Aug 10, 2012 -- 5:07AM, Ibn wrote:

That child's penis is not mutilated but circumcised.

Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

Mutilated is an appropriate word for the "operation."

No. Not in case of penis. The penis is made neater. It is the useless and needless foreskin that is mutilated.

He has now given his parents the right to do what they did in 1942.....

Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

Only to not argue with his parents.

There was never any need to argue with them. The only argument is from people who are not even involved.

Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

Again, a point you seem to be unable to understand is that your point here is irrelevant, illogical, irrational, and not at all dealing with the topic. Because one person is happy with their mutilated penis doesn't mean that it is something that should be done to every little boy.

Who said that it should be done to you or every little boy if it worked for me? Opposite is the case; because they are not happy with their foreskins or their husband/partner’s foreskin so they want others also to be unhappy by forcing them not be circumcised.  

Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

Try another line of argument. This one isn't going to work.

It is working fine even if it is denied.

Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

You could try it on someone more naive than I am. It might work on a 10 year old.

It will not work on a 10 year old boy. I am sure it is well understood by an intelligent person only.

Aug 10, 2012 -- 4:24PM, christine3 wrote:

Aug 10, 2012 -- 4:21PM, Erey wrote:

It's right there and I posted the link.  I even asked you a few times in that thread if you were sure about what you were saying

Erey, if you want me to see it, just go get it.  I already spent time looking for it.  No more.

how coonvenient for you, can't see what is right there

Aug 10, 2012 -- 5:56PM, christine3 wrote:

Aug 10, 2012 -- 4:58PM, farragut wrote:

Back to thinking about our subject for just a moment.

Proponents of keeping the boys natural have told us that apprpriate nettete' ought not be difficult for the boy. And I agree; it shouldn't. However:

As an example, from the age of six to 16, I and my family lived in a country residence with no bathroom, no lavatory, no running water. We did have an out-house for elimination. Personal cleanliness was a problem, and particularly so for the "natural" brother. I rejoice that I had been pruned.

Variations on such conditions are not today nearly as rare as we would like them to be in the U.S., and, as y'all well know, in some countries conditions are quite dismal. 

Now I recognize that for residents so burdened, the possibility of anesthetized pruning may be, from financial and logistical viewpoint, a bit slim, but I certainly believe that no government should be on record as prohibiting it.

We could go back to speaking about anatomy and history.  Coming from Native American background, the people of the tribes did not live far from a river or lake.  Most lived right ON the river.  There were rivers everywhere, no dams with rerouting rivers away from populations, no large towns were you have to travel by car 5-30 miles to find a river.  A short walk and dunk in the river, all clean!  I can't imagine people of the past in any culture not living close to water; therefore can't understand the reason for circumcision.  It seems more of a deterrent to sex than anything.

But we could think about the purpose for the urinary tracts for a minute also.  Urinating keeps bacteria from moving up the urinary tract to the bladder and kidneys for both females and males.  Both sexes have protection over the seed-delivery and seed-receiving parts as well as keeping dirt and bacteria out.  I couldn't image cutting the labia from the woman and exposing the clitoris.  There is so much natural protection to those areas for male and female for a reason.  That's the best defense against UTIs that I can think of.

Comming from a Native American background then you should know many Native Americans practised male circumcision.  The main ones being Azetecs and Mayans.  But there were also other tribes scattered throughout what we know as continental US who practised it also. 

I wonder why they did this seeing as they all settled near a river or what have you?  Seeing as how they could just magicaly get clean by jumping in the water?

My penis and I don't care.

This is a silly argument.

Aug 11, 2012 -- 9:38AM, Erey wrote:

 

Comming from a Native American background then you should know many Native Americans practised male circumcision.  The main ones being Azetecs and Mayans.  But there were also other tribes scattered throughout what we know as continental US who practised it also. 

 

I wonder why they did this seeing as they all settled near a river or what have you?  Seeing as how they could just magicaly get clean by jumping in the water?

 

 

Circumcision in the Americas among indigenous tribes is entirely false.  If it happened in any small incidence in South America, it was due to conversion by Jewish Spaniards as the indigenous had become unfortunate captives.  Modern scholars have argued against circumcision being practiced among the indigenous Americas.