.
But I think you have a point.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Given the background of the ritual is in lieu of child sacrifice, that doesn't much impress.
"Instead of killing your children, just offer me a piece of their flesh (And also some will still die, but that's an accident resulting from mutilating them.)"
In either case, the deaths show how ridiculous the argument that it isn't mutilation are.

It is a sacrifice of flesh intended to appease a bloodthirsty god, and sometimes it kills the victim. That strikes me as sacrifice. The covenant is one based on a ritual of partial child sacrifice, and your argument is that just because that partial sacrifice of children goes too far and fully sacrifices them that doesn't make it a ritual of child sacrifice.

It plainly is. What's more absurd about it is that viewed in this context, your god is plainly lying to you. (It's because he doesn't exist.)

"Instead of killing some of your children to appease me, just cut bits off them, I promise it'll be fine."
So then imagine all of you doing it in the temple at once, and multiple ones of them still end up dead.

He must have known that would happen, right? He's omniscient, apparently. So he's effectively still demanding you kill children to appease him.

So basically his covenant is one that allows the practitioner the gift of denial and self-deception. It's a nod and a wink that "We aren't sacrificing children.", quite the character isn't he.

I'm not arguing in support of circumcision, just saying that it isn't sacrifice.
But I think you have a point.

Sorry, I misread you.

Elysian Kentarchy wrote:

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:That's because you don't know what it's like to not be circumcised. Your brain perceives it as normal.

Please go and reread everything Thermodolia said in this thread before spouting that garbage, because you are simply repeating why circumcised men hate the anti-circumcision movement because said movement is a bunch of men insecure about their dicks and acting superior to circumcised men or other people that want to find some issue men can feel victimized over instead of actual issues concerning men, that goes for anyone else pushing that nonsense. Please and thank you.

What they were saying is completely accurate though.
You do perceive it as normal because you don't know what it's like.

If that somehow enrages you and others, you should ask yourself why you have such a angry reaction to someone stating a simple fact.
It's an odd thing to get mad about, to be honest. And it makes me wonder who's really being insecure here.

Also, forcing an unnecessary medical procedure, with all the risks that come with it, on children not old enough to consent to it is an "actual issue" to a lot of people.

This entire thread is why I despise the anti-circumcision movement.

No compromises regarding medical circumcision (not religious circumcision), only "MUTILATION BAD! UR WRONG! IM RIGHT!", ignoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits, presenting "disadvantages" that are almost always the results of botched circumcisions instead of successful ones, and discarding the testimonies of people who are actually circumsized as "lol ur just in denial, ur deformed!".

I was circumsized at the age of 10 (so I was not an infant) due to a severe case of phimosis (and trust me, phimosis isn't something you can just make it go away with hygiene or education) and not only was the surgery a success (no complications whatsoever), I can even recall the recovery (hell, I even remember my stitches).


Not once was I traumatized or scarred, my sexual functions remained perfectly intact (if anything, the only thing that changed is the way I masturbate), and it actually saved me from potential infection (which my phimosis was making it a real hazard, and it would've been far worse than a mere circumcision), not to mention it is quite convenient for personal hygiene.

People really to stop making it sound like circumsized people have their dick and balls torn off and turned into an eunuch, when in reality it's little more than a "low-risk, low-reward" surgery on the same basis as appendice removal.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:This entire thread is why I despise the anti-circumcision movement.

No compromises regarding medical circumcision (not religious circumcision), only "MUTILATION BAD! UR WRONG! IM RIGHT!", ignoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits, presenting "disadvantages" that are almost always the results of botched circumcisions instead of successful ones, and discarding the testimonies of people who are actually circumsized as "lol ur just in denial, ur deformed!".

I was circumsized at the age of 10 (so I was not an infant) due to a severe case of phimosis (and trust me, phimosis isn't something you can just make it go away with hygiene or education) and not only was the surgery a success (no complications whatsoever), I can even recall the recovery (hell, I even remember my stitches).


Not once was I traumatized or scarred, my sexual functions remained perfectly intact (if anything, the only thing that changed is the way I masturbate), and it actually saved me from potential infection (which my phimosis was making it a real hazard, and it would've been far worse than a mere circumcision), not to mention it is quite convenient for personal hygiene.

People really to stop making it sound like circumsized people have their dick and balls torn off and turned into an eunuch, when in reality it's little more than a "low-risk, low-reward" surgery on the same basis as appendice removal.

I haven't noticed anyone claiming it shouldn't be done for medical reasons. Perhaps you can point them out?

And appendix surgery isn't low-risk low-reward. An inflamed appendix can, and likely will, actually kill a person. The whole thing is very much not a pleasant experience and I'm speaking from experience with this.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:This entire thread is why I despise the anti-circumcision movement.

No compromises regarding medical circumcision (not religious circumcision), only "MUTILATION BAD! UR WRONG! IM RIGHT!", ignoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits, presenting "disadvantages" that are almost always the results of botched circumcisions instead of successful ones, and discarding the testimonies of people who are actually circumsized as "lol ur just in denial, ur deformed!".

I was circumsized at the age of 10 (so I was not an infant) due to a severe case of phimosis (and trust me, phimosis isn't something you can just make it go away with hygiene or education) and not only was the surgery a success (no complications whatsoever), I can even recall the recovery (hell, I even remember my stitches).


Not once was I traumatized or scarred, my sexual functions remained perfectly intact (if anything, the only thing that changed is the way I masturbate), and it actually saved me from potential infection (which my phimosis was making it a real hazard, and it would've been far worse than a mere circumcision), not to mention it is quite convenient for personal hygiene.

People really to stop making it sound like circumsized people have their dick and balls torn off and turned into an eunuch, when in reality it's little more than a "low-risk, low-reward" surgery on the same basis as appendice removal.

I haven't noticed anyone claiming it shouldn't be done for medical reasons. Perhaps you can point them out?

And appendix surgery isn't low-risk low-reward. An inflamed appendix can, and likely will, actually kill a person. The whole thing is very much not a pleasant experience and I'm speaking from experience with this.

Quite a few people in this thread has proven to be against even medical circumcision.

My bad, I botched my wording there. Just as appendicitis can cause great harm and even death, so can phimosis (not necessarily direct, but being unable to retract the foreskin leads to being unable to maintain good hygiene and pain from attempting to retract the foreskin, potentially leading to the infection of the glans penis which causes far more dangerous complications to hygiene, sexual functions, and such than removing a mere flap of skin).

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:This entire thread is why I despise the anti-circumcision movement.

No compromises regarding medical circumcision (not religious circumcision), only "MUTILATION BAD! UR WRONG! IM RIGHT!", ignoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits, presenting "disadvantages" that are almost always the results of botched circumcisions instead of successful ones, and discarding the testimonies of people who are actually circumsized as "lol ur just in denial, ur deformed!".

I was circumsized at the age of 10 (so I was not an infant) due to a severe case of phimosis (and trust me, phimosis isn't something you can just make it go away with hygiene or education) and not only was the surgery a success (no complications whatsoever), I can even recall the recovery (hell, I even remember my stitches).

Not once was I traumatized or scarred, my sexual functions remained perfectly intact (if anything, the only thing that changed is the way I masturbate), and it actually saved me from potential infection (which my phimosis was making it a real hazard, and it would've been far worse than a mere circumcision), not to mention it is quite convenient for personal hygiene.

People really to stop making it sound like circumsized people have their dick and balls torn off and turned into an eunuch, when in reality it's little more than a "low-risk, low-reward" surgery on the same basis as appendice removal.

The law is banning non-medical circumcisions, medical circumcisions would still be legal.

Albynau wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:This entire thread is why I despise the anti-circumcision movement.

No compromises regarding medical circumcision (not religious circumcision), only "MUTILATION BAD! UR WRONG! IM RIGHT!", ignoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits, presenting "disadvantages" that are almost always the results of botched circumcisions instead of successful ones, and discarding the testimonies of people who are actually circumsized as "lol ur just in denial, ur deformed!".

I was circumsized at the age of 10 (so I was not an infant) due to a severe case of phimosis (and trust me, phimosis isn't something you can just make it go away with hygiene or education) and not only was the surgery a success (no complications whatsoever), I can even recall the recovery (hell, I even remember my stitches).

Not once was I traumatized or scarred, my sexual functions remained perfectly intact (if anything, the only thing that changed is the way I masturbate), and it actually saved me from potential infection (which my phimosis was making it a real hazard, and it would've been far worse than a mere circumcision), not to mention it is quite convenient for personal hygiene.

People really to stop making it sound like circumsized people have their dick and balls torn off and turned into an eunuch, when in reality it's little more than a "low-risk, low-reward" surgery on the same basis as appendice removal.

The law is banning non-medical circumcisions, medical circumcisions would still be legal.

Then I have no quarrel with said law, since I believe that only medical circumcisions should be permitted.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
I haven't noticed anyone claiming it shouldn't be done for medical reasons. Perhaps you can point them out?

And appendix surgery isn't low-risk low-reward. An inflamed appendix can, and likely will, actually kill a person. The whole thing is very much not a pleasant experience and I'm speaking from experience with this.

Quite a few people in this thread has proven to be against even medical circumcision.

My bad, I botched my wording there. Just as appendicitis can cause great harm and even death, so can phimosis (not necessarily direct, but being unable to retract the foreskin leads to being unable to maintain good hygiene and pain from attempting to retract the foreskin, potentially leading to the infection of the glans penis which causes far more dangerous complications to hygiene, sexual functions, and such than removing a mere flap of skin).

Who is against it?

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:No compromises regarding medical circumcision (not religious circumcision), only "MUTILATION BAD! UR WRONG! IM RIGHT!",

I'm sure you can find a quote from someone on here actually saying that as proof right? I'm sure you wouldn't want you to be seen as misrepresenting people... Out of some sort of misguided spite. I mean really? Dispise people for having a different view? Sounds all very irrational.
For the record, not that I've been involved in this thread, but my brother also was treated for phimosis as well, so you wouldn't catch me saying that.

gnoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits,

burden of proof upon you to demonstrate those benefits exist beyond reasonable doubt. If you plan to bring up studies in Africa you should also address why circumcision is much lower in Europe than the us, but yet the so called benefits seem to be reversed where Europe has less incident of hiv than America, for example.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Albynau wrote:
The law is banning non-medical circumcisions, medical circumcisions would still be legal.

Then I have no quarrel with said law, since I believe that only medical circumcisions should be permitted.

Yeah, that's what people are arguing about up here. Not medical circumcision, circumcision done on babies.

Hirota wrote:

gnoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits,

burden of proof upon you to demonstrate those benefits exist beyond reasonable doubt. If you plan to bring up studies in Africa you should also address why circumcision is much lower in Europe than the us, but yet the so called benefits seem to be reversed where Europe has less incident of hiv than America, for example.

Would be interested in hearing about these benefits as well.


Also would love to point out the ban involves non-necessary procedures. I believe medically required circumcision is still a thing in Iceland.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:This entire thread is why I despise the anti-circumcision movement.

No compromises regarding medical circumcision (not religious circumcision), only "MUTILATION BAD! UR WRONG! IM RIGHT!", ignoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits, presenting "disadvantages" that are almost always the results of botched circumcisions instead of successful ones...

Two things...

Firstly, the "benefits" of circumcision (when not done for a medically necessary reason) are can be replicated by washing yourself and wearing a condom.

Secondly, botched circumcisions must be considered as a detrimental aspect. Successful circumcisions have detrimental effects all their own, but botched circumcisions can be outright lethal, or necessitate the removal of large portions of a person's penis, or further corrective surgeries that result in significantly more pain carrying yet more risk of complications. Nobody knows whether or not a circumcision will be "successful" or "botched" before, or even immediately after, it happens; you can't hand-wave away the consequences of an action because it didn't go flawlessly.

Camicon wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:This entire thread is why I despise the anti-circumcision movement.

No compromises regarding medical circumcision (not religious circumcision), only "MUTILATION BAD! UR WRONG! IM RIGHT!", ignoring the (relatively small, but still existing) benefits, presenting "disadvantages" that are almost always the results of botched circumcisions instead of successful ones...

Two things...

Firstly, the "benefits" of circumcision (when not done for a medically necessary reason) are can be replicated by washing yourself and wearing a condom.

Secondly, botched circumcisions must be considered as a detrimental aspect. Successful circumcisions have detrimental effects all their own, but botched circumcisions can be outright lethal, or necessitate the removal of large portions of a person's penis, or further corrective surgeries that result in significantly more pain carrying yet more risk of complications. Nobody knows whether or not a circumcision will be "successful" or "botched" before, or even immediately after, it happens; you can't hand-wave away the consequences of an action because it didn't go flawlessly.

Except when you have a complication such as, you guessed it, phimosis, it becomes hard (if not outright impossible) to maintain an acceptable level of genital hygiene, and that can lead to problems far worse than circumcision. As for the HIV/genital cancer benefits, it's not a huge benefit in the first world. It's still there, but it's not something of great consideration.

Also, literally every surgery (from purely cosmetic ones to life-saving ones) can be botched, circumcision is not an exception at all. You can die from a botched heart transplant just as you can develop a secondary infection from appendix removal, it's integral to surgery. Also, it has been almost 9 years since I was circumcised and I have yet to develop a single "detrimental effect" of any actual worry.

The risk of botched surgeries can be mitigated by trained medical professionals performing in a safe, sterile environment with the appropriate tools, but sometimes, shit happens regardless of surgery type.

However, as someone who is circumsized myself, I would not recommend the surgery as a first choice, but rather a last resort when other means (such as steroid creams and such) have been exhausted.

Nowadays, circumcision isn't even permanent, since foreskin regeneration is rapidly becoming a valid choice for those who feel uncomfortable about their circumcision.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Camicon wrote:Two things...

Firstly, the "benefits" of circumcision (when not done for a medically necessary reason) are can be replicated by washing yourself and wearing a condom.

Secondly, botched circumcisions must be considered as a detrimental aspect. Successful circumcisions have detrimental effects all their own, but botched circumcisions can be outright lethal, or necessitate the removal of large portions of a person's penis, or further corrective surgeries that result in significantly more pain carrying yet more risk of complications. Nobody knows whether or not a circumcision will be "successful" or "botched" before, or even immediately after, it happens; you can't hand-wave away the consequences of an action because it didn't go flawlessly.

Except when you have a complication such as, you guessed it, phimosis, it becomes hard (if not outright impossible) to maintain an acceptable level of genital hygiene, and that can lead to problems far worse than circumcision. As for the HIV/genital cancer benefits, it's not a huge benefit in the first world. It's still there, but it's not something of great consideration.

Also, literally every surgery (from purely cosmetic ones to life-saving ones) can be botched, circumcision is not an exception at all. You can die from a botched heart transplant just as you can develop a secondary infection from appendix removal, it's integral to surgery. Also, it has been almost 9 years since I was circumcised and I have yet to develop a single "detrimental effect" of any actual worry.

The risk of botched surgeries can be mitigated by trained medical professionals performing in a safe, sterile environment with the appropriate tools, but sometimes, shit happens regardless of surgery type.

However, as someone who is circumsized myself, I would not recommend the surgery as a first choice, but rather a last resort when other means (such as steroid creams and such) have been exhausted.

Nowadays, circumcision isn't even permanent, since foreskin regeneration is rapidly becoming a valid choice for those who feel uncomfortable about their circumcision.

I get you feel strongly about this but you should really read the posts you're responding to.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Sacrifice is intended to kill. Circumcision isn't supposed to kill babies, the fact that that happens is an anomaly and not supposed to happen.
Circumcision is not sacrifice because parents aren't trying to kill their children for the sake of God (SWT).

Given the background of the ritual is in lieu of child sacrifice, that doesn't much impress.
"Instead of killing your children, just offer me a piece of their flesh (And also some will still die, but that's an accident resulting from mutilating them.)"
In either case, the deaths show how ridiculous the argument that it isn't mutilation are.

It is a sacrifice of flesh intended to appease a bloodthirsty god, and sometimes it kills the victim. That strikes me as sacrifice. The covenant is one based on a ritual of partial child sacrifice, and your argument is that just because that partial sacrifice of children goes too far and fully sacrifices them that doesn't make it a ritual of child sacrifice.

It plainly is. What's more absurd about it is that viewed in this context, your god is plainly lying to you.

"Instead of killing some of your children to appease me, just cut bits off them, I promise it'll be fine."
So then imagine all of you doing it in the temple at once, and multiple ones of them still end up dead.

He must have known that would happen, right? He's omniscient, apparently. So he's effectively still demanding you kill children to appease him.

So basically his covenant is one that allows the practitioner the gift of denial and self-deception. It's a nod and a wink that "We aren't sacrificing children.", quite the character isn't he.

It's not in-lieu of child sacrifice, it's part of ritual cleanliness according to the Law of Moses (whether that's the same reasoning as Muslims do, I couldn't tell you), and it's a mark of entering the Tribe of Israel.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Except when you have a complication such as, you guessed it, phimosis, it becomes hard (if not outright impossible) to maintain an acceptable level of genital hygiene, and that can lead to problems far worse than circumcision. As for the HIV/genital cancer benefits, it's not a huge benefit in the first world. It's still there, but it's not something of great consideration.

Also, literally every surgery (from purely cosmetic ones to life-saving ones) can be botched, circumcision is not an exception at all. You can die from a botched heart transplant just as you can develop a secondary infection from appendix removal, it's integral to surgery. Also, it has been almost 9 years since I was circumcised and I have yet to develop a single "detrimental effect" of any actual worry.

The risk of botched surgeries can be mitigated by trained medical professionals performing in a safe, sterile environment with the appropriate tools, but sometimes, shit happens regardless of surgery type.

However, as someone who is circumsized myself, I would not recommend the surgery as a first choice, but rather a last resort when other means (such as steroid creams and such) have been exhausted.

Nowadays, circumcision isn't even permanent, since foreskin regeneration is rapidly becoming a valid choice for those who feel uncomfortable about their circumcision.

I get you feel strongly about this but you should really read the posts you're responding to.

Given that no one has argued against it for medical necessity, and that the argument is that if it is infant circumcision for religious reasons, we feel it should be banned until the child is of an age ho be able to commit to a non-necessary surgical procedure and be fully warned of what the consequences as well as benefits, spiritual and or health, that they might expect.

Katganistan wrote:Given that no one has argued against it for medical necessity, and that the argument is that if it is infant circumcision for religious reasons, we feel it should be banned until the child is of an age ho be able to commit to a non-necessary surgical procedure and be fully warned of what the consequences as well as benefits, spiritual and or health, that they might expect.

And I don't agree with that sentiment.

Katganistan wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
I get you feel strongly about this but you should really read the posts you're responding to.

Given that no one has argued against it for medical necessity, and that the argument is that if it is infant circumcision for religious reasons, we feel it should be banned until the child is of an age ho be able to commit to a non-necessary surgical procedure and be fully warned of what the consequences as well as benefits, spiritual and or health, that they might expect.

I reiterate what I have stated earlier in greater detail.

If it is clarified that you are against RELIGIOUS circumcision and not MEDICAL circumcision and that the difference is made crystal clear in the presented arguments, then I will concede and back down knowing that medical circumcision is at the very least recognized as necessary, albeit more as a "we tried everything else" last resort than a first solution.

It would be nice if people refrained from unsavoury terms such as "barbarian", "mutilation", and "deformity" if they do not clarify which circumcision type (religious or medical) they are applying these terms to.

I excuse myself for any exaggerated wording or outbursts, I just wanted to make sure that people recognized the distinctions between the two types.

Salus Maior wrote:

Katganistan wrote:Given that no one has argued against it for medical necessity, and that the argument is that if it is infant circumcision for religious reasons, we feel it should be banned until the child is of an age ho be able to commit to a non-necessary surgical procedure and be fully warned of what the consequences as well as benefits, spiritual and or health, that they might expect.

And I don't agree with that sentiment.

Which we have all figured out by now.

Cekoviu wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
And I don't agree with that sentiment.

Which we have all figured out by now.

And I don't just disagree with it, I think it's pretty clear that such thinking will serious damage certain religious/cultural communities, and that's wrong and discriminatory.

Salus Maior wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Which we have all figured out by now.

And I don't just disagree with it, I think it's pretty clear that such thinking will serious damage certain religious/cultural communities, and that's wrong and discriminatory.

Which we have also figured out by now.

Cekoviu wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
And I don't just disagree with it, I think it's pretty clear that such thinking will serious damage certain religious/cultural communities, and that's wrong and discriminatory.

Which we have also figured out by now.

And I've figured out that you're fine with discriminating against said communities.

Salus Maior wrote:

Katganistan wrote:Given that no one has argued against it for medical necessity, and that the argument is that if it is infant circumcision for religious reasons, we feel it should be banned until the child is of an age ho be able to commit to a non-necessary surgical procedure and be fully warned of what the consequences as well as benefits, spiritual and or health, that they might expect.

And I don't agree with that sentiment.

So if I decided according to my religion, you needed to have your nose cut off in infancy, that's A-ok.