Zombie foreskins.
I’ve know guys (all straight), who were circumcised as infants, but had no idea what circumcision was or that they’d been circumcised (or even what a foreskin was).
In a couple of situations, yes. If they were seriously identical twins or part of a larger number multiple birth yes [a tiny little ID number to make sure that you can specifically identify them while squirming around] or in the case of serious allergy or medical condition.
Hell, to be perfectly honest, I am in favor of medical chipping everybody with their medical records. I carry around a medicalert USB stick bracelet, I would love to get myself chipped. I am considering getting a meat tag with my allergy info tattooed on my ribs. [female here]
The child is too young to make the decision for himself at the time when it is best to perform the procedure. Therefore the decision falls on the parents, just like everything else in the child’s life at that point.
The exception are things that cause lasting harm, like physical and emotional abuse. But no lasting harm has been found for circumcision.
You’re responding to a 9 year old post.
So I guess the lawsuit didn’t cause much of a flap?
Or fap.
[sub]Sometimes, I hate myself.[/sub]
In case anyone is actually interested, parts of the case actually went to jury, and the jury found for the defendant doctor, finding that he wan’t negligent in obtaining informed consent. (As an aside, I discovered the plaintiffs had argued that the the female genital mutilation law in N. Dakota violated the equal protection clause, which I thought was interesting).
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s findings and rulings. Opinion here
Thank you, Hamlet, for following up to the original thread subject. Pretty much the outcome I would have expected. “Informed consent” does not mean having to tell you about every single possibly conceivable scenario in the direst terms preferred by advocates.* “[O]nly those that are significant in terms of their seriousness and likelihood of occurrence. There is no need to disclose risks of little consequence, those that are extremely remote, or those that are common knowledge”.*
And as to seriousness, I will indulge for a moment in being flip and say I know Jews, Moslems and cut gentiles who are going happily along with a “party in their pants” lifestyle - if remaining uncut would have so greatly enhanced their pleasure, I’d think they’d never hold a regular job.
I hate to, um, cut this debate short, but the original posts here are from January 2003 and many of the posters who participated in that part of the discussion are not around to respond. Anybody who is interested in the topic can open a new thread, but I’m closing this one.