Quote Originally Posted by curlyg
I don't agree with most of the points you are making for circumcision, and I'm honestly stating as much. I don't think the dubious medical benefits can justify it, and I do think that it is a non-consensual physical interference just like cutting off someone's useless pinky toe. I consider that to be physical harm. But I consider that the physical harm is JUSTIFIED in some cases - like for Jews, where this is a very significant cultural practice which far outweighs the relatively minor physical interference/harm. I think though that in many cases, in the general population, where they do it for silly reasons like 'we wanted him to look like his dad', circumcision really isn't justifiable
You don't agree with the hygiene issue? You don't agree with the fact that circumcised men tend to catch STDs less readily? You don't agree with the many other points that dayag raised? But you claim that circumcision is akin to cutting off the pinkie toe. And to female circumcision? Yet, you are against the banning of male circumcision? Well I have to say that if I held your views, which I am not, I would be in favour of banning male circumcision, even for religious reasons in the same way that I favour banning female circumcision. But as it is, I am NOT in favour of banning male circumcision because I don't agree that it is a form of harming a male infant in the same way that female circumcision harms females.

Quote Originally Posted by curlyg
Well, assuming your nails stayed a constant length (i.e. they don't grow and so don't raise the risk of injuring your infant) then I'd be inclined to say parents shouldn't be messing with them for no good reason... Yeah...
Yeah, that sums up your position. Male circumcision is just as harmless as clipping the finger nails, irrespective of whether the finger nails grow back or not. Yet you are talking about "the principle of causing harm to others". I just don't get it ...