Well, I must admit that I am not for or against circumcision. I feel
that if the parents have strong tradition or religious beliefs, then
they should go for it. I mean it really doesn't seem to harm (it sure
hurts, but the normal procedure includes local anestesia, at least. So
the kid would have a "bit" of a burning sensation when urinating for a
few days).

If the parents on the other hand do not feel it to be neccessary & it is
not medically required (some boys need to have the foreskin removed due
to problems), then they shouldn't. I mean afterall, God/evolution
intended it to be there for a reason (nothing is there for no reason,
even the appendix is important in one way or another)

My problem with that thread is that "Karen Hill" here talks about
uncircumcised men as if they were sick or as if there was something
wrong with them. They are as nature intended them to be. & it is a load
of cr.. that most women prefer circumcised men.
Then it gets worse when she tries to get some sympathy by telling us
about her "sad" story of how she has been sexually used (not abused),
because of a scar on her chest. I hate people like this. Besides, what
on earth is such post doing on pregnancy newsgroup anyways?



Xyzzy wrote:

Joshua P. Hill wrote in message . ..


I'm all in favor of perversity, but its practice
should be limited to consenting adults.


If an adult feels that part of his genitalia
doesn't belong, so he cuts it off--that's neurotic.

But, removing part his child's genitalia
is neurotic and cruel. And irreversible.