any more drama queening to be had from your part?
Project much?
As my eye drifts down the page, I see you prancing from your standard "mutilation" mantra to imply that circumcision is on par with branding a child with a hot iron. If anyone is flouncing into the conversation with overblown histrionics, it's you sweetie.
You think that parents can mutilate their kids because it was done to you; I think you and the ones that think like you are primitive child abusers, and are perpetuating a cycle of violence.
You are the reason why there is a need for laws of this sort.
I'm a primitive child abuser now? Shouldn't I be prosecuted?
Oh, wait. Megalo "prima" don, drama queen. Never mind.
I can tell you that the chance of passing such laws in the United States is virtually nil. We have a Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion, and at least one prominent religion which regards circumcision as a necessary ritual.
On the other hand, the vast majority of circumcisions in the United States are not done for religious reasons. You
might have a shot at cutting the number significantly if you stopped lying and drama-queening, but more later when I'm speaking to cooler heads.
And, if I understand you, not the child's choice either.
That's right. Children do not get to choose what they eat, where they live, where they go to school, or what it says on their birth certificate. They also do not get to make their own medical decisions.
So you're advocating the tyranny of the parents instead, then.
Up to a point, yes.
(by the way, your attempt to equal "cleaning a child" with "sexually molestation" was truly pathetic and horrible, and nobody here would argue they are the same)
It was spot on as a critique of the people who say "circumcision is mutilation".
Is it dishonest? Sure it is, in virtually all cases. It adds an implied level of prurient interest to a situation in which prurient interest is almost never present, just as "mutilation" adds an implied level of crippling disfigurement to a surgery which almost never results in crippling disfigurement.
They only reason someone would use the dishonest negative term instead of the more honest and more accurate term is because they don't care as much about the truth as about evoking a strong emotion.
And me, I prefer to think that the rights of a child to not have his own body mutilated is about ten million more times more important than the parent's right to "choose"* to mutilate another person's body without said person's informed consent for no good reason. I'm not American, but if I were, I'd say that "America, the freedom to not get mutilated against your will!" is much, much closer to the ideal of freedom you rant on aboutm than "America, the freedom to mutilate other people without their consent!" will ever be.
Except it's not mutilation, and most Americans know that. When you say it is, you seriously undermine your credibility.
Most Americans see mostly circumcised penises. While they're certainly not as pleasant to look at as a shapely woman, there's nothing revolting or mutilated-looking about them.
I get that you think you need to be shrill and strident, but it really just makes you look silly and dishonest. When you say that most American men are disfigured and crippled, no American man or woman can take you seriously.
As I said before, most American circumcisions are not done for religious reasons. It's just a cultural habit, like watching moronic reality shows or firing up two tons of steel to go to the corner store for a loaf of bread. Your best bet for discouraging the practice here is education, but that means honest education. Point out that the medical justification for it is shaky, and that disfiguring complications are a real possibility, and I think you'll be halfway there. Trying to make the case that it's mutilation is just not going to fly here, in my opinion. In fact, I think it will be counterproductive, as it's just going to make Americans think you're another lying socialist, which maybe you are, but for most Americans that's the opposite of persuasive.
"Probably unnecessary, potentially harmful". At least it's honest.
Who said anything about "arousal"?
Well, when you rub a
circumcised wienie with a warm wet cloth...
