(October 7, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 1:15 pm)Jesster Wrote: Should it be legal, though, in your opinion?

This isn't apples and oranges. This is the same level of choice attributed to the same people. Both parts of the body in question are arguably as important.

I already answered:

(October 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't know anything about it to say.

Then why do you have so much to say about circumcision? You have a hard stance there, but you can't think about the same question tied to the appendix.

I'm sorry I'm being tough on you with this one, but I feel I need to in these cases. This is important.

(October 7, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I already answered:

Then why do you have so much to say about circumcision? You have a hard stance there, but you can't think about the same question tied to the appendix.

I'm sorry I'm being tough on you with this one, but I feel I need to in these cases. This is important.

Because I am a lot more familiar with one than I am with the other.

I wonder about the irreversible psychological damage.

http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/cir...cumcision/
During the Surgery1

No anesthesia removes all pain - used with permission Saturday Evening Post

His foreskin is gripped with two hemostats (needle-nosed pliers) and a blunt object is forced between his foreskin and glans, tearing the connective tissue. This is very painful and is comparable to having a blunt object shoved under a fingernail.
Once separated, a hemostat is used to crush his foreskin lengthwise in order to reduce bleeding.

Next, the foreskin is sliced lengthwise through the crushed tissue to allow space to insert the circumcision device. Both of these steps are painful. His foreskin is clamped by the circumcision device. This is very painful and is comparable to having your thumb clamped in a vise.

His foreskin is sliced off. This is somewhat less painful than the preceding two steps.

His reactions to the pain and trauma vary, but include screaming, thrashing, vomiting, hyperventilating, urinating, and defecating. He might pass out. Some witnesses have observed that a baby might become quiet while being circumcised. This is evidence that his mind has dissociated (shut down) to escape the pain.

(October 7, 2016 at 1:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm)Aegon Wrote: This is my biggest disagreement with the anti-circumcision crowd. I just don't see the big deal about it. I know some users will say, "It's a chunk of your junk, how do you not care!?" but I really don't. Last time I had this argument I was told that circumcision is a child abuse, and parents who do it to their poor defenseless babies should have their child taken away. Because I'm clearly so traumatized by this thing that I have absolutely no memory of that a majority of American males had done to them too...

I won't even get into the medical benefits because it became clear to me last time I debated this that, while there are benefits to it, they're not very big ones.

There are medical benefits to having a clean dick...but we're not talking about clean dicks, we're talking circumcision.  Now, I can understand that you don't care..but why would you, you don't have foreskin, you have no point of comparison or consideration.  You've always been the way you are, in your memory, cut.  If someone told someone else to cut off a piece of my dick....and they actually tried it...I'd shoot them both without a qualm in the world.  I wouldn't serve a day in jail for it either, particularly if I were a child...because all of a sudden the reality of the situation becomes apparent...a reality which you, as an outsider with no possible point of comparison, cannot comprehend and thus do not care about.  

You don't know how you'd feel about it, had your mother decided to hold the scalpel.  I have -some- idea as to how a person in that scenario might feel.  This isn't a failing in you, it's not something that I think speaks to something about you in the negative, it's just the reality of -why- you don't care...and why that seems to be, in your estimation, a worthwhile and meaningful response to the anti-circumcision crowd.

As to trauma and memory, many children do not remembver being abused..in fact..that;s a common response to abuse.  Is that an excuse for abusing them..does that get the abuser off the hook?  "Well, they don't remember it, so, we cool?"  No, ofc not.

It is a common response to abuse, but are you actually going to compare the process of circumcision to serious physical and/or sexual abuse that could last for a much longer period in a child's life? Do you think those who were cut are psychologically damaged in some way because they experienced something the literal day they were born? I think the multitude of cut men who come out and say, "Eh, big deal" in response to the anti-circumcision movement does give some legitimacy to my argument. So many people paint circumcision as this awful, abusive, horrific practice, and, regardless of whether it is or not, when the people who have experienced circumcision are largely indifferent, I think it says something. 

I was born in Brooklyn and grew up on Long Island. In other words, I was surrounded by Jews. The fact that most men in the area are cut, combined with the medical benefits*, it seemed like an easy decision for my parents to make. And I have yet to feel upset about it.

*I assume you know the benefits already so I won't bother getting into them. And yes, I understand that the benefits may not be enough to warrant the surgery on their own, but in combination with the cultural norms of the area I was born, the decision made perfect sense.

(October 7, 2016 at 1:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Jesster Wrote: Then why do you have so much to say about circumcision? You have a hard stance there, but you can't think about the same question tied to the appendix.

I'm sorry I'm being tough on you with this one, but I feel I need to in these cases. This is important.

Because I am a lot more familiar with one than I am with the other.

Replace appendix with foreskin in all of my posts and think about it some more.

(October 7, 2016 at 1:15 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't know anything about it to say. I don't even know if it is or is not legal. But if it was legal, and if it was something that was medically practiced as circumcision is, and parents chose to do it for the reason that they thought it'd be best for their child, I wouldn't judge them as bad parents or horrible people for it.

Though I still feel like we're comparing apples to oranges here. At least to me, there's a difference between major surgery and cutting off a couple centimeters of skin. Obviously a line is drawn somewhere between what is and is not reasonable, otherwise everything can become a slippery slope.

Should it be legal, though, in your opinion?

This isn't apples and oranges. This is the same level of choice attributed to the same people. Both parts of the body in question are arguably as important.

As I have explained, the difference between the 2 is that one is a much more minor procedure than the other. I take that into account.

The appendix is not full of nerves more sensitive than your lips and the appendix is not crushed off your body with no anesthesia, causing enough traumatic pain for the mind to dissociate.

(October 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 1:15 pm)Jesster Wrote: Should it be legal, though, in your opinion?

This isn't apples and oranges. This is the same level of choice attributed to the same people. Both parts of the body in question are arguably as important.

As I have explained, the difference between the 2 is that one is a much more minor procedure than the other. I take that into account.

You are missing the point.

Your earlier argument is that it is much simpler early on. This is the case with both of them. If you want to know another difference, though, the appendix has far worse potential issues later on.

This has nothing to do with my question though. The question was "should parents legally have the right to make this choice?"

(October 7, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As I have explained, the difference between the 2 is that one is a much more minor procedure than the other. I take that into account.

You are missing the point.

Your earlier argument is that it is much simpler early on. This is the case with both of them. If you want to know another difference, though, the appendix has far worse potential issues later on.

This has nothing to do with my question though. The question was "should parents legally have the right to make this choice?"

It has everything to do with your question. Performing an appendectomy on a newborn is much more serious. It would be irresponsible not to factor that in.

(October 7, 2016 at 1:31 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Jesster Wrote: You are missing the point.

Your earlier argument is that it is much simpler early on. This is the case with both of them. If you want to know another difference, though, the appendix has far worse potential issues later on.

This has nothing to do with my question though. The question was "should parents legally have the right to make this choice?"

It has everything to do with your question. Performing an appendectomy on a newborn is much more serious. It would be irresponsible not to factor that in.

Yes, it is serious. So is removing anything else from an infant's body that does not need to be removed.

My question is in the legal choice that the parents have in the issue.