Last login: Tuesday, January 26, 2010
"A better comparison to infant male circumcision would be the decision of a parent to pierce a female infants ears"
This would be nice if it were true, then there wouldn't be an intactivist movement. However, instead of two little holes in earlobes - which I personally think shouldn't be done until she can consent - circumcision removes the most sensitve part of a man's genitals. The foreskin grows to be 15 square inches. If you think the two are the same or even remotely similar you are in denial. I don't want to sound argumentative or rude but there are only so many ways you can sugar coat the truth. Sometimes it is better just to tell it like it is.
January 26, 2010 at 6:04 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )