but no woman has an abortion on a whim

Personally, I'm far more troubled by the women who get pregnant on a whim-- understanding, however, that it is perfectly within their rights to do that as well, whether I happen to like it or not-- whether it's to try to secure an unstable relationship or because they're bored or just passive. Abortion is an active choice, albeit a less than pleasant one in the way that surgical procedures tend to be; however, carelessness with birth control, denial and/or passivity while pregnant, and indifferent parenting are far weaker and more generally ill-informed choices than recognizing the harsh realities of an badly-timed or otherwise undesirable pregnancy.

I'm a liberal born with the reserved temperament of a Northeastern WASP and bred in the South, and as such have always been an outside observer of the culture here. The South is basically a place of emotional excess governed mostly by strict societal expectations, which makes it such a perfect fit for the modern GOP. Writing the South off isn't the answer, but neither is pandering and/or attempting to sooth its citizens-- after all, if the Dems have to do that out of weakness, better for voters to go double or nothing with the GOP and try to dominate the rest of the country (also keep in mind that nutjob Republican lawmakers from here are a more effective contribution to a majority, from a regional POV, than less-powerful blue dog Dems). We need to work with what we have-- and make sure it does work-- and eventually the South will come along at least part of the way, out of economic need, embarrassment, whatever. They don't want to be left out, but the sad fact is that we can't really afford any more Southern politcal & cultural dominance in this country, seeing how much damage has been done in recent years, so the best bet really is to do a better job with what we have.

it isn't designed to stamp out a man's sexual pleasure or identity

In religious terms, it usually establishes an identity, which I guess can also be construed as subsuming personal identity to the tribal, if one wants to be all academic about it.

And as someone mentioned already, the popularity of circumcision among American Christians-- who have no religious obligation to do it, of course-- can be directly traced to efforts to prevent masturbation by decreasing sensation.

Regarding the subheadline, I don't think these studies will have much impact on people in high-risk areas, but they certainly make circumcised Americans feel superior. Personally, I wouldn't do it to a kid unless I expected him to become a truck driver in Botswana or something; a middle-class American should be perfectly capable of understanding the significance of condom use and acting accordingly.

I don't know or care-- and I doubt anyone else does, either-- the extent to which male orgasms may be affected by circumcision (and there's really no way to compare those who are circed as infants with those who are adults, because those who grew up without a foreskin are likely more desensitized anyway after years of exposure). Hell, some women who have had clitoridectomies still can reach orgasm, and I doubt that the climaxes themselves are that different from what fully intact women experience. The difference is most likely in the journey, not the destination, because foreskins not only have additional nerve endings from the rest of the penis, they also are apparently functionally different, meaning that sensations experienced would also be different. Now, men can go on and on about how fabulous their orgasms are, how they couldn't possibly be any better, but there actually is more to sex than the end result, and assuming that there isn't pretty much validates some of the old cliches about men and sexual selfishness. Y'know, women do notice when you guys time yourselves to reach some sort of imagined longevity standard and/or get impatient with the time we may require, neither of which are really all that much fun.

that the India gender selection piece is being misinterpreted as an abortion issue and called racist, when the actual problem-- from an evil-feminist POV-- is that girls are being aborted because they're considered, you know, lacking in value in Indian culture. Can't imagine why feminists would object to that, right?

I've often said that if the religious right had their way, after a few generations America would see infanticide of girls; you set up a culture where women are economically marginal, less healthy, less educated, and with extremely limited options in life, you're going to have one in which couples want sons more than daughters, and act accordingly.

if it is made available to gays it will formalize and acknowledges this fact and forever preclude the possiblity (at least through the currently existing institution of marriage) of reestablishing the concept that you need govt. approval to have sex

I think another source of fundie disappointment is that married sex is acknowledged as private, and is usually considered respectable regardless of the details. If gays marry, then the prurient fascination so many homophobes have with the mechanics of gay sex is neutralized, and where's the fun in that?- taking away such a titillating subject would really upset a lot of them.