Summations Only

That is because a few minutes after birth your sons were given a Vit-K shot which activates their ability to clot. Without that shot, the body starts to produce it on its own in....about a week.Coincidence or divine revelation?Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Total crap. Death from infection after a proper circumcision is not unknown.No one is trying to make a boogey man out of circumcision in terms of death rates but the rate is NOT 0% even when the procedure is performed properly.From wikipedia:
Circumcision - Wikipedia it is NOT an impossible side effect.

A VERY good point. Bravo. I am glad that someone else understand the concept of risk-vs-reward.

I am actually a little bit surprised to see you fall on this side of the line. I would have thought that your libertarianism would have you siding with Jon.Or are you not going so far as to say it should be banned?

Exactly. Perhaps we agree on more than we think.

I haven't seen anyone provide any benefits of circumcision other than oni who cited the anecdote of the increased frequency of blowjobs.The medical associations tasked with providing guidance as to the benefits of circumcision have trouble finding these mysterious benefits also. Maybe you could inform us and them so we can all be on the same page.

You are absolutely full of shit Jon! We would be equally as incensed by any kind of ritual mutilation regardless of body part.Your insistence on attributing sick motive to other people totally reveals just how BADLY lacking your arguments are.In this thread, you have consistently chosen bad reasoning and ad-hominem over honest debate.

Just like the clitoris right? You okay with that? I have asked multiple times now.What about if a parent doesn't like how the dice rolled and wants to do FULL gender re-assignment?You okay with that?Do parents have NO limitations on what unnecessary surgery they can do to their child?

Yea! Thats why I support voluntary body modifications by consenting adults.Pierced, split, circed, whatever. Boys now adays are not shy about taking metal to their dicks in an effort to please the ladies.

So the obvious adult thing to do is to start implying that your debate opponents are pedophiles right?

I would prefer to to leave fictional ethical dilemmas akin to the Minority Report for the future in which they belong.Gender reassignment happens to be something real that can be done today, with today's information. And there is even sometimes a REASON that doctors will recommend doing it. One of them is actually botched circumcision!What Can Go Wrong During a Circumcision? -- New York Magazine - Nymag Unfortunately, that one had a very sad ending. Sure. The problem is that the defenders of circumcision haven't provided any actual argument for why the line should be drawn on that side.No one has actually presented a rational argument for why we should disallow female circumcision yet allow male circumcision.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Because we are growing bugs we can no longer defeat with cheap medicine, exploding our health care costs, and creating unnecessary drug interactions. All because doctors tend to sneer at evidence based medicine. Well, I think that is pretty scary. I am not my doctor's subject, I am his patient. I would like to count on him to give me scientifically accurate information and treatment, not "practice". We outlaw female circumcision. Do you think that such a law is wrong? What if my doctor advises that such a procedure would be a benefit to my daughter against all scientific information? Would you still be willing to call that "practice"?Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Well, we aren't talking about some mysterious unknown diseases which we we don't even know how a doctor might perform in comparision to a medical scientist. We are talking about known medical issues, or in the case of circumcision, non-issues.If a doctor says that there is a good reason for a routine infant circumcision with no other indications, that doctor is wrong. Plain and simple. Granted, the science could change, but for now, the science is clear. So presumably, it bothers you that today, in the USA and other countries, poor parents and their doctors are restricted from circumcising their daughters? At least without a very good medical reason to do so?

Sure. The one thing that would cause me to do a 180 is a good reason. But preforming routine surgery on newborn infants because there MIGHT be a good reason isn't particularly convincing. Yet in many other comparable aspect of parental responsibility we question it. Why? What makes this particular issue raise hackles about freedom while foot binding, blood transfusion denial, chelation therapy for autism, all provoke the opposite response.For some thing, parents all of a sudden are expected to perform to a standard that we set because we recognize it is in the best interests of our society to give children their own set of rights. But in this case there is this weird reaction. From my perspective, it seems only cultural and religious or derived therof. Why? Just because they call it something else? Female circumcision shocked our conscious because it was new to us and granted, can be more extreme. I have never claimed otherwise. Who would dare claim the same for male circumcision in an environment where it was already widely accepted? Can you not see how it might look from a third perspective? From a culture that does neither? We would look like a bunch of hypocrites. Yea but were not talking about good reasons. We are talking about unevidenced reasons or cultural/religious reasons.Are you saying that if a doctor suggested female circumcision because it would reduce a girls future chance of getting an STD, something that has absolutly NO scientific basis, you would be okay with it? I mean common, its part of his practical experience as a doctor right?

So we started the practice with no justification but now we need a justification to stop? How does that make sense whatsoever? So now its only on the doctor? The cultural practice alone isn't enough? Thats besides the point that there have been doctors who advocate for the chelation.What is it exactly about this magical doctors stamp of approval that make a ritualistic incursion into a child's physiology okay? No. I am uncomfortable with it but since it is pretty much reversable and far more minor in comparison, I would be hard pressed to make an equivalent argument.Look, there is a continuium of things a parent can do to a kid. Somewhere on that continuium I believe there is a line which should stop allowing things. For me, ear piercing and circumcision fall on opposite sides of the line and I believe my argument justifies that opinion.Additionally, no one is making any particular claims about the medical benefits of ear piercing. So either you or I are vastly misinformed about what constitues female circumcision. It can range from only removing the clitoral hood to clitorectomy to also cutting off the labia. So yea, there is different extremes of it. If you think that description is wrong then perhaps you should clarify what you think a female circumcision is. ANd what about no evidence? What if a parent just wants to do this for no reason other than their culture or religion? Or is a doctors note required for you? I have no idea what you are talking about regarding 'scraping off the entire vagina'. Not trying to be offensive here but you may want to brush up on your female anatomy.Lets back up to just a clitorectomy. What about that? It can likely be done just as safely as a male circumcision and has its original justification for the exact same reasons. If a doctor has a bogus reason based on his "practice" is that an okay enough reason for you to allow it?