But it's not. You're arguing a hypothetical.

But, hypotheticaly, if it was acceptable it should only be allowed if they're circumcised. Otherwise, that'd just be gross.

lol

Damage? Say's who? You?

The dictionary. You're damaging the tissue.

Chopping off 20,000 nerve endings at the tip of your schlong is pretty clearly damage...

Try again.

damage (ˈdæmɪdʒ)
— n
1.injury or harm impairing the function or condition of a person or thing
2.loss of something desirable

Ahem, pretty sure the 'function' of the foreskin is 'impaired' after it's removed.

And what function is that again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin#Functions (NSFW)

Uh, no thanks. I'll just remain ignorant -- with an AWESOME looking penis.

Oops, gotta go, Mrs. Roundguy is calling. Damn glad I'm circumcised.

Still not sure what this means, but have fun.

Where does the urge to repeatedly express the cosmetic superiority of your penis come from? Do you have some kind of traumatic experience? Did mrs roundguy told you about this huge uncircumcised dick she had while backpacking europe? Did she then try to build you up with telling you that little mr roundguy is so much prettier?
You can tell us about it, we are in a safe place!

So how can you explain all the little girls I see walking/crawling around with their ears pierced? Are you saying there are no girls with legally pierced ears below the age of 16 in PA? That's ridiculous.

I've never seen an erect un-circumcised dong, but I heard that there's no difference once it's hard.

Clip on earrings, probably. I just googled it and you can do the lobe at 10 w/ permission. I was doing cartilidge. Point is, there's definitely regulation going on. Weird looking up PA body piercing stuff when I don't even live there anymore and have no interest in any piercings nowadays (and even if I did, I'd be well
older than the limit).

Nope. Maybe not in PA, but in NJ at least, it's completely standard to get a baby's ears pierced.

http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/phss/bodyart.pdf

I'll be damned.

Snooki state, I guess

Basically this is true. I should point out I'm only going on a sample size of 1 here though

The difference between those things and (religious) circumcision is that the latter is clearly an unnecessary procedure from a medical standpoint, with no immediate benefits; lowered HIV/STD transmission is not relevant until years later, improved hygiene, well, teaching kids (how) to clean their penis is probably equally effective. There's also the danger of some kind of complication plus the pain inflicted on the child (the procedure is apparently often done without anesthesia).
On the other hand these religious circumcisions infringe on the childs' right to physical integrity.

I assume you mean sexually, right?

Because there isn't anything wrong in walking around naked in front of your kids until they are a certain age. I would probably say its more psychologically damaging if this isn't done than if it is (teaching them the body is dirty and must be covered up, etc.)

There's really almost no difference between cut and uncut when the foreskin is retracted. You can still tell the difference, but it's minor and doesn't really affect the aesthetics much.

"irreparable physical damage" is essentially a deepity. It is trivially true that the actual tissue is being damaged. But the implication of your posts is that there is something wrong with this, that some form of larger damage to the person occurs. This is where you have failed ITT, and indeed as far as I can see the circumcised person is more or less exactly the same and suffers no physical pain or suffering or emotional turmoil or anything of this nature in adulthood. Certainly not at a sufficient level of suffering to justify banning it. Pointing out that something has been "damaged" because it has been removed helps you in no way.

so? Almost all the stupid things parents do that provide some small risk to their children are not "medically necessary" but I don't want to ban any of them. Again the burden of proof is bejng massively confused, I don't have to prove there are huge benefits, you have to prove there is huge harm sufficient for an extraordinary ban.

Exactly. If we lived in a nudist society, say, then nudity would not be a problem.

Of course there is something wrong with it. I'm almost certain no court would allow parents to circumcise their 16-year old son without his consent; the same should be true of an infant. And until such a time when a person can give their consent we should avoid lopping off body parts for no good reason.

Again, the ban on circumcision is basically no different than the banning of tattooing of infants (which would happen if it was a common occurrence). Your societal premise does not work because I'm not arguing on those grounds. I would be in favor of banning the aforementioned forehead swastika tattoos you mentioned earlier, even in a society were it was prevalent.

No. The default position is to not cut off a piece of your child. To do so should require proof of sufficient benefits, and until this is done the practice of circumcision should not be allowed.