Yes, but allow a clause for religious beliefs.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
A more accurate comparison would be cutting off your long hair. Its just extra un-needed growth.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Well, at any rate, she must have missed me. I don't have a preference - unfortunately men are not given a choice so it would be unfair of me to do otherwise - but I've seen both. The male foreskin serves a very similar purpose to the female clitoral hood - it keeps things supple and protected. And the difference is plain as day. I've also seen my share of really terrible scars from circumcision. Usually when you see a bad one, the guy is numb all the way around the scar.
Should male circumcision be banned?
Keep your laws off of my penis.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."