I am not a socialist or even a leftist-liberal. I am nothing, politically - maybe a bit of libertarian in there, though. Free enterprise and all that. Adults can do what they like - smoke tobacco, do dope, take alcohol, get amalgam fillings, take any kind of medical treatment they want, buy supplements, get their genitals altered, get vaccinated, etc. etc. I even favour freedom to form racially-pure towns and cities that exclude all others (Jews only/blacks only/aboriginals only/whites only/Hispanics only), i.e., I'd like to see anti-discrimination laws repealed. (But nobody would be forced to live anywhere that they didn't want, of course.)

Protection of children, of course, from un-necessary surgery would indeed be part & parcel of any system of laws I could support. And you call this a "socialist" attitude?

If a genitally intact male of age doesn't like it, he can get himself circumcised. No problem here.

If a man who was un-necessarily subjected to penile reduction as a baby is not happy about that, then what do you expect him to do when he realizes he wants that normal body part back - a part that the vast majority of genitally intact males do value and decide to keep?

Further - if a man was genitally altered at birth and is " happy" to be that way, hey, that is okay too. Though I think such men are huffin' & puffin'. They are just trying to make a virtue of necessity.

I personally know one man (trust me, there's a lot more like him) whose un-necessary circumcision didn't go well. I won't even bother trying to describe exactly what "it" looks like, but let us simply say: full of thick scars, no sensation, non-functioning. Please, Russ, what would you say to HIM (not me) in your prochoice views on circumcison? Try telling HIM (not me) that we need proper training, education and accountability. What good does that do HIM, today? No one had any moral right to take off a normal, healthy, functioning part of his body 35 years ago, and it is just as wrong today, your desire for better "training, education and accountability" notwithstanding.

How do you suggest HE should deal with his "problem"? And while formulating a reply to HIM, always keep in mind that (A) the overwhelming majority of intact males have no problems with their intactness, either physically or psychologically, and (B) the removal of the foreskin was completely unnecessary. I am awaiting your reply.

Too bad about your amalgams, Russ. But, hey, you had them removed, you chelated, you're healthy now - what's the problem? None that I can see.

You mentioned "good science". What is good science - any conclusions that you agree with, and everything else is bad science? The anticircumcision position is not based only on science, it is based on observation and common sense. It is based on people seeing that the male foreskin is no more prone to disease, infection, etc. than the female foreskin. Or any other body part of either sex.