[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Male circumcision most likely has positive (physical) side-effects.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is practically impossible to ever determine, I'm interested to hear what you mean by this. I assume you mean the decreased HIV/cancer risks or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that if it has any physical effects, then they seem to most likely to be positive. I meant to include some 'uncertainty' into the sentence regarding the possible things you mentioned and to illustrate how the procedures are not really comparable at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexual side effects are most certainly physical. They are also impossible to measure. And just because most circumcised guys would say "Hey I got no complaints" right now isn't any sort of argument for these possible effects being ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I stated it does not bother me if male circumcision is legal or illegal, I can see the views of both sides. My point was that it is not comparable to female circumcision (atleast not excision and infibulation).

You might hold up some intellectual arbitrary that says they are the same since they both involve children that have no say in the matter - and to some extent I'd agree in principle.

What I'm saying is that excision and infibulation is more similar to cutting the penis in half than removing the foreskin.