Yeah I think most men who are circumcised as adults do report decreased sensitivity.

I mean it's not inconclusive. The foreskin has many nerve endings. Hack it off and you have decreased sensitivity.

Except in this case it isn't because of evolution. You can say that if it wasn't meant to be there natural selection would have eliminated it.

Well evolution leaves plenty of vestigial things, like the appendix and the human propensity for believing in magic.

What happens if some other religion decides to start chopping of kids ears and nipples I mean we don't need them either, would the Jews be ok with this?

?? I would have stuck with the nipple analogy alone.

I think I read something recently where it's been discovered that the appendix does actually provide some functions for the body.

So you'd be cool with parents giving their newborn children boob jobs, right?

Also, I've seen estimate as high as 5,600 infant deaths per year as a result of circumcision in the United States where medical facilities are fairly safe so circumcision is causing harm.

Ya that is not how evolution works at all. Things will be eliminated if eliminating them gives a relative advantage to the species, they don't get magically eliminated the second it is not "meant" (by whom?) to be there. We have vestigial organs, reams of junk DNA, etc etc.

Regardless, it is still naturalistic fallacy 101. Just because something is valueable or not based on evolutionary pressures at giving a relative advantage, does not mean it is something that meaningfully increases the health or quality of our life today.

Regarding this "omg risk of death" nonsense, first note that not even the German court that is banning circumcision is using this argument. I don't know where the 5600 deaths/year come from but AAFP estimates one per half million births which is vastly lower. So low in fact that any of innumerable other things that parents do cause significantly higher risks of deaths. Should we ban all these other things too? There are other things that may be in the positives column, the strongest of these is the reduction in HIV and other diseases - so much so that the WHO recommends it as a potentially cost effective method in Africa. So it is not even clear what the net effect is whether it is a tiny bit negative or a tiny big positive, but regardless it comes nowhere close to the clear, large negative required for us to ban human actions. Just as we don't have this debate about any number of other things with an either small net positive or negative gain and have advocates have the government try to ban it, so to should we not here.

This is a change in the right direction of what the real problem is...that religious parents believe they "own" their children.

I don't see a meaningful difference between parents based on their religious or nonreligious beliefs. Both try to do what they believe is right to their children and raise them as they see fit.

What I don't believe in, is banning actions unless there is a clear and significant harm from the event. Seems kinda fascist to be honest.

Care to link this as i would be very surprised if the number is that high. I am pretty sure the risk of death in circumcision is very very low. The number you are quoting may indicate some kind of complication with the procedure, but death? I doubt it

I have no problems being called a fascists for not supporting the mutilation of children. I'm also not in favor of giving baby's tattoo's or boob jobs and I have no problem being called a fascist if that's the price I have to pay.

Also, great that this supposedly is a good way to prevent HIV in Africa. We're talking about baby's in Germany though.

Many nonreligious parents definately believe they "own" their children as well. But in my experience, "all" religious parents think they "own" their children and they "all" raise them with a tight leash. So I do see a meaningful difference between them.

The clear and significant harm done is in disregarding the rights of the child. I am 50 y/o and yet still resent society for allowing my parents to do this to me. Not due to any physical harm done, but rather that I wasn't given a choice in the decision to alter my body. I would be just as resentful if they had altered my body with piercings, tattoos, etc. If anything seems fascist its your parenting beliefs.

The harm doesn't have to be anything than the pain that occurs during the act of cutting a bit of your child off—without their consent.

Also, a great argument for not allowing circumcision is that it's (basically) permanent. I mean, you wouldn't allow parents to tattoo their infant or cut off their earlobes, right?

I'm almost certain the actual number in the USA is 100 infant deaths a year.

This is closer to what i thought.

And your comment about that tattoo is a correct one, though there are some small heigenical benefits to being circumcised so it isnt exactly right.

Its a question i have asked myself a number of times. However, while it is generally a cosmetic decision, the pain inflicted is not remembered into adult hood and should probably not be considered a con in the situaton

Maybe, but then the earlobe analogy applies.

This pain argument doesn't seem right at all. As a religious right of passage how about we ritually give our infants paper cuts for a week straight, they won't remember the pain into adulthood after all.

If a small and transient amount of pain as a baby is sufficient to have the government ban an action then we may as well ban about anything. Note that the german government does NOT reference this as the problem, just in the same way they did NOT reference the chance of death argument others had which, likewise, if that was really our standard we would have to ban innumerable other things with a higher chance of death than the miniscule one from circumcision.

It is culturally dependent. In our culture, if someone didn't have earlobes it would significantly different from the norm. However, both pierced earlobes (commonly done to babies in infancy among indian families) and circumcision are quite acceptable in our culture. Because there is no clear evidence that it makes large and measurable suffering on a physical level, if you want to argue for harm sufficient to ban it you have to argue it is some sort of psychological effect or whatever...but in a society accepting of it it doesn't make a difference.

wat. Nice generalization, unfortunately there is little reason to think what you say is true and it is certainly not "all" whatever the quotes are meant to imply

*See bolded. You have a reading comprehension problem.

Lol @ HIV and other diseases. When are babies having sex?

I really don't see how prohibiting parents from subjecting their male children to non-consensual, medically-unnecessary body modification is such a huge knock on religious freedom. I don't see any difference between this and a hypothetical religion requiring the tattooing of children--I doubt that many people defending circumcision would be OK with that on the basis of cultural/religious tolerance.

"ZOMG offensive to Jews and Muslims!" Well, maybe they can learn to update yet one more brutal pre-modern custom for the 21st century, like many have for dietary laws, clothing laws, marriage laws, and the like.

There's quite a bit of speculation on the origin of the practice, nowadays I'd imagine it's (mostly) just tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_circumcision

I can tell you that neither i or my son was circumcised as result of a religious practice

Just doing it to fit in, eh?