Originally Posted by Janszoon

Again, this is not an absolute rule, as you yourself acknowledge at the beginning of your second sentence. If it were as clear cut as you're trying to make it out to be there wouldn't be so many court cases about whether or not parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children.

Originally Posted by RoxyRollah

IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.

Originally Posted by The Batlord

You're a terrible dictionary.

Originally Posted by The Virgin

what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.

Originally Posted by djchameleon

those cases you are referring to are medical treatments that are usually based off of religious bases and life or death situations in which case they won't allow the parents to refuse such treatment for their child but circumcision isn't anywhere near that.

Originally Posted by Il Duce

it's a relatively harmless religious practice, as I've said before

nobody I know who's circumcised will come out saying they regret having their penis "mutilated", even if they are staunchly atheist in adulthood

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Unsupported assertion followed by anecdotal evidence. What's your point?

Originally Posted by The Virgin

what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I'm not arguing whether circumcision is or isn't near that, I am pointing out that your statement that "the law states that parents represent the interests of their child until they are 18" is not absolute. Thank you for acknowledging for a second time that I am correct.

Originally Posted by RoxyRollah

IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.

Originally Posted by The Batlord

You're a terrible dictionary.

Originally Posted by djchameleon

The law states that parents represent the interests of their child until they are 18 so it makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by tore

You have a law. Laws can change, and maybe yours should. Just because your law is what it is now doesn't mean you have to accept it unquestioningly. I'm pointing out that an adult man could very well regret what was done to him as a child by his parents decision and in that situation, I would argue that the parents have failed to represent their son's interests. Whether they were allowed to represent them legally because he was under 18 is really besides the point.

Originally Posted by The Virgin

what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.

Originally Posted by Il Duce

any documented instance of such or is it just hearsay?

or your own conjecture?

Originally Posted by NORM

When we men discuss our feelings about circumcision, no one listens, not even doctors. I'm one of the millions of men who doesn't like being circumcised. I wish I had been able to scream at the doctors, "Hands off, its mine!"
-S.B., 47, Atlanta, GA

I've been restoring for almost two months and it's hard to believe, sex with my wife is getting better. I actually have more feeling. It's great.
-35 yr old man, CA

I was cut at the age of 11. As the years have passed, I find that stimulation is difficult to achieve. It seems as though an excess of manipulation, almost to the point of pain, is necessary to achieve satisfaction.
-V.T., New Jersey

After thirty years in the natural state, I allowed myself to be circumcised because, in my physician's view, there might be problems in the future. For me, the sensitivity in the glans has been reduced at least 50%.
-T.B.

I'm a 17-year-old male who is circumcised. I got to thinking, what am I missing? It makes me sad because I'm not whole as I was intended to be. Circumcision has deprived me of the most sensual receptor on my sexual organ.
-B.J., Oregon

I'll always be my parents' son, but my body belongs to me and no one else. No one had my permission to circumcise me. Since there was absolutely no medical threat from my foreskin, it is a clear violation of my basic human rights. Could some doctors be giving wrong advice on infant circumcision because it is a big business in the U.S.?
-G.D., Arizona

Originally Posted by djchameleon

you are arguing semantics then. I made my statement in regards to the actual topic of the thread not as an universal rule concerning all issues.

Originally Posted by tore

…the parents can't always fully represent the interests of the child.

Originally Posted by djchameleon

The law states that parents represent the interests of their child until they are 18 so it makes perfect sense.