I don’t think we can come to any valid conclusions about the risks of male circumcision without years of more data. Maybe another millennium or two would suffice?
Children are simply not “third parties” in the way that other adults are.
If I came in off the street and started to tell you how to dress and dictated to you all of your most fundamental life choices without you having the slightest say in the matter, they you would absolutely have a legitimate complaint … assuming you were not so inclined. 
But that’s what parents do to very young children all the time. On, well, every issue.
Now, there are definitely boundaries on these parental powers, where the state - rightly - steps in an forbids certain choices. For obvious reasons, these limits are strictly circumscribed. For example, while some have argued religious indoctination of children is a species of child abuse, that POV has achieved little traction: it would amount to a hugely disruptive intrusion into ordinary child-rearing. There is an obvious danger in one section of the public including within the realm of the forbidden stuff they simply don’t happen to like: that’s a way for one segment (usually the majority) to enforce conformity on another (typically a minority).
However, there is going to be stuff done by minorities that, nonetheless, ought to be beyond the pale. How then do we obliviate the moral hazard of a self-righteous segment of the majority enforcing its will on minorities, while also avoiding allowing minorities to run rough-shod over the human rights of helpless children?
Why, demanding that those seeking to impose societal restrictions demonstrate with some sort of objective, scientificly valid proof that the practice they seek to outlaw is objectively harmful in some manner. Not simply a matter of the majority thinking “ick”, but actual, objective proof - and the burden, of course, lies on those seeking to impose restrictions.
For male circumcision, the problem of course is that this proof is lacking. In fact, the actual objective, scientific medical evidence points the other way - that the practice is (quite mildly) beneficial.
I see circumcision as sorta like piercings-painful and of dubious value. The fact is, both can cause harm, and both are voluntary (except if done to an infant).
A problem with ear piercing is that if you don’t wear ear rings regularly, the piercing eventually closes (younger, I had pierced ears, for a while, I kept wearing earings from time to time to prevent that, but eventually I stopped, and the hole disapeared.
On the other hand, prepuces don’t regrow. Not the same thing at all.
Disclosure : I’m circumcized, and not happy at all about it.
I think you can do restoration, can’t you?
When it comes to bodily modifications and mutilations, I would think that the burden should rest on the shoulders of those practicing it. They are the one who should demonstrate it’s not harmful before being allowed to do it on children. The interests of the children should be the ones being protected, not the interests or beliefs of the parents.
Note that I probaby wouldn’t care that much if :
-I didn’t feel a significant amount of bad faith and double standards on the part of people defending the practice. I’m convinced I wouldn’t hear the same arguments being advanced if it wasn’t a common practice in the western world.
-I didn’t feel an attitude of “children are the property of their parents”, something that irritates me a lot in general (to give a different example, the “right” of parents to give their kids ridiculous names, or their “right” to deny them vaccination).
-It wasn’t based on “god say so”. I have a significant amount of hostility towards religion, especially when it impacts the life of people who didn’t choose to join it.
-I didn’t believe it does affect sexuality and sexual pleasure.
-I wasn’t affected myself.
For instance, I’m not all up in arms wrt traditional scarification. I wouldn’t agitate for it to be discontinued, but if for some reason a referendum was held on such issues, I’d vote against allowing either, though.
So rates of penile cancer in say, Norway, are significantly higher in a country with higher rates of circumcision? What of the risk related to the procedure itself? Put another way, is the risk of surgery on a new born worth the benefits?
Here is what the American Academy of Pediatricians actually say:
And here is a summary of a number of major pediatric organisation has to say on the issue.
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
The evidence is not exactly overwhelming positive such that the procedure could not wait until the male is 18 (and likely sexually active).
As for penile cancer, a rare enough cancer, the American Cancer Soceity does not advocate the use of circumcision to prevent penile cancer:
Is penis cancer related to the HPV virus? If so, don’t we have a vaccine for that now?
Dare I utter he-who-should-not-be-named in this thread? It’s been well over a decade since he last raised his head. snicker
Dude. Too soon.
The base-line is that the law should not be involved in outlawing stuff at all, unless some necessity is shown. It is up to those proposing some measure outlawing something, to demonstrate why outlawing it is necessary - not for everyone else to demonstrate why not outlawing it is necessary.
Simply repeating the mantra that “protecting children” is good isn’t a short-cut replacement for actually demonstrating some real problem that requires outlawing a practice (although many in various fields seem to think it is).
What is the “bad faith” here? Of course less people would care if they weren’t doing it. That’s a no-brainer, that people care more about silly attempts to ban stuff they do, than silly attempts to ban stuff someone somewhere else does.
Again, a non-starter. It isn’t an issue of a parent’s “rights”, but an issue of the practical reality that parents do things for kids like choosing names, deciding on how kids are dressed, making certain medical decisions, etc.
In some cases, those choices are so abhorent that society, rightly, steps in and overrides them - vaccinations are one example where society is I think comming around to that POV.
That’s exactly the point - to seperate out the trivial from the important. Where there is an objective risk to a child’s welfare, by all means - prove it with evidence and I’ll support your laws. Otherwise, no.
Most of those who get their kids circumsized in this part of the world are not doing so based on religion. In the US, rates are around 60% - while, as far as I know, only Jews and Muslims have a “religious” reason for doing it. 60% of Americans are not Jewish or Muslim.
Even if your hostility towards religions (specifically, Judaism or Islam) ought to govern policy (which it should not), it wouldn’t be a good reason to outlaw the practice.
Why should I - or anyone - favour your belief over the actual scientific evidence that states otherwise?
Policy should be based on fact, not belief.
I don’t know about the rates of penile cancer (1), but I do know that the chances of frostbite to the penis is greater than zero here. It seems that the thin skin of the glans would be quite susceptible, and I would certainly need some pretty heavy indicators of benefit before doing away with a very effective natural layer of insulation.
This advice not valid for all climates.
(1) I doubt it’d affect all types of penile cancer. For example, I can’t see any reason why soft-tissue cancers of the erectile tissue would be affected one way or the other.
The foreskin of males serves no purpose other than to breed germs.
Well, I’m Canadian so we don’t have a constitution in the same sense that the US does:) Having said that, I got the chop when I was an infant and I certainly have no memory of it. I don’t feel traumatized (or anything else for that matter) about it except that I happen to think it looks better than the alternative but I might be biased. I understand that there may be no valid reason for circumcision but, if I had had a son, I honestly don’t know what I would have done.
The predominate practice of male circumcision in the US continues in the US, not as a religious or medically recommended practice anymore. I know several pediatricians and not one recommends it for medical reasons. They view it as a parental choice.
The primary reason it continues is primarily a cultural choice. My son’s mother and I chose to have him circumcised because I am circumcised and the overwhelming majority of males in the US are circumcised. You don’t want to add to the stigma of your son taking a shower after middle school PE and everyone thinking that you are different because his penis doesn’t look like most of the other kids. Kind of shallow reasoning, but hey, there have been no negative impacts to being circumcised, I am my own cite.
I too want my foreskin back. My fiancé more then likely wants a future son to be circumcised because it’s “normal.”
I would prefer he not be circumcised, since you know, the foreskin has nerves that add to pleasure that I will never feel.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Circumcision is a religious practice. The medical evidence is weak and the benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks. In general, religiously motivated medical treatment is not permitted for minors - Jehovah’s witnesses cannot prevent a minor from receiving a blood transfusion.
I did when I was 39 or 40 for another reason.
The drawbacks being what, exactly? There is no evidence of increased penile problems for circumcised boys or men (the reverse seems to be true). There is a claim of reduced sensitivity during sex which is, at best, poorly documented, and at worst, completely non-existent.
I don’t think anyone is trying to put circumcision on a ‘medically necessary’ list like a polio vaccine, just let it be a medical ‘non issue’ because it doesn’t harm genitalia any more often than not-circumcising harms genitalia.