Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
The thing is that it's not considered a big deal. You're trying to make it one, flailing and failing because the hundreds of millions of circumcised men out there generally don't care about this issue like you do.

It's not about "having to wait", it's about the fact that male circumcision is so minor as to be nominal except to a group of people who aren't male-circumcised and somehow think it's a crime. It's not significant enough, either as a preference, medical need or cultural practice, to be worth banning on infants.
It is significant enough to be on medical ethics agendas, and professional guidelines. It's major enough that even insurance companies won't reimburse for the procedure, because it is NOT medically necessary.

It's important enough that it's on all the health/medical/parenting web sites. Physicians and parents no longer accept it as "just do it, it's no big deal, millions are cut...." People are asking why, and saying no, because who the hell cuts a baby "just because it's been done before"?

It's interconnected enough that it's part of the debate on ANY genital mutliation. In case you forgot, the thread started as Female cutting and AAP's strange edict, and retraction. And it's not just about men, but women too, because they're the mothers. I let my husband choose and that was stupid. Now millions of moms and dads are saying let the boy choose when he's older.

You seem to think it's "no big deal" because millions of men are circumsized, and they're not holding rallies or protests, or something. That's just....a strange way to look at this.