>>31
"Listen: We are not talking about torture, rape or murder. They are different because circumcision is a harmless procedure that won't result in tetnus, perminant/memorable emotional distress or death."
Male genital mutilation, while it might not have negative medical effects, lacks any positive medical effect, and is painful for the baby.
"I already know it's painful, it just doesn't mean anything if you can't experience it."
What the fuck? It is painful, and the baby does experiance the pain. Again, until you proove the baby doesn't, it is reasonable to assume it DOES.
"And we've been over consent already. Children don't have consent for medical procedures until they are at least in their teens, anyway. It's a moot fucking point."
No, it isn't a moot point. There is no medicinal benefit from having a circumcision. None.
"Parents aren't going to stop themselves from giving lil' Timmy that flu-vaccine just because he doesn't want it."
Genital mutilation is a hell of a lot more painful than a flu shot. Not only is it in a far more sensitive area, the cut is larger, not just a small poke.
"Sure, Timmy probably doesn't NEED the vaccine but it's the parent's decision as to how they want to raise him, not yours."
There is a benefit to having a vaccine. There is NO benefit to having part of your dick sliced off.
"So, listen buddy...are we about done here? Because unless you link me to at least 4 ot 5 serious medical cases where hundreds-of-thousands of patients were effected in adulthood by being circumcised as an infant then your argument has no basis other than your homosexual wailings."
Whether or not they are effected in adulthood is beside the main point. The issue is that they are forced to undergo a completely pointless procedure - it has no medical benefit.
>>32
"There is none."
Exactly. SO there is no point in mutilating male babies' genitals, it is extremely painful, and results in a less enjoyable sexual experiance later in life. The only reason this form of child abuse is tolerated is because of insane religious people who wouldn't tolerate not being able to cut up their children's penises.
"Just like there's no point to people keeping the foreskin."
The reason to keep the foreskin is because it is extremely painful to cut it off, results in a less enjoyable sexual experiance later in life, and of course that there is no medical benefit to cut it off.
>>33
After years and years of walking around with no foreskin around your penis head, your penishead gets less sensitive. Also, the foreskin itself is, if I'm not mistaken, erogenous tissue as well.
Also, in this study here (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14979200&query_hl=27) they found that adults who were circumcised later in life have higher incidences of erectile disfunction. While the increase in risk is small, it is statistically high enough to say that circumcision increases risk of erectile disfunction.
>>34
RIGHT, BECAUSE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE = SOLID PROOF, RIGHT?