XPost: uk.legal, soc.culture.irish, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.religion.druid   
   From: hex@unseen.ac.am   
      
   GB wrote:   
   > On 20/09/2012 10:02, Norman Wells wrote:   
   >   
   >> That is uttely consistent with the BAPS statement that "there is   
   >> rarely a clinical indication for circumcision",   
   >   
   > Nevertheless, they are no longer saying what you said they are saying.   
   > So, your quotation is out of date.   
   >   
   >   
   >> and is totally contrary to   
   >> Cynic's lie that "medical problems make male circumcision something   
   >> that is _very commonly_ necessary for medical reasons".   
   >   
   > You are missing the difference between prophylactic and urgently   
   > necessary.  As I explained using my wife's osteoporosis as an example,   
   > the UK medical profession seems to be terribly short-sighted.   
   >   
   >> It isn't.  In the   
   >> main, it's done simply because parents want to mutilate their   
   >> children to impose their will on them.   
   >>   
   > What baloney. And your source for this is?  Your fevered imagination?   
      
   Sources aren't required for statements of obvious truth.   
      
   And it's the obvious truth for the vast majority of all circumcisions   
   performed in the cause of religion or 'culture'.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)