> In my previous post I wasn't going to go into indepth
> detail, however,

>> "#1 She's confused and contradictory in that she says
>> girls don't get circumcised and then goes on to talk
>> about female circumcision"
> Women in the Industrialized/Western Civilization such
> as MYSELF DON'T get circumcised. I know it exists in some
> parts of the world, mainly third world countries where they
> do a lot of old, antiquated, sexist, female domination
> practices still.

You're implying your views are superior. Why are they superior? And you haven't taken account of the fact that women themselves are usually the perpetrators of female circumcision in most places where it is routine.

>> #2 She doesn't explain why she considers female
>> circumcision barbaric and wrong"
> ~please refer to item #1

I have referred to item #1 but you don't answer the point there either by defining what is wrong about female circumcision in all its varied forms. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it appropriate, but on the same basis I don't believe routine male circumcision to be appropriate -- an unnecesary mutilation with no definable health beneift.

>> #3 She apparently doesn't know what the vagina is and
>> appears to be confusing it with the vulva. If when she's
>> fifty she suffers a full prolapse and ends up with 4" plus
>> of vagina hanging out, she'll learn what it is!"
> I am a woman, and I know what I have. I have studied texts
> of it as well. I know the functions, the muscles, and the
> components of the human vagina, including the uterus and ovaries.

I don't doubt that you know what you have, but the vagina does not include the uterus and ovaries. Nor does it include the labia majora or the labia minora or the clitoris. The vagina is the tube between the cervix and the outside and is usually 4 to 5 inches long. Referring to the vulva as the vagina is not exactly an accurate way of doing things.

>> #4 She deems herself to be in a better position than anyone
>> else to make a judgment on a matter which will not affect her."
> I, as well as everyone who have children, will make decisions for
> them to a certain age. THAT'S LIFE...GET OVER IT!! My parents made
> decisions for me when I was a child, and your parents made decisions
> for you when you was a child. It doesn't mean I wouldn't be any
> less of a good parent.

But a parent is obliged to make decisions that are for the good of the child. And the civil authorities have a moral duty to intervene if the parent makes decisions which are not for the good of the child.

> Traditions are handed down to the next generation, and while
> circumcision is 'optional', safe and legal,

As female circumcision is deemed to be in many other countries!

> the decision to circumcise their son only matters
> to the family who considers circumcising their son.

No, it matters to the son who's been mutilated by the removal of about half the skin of his penis -- without his informed consent.

>> "some of us value our own genitals"
> I value myself just as much as anyone else.
I've no doubt you do -- as do I.

> That has nothing to do with circumcision,however.
It does rather -- if you deprive your sons of the opportunity to value the whole of theirs.

>> "...and respect the right of our sons to be protected
>> from unwarranted deprivation of a very considerable
>> proportion of the skin of their penises."
> ~please refer to item #4

You don't answer the point there. What you haven't faced up to is that in the Western world the US is alone as a country where circumcision of infant males is the norm. To me, routine circumcision of children, male or female, for non-medical reasons, is barbarous and ritualistic. I don't want my genitals mutilated and I don't see why my sons' should be either, unless it be for medical necessity. And most people in most countries in the Western world agree.

Uh, please learn your facts.

Circ is not widely practiced in India. Or on married girls.

RIC was not started as a covenant with God. It was started in Victorian times to curb masturbation, which was believed to be the source of most maladies. It was expressly designed to make sexual sensation painful. Please read the source material describing the procedure method and it's aims.


As far as this rediculous idea that female circ is sexist dominant behavior and male circ is "good"... WTF?! Tame those penises? Is that what this is about? How can removing sexual feeling of one type of genitals be violating human rights, but removing sexual feeling of another type of genitals be healthy, clean, and "good"?

Can you guys really not see that it's ALL dominant behavior over children of either gender? Is it really so hard to imagine that boys - and (gasp!) even BABY boys - have a right to keep all their own sexual nerve-endings?

I can't smack my forehead hard enough over this craziness.