That is not what I said. I said that your arguments for not doing this procedure on a child were ridiculous meaning that to use your line of reasoning that an infant, who has no choice, should not have medical procedures. You did not answer how that works with in utero operations etc.
I understand your passion on this subject...and want to understand what you are saying. But to remove the foreskin of a boy vs shaving off the most sensitive organ of a girl is comparing apples and oranges. And correct me if I am wrong, but it is still an option of the parents to decline the procedure. In the culture of hate (i.e. Islamofascism) this is done routinely to little girls.
I understand your passion on this subject...and want to understand what you are saying. But to remove the foreskin of a boy vs shaving off the most sensitive organ of a girl is comparing apples and oranges. And correct me if I am wrong, but it is still an option of the parents to decline the procedure. In the culture of hate (i.e. Islamofascism) this is done routinely to little girls.
Well, you did say in the previous post "...the circumcision of infant boys is believed by doctors to be safe and more healthy for boys. Your arguments against doing this to a child are ridiculous. If I misread that, my mistake.
Regarding "shaving off the most sensitive organ of a girl", removing the foreskin is doing this though the glans is left. The foreskin isn't just regular skin. A more direct correlation may be removal of the girl's clitoral hood, which I think we could agree would be wrong and unneccesary.
And, how can you say that Islam is a culture of hate? It's the official Religion of Peace! :)
It’s more like apples and, say, coffee tables, but yes, you’ve got it.