Jon J,

>non-negligible risk of death or serious injury during the procedure. Babies are fragile organisms;<

Performed by a competent medical practitioner within days of birth, circumcision is even less risky or damaging than the removal of the dew-claws from a pup by a competent veterinarian. Why remove the dew-claws - because they serve no useful purpose but do present a real risk of injury and/or infection if retained. (Ever owned a dog with intact dew-claws?) The case for circumcision is really directly comparable - retention of the foreskin risks infection to self and to any partner. However, whilst it is a very minor procedure when performed on a baby, circumcision poses far greater intricacy and potential problems if performed even on toddlers, let alone later in life.

The foreskin may have served a useful purpose when guys were running around naked in the bush chasing mammoths (and of course could still serve this purpose for those who still wish to run around the bush -or the beach - naked), and when the common garb was dirty smelly old animal skins. Fortunately humankind has progressed somewhat since then - though, it appears, not as far as we would imagine. Some fictions and fantasies still prevail.

To outlaw male (penile) circumcision is comparable in reverse to the current practice of enabling parents to opt-out of vaccinating their children. Helps no-one, but places some at unnecessary risk.

Not sure what you mean by this, Legs2041:

>It is interesting that the cultural or religious beliefs of the parents get scant respect in the case of female circumcision <

If you're suggesting female circumcision should be condoned on any religious or cultural pretext (real or imagined) then I'm sorry for you. Such a procedure is totally barbaric and totally indefensible. Like foot-binding or head-binding this procedure needs to be condemned universally in the strongest possible terms.

Anyone who compares the male foreskin to the female labia and/or clitoris is a goon.

Dear Saltpetre,

This article and thread are about the rights or otherwise of the state to interfere in religion. If you truly believe that vaccination or the lack thereof has nothing to do with religion (<<but vaccination should be mandatory for all. And, religion should have nothing to do with it>>), then why did you resurrect that discussion here?
By the fact that you did, I must therefore take it that you DO realize that non-vaccination is, as much as you hate it, at least in some of the cases, a religious issue.

(and as a side-note, why did you and others brought into this discussion the medical benefits or otherwise of circumcision: these really have nothing to do with the topic at hand)

I am not in agreement with Jews/Muslims that circumcision is a divine commandment. On human level I actually consider it despicable, but the fact is that THEY believe so and THEY are willing to sacrifice their lives or go to jail for that practice, just as many Soviet Jews were sent to gulags in Siberia for the same: that willingness to sacrifice that much for God's sake and glory, though misguided, renders circumcisions made in that spirit a religious practice.

All hell breaks loose when the state dare to decide which practices are religious and which aren't - either on its own or with the aid of some corrupt churches that collude with the government of the day.

In the end, one cannot serve two masters. Water doesn't mix with oil and religion doesn't mix with statism. It may take long, but in the end states always collapse and religion always wins - the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it!

But I do have some perspective. My perspective is very similar to the writer of this article. It wasn't always, I once thought that male circumcision was a trivial issue. I was persuaded otherwise by the arguments of a student who did a thesis on the topic – and in the course of that supervision I also did a lot of reading from many sides on the topic. I read about different forms of male circumcision. "A little snip" is not the sole form of circumcision practised on boys nor is it the sole procedure. I read about catastrophes following on the procedure – and anyone who thinks that properly performed medical circumcision is without risks simply "can't be serious". There are many cases of moderate through to catastrophic damage to the child's penis, or damage to the child from aspects of the procedure like reactions to anaesthesia (for starters, google "botched circumcision"). I also read about issues of autonomy, dignity and respect.

This is not a debate that can be resolved by citing anecdotes of boys who "didn't feel a thing" and "are none the worse for it". This is a complex debate in which a great deal is at stake for both children and adults.

It is also silly to defend male circumcision by pointing out that various kinds of genital procedures and mutilation on girls are different and/or worse. They are different arguments in many if not most ways. But so what? The fact that something else is very wrong in the world doesn't exculpate those who do other wrong things. The question here is whether male circumcision is wrongful (and harmful), not how it compares to other practices.

Helen

Helen,

If you don't want to use anecdotal evidence, then please don't do the same yourself. Feel free to quote real statistics.

It's obvious to me that in a world where over-population is a problem we should be talking about penis removal.

Why worry about a bit of skin? Clear away the male tackle completely and give women and our planet a break! Besides, appendage-less men would be less inclined to wage wars!

When we have a billion people left on Earth, then we can discuss the situation again!

http://dangerouscreation.com

<<Besides, appendage-less men would be less inclined to wage wars!>>

But David, wars are good - they reduce the population!