Original post by HydemanIt is not necessary, mandatory, compulsory, obligatory or any other variant of that word. You and those who agree with you on this thread have said this so many times that I'm sick of it -- there is no law of nature that says that the genitals of children must be mutilated. It is therefore unnecessary, non-mandatory, non-compulsory and non-obligatory. If they feel so strongly about it, they're free to mutilate their own genitals. If particularly religious people said that their religion tells them to rape their children, would that be okay? I suspect not.
You obviously don't understand the word 'responsibility' if you think cutting off the part of the genitals of their child is something parents should be allowed to do.
Of course we have the right to judge their decisions. In the same way that I judge those who do anything else that is harmful to their children, whether that be beating them, raping them, or killing them.
'Trivial.' Hmm. I somehow doubt you'd see it that way if your parents decided to peel the cut off your nose when you were born. What you dismiss as 'just skin' serves a useful function when it comes to sexual activity -- which, again, I doubt you'd see as trivial if your parents decided to come into your room right now and peel the skin off your face or other body part.
Physically: tissue damage, pain, loss of blood, risk of infection during the procedure, disfigurement of the penis by leaving an ugly scar, difficulty engaging in sexual activity in the future, glans dries out and becomes desensitised due to friction with clothing material etc.
Mentally and emotionally: distress and pain during the procedure and subsequently while urinating as the wound heals, reduced pleasure from sexual activity in future, including masturbation and intercourse, possible feelings of resentment towards the parents if they happen to arrive at the correct conclusion about the morality of what was done to them etc.
Future relationships: Sex isn't as pleasurable with all those missing nerve endings because the penis is no longer as sensitive, (if in the UK) not being able to satisfy partners who prefer 'uncut' penises, feelings of inadequacy as a result etc.
Child's innocence: Hmm. Let's see... Geez, that's a hard one... I can't possibly think why cutting off a part of their body and putting them in immense emotional and physical pain (given the thresholds in children) might count as taking away their innocence.
You understand nothing. Your argument thus far has been paltry at best and morally reprehensible at best. 'it's legal so it's okay.'