If the kid agrees, the kid can choose to do so.



Religious freedom and parental autonomy.[/QUOTE]

Child's rights supercede these, especially when the child can decide on his own to do it later.

This is an irrevocable procedure. The only reason to do it early is specifically to remove the child's choice.

Infant circumcision is a big part of some peoples culture, and it's a much more serious procedure when you get older. It's not specifically to remove the child's choice.

No, it is proven to have health benefits, and also proven that it is better to be done earlier in life rather than later due to increased risk of complications with age.

The studies have been linked multiple times in this thread.

Refusing to acknowledge them is just ignoring science because you are blinded by the ignorance of your opinion, just like the anti-global warming folks.

If you want to find something to ban, at least find something that is truly detrimental to society, like HFCS.

Shoe, show me the proof. You haven't done so. Also, show me the HFCS harmfulness study. You can't distinguish between psuedoscience and real science.

Posts #553 and #556 itt.

I reread your post, and yes, there are minor health benefits. Of course, when you neglect the cost of it (both in dollars and impact on the baby), only looking at positives can win. Cutting off a babies penis entirely has health benefits too. Giving newborn females a double masectemy at birth has health benefits.

And you say my standard - the one we use for every other decision on what the government bans - is absurd and then put THIS one in its place? Please. Vaccines are also permanent alterations to another person without their consent. Should we ban those?

Wasn't there links earlier in this this thread showing the economic savings in the US? Is there some major thing not being considered. However, if we restrict just to "health consequences" this is what is being compared (not just health positives). Of course, when considering health consequences, the bolded is almost certainly you just making up stuff that is completely false.

Completely false. Stop making stuff up or link your studies where castrations and double mastectomy's applied to an entire population would have net health benefits (where the benefits clearly outweigh the risks/complications).

This.

You should really learn to have a clue what you are talking about before you try to make fun of someone. Why do you hate science?

You ask for a cite in one post, then post this nonsense in the next one? The studies linked multiple times ITT look at the heath benefits and drawbacks. It should be obvious why the above is not comparable to circumcision.

What I am having such a hard time with itt is the willingness of people to get the state involved in the affairs of a family over something that really has very little positive or negative impacts. I am not defending or advocating for the procedure, but instead for the fact that parents should 'own' their child unless they are really abusing the child in a tangible and obvious way.

The fact is that the decision whether or not to circumcise a baby is pretty far down the list of important (and legal) decisions parents make for their children. There are so much greater consequences to later decisions parents make about how to raise their kids, what to teach them, what to feed them etc etc etc. Those choices have vastly greater consequences on this innocent and helpless child and yet everyone assumes the parents rights to impose those choices on their child.

Given that circumcision is a low risk and low reward procedure just doesn't justify state involvement in the affairs of a family. Real and tangible abuse or neglect, however, does.

TC: Show me the proof

shoe: proof

TC: Yeah but still. Read my awful nonsensical comparison now.

...

No, I realized what he was saying was true. I thought he was arguing against something I was saying and was wrong. Cutting off the penis will also reduce penile cancer and likely slow the spread of HIV. There are health benefits. I don't know if there is risk of infection that offsets that, but that's another story.

TC, would you be opposed to in-utero circumcision?