# Circumcision of infants and minors without consent should be outlawed. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 18, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203 "2015-08-18T18:45:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/81 "2015-08-19T15:45:03Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Maybe you should look at a study on [circumcision and sexual pleasure](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2515674/Its-official-Circumcision-DOESNT-affect-sexual-pleasure-according-biggest-study-issue.html) > > Oh well. > > So, we’ve got evidence that circumcision provides (minor) health benefits, and does not adversely affect sexual function. I await the evidence that foreskins do something positive for men who have them, something supported scientifically. Sadly, I don’t think that the study in your article is the definitive answer. Nor does it make me think that other studies [pointing otherwise](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-health-male-circumcision-idUSBRE91D1CO20130214) should be discarded with such ease. Frankly, if you take a piece of skin, that’s a part of your body you can’t feel with anymore. I think pretending otherwise is a bit silly. Obviously, circumcised men can have perfectly satisfactory sex lives, but the possibility that you could be limiting, even by a small fraction, the amount of pleasure your kid could potentially experience, should be enough to give you pause. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/82 "2015-08-19T15:53:44Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > Sadly, I don’t think that the study in your article is the definitive answer. Nor does it make me think that other studies [pointing otherwise](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-health-male-circumcision-idUSBRE91D1CO20130214) should be discarded with such ease. Remember how the Australian study found that studies showing less sensitivity [tended to be flawed](http://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html)? > [@](#): > > “The study is pretty flawed,” said Douglas Diekema, a pediatrics professor at the University of Washington, who was part of the American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 task force on circumcision. “I read the conclusion and then I read the study, and I said, ‘Wow, they went overboard in what they’re concluding.’” > > The study used a biased sample population, didn’t measure sensitivity changes before and after circumcision, and found only a tiny difference between the two groups, which is clinically meaningless, making it impossible to conclude from the results that circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity, several experts said. > […] > But the sample population may be problematic, Diekema said. Belgian men typically only get circumcised for medical reasons, meaning circumcised respondents may have problems unrelated to circumcision. > > People who are willing to spend two hours filling out a questionnaire on penile sensitivity probably don’t reflect the general population, he said. And the fact that the number of circumcised men in the study was higher than in the general population suggests the population was biased, researchers said. > [@Sr Siete](#): > > should be enough to give you pause I imagine that most people who are okay with circumcision don’t have any real investment in pushing it on others and would agree that it’s ultimately the parent’s choice. It’s the anti-side which uses emotional arguments to try and prohibit anyone from deciding in favor of a beneficial procedure. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/83 "2015-08-19T16:04:03Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Remember how the Australian study found that studies showing less sensitivity [tended to be flawed](http://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html)? > I imagine that most people who are okay with circumcision don’t have any real investment in pushing it on others and would agree that it’s ultimately the parent’s choice. It’s the anti-side which uses emotional arguments to try and prohibit anyone from deciding in favor of a beneficial procedure. Yes. The study claims that other studies are flawed and that theirs is the real deal. Excuse me if I need more than that. I do think that parents shouldn’t necessarily have absolute power deciding what’s better for their kids. There’s plenty of bad choices by parents that should be controlled in some way or other. In this case I’m fine following the Brazilian tribal tattoo rule: I defend the right of consenting adults to do what they want with their bodies, but I reserve a right to express disapproval whenever they want to tattoo children. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/84 "2015-08-19T16:09:29Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Why does that matter? in either case function is not removed and there is only mild discomfort that can be mitigated with the only long term effect of the former being a cosmetic change and a reduced incidence of skin cancer. You believe the removal of your outer ear would not represent an aesthetic impairment that impedes a child’s prospects of leading a happy life? I do. (Besides, while I am not a doctor, I believe that the outer ear serves some protective function for the inner ear. You may correct me, if that is not true.) > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I notice you also avoid even mentioning the female genital procedures I suggested. Why is that? Those can be hypothetically reduced to an equivalent of male circumcision. Using your existing criteria I hope that any cultural group in your society using such rituals can look forward to your wholehearted support for their rights…yes? I somehow had hoped addressing two of your four analogies would be enough. Apparently not. I have no idea whether you assertion that the female genital procedures you have mentioned are as mild as a male circumcision holds water. If you can show me convincing evidence that it is so, I do not object to them. What little I know about female circumcision makes me object to it right now. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If, during a discussion on circumcision you have to start bringing up tribal practices in the Amazon rainforest to make your point, that should ring alarm bells for you and suggest that your argument is not on the strongest of grounds. By introducing a hypothetical ethnic group I had hoped to remove the religious element and thus any anti-religious sentiment from the debate - at least for a little while. For what it is worth: If I were in the US and some ethnic or religious minority required the tattoo ritual to maintain its cultural or spiritual identity, my decision would not change. If male circumcision had no health benefit and no significance for Judaism and Islam (and some smaller groups) I would not allow it just for the fun of it. But to me the protection of religious minorities is actually a factor in the deliberation. If you outlaw circumcision, you are practically asking American Jews (at least the more orthodox ones) to show themselves out. Is that the idea? ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/85 "2015-08-19T16:12:32Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > Yes. The study claims that other studies are flawed and that theirs is the real deal. Excuse me if I need more than that. Really? What’s that… a study that agrees with you? A study that no one ever will have any question with? Because you might be waiting a while. What exactly is your standard of evidence that you’re demanding? Because it really kind of sounds like the “Study that agrees with my predetermined answer” one. The point of the Australian study was to aggregate the previous work done and determine how it all shook out. If you have a problem with their work, you’re welcome to show it – I already pointed out the problems with the Belgium study. If you’re arguing that there’s harm then you need to show harm and defend it. If you’re taking some silly “Well, can anyone prove that there’s never, ever any harm” prove-the-negative stance then we go back to the first point. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/86 "2015-08-19T16:18:01Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Really? What’s that… a study that agrees with you? A study that no one ever will have any question with? Because you might be waiting a while. What exactly is your standard of evidence that you’re demanding? Because it really kind of sounds like the “Study that agrees with my predetermined answer” one. > > The point of the Australian study was to aggregate the previous work done and determine how it all shook out. If you have a problem with their work, you’re welcome to show it – I already pointed out the problems with the Belgium study. If you’re arguing that there’s harm then you need to show harm and defend it. If you’re taking some silly “Well, can anyone prove that there’s never, ever any harm” prove-the-negative stance then we go back to the first point. Actually, I’m accusing of precisely doing that. of taking the Australian study because it’s convenient for your preconceived notion and taking it as the gospel. I’m pointing out that’s a bad idea. I don’t think I’m asking you to prove a negative. I’m saying that believing that losing a piece of skin has no effect in the sensitivity is such an extraordinary claim, that there’s a point where the burden of proof resides on you. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/87 "2015-08-19T16:21:59Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Nice \ Thenkyew. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/88 "2015-08-19T16:25:24Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > Actually, I’m accusing of precisely doing that. of taking the Australian study because it’s convenient for your preconceived notion and taking it as the gospel. Do you have an actual issue with the study? Because unless you can point to problems, it’s meaningless to just say “Nuh-UH! You only like it because it says you’re right!” I pointed out the flaws in the Belgium study. If you’re incapable of doing the same here then maybe you should stop trying to pursue that avenue. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’m asking you to prove a negative. I’m saying that believing that losing a piece of skin has no effect in the sensitivity is such an extraordinary claim, that there’s a point where the burden of proof resides on you. “No effect”? Well, obviously if I remove a mole, I can’t feel anything touching that mole any longer. What’s that prove? A _meaningful_ effect? No, that’s something for you to provide the evidence and back it up. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/89 "2015-08-19T16:35:06Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Do you have an actual issue with the study? Because unless you can point to problems, it’s meaningless to just say “Nuh-UH! You only like it because it says you’re right!” > > I pointed out the flaws in the Belgium study. If you’re incapable of doing the same here then maybe you should stop trying to pursue that avenue. You didn’t point the flaws. you repeated what he Australian study said the flaws were. I think that taking either as the absolute truth is a terrible idea. > [@Jophiel](#): > > “No effect”? Well, obviously if I remove a mole, I can’t feel anything touching that mole any longer. What’s that prove? A _meaningful_ effect? No, that’s something for you to provide the evidence and back it up. It proves that losing nerve endings makes you lose sensitivity in that area. Doesn’t it? A “meaningful effect”? as in causing erectile dysfunction and so on? No need to provide evidence since we both agree that said loss is not meaningful in any big way. Nor is that my point. My point is that the loss, if there is any, would be fractional. But enough to make you rethink doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/90 "2015-08-19T16:38:17Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > Sadly, I don’t think that the study in your article is the definitive answer. Nor does it make me think that other studies [pointing otherwise](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-health-male-circumcision-idUSBRE91D1CO20130214) should be discarded with such ease. > > Frankly, if you take a piece of skin, that’s a part of your body you can’t feel with anymore. I think pretending otherwise is a bit silly. > > Obviously, circumcised men can have perfectly satisfactory sex lives, but the possibility that you could be limiting, even by a small fraction, the amount of pleasure your kid could potentially experience, should be enough to give you pause. The equation “remove skin = feel less” seems overly simplistic to me. Measuring sexual pleasure is inherently difficult. The methodology in the study you quoted does not seem convincing to me: > [@](#): > > The new study surveyed 1,369 men over the age of 18, who responded to leaflets handed out in train stations across Belgium. > > The men were asked whether they were circumcised, and were then asked to rate how sensitive their penis was, how intense their orgasms were and whether they experience any pain or numbness when they are aroused. > > Overall, 310 men who took the survey were circumcised, and 1,059 were not. Each rated how sensitive their penis was on a scale from 0 to 5, with higher numbers being the most sensitive. > > Overall, uncircumcised men reported between 0.2 points and 0.4 points higher sensitivity and sexual pleasure when their penis’s head - known as the glans - was stroked during arousal, compared to circumcised men. First off: It is a self-reporting study based on a not very large number of entries. Have other factors been excluded when accounting for the difference in answers? For example: Could it be that one ethnic group is generally more hesitant when describing own sexual arousal than another? Another thing I noted is that the study specifically refers to the arousal that occurs when the glans is stroked. That means the foreskin is not even in play and whatever nerve endings it has is not stimulated. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/91 "2015-08-19T16:43:07Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > You didn’t point the flaws. you repeated what he Australian study said the flaws were. I think that taking either as the absolute truth is a terrible idea. Actually, I linked to a CDC researcher pointing out the flaws. I related that to the Australian finding that “loss of sensitivity” studies were poorly executed. > [@](#): > > My point is that the loss, if there is any, would be fractional. But enough to make you rethink doing it. If it’s insignificant then it shouldn’t weigh heavily on anyone’s thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/92 "2015-08-19T16:45:20Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > The equation “remove skin = feel less” seems overly simplistic to me. It is overly simplistic. That doesn’t mean it’s not broadly true. > [@Hiker](#): > > Measuring sexual pleasure is inherently difficult. The methodology in the study you quoted does not seem convincing to me: It wasn’t made by amateurs though. It was published in the British Journal of Urology International. I don’t think it’s fair to entirely discard it, just like I wouldn’t just discard the Australian one. If it’s still debated seriously in the scientific community, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions either. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/93 "2015-08-19T16:48:03Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > If it’s insignificant then it shouldn’t weigh heavily on anyone’s thoughts. On the contrary. We make millions of choices based on whether something gives us a small amount more pleasure than something else. If you could take a pill that would increase, even marginally, your sexual pleasure, you would take it. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/94 "2015-08-19T17:30:15Z")
I don’t take the pills I should to alleviate real life aches, pains and other discomfort. I _guarantee_ you that I’m not expanding that to taking voluntary pills for marginal pleasure. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/95 "2015-08-19T17:51:17Z")
I’m sorry, but ISTM that nerve endings are a very red herring. I get that “more tissue” == “more nerve endings.” Even if there are few in the excised tissue, there are undoubtedly some. But I don’t see how that in itself necessarily leads to greater sexual pleasure. AIUI, there’s no evidence that circumcised men have more difficulty achieving or sustaining erection, or more difficulty reaching orgasm, than uncircumcised men. I’m more readily swayed by the mechanical argument: that the foreskin can serve a tactile function during intercourse that is pleasurable to both partners. But even there I’ve been waiting 15 years for someone to present that as an effective argument. . ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/96 "2015-08-19T18:11:28Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > It wasn’t made by amateurs though. It was published in the British Journal of Urology International. I don’t think it’s fair to entirely discard it, just like I wouldn’t just discard the Australian one. If it’s still debated seriously in the scientific community, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions either. Ok - that is a fair enough approach. Given that other researchers attack it’s methodology you may want to take the study with a grain of salt but you do not have to entirely ignore it. So if you are a parent faced with the decision on whether to have your child circumcized you want to consider these studies regarding sexual responsiveness. Then there is the low but not nonexistent risk of complications from the procedure itself. And of course the fact that a circumcision is, while not exactly torture, certainly painful. On the pro side you will consider the reduced risk of certain diseases, potential hygienic benefits and any cultural or religious significance the procedure may have for your family. In the end you are weighing pros and cons and then you come to a decision. I am not surprised that different people weigh pros and cons differently. (It is well possible that I have overlooked some on either side.) What I find irritating is if someone chooses to entirely ignore one side of the equation and then paints parents who have come to a different conclusion as some kind of monster. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/97 "2015-08-19T18:41:12Z")
I quote eminent sage Dave Barry: > [@Dave Barry](#): > > Some think that circumcision as an infant is partially responsible for aggressive behavior by men later on in life. > If you want to see aggressive behavior, try and circumcise a man late in life. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/98 "2015-08-19T21:00:16Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > You believe the removal of your outer ear would not represent an aesthetic impairment that impedes a child’s prospects of leading a happy life? I do. the only reason it seems that way to you is that you are used to the concept of circumcision but not the procedure on the ear. Materially there is no difference though. > [@](#): > > I have no idea whether you assertion that the female genital procedures you have mentioned are as mild as a male circumcision holds water. The point is that one could easily come up with a female genital procedure that was the equivalent of male circumcision in both scope, scale and consequences. Most people would not want to give any ground to it…but > [@](#): > > If you can show me convincing evidence that it is so, I do not object to them. …you will, I commend your consistency but I find it a deplorable attitude to take. > [@](#): > > By introducing a hypothetical ethnic group I had hoped to remove the religious element and thus any anti-religious sentiment from the debate - at least for a little while. there really isn’t much difference at all between cultural and religious practices and there is nothing wrong in being anti-bad practices wherever they are applied. I see no material difference in the harm caused to an infant whether it comes from a religious, cultural or secular viewpoint. > [@](#): > > For what it is worth: If I were in the US and some ethnic or religious minority required the tattoo ritual to maintain its cultural or spiritual identity, my decision would not change. well, again. I can’t accuse you of inconsistency but I find that pretty stomach-churning. > [@](#): > > If male circumcision had no health benefit and no significance for Judaism and Islam (and some smaller groups) I would not allow it just for the fun of it. Which implies that you know it isn’t a frivolous procedure > [@](#): > > But to me the protection of religious minorities is actually a factor in the deliberation. If you outlaw circumcision, you are practically asking American Jews (at least the more orthodox ones) to show themselves out. Is that the idea? Is that a thinly veiled threat of anti-Semitism? My stance on all religions is that you have a right to practice whatever you like, for yourself and to yourself. The moment it has a material impact on a third party then those rights stop. That applies to all denominations equally. Religious special pleading cuts no ice with me. I think we’ve reached a point where no further discussion will be productive and we’ve both made ourself clear so I’ll leave it there. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/99 "2015-08-20T06:30:56Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Is that a thinly veiled threat of anti-Semitism? My stance on all religions is that you have a right to practice whatever you like, for yourself and to yourself. The moment it has a material impact on a third party then those rights stop. That applies to all denominations equally. Religious special pleading cuts no ice with me. > > I think we’ve reached a point where no further discussion will be productive and we’ve both made ourself clear so I’ll leave it there. I am generally fine with leaving it there, but I need to address that last paragraph. I am \*not \*accusing you of anti-semitism. That allegation gets thrown around all too lightly these days and I have no intention of joining in with that. I was trying to highlight the fact that the change of law you propose might make life for a significant religious minority all but untenable in your country and I wanted to know, if you are ok with that consequence. I could have gone with Muslims, but given how hated they currently are in some circles, I was afraid of getting a “good riddance” in reply. (Perhaps not necessarily from you, but I did not want to see this thread derailed.) ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203/100 "2015-08-20T07:34:00Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > I am generally fine with leaving it there, but I need to address that last paragraph. > > I am \*not \*accusing you of anti-semitism. That allegation gets thrown around all too lightly these days and I have no intention of joining in with that. I was trying to highlight the fact that the change of law you propose might make life for a significant religious minority all but untenable in your country and I wanted to know, if you are ok with that consequence. I could have gone with Muslims, but given how hated they currently are in some circles, I was afraid of getting a “good riddance” in reply. (Perhaps not necessarily from you, but I did not want to see this thread derailed.) Fair enough, your concerns are often warranted. Religions and cultures have had to deal with societal restrictions on their practices for thousands of years so I’m sure they’ll find a work-around. No-one is telling them they can’t circumcise themselves, just that they can’t do it to a third party without consent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-of-infants-and-minors-without-consent-should-be-outlawed/728203.md?page=6)