I took a few days to think about this issue rather than just responding automatically.
Its always good to step away from the argument and look at all sides and information, but from this response it seems that you didn't read any of the information or responses posted since you ignore them all.
I also read up on Richard Dawkins as I saw that many of the posters on this thread seem to agree with him. My conclusions:
1. Dawkins claims that the teaching of religion is abuse. Combined with the statements on this thread that male circumcision is abuse, I doubt the correlation is a coincidence. Childhood abuse is a real and horrific thing. I personally have known several people who were abused as children and who still bare the scars as adults. At the same time, I literally have known thousands of people who were circumcised, 100s on a personal level. Not ONE of them have claimed to be abused. To get more personal, according to your logic, my husband, my father and grandfathers, my best friends were abused. Not only is that statement ludicrous but it's a slap in the face to my friend who was beat with a tire iron, or my roomate from college who was molested. Especially considering that my husband had parents who loved him more than life- your statement is ridiculous.
Wow, now there are some bad arguments filled with fallacies. For myself, I've never read Dawkins and I don't know his arguments against religion. I became an atheist based on my own logic and reasoning and I've never needed another atheist to validate them, so I don't read those who advocate for atheism. That alone ruins your argument that he is influencing my decision to call circumcision abuse. Instead I came to the argument using, wait for it, ...
logic. Yes, logic. If I, as an atheist, took a child and hacked a part of him/her off it would obviously be abuse. No questions asked. Now if I as a person of faith hack a part of a child off, suddenly it becomes less obvious? Where's the logic there. And lets be realistic, this is just an indirect Attacking the Person fallacy that has no real bearing on the subject.
The second part of your argument is just the False Dilemma fallacy. We can call "real abuse" abuse or circumcision abuse but not both. While in reality we can call them both abuse, because that's what they are. You also use a version of the Slippery Slope fallacy that claims we will some how dilute care for real abuse if we call this abuse. That was the same argument used in rape cases where physical force wasn't used instead of lack of consent. I'm sure you would agree that this is a horrible argument and unworthy of even being discussed.
Your third case is just the Authority of the Many fallacy. A truly ludicrous argument. Because something is done and done often its not wrong? Because something is approved of by many people its okay? And because its custom it can not be questioned? Examples include the argument for slavery and the argument for ignoring rape to name some of the worst uses of this argument. Currently, it shows up quite often in the rape of boys/men by women because we all
know guys always want sex.
All the guys agree a woman can't rape a boy/man.
All your anecdotal evidence assumes that you've spoken to each and everyone of those people on the subject and that they trust you enough to tell you truth. It also makes the assumption that they can make an informed decision on the subject, without bias, from a point of experience. I'm going to call BS. I would never discuss this subject with pretty much anyone in person. Its an uncomfortable subject that's very personal in nature.
Also, based on your name I'm guessing you're female and have no idea on how men really think. Its quite common for us to lie about pain and duty if we think it'll makes us look or feel unmanly; especially to those women we love. Its also quite common we'll lie to ourselves to protect our masculine self image. [Slightly OT: Can a man truly be honest with himself while chained to the male stereotypes of our society. No matter how much women claim to want a more modern sensitive man the reality is they still want a man, not a woman with a penis. Men are not allowed to change at the moment.]
The last sentence is just an Appeal to Emotion and easily ignored as not an argument but an attempt to tar us as horrible people for calling other people out on their actions.
2. There seems to be a genuine lack of empathy or desire to understand religious and/or cultural practices. To lump them all together is illogical. Additionally, because I am defending the Jewish practice of circumcision does not negate my agnosticism- for those of you who have claimed that, who are you to say what I believe or not believe? Also, how is that even relevant? What I do admit is that I have taken the time to educate myself on the cultural and religious reasons for the practice. Finally, even if you still do not agree with male circumcision, let's get back to the idea of empathy- you're not going to get very far by calling Jewish parents who love their children abusers. As I've already said, by all means campaign to change the practice- but until that happens or until medical science shows that it should not be done, I'm thankful for the first amendment.
Again, you try to get your argument across by throwing one fallacy after the next. Your Hasty Generalization on those of us here is unfounded. Personally, I was raised half-Christian and half-Jewish. I know the customs, the culture, and the reasons for many of both of their religious actions. I know the Jewish calender and I've studied Hebrew for my Bar Mitzvah. I have many Jewish relatives. Among them I don't know any who think a bris is beautiful. Mandatory yes, beautiful no. So your claim that I have no empathy is false. I've been there, but I know wrong when I see it. Just because it was accepted once does not make it unquestionable or right by virtue. Many religious practices are no longer allowed or acceptable. Time changes all things and this practice is wrong. It's time to stop it.
Also, the attack is not on you or the religion since Muslims, Jews, and Christians all do circumcisions (even some do it for aesthetic and not religious purposes). What we are arguing is that you can't justify a harmful action just based on religious dogma and practice. Your argument falls well short on logic and fact. And know that I too can give anecdotal evidence for the other side those who have been circumcised and see it as harmful.
