Of course there have been lots of letters about this. When I was 24, I realized what being cut meant to me. Most of my discoveries and realizations were quite painful to experience.

Neal is a humorous writer, but I still found myself feeling sad by the end of the article.

When I started to read this article, I knew that it would have to inevitably mention genital mutilation. I also knew that I'd have a significant emotional response.

The essential question is whether people have a right to control their own bodies. If the answer is yes, genital mutilation shouldn't be used to combat AIDS. If the answer is no, even more severe mutilations should be put on the table.

The bottom line is that the ends don't justify the means. No one had the right to cut off a part of my body without my permission no matter how beneficial they thought it might be.

Circumcision doesn't sometimes cause scarring. Circumcision always causes scarring, it's just that some scars are bigger or uglier than others.

You should check out http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php for another study related to loss of sensitivity.

I don't buy into all the rhetoric that comes from the pro-choice side of the abortion debate, but this proposed bill really is a direct attempt to limit a woman's control over her own body.

It's an outrageous bill. Either abortion should be illegal, or the person getting the abortion should have final say. No-one should have to get a permission slip from someone they had sex with in order to make decisions about their own body.

I'd like to add my data point. I turned down a 6 figure job offer in California to move to Texas to be with my girlfriend. I ended up being unemployed for over half a year, but we also ended up getting married.

As it turns out, the company eventually died with the dot com bust. However, I didn't know that would happen when I made my decision to put love before my career.

The problem with passing more legislation to criminalize something that is already illegal is that we have an executive branch that has explicitly declared that it doesn't have to follow the law.

The real focus for ending these horrible practices is to impeach and convict the president and vice president for breaking the law. These crimes are so serious that criminal charges should be sought too.

Pam says:

It's about praying away the gay to save souls, since gays are

clearly more like a homicidal prostitute than your next-door

neighbor.

That pretty egregiously misses the point that was made. Your next door neighbor is like a homicidal prostitute too. There is no hierarchy of sins in the Christian worldview, and the band was making the point that singling out homosexuals for condemnation is counter to their beliefs.

Picko writes:

"If there is no hierarchy of sins, why do Christians seem to harp on endlessly about this particular one? Why don't we hear more about onanism, or not keeping the Sabbath, or not honoring your father or mother? Shouldn't all these sins get equal time? Hell, why don't we hear Christians spend more time decrying HOMICIDE?!?"

The point I'm trying to make is that it's only a small subset of Christians who make a big deal out of certain sins. I don't think that this second Christian band is part of that small subset. They seemed much more passionate about spreading the message of God's love for all people.

I may be reading more into their statement than they meant. However, being a Christian myself, and worshiping at a highly conservative church, I find that most of us concentrate much more on grace and love than on lists of sins.

Don't mistake the noisy RWNJs as good representatives of all of us who love God.

If Pelosi won't put impeachment on the table, are there any House members who could be the "go to guy" just like Dodd has been in the Senate?

What other options can be put on the table if we can't get impeachment? Indictments? Arrests? Serious investigations?

Isn't the whole conversation irrelevant? Regardless of how helpful/harmful circumcision is in the fight against HIV (and it doesn't even come close to abstinence or condom usage), should we really be cutting parts off of minors without their permission (they way the vast majority of circumcisions take place)?

It's just a basic human rights issue.

Those of us who are working towards bodily integrity and human rights issues surrounding genital mutilation include both men and women who have been subjected to genital mutilation.

I've actually met women who have been mutilated at one of the intactivist events in D.C. What struck me is how much we were in the same boat. It's only because the US never really got into practicing FGM that many of us are unable to see that there isn't much distinction between FGM and MGM.

Of course, every mutilation is unique. It's the general concept that is the same.

Whether or not she wins, Clinton is definitely right that her candidacy is a big deal. We may think that change comes too slowly, but praise God, it really does come!

I love the new Pablo column. I'd never before considered the issue of cut flowers. I always assumed that all the flowers came from local greenhouses.

We really are living in a global economy. My follow up question would be, "where do those South American countries get their flowers during their winter?"

My business runs CNN in the lobby, and CNN has been running this crap seemingly 24/7 as well. It makes me miss all the car chases and missing blond women.