"Having your foreskin forcibly amputated is just as bad as having a hand forcibly amputated." "being ... killed is up there with having your genitals mutilated"
Let's not go overboard. We use our hands all the time, our foreskins only occasionally. The case against circumcision is quite strong enough without overstating it. The rest of what you say is pretty good, but our opponents will take overstatements like that one out of context and use them against us.
(I prefer to use understatement, myself. It makes my case more watertight.)
I understand your point and appreciate your reply. However, my statements are a matter of perspective. Having your foreskin forcibly amputated is just as bad as having a hand forcibly amputated in the sense that they are both involuntary and unwanted ablations of normal healthy functional body-parts. As to whether a person would prefer the one over the other is debatable. I once read an intact man allegedly write that he would prefer his hand was cut off than his foreskin, but this may have been hyperbole.
And as someone who believes in life after death and that there are many possible human sufferings far worse than death (whether there is survival or not), I don't consider death to be the ultimate evil and horror that many people seem to believe. In my opinion having parts of your genitals cut off as an infant is an anti-sexual procedure just as being threatened or harmed for your sexuality is an anti-sexual act.
In light of what you said, though, what do you think of the term 'genital mutilation' which many people (Mr Whitfield, who I was replying to, included) consider to be excessive and unnecessarily provocative?
P.S. Are you the Hugh behind the intactivism pages?