FALSE.
Practicing circuмcision as a ritual is condemned.
Circuмcision is not condemned as a mandatory medical intervention.

NOT FALSE.  The Church condemns it whether or not one believes in it, so ritual or not, it is forbidden.  Yes, it is forbidden as ritual.  Yes it is forbidden. 

This is close to blasphemy.  I know you're using "emotional"/poetic language but this is just wrong to say.  

God had to destroy the world in Noah's days because it was completely corrupt - murders, sorcery, satanism, wars, human sacrifice, etc.  It was the only way that God could "reset" humanity.  God did not promise He wouldn't destroy the earth again (which He will at the 3 days of darkness - again, because we are out of control), He only promised He wouldn't do it by flooding.

Circuмcision might be "cruel" but so it eternal fire.  Christ's crucifixion was "cruel" but it was the only way that you could go to heaven.  As +W always says, "God is not a nice puppy dog."

You know this whole women are emotional thing is getting out of hand I think. 

I’m not being blasphemous. I’m simply stating I know the kind of God I follow, and I don’t romanticize Him. He has called for some harsh, and scary things to be down for the worlds good. He’s always been pretty clear on what we are supposed to be doing. Once Jesus died on the cross it ended the need to fulfill the promise through circuмcision (and all the rules in the Old Testament). 
Circuмcision has been needed in very few situations, but on whole it’s a very over used practice that is in fact brutal... needed or not. Circuмcision should not be done on infants because there is absolutely no medical need of it. (Until they grow up, and POSSIBLY have a medical need for it). 

whether or not they place their hope in it (circuмcision), it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

What part of the word "hope" did you not comprehend?  What part of "observed" did you not see?

I suspect that the Church allows circuмcision for genuine medical necessity, but not because of the argument that you have been making.  Your argument does not seem to be backed by Church teaching.  I think that principle of double effect would work better.

I wasn't arguing in favor of circuмcision.  I was simply stating that you cannot say that something is intrinsically evil if God mandated it.  I was going up against those who impute mortal sin to Catholics who have their sons circuмcised because they think that there are medical benefits.

There's no double effect involved in circuмcision.  You're cutting off the foreskin.  Period.  There aren't two things happening here.  Double effect is for cases where you do a procedure to accomplish one thing, but then another thing happens (which is the bad unintended thing).  When you're doing a circuмcision, there's only one thing happening.  So I'm not sure where you're going with this.  Some people confuse double effect with "ends justifies the means", that you're doing a bad thing for a good reason (not acceptable for Catholics) ... which is what I suspect you had in mind in invoking double effect (incorrectly).  Amputation of a body part is intrinsically neutral.  If done for sufficient reason, it can even be a good thing.  Done for insufficient reason, it could be a sin (in varying degrees).

Not presently.  No christian practices circuмcision because of religious reasons; they do it because modern medicine has told them it's a benefit.

Well, there are probably pockets of Judaizing "Christians" still left.  But, yes, even atheists commonly practice circuмcision.  If you ask me, I would say that vaccination if FAR WORSE than circuмcision in terms of the harm it can do and often does, but many have been persuaded that it's bad to NOT vaccinate.  They're wrong, but I would not impute mortal sin to parents who vaccinate thinking it's a good thing.

Not presently.  No christian practices circuмcision because of religious reasons; they do it because modern medicine has told them it's a benefit.

It doesn't matter. Florence says it cannot be practiced at all without the loss of salvation. Specifically, elective circuмcision.

You know better. The Church has spoken.

Your interpretation of Church teaching is wrong; mine is right.  Yes, I know better ... than you.

I wasn't arguing in favor of circuмcision.  I was simply stating that you cannot say that something is intrinsically evil if God mandated it.  I was going up against those who impute mortal sin to Catholics who have their sons circuмcised because they think that there are medical benefits.

There's no double effect involved in circuмcision.  You're cutting off the foreskin.  Period.  There aren't two things happening here.  Double effect is for cases where you do a procedure to accomplish one thing, but then another thing happens (which is the bad unintended thing).  When you're doing a circuмcision, there's only one thing happening.  So I'm not sure where you're going with this.  Some people confuse double effect with "ends justifies the means", that you're doing a bad thing for a good reason (not acceptable for Catholics) ... which is what I suspect you had in mind in invoking double effect (incorrectly).  Amputation of a body part is intrinsically neutral.  If done for sufficient reason, it can even be a good thing.  Done for insufficient reason, it could be a sin (in varying degrees).

Indeed, otherwise, why does Jesus Christ instruct us in Matthew 18:8-9 that it is better to amputate a hand, foot, or even an eye, than to have it cause you to sin and fall into hell fire.  Perhaps it is better to cut out the tongue than to commit the sin of gossip, to spread untruth, or to teach false doctrines and false interpretations.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire.

And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.