Re: Circumcision is good

>> "You're implying your views are superior. Why are
>> they superior?"

> Okay, I have no intention to go into any long, drawn
> out futile argument with you. I gave you my opinions
> as to your post. I will leave it at that.

> If you don't agree, that's your perogative, just as it
> mine to disagree with you.

There's no need for a discussion to become an argument or for it to be long, drawn out or futile. If I put forward views then I should be willing to explain the rationale or the thinking behind them and I would expect others who put forward dogmatic views to be willing to do the same so that we at least reach an understanding of where each other is coming from. No-one has yet explained to me in a satisfactory way why the US alone, among Western nations, practises routine circumcision of male infants and no-one has yet given me any convincing medical reason for such routine circumcision of male infants.

There are other areas we haven't even mentioned -- for example the disadvantage and pain suffered by women as the result of routine male circumcision which creates something which develops into a relatively-insensitive blunt instrument out of what would otherwise be a very sensitive, probing device which becuase of its sensitivity is used gently rather than like a bit of broomstick.