Nor was I, at least not directly. In some areas it filtered down into the culture so naturally that the religious justification was lost, but it's still a medically-unnecessary procedure when performed on healthy infants, far more harmful than a "preemptive" removal of the tonsils or appendix just on the chance that those areas might become infected.

During the Victorian era and early twentieth century, there was a prevailing "public health" rationale that involved circumcising men as part of an effort to prevent masturbation and "ill health effects" that accompany it. I wonder where that logic came from...

You have the burden of proof backwards. We don't go around banning anything and everything that somebody thinks might be the tiniest bit harmful and, when it comes to parenting, parents do all sorts of totally crazy things that are not banned. If you want to ban something, you have to provide clear and convincing evidence of its egregious and widespread harm. The "ban circumcision" camp has utterly failed to do that.

When they get older. That does not mean that, as the WHO says, the policy of circumcising babies does not have the resulting social consequence of reduced AIDS.

Nor was I. My middle brother actually was not circumcised right away and developed an infection under the foreskin and so my mother decided to circumcise him after that.

Number was accurate, but it turns out it was from a medical journal from 1949 so it's not really relevant. I can post it still if you want, though. Having a hard time finding anything recent.

Isn't the burden of proof on the first person to assert something?

Parents: It's okay to chop off a part of my child.
Me: I don't believe you.

The question here is whether we should ban the practice. This is a very, very different standard than whether I personally like it. When it comes to parenting, we give enormous deference to freedom and while I disagree with any number of ways that parents raise their children, and think many of them are FAR more damaging than the silliness of circumcision, I still don't want to ban them. For us to use the government to actually ban something the standard needs to be that there is a clear and significant harm that results.

For instance, backyard swimming pools are incredibly dangerous, compared with circumcision, but I don't want to ban those. Actually, I suspect the long term psychological damage of being raised in a religious household vastly outweighs whatever consequences you can conjour up from circumcision. I still don't want to ban parents teaching their children their religion.

Just dropping by to post a link I found funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz3EE...feature=g-vrec

Right, but we are going with accountability, I'm sure that if they are old enough to stick it in, they are old enough to decide if they want some skin on it. So the "benefits" still can be had while respecting the autonomy of children.

Except, as should be obvious, the WHO supporting a late life circumcision program is going to be vastly less effective than a childhood one. For example, we could just teach "accountability" of abstinence which respects the autonomy of everybody except it is not going to be remotely effective.

The issue is that circmcision is a cosmetic surgery which permanently alters the anatomy of those having it. In my view, it's basically like a more painful version of a body piercing (not exactly; I hope you know what I mean), which also affects anatomy more than a piercing. In th US, you have to be a certain age to get a body piercing (varies by state). This is the case so that those getting them can have at least a reasonable chance at making an informed decision. The same should be the case with circumcision.

In the US, parents can get their kids' ears pierced when they are just months or weeks old. So I think your analogy shows the opposite of what you intended.

The difference being that piercing holes can grow over, the foreskin, not so much.

Indeed, what you need to show is that banning this type of cultural cosmetic tradition causes sufficiently widespread harm to justify a government imposition to banning it. As it turns out, the harm to society or individuals seems to be so small you guys can't actually articulate what the harm is (outside of the transient pain at the time it occurs). Contrast this with many other things that stupid parents do that cause far more harm, in my view, on a society wide basis yet we never would discuss whether it should be banned.

As I understand it for most things of piercing it is either allowed or is allowed with the consent of the parent (which obviously occurs here). The restriction is to prevent children from doing something to themselves in violation of the parents, which is the exact opposite of a precedent to violate the wishes of the parents.

So to be clear, if tattooing were such that is was perfectly safe on an infant, you would be in favor of allowing it?

Not true. I had parent permission for an upper ear piercing at 12 in PA and I couldn't get one. Greatest thing that ever happened to me... Woulda looked like a mega-***. In PA it was 16 with parental consent, 18 w/o. AFAIK every state has some regulation.

Did you not read the thread? You already asked this and I gave a reply:

Errr, that is a rather inane argument. Just because something is acceptable societally doesn't mean it should be.

I still want to know why you'd want your sons to have an ugly penis.

I guess I should make it mandatory that my daughters get breast implants too.

You miss the point. The harm that is caused depends on society. So for example, if everybody in society goes around with a swastika tattoo on their face, one is not harmed by such a thing through things like social ostrasization, it is probably the converse. However, since society does NOT do this, there would be such harm if a child got a swastika tattoo on their face.

Besides, the burden of proof remains entirely on your side. If something is acceptable socially (as circumcision is), then one has to provide very clear and overwhelming evidence of the significant harm caused if we are going to go the extreme measure of having a government ban the practice of parents on their children.

You have the direction all wrong. This is not about mandating something, it is about banning something. There are lots of things that I think are stupid, pointless, and even harmful that idiotic parents (many of them religious) do to their children all the time. But I don't want to ban the vast majority of it.

Breasts are breasts. We're not talking about size here. Your comment is completely nongermane.

So if it was socially acceptable to expose yourself to kids, that'd be fine right? Cuz they'd get used to it, and the psychological damage wouldn't happen if it happened to everyone.

No, I think you missed the point. I'm not arguing this on societal grounds. I'm arguing that causing irreparable physical damage to your children should be banned, specifically when the children didn't give consent.