There is a new religion on the loose.

It is required by gentiles & none-gentiles that they from hereon block their left nostril. it will not detach 4,000 nerves from the perhaps most sensitive organ on your body, it will not affect your primary function (to reproduce), it will not go wrong - resulting in having the entire nose chopped off, it will not stop you functioning in your ability to detect odours, it will not interfere with your taste sensation, but it is demanded by God.

So, c'mon folks - get some cotton wool and stuff it up your left nostril from now on as a symbol of your dedication.

Sounds kinda pathetic, doesn't it?

So... "Cutting private parts from children is neither primitive or criminal, if the children are male".

Billy, since you have a direct line to God, some of us might wonder why you waste your time on this petty little board? We bother with men's rights here. If that's part of His great plan, we'll share our accrued wisdom and debate criticism freely and without rancour. You seem reluctant to join in.

Did God assign you here as his personal Envoyant?
Your arguments are acceptable because all of us are obliged to wonder where they came from. We really have to think about it.

What we'd really like to hear is a 'new' argument. Not just the accepted religious/political dogma revisited, but something new that you discovered for yourself.

What's it to be? Mutilation of girls is BAD!! Mutilation of boys is still under discussion?

Yeah truthfully it does.

Right. And equally, basing circumcision on a religious value or 'traditional' value is equally pathetic. If God wanted our foreskin's chopped up - he'd have supplied us with perforated skin, just like loo-roll.
I believe traditional values are excellent in the most cases, but I go along with CD's choice word - Mutilation. By chopping off 4,000 nerves is mutilation now matter how you look at it.

You couldn't get away with chopping the tip of people's noses off, or their finger-tips, or their toe-tips, or even their nipple-tips - but a penis, ohhhh that's ok it's only 4k nerves and he's only a male baby.

The principles behind chopping off 4,000 nerves is as pathetic as my imaginary religious cult that I posted.

Yes I believe cutting private parts off anyone is criminal. Since when does skin become a private part of the body?

So you bother with mens rights as in the prohibiting of another mans right to circumcise his sons? Is that what you mean with bothering about mens rights? Since when YAN have you debated my beliefs without rancour and harsh criticism like a whiney little feminist? Please do tell me when!

I'm glad that you have had to stop to think. With your feminist style of debate I would have to say that you need to look at yourself. So you speak for everyone now? You haven't even put forth any argument, you just come and start throwing stones like any good little feminist. Mutilation of anyone is bad. But circumcism don't equate to mutilation much like your comments don't amount to a debate but rather a stoning.

I don't think so. See e.g. this article. A few excerpts:

Good TSG, nice to see a real argument, I can't argue with those findings.
But I still hold to my belief that it's skin and not an important body part.

Karl the word got out and all through my school years I was called many names like beef stick, one eyed monster, long dong and even the wife insulted me because I was so big it hurt her. But never was it implied that I had been mutilated. I just don't feel mutilated.

Then, I take it you're actively informing others, this is an unecessary barbaric procedure?

I sense an element of regret regarding you're decision to allow you're sons to be sexually mutilated. Rather than embrace the abhorrence of you're decision, you instead grasp pitifully onto defending the undefendable.

Never. I'm upholding the right of a child to CHOOSE! At a later date (18) he could apply for circumcision, after weighing up the facts, and alternatives. Do children not have rights?

"Those who believe in circumcision" you mean the selfish "biased" parent.

Quote:

I believe mutilation is exaggerated term for the process.

I think if most men had their foreskins sliced off against their will tomorrow, mutilation would be top of their descriptives regarding explanation as to their predicament.

But according to you, from you're sons "enforced" experience, it was painless and a breeze? Contradictory! Does temporary pain invalidate the intial crime by virtue of it's just a few minutes of pain?

No, just protect the most vulnerable. Children. Any objections?

Hitlery argued against male circumcision? Ensure continuity? Look at how illogical and ridiculous this response is to my quote you posted.

Subjectiveness, particularly religiously bound, has absolutely no merit or value regarding true morality.

I don't need to apply hyperbole to an already obvious moral dysfunction in you're argument.

God and I? Wow, you have exclusive access to the man! Could you please set up a meeting with his lordship, as I have a multitude of complaints as a tenant in his "divine domain." He's a really shitty landlord?

If you saw circumcision as "gods work" why would you be bothered by the word mutilation?

I'm not telling you how to raise you're children. What I am telling you is, you don't have the inherent right to 'slice and dice' their private parts. let them decide this at a later date, when they are of an age of "moral consent" 16? 18? Certainly not days/weeks old.This runs aggressively against freedom of speech, and 'choice' of the individual.

No, you said that.

No, it's an 'exact' descriptive of the reality.

The tradition of gentlemanly conduct is to retort with something more original than the intially intended declaration. To "repeat" with a slight deviation isn't very original! Is it?

Billy, my only argument is that it should be a personal choice, not a form of indoctrination. If I choose to lose 4,000 nerves, it's my choice - not my Mom or Dad's.
When my first Daughter was born, we - her parents - discussed ear-rings. It's not quite the same thing, I know, but we talked and concluded that we couldn't make that decision for her, even though we thought she'd look pretty with them... just like many think a hacked up penis looks better.

We decided to leave it until she was old enough to decide for herself. Now, my wife and our Daughter is a different story. She asked for my thoughts (though why she bothered is a mystery, as you'll read) about our Daughter having ear-rings in. I disagreed based on the same principles as previously, stated, whereas she wanted our Daughter to have ear-rings right that moment. We negotiated on her being about two or three years old.

After two weeks of scowling, I inquired whether her scowl was because she wanted Natalie to have her ears done. Yep, that was it. She got her way. And the scowling ended.

Now, imho, that was one parent doing anything in her abilities to get what she wanted. Circumcision is the same - it's an adjustment of the natural form based on the aesthetics as preferred by one or both parents - often fueled by false claims of superior health, religious mumbo-jumbo and ideologies long out dated.

Now, if your wife demanded that your newborn girl have a tongue stud - would you go along with it? And hey, let's not forget - it's claimed to improve sexual pleasure for the partner...