@jakew "first you need to show that they have a right not to be circumcised."

Hmm, do they have a right not to have their earlobes cut off? Check.
Do they have a right not to have their little toes cut off? Check.
Do they have a right not to have their clitoral prepuces cut off? Check.
Do they have a right to equality with the opposite sex? Check.

And are earlobes, little toes and clitoral prepuces ETHICALLY equivalent to foreskins, being, like them, healthy, normal, functional, non-renewable integral parts of their bodies? YES.

So yes, they do have a right not to be circumcised. QED.

@jakew "first you need to show that they have a right not to be circumcised."

Hold up, Hugh Intactive, who the hell says they have a right to have their earlobes? Did you ask Jake?

Now let me see if I can prove they have a right not to be slain in their cradles...let me see...I know: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

But The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just a bit of paper designed by do-gooders to keep do-gooders happy. Humph. People only have rights that Jake Waskett recognises are rights: the rest are bunkum.

And Jake Waskett wants someone to prove a negative. Dumb, transparent circumfetishist trick. I give up. They never didn't not have no right not to be not uncircumcised, never nohow. OK? Sorry.

"Hmm, do they have a right not to have their earlobes cut off? Check.
Do they have a right not to have their little toes cut off? Check. [...]" -- Hold on, there, Hugh. I'm not suggesting that anyone *should* cut off earlobes and toes, but is there a *right* not to have them removed, and if so, how is it derived?

Now, I would suggest that there isn't a real, absolute right not to have these parts cut off, as evidenced by the fact that they will surely be removed in case of medical necessity.

So what we need to explore is that knee-jerk reaction that says we shouldn't do that, and why we confused it with a "right".

I think that reaction is because we subconsciously perform a rough comparison of the harms and risks of such a proposition with the benefits (if any), and we can instantly guess, with some confidence, that it's a net harm.

And by trying to present them as comparable to circumcision, you create a false equivalence that completely obscures this reason why we reject such propositions in the first place.

The prevalence of tonsil cancer is more than twice that of penile cancer. There is added risk of morbidity from acute tonsilitis and complications of strep throat including rheumatic fever and nephritis. Apart from the misery, calculate the cost of treating these illnesses, drugs, clinic and hospital visits and admissions, downtime from study/work ect and it makes far greater sense to remove tonsils than foreskins.

Most of the 'medical advantages' put forward for early childhood circumcision have absolutely no validity. Conditions and diseases which circumcison is claimed to 'help guard against' are largely a result of BEHAVIOURS. Teaching children good personal hygiene and adolescents good sexual hygiene, maybe even promoting morality, discouraging tobacco use and reinforcing messages regularly are likely to be far more effective in preventing sexually transmitted and other infections and surprisingly, cancer.

Another statistic: The rate of penile cancer in the USA with the highest % of circumcised males in the Western World is on even par with Western European countries where the procedure is uncommon.

Children really do have a right to retain healthy organs including foreskins, earlobes, tonsils, little toes etc. In the event of disease, parents or guardians may make decisions on behalf of the child in consultation with treating doctors to have diseased tissue removed. Adults please themselves. They may choose not to have medical conditions treated at all. They may choose unnecessary procedures like circumcision, tattooing, implants, cosmetic modification. Adults make choices for themselves and live with the consequences, which is how it should be.

"The prevalence of tonsil cancer is more than twice that of penile cancer. There is added risk of morbidity from acute tonsilitis and complications of strep throat including rheumatic fever and nephritis." -- You haven't even shown that the sum of the benefits of propylactic tonsillectomy are greater than those of circumcision, nor have you considered the associated risks.

"Conditions and diseases which circumcison is claimed to 'help guard against' are largely a result of BEHAVIOURS." -- good grief, you mean people actually, you know, do things their bodies? Well, people do behave in different ways, some good, some bad, and it's a bit shortsighted to pretend otherwise. Certainly I'd agree with you that teaching good hygiene, etc., is invaluable, but this can be done as well as circumcision.

"Another statistic: The rate of penile cancer in the USA with the highest % of circumcised males in the Western World is on even par with Western European countries where the procedure is uncommon." -- not terribly surprising, since the use of condoms, etc., is much lower.

"Children really do have a right to retain healthy organs including foreskins, earlobes, tonsils, little toes etc." -- charming as these assurances of yours are, they're not really evidence of anything more than your opinion.

Dear jakew: You say in response to my latest post " -- charming as these assurances of yours are, they're not really evidence of anything more than your opinion."

Certainly makes 2 of us then. Because whether logical or illogical, but invariably narrow and fanatical as your arguments are - they are no more evidence of anything more than your opinion. And thank Heavens for THAT!

That is all ...