It boils down to one big question:

WHOSE CHILD IS IT?

One may argue that "the child belongs to his/her parents", others may claim that "the child belongs to his/her tribe", yet others say that "the child belongs to him/herself". I understand those claims and prefer the later, but one response is completely absurd and most dangerous - that "the child belongs to the state".

The state, any state, may only have authority over those who accept it and ask for its protection. All others, it may still limit and fight, but only as necessary for the sake of protecting its consenting members, those who sought out the state's protection.

If a family (an unbroken family, where there are no disagreements) never asks to become subject to the state, never asks for the state's protection (and/or other privileges), then the state must have no say in the internal affairs of that family.

If the state was to prohibit religious circumcision, then no orthodox Jews and Muslims would want to be part of it: they would rather die than break what they believe to be God's commandment to circumcise. If possible, they would emigrate or circumcise their sons overseas, otherwise they would do it covertly, risking jail, but in any case they would do it no matter what.

As ugly as the practice of circumcision is, states have no authority to ban it. However, it's their right to refuse accepting members who practice it. While no one ought to be jailed for circumcising their children, it is proper to have their welfare/public-health/public-education/etc. denied and not employ them in the public service. Being members of a state (eg. citizens) should be optional and a two-way street. It is OK not to participate and not share the state's values, but also OK for the state not to support those who do not follow its ways.

An unwilling 11-year old boy should be able to walk into a police-station, ask for state-protection and receive it, thus severing his ties from his parents, so long as it is ascertained that he understands the implications.

Unfortunately this debate is very much like the vaccinate/don't-vaccinate debate whereby some irresponsible idiot parent(s) place others children at totally unnecessary and indefensible risk of contagious infectious disease because they don't want to risk their baby having a bad reaction to the vaccination - although the rate of bad reactions is infinitesimal. So, those irresponsible parents must carry the burden for the continued existence and prevalence of these otherwise preventable diseases, and for all the deaths and permanent disabilities incurred in consequence.

Circumcision is a similar 'disease and disability' prevention measure, with infinitesimal 'bad' reactions (when done proficiently, as specified by Shadow Minister). Men know the story. Women should butt out - particularly those who get an extra 'tickle' from the uncircumcised. Let those men who like the appearance of extra length in the flaccid penis get over their insecurity and admit that retention of the foreskin is more trouble than it's worth.

Incompetent practitioners in any field should be subject to appropriate condemnation and punishment, but an occasional or rare stuff-up by such incompetents is not cause to ban all procedures carrying some small degree of risk. Women who have bubbs at home without any professional assistance in Australia should be held responsible for any resultant injury or deleterious outcome for the bubbs - but that doesn't mean properly qualified and competent midwives should be banned or all home births banned, does it.

Parents have to make all sorts of important decisions impacting on the lives of their children, and this is just one such decision - play it safe and do a miniscule procedure (or adjustment) now, or risk the child having major problems down the track? Vaccinate - don't vaccinate? Prevent - or abrogate responsibility?

For better or worse, male circumcision should remain a parental decision, but vaccination should be mandatory for all. And, religion should have nothing to do with it.

"play it safe and do a miniscule procedure (or adjustment) now"

I don't know how big a role your penis plays in your life, Saltpetre, but mine has played a fairly prominent part in mine, and the thought of mutilating it for very dubious reasons fills me with horror and dismay. A 'minuscule' procedure? I think not. But if it's so 'minuscule' then why not do it after the age of consent, anyway?

Bear in mind too that any hypothetical increased risk from non-circumcision has to be weighed against the non-neglibible risk of death or serious injury during the procedure. Babies are fragile organisms; if anyone had even suggested taking a knife to my baby son they would have been shown the door immediately.

Another thoughtful contribution from Dr Darby. It is interesting that the cultural or religious beliefs of the parents get scant respect in the case of female circumcision yet in the case of boys can lead them, as it were, straight to
the guillotine

i havnt read the article yet
but note the passion of the shadow/''Helen,''

and want to say this without any sense of accusation
[we all do that we feel is right]..and yes dirty men/wether circumsised or not..will; get the dirty things

as a porevious poster has told
ba\sic education on how to properly care for those flappy bits

quote]

""Get some perspective. This issue is about a small flap of skin...
We are not cutting off an ear."""

circumsision is all about cutting off flaps of skin
[at its basic level]..at its next level its mutilation

i think prempting issues/
underestimates your ability to learn how to manage..them flappy bits

its not about guilt/morals ol friend
its about knowing facts..[im self circumsised]
its much like brushing your teeth[you pull back your lips and wash]

basic stuff*

under law..its assult*
wether boy child or girl child!

its worth considering what happens to them bits
i think its called in\terferon..

and used in face creams
it is rich in t cells..

or a great bit of skin for a skin graft

it has so many medical usages..thus theres a nice proffit in all that key kiddie flesh..so rich in those things ther old need to feign youth

again this is general;
like if sex dont feel anything[of course your NOT..going to get aids]
and those getting too much..cause it feels better..of course they aqre going to catch more aids

its a contra argument...
less aids must be proportional to sex ratio

1 in ten incounters contact it
have 100..you got a bigger chance to score 'positive'

how often/sex..duration..so much more to this simple issue
yet still i see it as assult..[even if done for the best reasons/much like spanking]..do it in secret

still i look at that place where enemies both cut
and thats where little loving goes on

cover up..it hurts too much to see a leg
and just so the wife dont like sex either
well..its only a flap of skin