butchering the unborn is okay but snipping a bit of skin is barbaric. More idological garbage than any substance in the arguements.

It seems obvious this issue is not going to go away, so I think it worthwhile, in fact essential, to get some facts on the matter.
I have no recollection of a foreskin, so I have no knowledge of its usefulness, sensitivity (ie to touch, etc), benefits or disadvantages in sexual intercourse - for either participant - and any downsides/disadvantages generally, and particularly as relates to health, hygiene, and the contraction or transmission of infection.
In the absence of further factual information, my assessment is that the foreskin serves no useful purpose, but is rather a hindrance, with potential for various forms of irritation and greater susceptibility to the acquisition and transmission of infection. Where's the upside?
Alternatively, my assessment of the female labia is that they do serve a number of useful purposes, have reasonable sensitivity and therefore a role in sexual activity, and little capacity to contribute to the contraction or transmission of infection - that is with reasonable hygiene maintenance. Where's the downside?

Surely one does not need to bring the clitoris into this - its nature, purpose, sensitivity, etc are beyond question. Hands off!

FGCS: If some women can not learn to love their mimmy, who-ha, or whatever, without some minor trimming of some loose bits, then who has a right to tell them not to seek some adjustment - as long as they are fully informed of the dangers, etc, before proceeding, and as long as this would only ever be undertaken by a fully licensed cosmetic surgeon (medically qualified - no technicians please).
However, anyone seeking adjustment to a clitoris would appear to be in need of psychiatric evaluation.

Pending contrary evidence, I consider the merits of the foreskin to be miniscule, and to consider it a Human Rights issue is little short of ludicrous. Emotional issue, cosmetic issue, maybe.

Labia? Different story. But let's not interfere with women's rights to self-determination. Choices in conception, pregnancy, motherhood, etc. So, why not labia, if it will make her happy?

I am ready to be convinced otherwise.

"Alternatively, my assessment of the female labia is that they do serve a number of useful purposes, have reasonable sensitivity and therefore a role in sexual activity, and little capacity to contribute to the contraction or transmission of infection - that is with reasonable hygiene maintenance"

No different to the foreskin.

But then boys and their bits are dispensable.

Oh if only boys were not made of "Slugs and snails: And puppy-dogs' tails", and they could grow up as girls do into 'wonderful women' and 'goddesses'. A woman's life is worth much more than a man's. It follows that boys' bits are not worth anything at all.

No-one, absolutely no-one can threaten to remove a bit of what makes a 'wonderful woman'. Sacrilege! That societal perception makes all of the difference.

Circumcision on its own, as a physical worldly act, is bad - but the intention is far more important that the result.

If one's intention in circumcising their son (or daughter for that matter) is PURELY and UNSELFISHLY to serve God, then their actions (even when misguided) are blessed, overriding any negative material effects.

Beware, though, those who do the same for social/cultural reasons: if the motive is to gain social acceptance or recognition by one's tribe, then it is impure and not unselfish.

Those who circumcise their children in the service of God (perceived or otherwise, it makes no difference) will do so no matter what - such as whether it's legal or otherwise. As first resort they will make every effort to give birth overseas or travel with the baby shortly after birth to countries where circumcision is legal, but if not possible, then they will become true martyrs and have no hesitation going to jail or even be burned at the stake as a result. God always comes first!

So the challenge is how to deter opportunistic circumcisions without persecuting God's people.

The state is in no position to determine people's intention, to tell what's in their heart of hearts. Just imagine the slippery-slope and the level of corruption arising if it attempted to do so!

But unlike intentions, facts are clear and obvious, so if it is made publicly known that "this person circumcised their boy/girl" (perhaps even on police records), then potential employers/partners/friends/investors/clubs/students/etc. can raise questions and judge for themselves how pure were a circumciser's intentions, then decide based on that whether or not they still wish to engage with the circumciser.

Another obvious measure for preventing opportunistic circumcisions is to not provide free medical care, but rather charge parents, for medical complications arising from circumcision.

Religion/culture/tradition cannot be separated in some cases and it is useless arguing the toss. Our laws are relevant, not some imported abomination.

First, the State must provide the same rights, legal protections and education for children. That must be regardless of birth accident. For instance, that they were born to aboriginal parents where 'culture' or religion have it as you will, decrees that they, girls and boys (although only girls are only cared about by Oz society) will be molested with impunity by male and female elders.

Similarly, any noxious practice against our morals and way of life, but especially against our laws should always be deterred. An example could be ritual slaughter, where it must be non-negotiable that prior lawful effective stunning be applied.

Regarding circumcision, it would be intolerable if it was supported by the State through Medicare or through private funds unless medically necessary. First do no harm. But the cutters are forever lobbying for taxpayers to fund their nasty business.

Dear Onthebeach,

<<Religion/culture/tradition cannot be separated in some cases and it is useless arguing the toss.>>

It may be difficult to separate between culture and tradition, but religion is a whole different matter and should have NOTHING to do with the other two.

<<Our laws are relevant, not some imported abomination.>>

Your laws are irrelevant if they go against God. If they aren't imported, then very well, then they are a home-grown abomination.

<<First, the State must provide the same rights, legal protections and education for children.>>

Why "must"? That's how you want it to be, and I don't disagree, but its a personal preference, not a must. You have been indoctrinated for too long by this "politically-correct" fashion (imported, BTW).

If so, then the answer is simple: anyone inspired by God to cut off parts of their child/ren should be free to do so, regardless of gender or culture.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned in my previous post, those parents who cut off bits of their children should be named-and-shamed and those who do it for impure (such as cultural) reasons should be ostracised.

<<That must be regardless of birth accident.>>

Birth is not an accident - a child chooses to born to his/her parents.
The reason you consider birth an accident is that you have no regard but for the material world and material body, as if we were nothing but a bunch of organic molecules. You are entitled to your view, but not to impose it on others.

<<For instance, that they were born to aboriginal parents where 'culture' or religion have it as you will, decrees that they, girls and boys (although only girls are only cared about by Oz society) will be molested with impunity by male and female elders.>>

That's none of your business - you invaded their country in the first place!

You robbed their land, you robbed their dignity, now you also want to rob them of their spirit.

How is trying to impose your Western values on everyone around different than Muslims trying to impose THEIR values on others?

(continued...)