Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[John Dule]

I'd also like to point out that referring to my penis, or those of our Jewish, Muslim, and American posters, as "mutilated" is highly offensive and should be modded and infracted. There's nothing wrong with my body or any of ours.

I am willing to risk offending religious extremists in order to prevent this barbaric and inhumane practice from perpetuating itself to future generations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By substantively hindering an unpopular minority in the free practice of their religion.

But if the connotations around the word bothers you, you can swap it out for suppressive if you prefer. As in:

"In the case of male circumcision, the health and sexuality arguments for intervening are entirely unconvincing, and the effects on the ethnic religious minorities that practice it are quite oppressive suppressive, so male circumcision ought not to be banned."

My evaluation is the same either way

A ban on circumcision has nothing to do with religion. It is about protecting the bodily autonomy of infants. "The free practice of religion" stops being relevant once it starts causing direct physical harm to other human beings. Telling you that you can't cut up a baby doesn't affect your rights one iota. It is neither oppressive nor suppressive.

Not everyone shares your subjective perception that it causes physical harm.  Even if they did, why is physical harm a greater concern than spiritual harm?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd also like to point out that referring to my penis, or those of our Jewish, Muslim, and American posters, as "mutilated" is highly offensive and should be modded and infracted. There's nothing wrong with my body or any of ours.

I am willing to risk offending religious extremists in order to prevent this barbaric and inhumane practice from perpetuating itself to future generations.

So your subjective opinions are right?  I thought you considered yourself to be a libertarian. Objectively one can say circumcision is a physical alteration. Calling it barbaric or inhumane or referring to it as causing physical harm is very much a subjective opinion.

[afleitch]

I mean circumcision became turbocharged in the late 19th and early 20th Century in the USA as an anti-masturbatory intervention. To be direct for a moment, as someone who is uncircumcised, as most people in Scotland are and who has seen and handled many an uncircumcised penis, oral and masturbatory pleasure is 'inhibited' or at least has to be approached in a different way. Curiousity and genuine amazement over the sensations I was feeling with a foreskin was a very real thing for those I was with who were circumcised. Conversely, I've been with someone both before and after circumcision for phimosis and not having it was a relief, but that was a decision made for medical (primarily sexual) reasons as an adult. The idea of 'it has no effect on me etc' is valid, but it's based on never having experienced anything else.

[John Dule]

Not everyone shares your subjective perception that it causes physical harm.  Even if they did, why is physical harm a greater concern than spiritual harm?

The fact that it causes physical harm is not "subjective."

- Circumcision can cause a loss of up to 75% of penis sensitivity.
- More than 5% of all boys who are circumcised experience serious complications from the procedure. Meatal stenosis alone is found in 20% of circumcised boys.
- Men who were circumcised in infancy are 4.5 times more likely to take medication for erectile dysfunction later in life.
- The procedure is painful. Anesthesia is used only 45% of the time.
- The procedure is not medically necessary. In Finland, the rate of circumcision for medical reasons is one in seventeen thousand.
- Doctors are biased. A doctor who is cut is five times more likely to recommend the procedure than one who is not.
- The procedure can be botched (look up David Reimer).

Why is this more important than "spiritual harm?" Simple. Spiritual harm does not exist.

So your subjective opinions are right?  I thought you considered yourself to be a libertarian. Objectively one can say circumcision is a physical alteration. Calling it barbaric or inhumane or referring to it as causing physical harm is very much a subjective opinion.

Well, we've established the procedure as medically unnecessary, physically painful, irreversible, prone to complications, and performed without the victim's consent. If that doesn't fall under the umbrella of "harm," then what does? If we were talking about a culture that plucked out the eyeballs of all its girls when they turned eight, we would rightly condemn that practice as barbaric, inhumane, and needlessly cruel. Well, as a libertarian, it is my job to stand up for the victims of these types of Bronze Age practices. A baby is a human being too, and his right to bodily autonomy cannot be overlooked to satisfy the "spiritual health" of any religious community. The onus is on you to tell me why the practice should not be banned, and so far you are making a truly terrible case.

[7,052,770]

Not everyone shares your subjective perception that it causes physical harm.  Even if they did, why is physical harm a greater concern than spiritual harm?

The fact that it causes physical harm is not "subjective."

- Circumcision can cause a loss of up to 75% of penis sensitivity.
- More than 5% of all boys who are circumcised experience serious complications from the procedure. Meatal stenosis alone is found in 20% of circumcised boys.
- Men who were circumcised in infancy are 4.5 times more likely to take medication for erectile dysfunction later in life.
- The procedure is painful. Anesthesia is used only 45% of the time.
- The procedure is not medically necessary. In Finland, the rate of circumcision for medical reasons is one in seventeen thousand.
- Doctors are biased. A doctor who is cut is five times more likely to recommend the procedure than one who is not.
- The procedure can be botched (look up David Reimer).

Why is this more important than "spiritual harm?" Simple. Spiritual harm does not exist.

Sorry, but I don't believe a word of this. Sounds like total agenda-driven BS.

As I said, I'll change my mind when the US medical community changes its.

[John Dule]

Sorry, but I don't believe a word of this. Sounds like total agenda-driven BS.

As I said, I'll change my mind when the US medical community changes its.

Would you like citations?

The procedure decreases sensitivity.
55% of doctors don't use any anesthesia at all.
Circumcised men more likely to experience erectile dysfunction.
Stenosis data (their percentage is lower than the ones I've found elsewhere).
David Reimer.

If you just want to ignore the facts because "this is how we've always done it," own it and say so.

[7,052,770]

If you just want to ignore the facts because "this is how we've always done it," own it and say so.

This is just a bad faith argument. Never have I even come close to implying that my argument is "hurr durr this is how we've always done it," on this or ANY other issue, and I think you've seen enough of my posts to know that.

I agree with the multitude of studies and actual real-world evidence that circumcision lowers the chance of HIV infection. Your argument about China and Japan doesn't mean much, because HIV just hasn't ever come to those countries enough to turn it into a major pandemic like it has in SSA. However, it's downright foolish to handwave away the fact that HIV infections drop off dramatically at the Christian/Muslim line in Africa.

Additionally, you only bothered to cite about half of your claims. There is no way anyone can know whether men circumcised in infancy experience a different amount of sexual pleasure as adults compared to those not. I can say from personal experience that I have enjoyed sex and masturbation just fine, as has every single male (all of whom have been circumcised) that I've ever talked to about this. It's always uncircumcised men who are like "lol, there's no WAY that circumcised men could enjoy sex like I do!!" as if they have any idea.

Beyond that, your stats could be flipped around. Circumcised doctors are more likely to recommend it than non-circumcised doctors? OK, then non-circumcised doctors are more likely to recommend not doing it than circumcised doctors. Neither of those equivalent statements actually says anything. One time it was botched? That sucks, but any procedure can be. Sometimes docs don't use anesthesia? I'm not really qualified to comment, but maybe they should. Your ED comment is one random study (from Australia? Not sure because the article just talks about it and doesn't actually link to it) and isn't conclusive proof of anything, although obviously I'd be fine researching more about it.

Ultimately, you have no rebuttal to the fact that WHO and the CDC recommend it. I'll trust them over some random non-doctor on the internet who clearly has an angsty agenda.

[John Dule]

I agree with the multitude of studies and actual real-world evidence that circumcision lowers the chance of HIV infection. Your argument about China and Japan doesn't mean much, because HIV just hasn't ever come to those countries enough to turn it into a major pandemic like it has in SSA. However, it's downright foolish to handwave away the fact that HIV infections drop off dramatically at the Christian/Muslim line in Africa.

You didn't present any evidence that circumcision lowers the chance of contracting HIV. You presented a correlation by posting two random images and assumed that from that, we'd conclude that this stupid procedure is worth performing. North Africa and Southern Africa are geographically, climatically, culturally, racially, and religiously different from one another. And if you're saying that AIDS never came to North Africa the way it did to South Africa, then what exactly is your explanation for the many nations in the world with low rates of circumcision where it didn't spread to?

And even if the excuse for doing this was to prevent the spread of STDs, why would we have to do it to infants? Why not wait until the person is becoming sexually active and allow them to make an informed decision? Doing this to newborns isn't just pointless-- it takes away the choice for them. So even if I were to accept your premise-- which I don't-- that is still not a reason for why we should do it to people who won't risk contracting AIDS for another fifteen years.

Additionally, you only bothered to cite about half of your claims. There is no way anyone can know whether men circumcised in infancy experience a different amount of sexual pleasure as adults compared to those not. I can say from personal experience that I have enjoyed sex and masturbation just fine, as has every single male (all of whom have been circumcised) that I've ever talked to about this. It's always uncircumcised men who are like "lol, there's no WAY that circumcised men could enjoy sex like I do!!" as if they have any idea.

Men who've had to go through the procedure later in life for medical reasons have stated that sensitivity was lost. This is not controversial.

Beyond that, your stats could be flipped around. Circumcised doctors are more likely to recommend it than non-circumcised doctors? OK, then non-circumcised doctors are more likely to recommend not doing it than circumcised doctors. Neither of those equivalent statements actually says anything. One time it was botched? That sucks, but any procedure can be. Sometimes docs don't use anesthesia? I'm not really qualified to comment, but maybe they should. Your ED comment is one random study (from Australia? Not sure because the article just talks about it and doesn't actually link to it) and isn't conclusive proof of anything, although obviously I'd be fine researching more about it.

Ultimately, you have no rebuttal to the fact that WHO and the CDC recommend it. I'll trust them over some random non-doctor on the internet who clearly has an angsty agenda.

Okay, so the stats can be flipped around. What I'm saying is that someone is biased here. Maybe both groups are biased to some degree. But if there is bias-- and if the procedure is risky-- and if it can cause damage throughout life-- and if the science on its benefits is shaky-- then at least acknowledge that we should not be doing it to infants who have no say in the matter. Any benefits they will gain from it won't be relevant until much later in their life. And if you pretend to give a hoot about individual choice and personal autonomy, doing this to an infant should be as abhorrent to you as it is to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of the 'studies' you cited admitted that it was of self-selected men, Dule. So that effectively means it's as much junk as a political poll of self-selected voters. Perhaps that's why not only the journal it was published in, but it's publisher has gone kaput.  Considering how difficult that is for it to happen, that doesn't speak well of the journal or the articles that landed in it.

As for not using anesthesia, all that does is argue in favor of requiring its use during circumcision, which I already indicated I had no objections to. It's not a valid argument for prohibiting circumcision. Nor are the complications that arose from one case of an extremely unusual method of circumcision; at most that argues for disallowing the use of that method.

When it happens, stenosis is an easily treated complication, so again you raise a point that doesn't argue for prohibition, just serves as a reminder that it is surgery and should be regulated just as any other minor surgery.  If the only choices were unregulated circumcision and prohibiting circumcision, then perhaps an argument could be constructed in favor of prohibition, but those aren't the only choices and it's intellectually dishonest to raise points that could only be relevant if they were the only choices.  The only one of your cites that I find at all relevant to the issue is the decrease in penile sensitivity, and that cite also indicated that the decrease is more noticeable to those who undergo the procedure later in life, and was based on another self-selected online survey of whom less than 8% of those who were circumcised had it done at birth.

In short, Dule, all of your cites either have obvious methodology problems, are irrelevant to the issue of banning infant circumcision, or both. If that's the best you can do, then you haven't made your argument. And in a debate over whether something is to be prohibited, I believe it's definitely the side in favor of prohibition that bears the burden of making a case, no matter what is proposed to be banned.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

This is a very personal issue for me because I was circumcised as a baby for probably religious reasons, and its something I very much am not happy about.

[John Dule]

One of the 'studies' you cited admitted that it was of self-selected men, Dule. So that effectively means it's as much junk as a political poll of self-selected voters. Perhaps that's why not only the journal it was published in, but it's publisher has gone kaput.  Considering how difficult that is for it to happen, that doesn't speak well of the journal or the articles that landed in it.

As for not using anesthesia, all that does is argue in favor of requiring its use during circumcision, which I already indicated I had no objections to. It's not a valid argument for prohibiting circumcision. Nor are the complications that arose from one case of an extremely unusual method of circumcision; at most that argues for disallowing the use of that method.

When it happens, stenosis is an easily treated complication, so again you raise a point that doesn't argue for prohibition, just serves as a reminder that it is surgery and should be regulated just as any other minor surgery.  If the only choices were unregulated circumcision and prohibiting circumcision, then perhaps an argument could be constructed in favor of prohibition, but those aren't the only choices and it's intellectually dishonest to raise points that could only be relevant if they were the only choices.  The only one of your cites that I find at all relevant to the issue is the decrease in penile sensitivity, and that cite also indicated that the decrease is more noticeable to those who undergo the procedure later in life, and was based on another self-selected online survey of whom less than 8% of those who were circumcised had it done at birth.

In short, Dule, all of your cites either have obvious methodology problems, are irrelevant to the issue of banning infant circumcision, or both. If that's the best you can do, then you haven't made your argument. And in a debate over whether something is to be prohibited, I believe it's definitely the side in favor of prohibition that bears the burden of making a case, no matter what is proposed to be banned.

Hey, don't just take one study's word for it. Maybe look at the NHS website, which explicitly states that "Other possible complications of circumcision can include permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex." It also notes that the evidence linking circumcision to STD prevention is contradictory and inconclusive. As for stenosis, I only picked one of many complications that can arise.

But once again, even if it was proven that circumcision prevents STDs-- which it isn't-- and even if it weren't possible that the procedure could result in decreased sensitivity-- which it is-- then that still would not prove that this surgery should be performed on infants. I would support a system where circumcision is illegal up until the age of 13-14, whereupon an individual could choose for himself whether or not to have the procedure (if his parents tried to strongarm him into it, he could report them for child abuse). But if you are going to inflict this practice upon a vulnerable, helpless child who cannot give consent, then you will have to do a damn fine job of convincing me that it is absolutely necessary, extremely safe, and results in no adverse side effects. These are not things you can prove, because frankly, they aren't true.

[John Dule]

This is a very personal issue for me because I was circumcised as a baby for probably religious reasons, and its something I very much am not happy about.

Thank you for sharing. So long as even one person is in your situation, we should not settle for the status quo on this issue.

[politicallefty]

I don't see how you can take the entirety of the medical community around the world and not come to the conclusion that the American medical establishment is completely out of step. Even then, the most recent statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics stops short of recommendation, just that there are pros and cons. That statement was highly controversial and at odds with the statements from every other country that makes a statement on the issue. What remains true is that no medical organization in the world recommends routine infant male circumcision.

I have little doubt that a significant part of the reason it remains common in the US is the health insurance structure and ultimately money. One thing of note in the AAP statement is that they want insurance to cover the procedure (which to many parents would convey a sense of medical need). The rate of circumcision in this country has declined dramatically from its peak in the 1960s. Medicaid has stopped coverage in a number of states and generally those states have substantially lower circumcision rates. In Canada, the single-payer healthcare system does not cover circumcisions without medical necessity and Australia bans it in public hospitals unless there's medical necessity.

I find it strange how the American medical establishment (through the AAP) can cite all these numerous benefits of circumcision and maladies of the foreskin that no other country does. Surely if the foreskin were so problematic you would see some evidence in the rest of the world (which is overwhelmingly uncircumcised apart mostly Muslim countries, Israel, and the US)? As for arguments about sensitivity and pleasure, those probably are hard to quantify. I can't see logically how removing foreskin doesn't reduce pleasure and sensitivity when the foreskin has numerous nerve endings and also keeps the head of the penis protected. No one's saying all pleasure or sensitivity is reduced (unless it's botched in some fashion), but if you could only see in black and white, you would still probably say you enjoyed your vision all the same.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of the 'studies' you cited admitted that it was of self-selected men, Dule. So that effectively means it's as much junk as a political poll of self-selected voters. Perhaps that's why not only the journal it was published in, but it's publisher has gone kaput.  Considering how difficult that is for it to happen, that doesn't speak well of the journal or the articles that landed in it.

As for not using anesthesia, all that does is argue in favor of requiring its use during circumcision, which I already indicated I had no objections to. It's not a valid argument for prohibiting circumcision. Nor are the complications that arose from one case of an extremely unusual method of circumcision; at most that argues for disallowing the use of that method.

When it happens, stenosis is an easily treated complication, so again you raise a point that doesn't argue for prohibition, just serves as a reminder that it is surgery and should be regulated just as any other minor surgery.  If the only choices were unregulated circumcision and prohibiting circumcision, then perhaps an argument could be constructed in favor of prohibition, but those aren't the only choices and it's intellectually dishonest to raise points that could only be relevant if they were the only choices.  The only one of your cites that I find at all relevant to the issue is the decrease in penile sensitivity, and that cite also indicated that the decrease is more noticeable to those who undergo the procedure later in life, and was based on another self-selected online survey of whom less than 8% of those who were circumcised had it done at birth.

In short, Dule, all of your cites either have obvious methodology problems, are irrelevant to the issue of banning infant circumcision, or both. If that's the best you can do, then you haven't made your argument. And in a debate over whether something is to be prohibited, I believe it's definitely the side in favor of prohibition that bears the burden of making a case, no matter what is proposed to be banned.

Hey, don't just take one study's word for it. Maybe look at the NHS website, which explicitly states that "Other possible complications of circumcision can include permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex." It also notes that the evidence linking circumcision to STD prevention is contradictory and inconclusive. As for stenosis, I only picked one of many complications that can arise.

But once again, even if it was proven that circumcision prevents STDs-- which it isn't-- and even if it weren't possible that the procedure could result in decreased sensitivity-- which it is-- then that still would not prove that this surgery should be performed on infants. I would support a system where circumcision is illegal up until the age of 13-14, whereupon an individual could choose for himself whether or not to have the procedure (if his parents tried to strongarm him into it, he could report them for child abuse). But if you are going to inflict this practice upon a vulnerable, helpless child who cannot give consent, then you will have to do a damn fine job of convincing me that it is absolutely necessary, extremely safe, and results in no adverse side effects. These are not things you can prove, because frankly, they aren't true.

Why are you misrepresenting what the NHS site says? It only weakens your argument to do so. It's doesn't say "that the evidence linking circumcision to STD prevention is contradictory and inconclusive"; it says that evidence is not there for STDs other than HIV.

There's evidence from several trials carried out in Africa that circumcised men have a lower risk of acquiring HIV from infected women.

But it's unclear whether male circumcision can help prevent other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

There have been several studies into male circumcision and the risk of other STIs, but the evidence to date has been inconclusive and conflicting.

Also, I'm not claiming no side effects, just that when properly performed and monitored, those side effects don't adversely affect a person's physical health.  Beyond physical health, the relevance of other effects is entirely subjective.

Also, you seem to be espousing a purely materialistic point of view that only an unaltered physical body is a desirable body. Basically your argument is that parents can't be trusted to raise their kids in a manner that accords with your own subjective opinion of what is desirable, so the state must intervene.  Yes, parents will make mistakes, but so will the state. My own admittedly subjective opinion is that when properly performed, the side effects are sufficiently light that the principle of parental authority (which I'll admit the importance of which is also a subjective opinion) has the better claim to priority over that of state control of children.

[John Dule]

Why are you misrepresenting what the NHS site says? It only weakens your argument to do so. It's doesn't say "that the evidence linking circumcision to STD prevention is contradictory and inconclusive"; it says that evidence is not there for STDs other than HIV.

There's evidence from several trials carried out in Africa that circumcised men have a lower risk of acquiring HIV from infected women.

But it's unclear whether male circumcision can help prevent other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

There have been several studies into male circumcision and the risk of other STIs, but the evidence to date has been inconclusive and conflicting.

Also, I'm not claiming no side effects, just that when properly performed and monitored, those side effects don't adversely affect a person's physical health.  Beyond physical health, the relevance of other effects is entirely subjective.

Also, you seem to be espousing a purely materialistic point of view that only an unaltered physical body is a desirable body. Basically your argument is that parents can't be trusted to raise their kids in a manner that accords with your own subjective opinion of what is desirable, so the state must intervene.  Yes, parents will make mistakes, but so will the state. My own admittedly subjective opinion is that when properly performed, the side effects are sufficiently light that the principle of parental authority (which I'll admit the importance of which is also a subjective opinion) has the better claim to priority over that of state control of children.

I did not misrepresent what the NHS says. It says that there "is evidence" linking circumcision to HIV prevention, but it shies away from making a definitive statement about whether or not this is a causal relationship. If such a causal relationship had been established, they would have said so-- and perhaps been more willing to recommend the procedure. However, they did not because no such conclusive evidence exists. And some of us, thank you very much, think that the other factors (such as decreased sensitivity) are relevant.

Where did I say that altered bodies are undesirable? I stated above that I have no objection to people getting circumcised when they are at an age where they can fully consent-- just as I have no problem with a consenting adult getting gender reassignment surgery, tattoos, piercings, or any other manner of body modification. What I have a problem with is inflicting this sort of irreversible practice on a human being who cannot give consent. By doing this, you are removing that person's right to choose for themselves, and personal choice is the core tenet of libertarian thought. I am not saying that the state should decide who gets circumcised any more than I am saying that the parents should decide. What I am saying is that should be up to the individual to whom the penis belongs, and nobody else. Please confront the argument I am actually making instead of constructing pointless strawmen.

[Dr. MB]

Yeah. Unless it's medically necessary or the person wants it done for whatever reason. But it's unnecessary for babies. I'd never do it if I have kids.

[America Needs R'hllor]

No. In an ideal world probably, but in our real world banning circumcision would cause mass-scale religious persecution.

[Former President tack50]

Regarding the medical pros and cons, even if it is successful in reducing HIV spread, I would still argue against it in the US.

I would see the argument that it is the lesser evil in countries getting wrecked by HIV like South Africa and what not; but not in the US or Europe where HIV rates are thankfully low and manegable enough.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And some of us, thank you very much, think that the other factors (such as decreased sensitivity) are relevant.

And some of us, thank you very much, think other factors than the ones you've raised are relevant. You've yet to provide an objective reason why your factors are more relevant than other factors. Just because Santaists don't have infant circumcision as part of their religion isn't a sufficient reason to prohibit it or consider its prohibition to not be an impingement upon religion.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

No lol, this is one of the strangest issues to be so passionate about. It's not "mutilation". I've had plenty of sex with men both circumcised and uncircumcised, and it really seems to be no difference.

Anecdotally, men who are uncut tend to be very bad about cleaning under their foreskin, at least in my experience.

[John Dule]

And some of us, thank you very much, think other factors than the ones you've raised are relevant. You've yet to provide an objective reason why your factors are more relevant than other factors. Just because Santaists don't have infant circumcision as part of their religion isn't a sufficient reason to prohibit it or consider its prohibition to not be an impingement upon religion.

Please engage with the points I made in that post.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

And some of us, thank you very much, think that the other factors (such as decreased sensitivity) are relevant.

And some of us, thank you very much, think other factors than the ones you've raised are relevant. You've yet to provide an objective reason why your factors are more relevant than other factors. Just because Santaists don't have infant circumcision as part of their religion isn't a sufficient reason to prohibit it or consider its prohibition to not be an impingement upon religion.

This is terrible logic. Your right to practice religion stops when it starts harming other people. It isn't persecution to tell you what you can't do to someone else, only what you can't do to yourself.

To be honest, the issue isn't that important to me because the consequences just aren't that important, but there is no legitimate ethical argument for legal infant circumcision for nonmedical reasons.

[afleitch]

And some of us, thank you very much, think that the other factors (such as decreased sensitivity) are relevant.

And some of us, thank you very much, think other factors than the ones you've raised are relevant. You've yet to provide an objective reason why your factors are more relevant than other factors. Just because Santaists don't have infant circumcision as part of their religion isn't a sufficient reason to prohibit it or consider its prohibition to not be an impingement upon religion.

This is terrible logic. Your right to practice religion stops when it starts harming other people. It isn't persecution to tell you what you can't do to someone else, only what you can't do to yourself.

To be honest, the issue isn't that important to me because the consequences just aren't that important, but there is no legitimate ethical argument for legal infant circumcision for nonmedical reasons.

Exactly. It's not something I'm super passionate about. I just find it interesting that every time it's breached, particularly in a heavily American forum there's a sort of 'throwing of elbows' in defense of it as an American cultural practice (so much so that they exported it to South Korea after WW2) as much as it being a religious one. When really there isn't as you say a legitimate non medical ethical argument for it. Other than an appeal to tradition.

[John Dule]

I respect the hell out of people like Parrotguy and Tony, who acknowledge that the practice is problematic but don't see a workable way of banning it, or people like dead0man, who are completely up-front about how indefensible it is. But those who cite "health benefits" (even though no reputable health organization recommends circumcision) and "tradition" (which could be used to justify any number of other reprehensible practices) are so transparently motivated by their own personal biases that I cannot take them seriously. Once again, no one has addressed the argument that-- if we accept that the procedure may have some good effects and some bad-- we should wait until the individual is old enough to make the decision for himself. This is a perfectly reasonable compromise, and I can only conclude that those who see this as out-of-bounds are concerned solely with religious reasons and not health.