>>68
I don't have to post "remarkable win" after myself to seem right, because either way I'm not against or for circumcision. So there's no "right" here, only "reason". ---Thus it is "unreasonable" to suggest the illegality of circumcison based on consent, when children commonly don't have consent until teenagehood, anyway.
It is "unreasonable" to suggest consent is needed when it is obvious to anyone capable of common sense that circumcision isn't decreasing the quality of life or harming the child in some irreversable or perminant way.
Finally, for all of your claims about "circumcision supporters" and "religious fanatics", you don't seem to grasp the truth that both sides of the circumcision argument have failed to establish their viewpoints as valid based on medical science. So, you fags can keep crying about dick sensitivity and mutalation all you want because for every one of you idiots, there's another equally inbred and equally pathetic moron crying about "Cheesy dick" and "Cums quick".
The only thing I find truly rediculous about this argument are people like
>>69 who equate Circumcision to a baby having it's fucking removed. What's more important here, foreskin for added sexual pleasures (something the child won't even miss) or the entire sense of hearing in one side altogether? (Something that will definately be missed) Even more important is that you're trying to take away people's choice (REGARDLESS OF REASON), when you're incapable of providing CONCLUSIVE evidence as to why.