Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wouldn't surprise me at all. I've read the Constitution many times (as well as many Supreme Court decisions cover to cover).
As a medical procedure - sure. I've looked at the statistics before, and I don't have them in front of me, but it's something like circumcisions are medically necessary in 1 out of 100,0000 or 200,000 male children.
They don't HAVE to be medically necessary. That's not a test that is applied.
Quote:
A vast, vast, vast majority of circumcisions (99%+ probably) are not medical in nature - they are religious or cosmetic or out of tradition (routed in Christian purity whether the parent realizes that or not) - not sufficient reason, in my evaluation, to override my fundamental rights of privacy and liberty over my own physical self.
A right your parents get to express when you are a minor. Again, that's the point.
So don't circumcize your kids. What business is it of yours if OTHERS do?
You're right. There is a health issue. The foreskin is a functioning body part necessary for optimal sexual health. Removing it is harmful to the health of men.
You're right. There is a health issue. The foreskin is a functioning body part necessary for optimal sexual health. Removing it is harmful to the health of men.
No, and no.
It's about as functional as an eyebrow.
And I would love to see your definition of "optimal sexual health."
Eye-lids would be a better comparison, serving a similar function.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.