“1. Objectively false huh? Care to research this subject,...”

I have and you are wrong. I referred to research proving him wrong not layperson opinion.

2. Now you insist the organ is "fine and intact"..look up the definition of mutilation and permanent disfigurement....

“Definitions of mutilation on the Web:
• an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part
• Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.
• The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part."

So much for mutilation. Nothing essential lost. Hence the contrived stuff spun by the anatomist and loopy anti-circumcision groups desperately trying to bridge the gap.

"Definitions of disfigurement on the Web:

• A technical term in workers' compensation cases for a serious and permanent scar to the head, neck, or face.
• In Texas law, disfigurement is defined as that which impairs the appearance of a person, or that which renders unsightly, misshapen or imperfect, or deforms in some manner. ...
• an appearance that has been spoiled or is misshapen; "there were distinguishing disfigurements on the suspect's back"; "suffering from facial disfiguration"

So much for disfigurement particularly pursuant to definitions relating to head and neck.

The terms just have rhetorical value for loopy anti-circumcision groups.

”And women prefer the "clean cut" look eh? Is that a defence is it?...”

It seems relevant to both the definition of mutilation and disfigurement. As you have demonstrated it doesn’t stand alone but it adds weight to the fact that it is neither of those words you used.

”3. More word ...”

Precisely (referring of course to the second sentence). However just like circumcision the needle provides a potential benefit so it is acceptable whereas the gun only harms so it is illegal. Of course if you pricked them with a syringe full of Hiv blood instead it would become an illegal assault. The word games are the exaggerated terms used by loopy anti-circumcision groups.

1. The point was, there is research from more than your single sexologist on the internet, just like their are 'astronomers' (my basis) vs. a single 'astrologer' (your basis).

2. You said it was "fine and intact"..

Now mutilation: sub points 2 and 3 fit. You are focussing on the "lost...limb" part exclusively

Disfigurement: You really think this applies to head and neck's only

Steel,

We can discuss this all we want but it doesn’t change the fact that things like immunization and circumcision are a good idea.

1. The relevant research related to the internet video guy’s claims. I know there has been a few posts and it is only natural to lose track to a degree so I’ll refresh your memory.

You introduced a video where someone claimed to be a neuroanatomist and proceeded to claim that the foreskin is essentially a sex organ and he directly extrapolated the amount of skin involved from the amount of skin removed from the baby.

I pointed out that that is wrong for two reasons. The extrapolation failed to take into account the normal effect of aging on foreskins. To add to my own limited observation I relied upon the observation of someone who has seen many examples due to his job (the sexologist). That is the extent of his involvement in this discussion. Simply a compelling observer to establish that the video guy was overestimating the size of the skin removed.

More importantly the video guy argued that the foreskin is effectively a sexual organ. That is the crux of it as otherwise the amount of skin makes little difference. In this regard I noted that loopy anti-circumcision groups reject as rationalisations the observation of men who are circumcised later in life that it makes no difference. The point is that the issue was considered more objectively last year when a Canadian researcher established that the video guy’s inference about the function of the foreskin is wrong.

I note from my prior research that he is not the first to make such claims and that similar speculative claims presented as fact are rife on loopy anti-circumcision internet sites and even some published papers. Extravagent and often elaborate inferences have been made about receptors in the foreskin of unknown function and thus significance. Fortunately due to physiological measurement we can put a rest to the false inferences.

2. Thanks for conceding that the first definition doesn’t fit. That narrows things. Lets consider the remaining ones.

“• Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death. “

Yes it is an act and if surgery can be said to injure would be an injury. Yes it doesn’t usually cause death. No it does not degrade the appearance or function. In relation to appearance it apes one extreme end of the continuum of a natural process. Further, many consider it improves the appearance. Hence it cannot be said to degrade the appearance. In relation to function in a tropical country the only effect on function is to dramatically reduce the likelihood of certain diseases. That is clearly not degrading the function. Accordingly, the definition doesn’t fit. (For the record just as treating breast cancer often involves removal of the breast treating penile cancer often involves removal of the penis. So it potentially prevents things that most people would consider might be mutilation or maiming.)

”• The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part."

Wipe out the limb part obviously although it highlights the absurdity of applying the definition to the flap of skin. Is there deprivation of an essential part? Obviously not. Removing the flap of skin causes no detriment so nothing essential is lost. The whole idea of the wishful thinking guesses of people like that video guy is to argue that the foreskin is an essential component of a sexual organ and there is therefore a deprivation of an essential part. We now know that is wrong. Unless something essential about the flap of skin can be found then there is no deprivation of an essential part. Indeed in this case there are potential benefits so it is the opposite. Hence the definition does not apply.

“Disfigurement: You really think this applies to head and neck's only”

No not exclusively as there are other definitions. I’m just pointing out that disfigurement is particularly glaringly obviously irrelevant pursuant to definitions that refer exclusively to heads and necks.

There are, no doubt, examples of lessons in the guise of religious instruction, having really been actual abuse.

However, the marked and unavoidable difference between real religious instruction, and every other form of teaching, is that religion actually teaches people how to cause the least possible harm.

I know it is terribly unfashionable to be worried about sinning these days, but the basic fact is that sins are defined by being the combination of an attitude and a behaviour, in which it is acknowledged internally, that another person might become harmed.

Any form of teaching which teaches us to be less harmful to life, has to be the winner in the long run.

Most supporters of pornography also support the same attitude as the Nazis had: that of supposing that one person, or one minority, can only benefit BY causing harm to others.

Religious teaching is all about how to find joy and happiness in life without causing harm to others, and so normally we oppose fabrications of religious teaching, as well as opposing those who oppose the real traditions of religious moral values.

Curaezipirid, my original post contradicts your moderate position.

Specifically the examples in it show the manipulation of children by telling them lies and about how they are sinners at birth and will be punished if they don't do what the liars say. Religion exploits children and harms the formation of their identity.

mjpb, the definitions of disfigurement do not refer "exclusively" to head and necks. limbs are not "essential" either, if you really want to look at it.

if you searched with google.com a little you would see the claims in the video are correct. it would be appropriate to reverse the roles you place in your comment. the single sexologist's opinion is the "speculative" one