lurscher

that is a random comparison that doesn't make any sense. while you were at it, why you didn't compare it with eating, since it seems to be dangerous too (you can always choke right?), or breathing since always a poisonous gas can be around? If you aren't putting any thought behind what you are going to post, why to waste your time doing it?

So you have decided to not consider reports of ANY damage as proof of a potential risk. But the potential benefits are just as "unproven" by that same standard (since apparently your standard is to consider something to be proven only when it is widely accepted and no valid rebuttals are in sight) Also' date=' implicitly you seem to assume that the risk, whatever it is, it's ok, even if your children(s) are the ones that are going to suffer it, just because you consider that potential damage unbindable to the procedure by current knoweledge. So you seem more worried about your childs not having legal grounds to sue you, instead of what would be best for them? well, you said you don't consider a man saying that the procedure had profoundly undesired effects as a proof of it being harmful. But you now state that a man (or a thousand) saying that the procedure had only beneficial effects is a proof of it NOT being harmful? Your assert about the jewish nation is ill, because on the same vague grounds one could assert that womens in Zambia have performed the procedure to its daughters since the dawn of time, and no harm was done to its female population. Since you want to focus the discussion entirely about the ethics aspect, i ask you: if the risks and benefits are both unproven, why would a sane person induce such a onerous gamble into its own child?

simply not true. At worst based on cultural assumptions. categorically not a fact.

LOL! so, since when the ear is a sex organ? i know that ear is an erogenous zone for some people, but the comparison is completely ridiculous I would better try to compare it with clitoris ablation in some african tribes. In that case however, sexual function is COMPLETELY REMOVED, instead of simply partially crippled, so i wouldn't dare the comparison either.

I was circumcised at age 22 (now i'm 30) not because i wanted for some strange reason, but due to a phimosis-like skin problem that i developed (balanitis xerotica obliterans), which required removal of most of my frenulum (yes, ouch). People that have been circumsized at birth hardly can realize what they are missing since they have nothing to compare against. I have and i can assure all of you, you're missing a whole lot. Even if my post-surgery sex life is still gratifying, is quite far from the experience i had pre-surgery. The only way i can make a fair comparison is with having a plaster cast, but not 4 or 6 months, but for life, and with an ever-increasing itch on the phantom frenulum. I'm not afraid to confess that at points i thought i was going insane, and considered suicide several times as the only way out. If a skin graft would have a chance of improving my situation i would consider it without a glitch, even if it meant take immunosuppresant drugs for life. I hope this gives you a rough idea how healthy these procedures can be.