San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

[kingroach]

If you're reading that last paragraph and are about to start arguing otherwise please remind yourself of the fact that circumcision is only practiced in the United States and Israel, and then ask yourself why. Why does the rest of the world not do this? Why is it only these two countries? Could it actually be cultural? (Hint, it is)

false, try entire middle east; south asia ( pakistan, bangladesh, india), indonesia, malaysia etc.. Basically anywhere there is significant Muslim/Jewish population..

[Gone]

(Reuters) - A group opposed to male circumcision said on Tuesday they have collected more than enough signatures to qualify a proposal to ban the practice in San Francisco as a ballot measure for November elections.

...

Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys, and is also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.

...

"It's excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that's forced on men when they're at their weakest and most vulnerable," he told Reuters.

...

more

I though Jewish boys got their wangs trimmed before their bar mitzvah?

Its permanently damaging?? LOL!!! Just wait till they try getting a girl the first time and they see.... well that! Tell me which one is more damaging, one you can't remember, or the embarrassment that you'll suffer when she laughs at your pecker?

[Gone]

As other people have pointed out, the "Circumcision gives you a higher degree of protection against HIV" is bull****. NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT IN THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL IS CIRCUMCISION ROUTINELY PRACTICED. Does not that not ring a bell for anyone at all? Nobody at all? It has no effect on health except for the occasional case where the circumcision is improperly done and complications arise, and this should be reason enough to make the practice illegal for those not in consent age. I see people have used the "it's our right to circumcision" argument, and I'm already puking in my mouth. It's your right to cut off a very sensitive area of another person's body? Are you out of your mind? There's no "is it a human being yet" debate here as this is not abortion. This is a human being who is already out of the womb and has rights. One of the rights is the right to not be mutilated, which is what circumcision is, though yes obviously not to the extreme degree that is genital mutilation for females.

You should not have the right to decide for another person whether they get to have a part of their penis cut off or not. That's insane. There is, I'll repeat, no health benefits at all to circumcision, and CERTAINLY none to justify removing a part of a sexual organ.

As for the people claiming that the penis actually ends up being more sensitive from the circumcision, I'd like to point out that that argument breaks the laws of physics. The foreskin is loaded with nerves that stimulate sexual pleasure just like other parts of the penis. You remove that and you're removing one of the parts of the penis that generates sexual pleasure. This is such a stupidly obvious conclusion to come to and I have no idea how anyone ends up believing otherwise. The dubious explanation that somehow the penis ends up becoming more sensitive from a lack of foreskin further does not make sense because if anything it would become less sensitive due to a lack of a protective layer.

If you're reading that last paragraph and are about to start arguing otherwise please remind yourself of the fact that circumcision is only practiced in the United States and Israel, and then ask yourself why. Why does the rest of the world not do this? Why is it only these two countries? Could it actually be cultural? (Hint, it is)

You seem highly uneducated or unaware of why circumcision is performed when babies are born. It "lowers" the risk of a URI (Urinary tract infection). Thats a good reason right there.

Also, I'm pretty sure that circumcision has hurt nobody for the rest of their life if it was done at birth. Are you circumcised? If so, I'm pretty sure you have NO MEMORY AT ALL if it was done in your first three years of life. I know I don't remember anything until I was at least 5 years old, maybe 4. And even then it is just bits and pieces.

And, btw, lots of the world does it. Research research research. Its easier than an flaming rant that makes you look unaware.

Edit: Why am I putting so much effort into talking about penises, and also, why the hell are they wasting time with a stupid bill such as this. Yet again another liberal cities attempt to cut into parenting.

[OuchOfDeath]

false, try entire middle east; south asia ( pakistan, bangladesh, india), indonesia, malaysia etc.. Basically anywhere there is significant Muslim/Jewish population..

My god you are right. That's even worse.

You seem highly uneducated or unaware of why circumcision is performed when babies are born. It "lowers" the risk of a URI (Urinary tract infection). Thats a good reason right there.

Also, I'm pretty sure that circumcision has hurt nobody for the rest of their life if it was done at birth. Are you circumcised? If so, I'm pretty sure you have NO MEMORY AT ALL if it was done in your first three years of life. I know I don't remember anything until I was at least 5 years old, maybe 4. And even then it is just bits and pieces.

And, btw, lots of the world does it. Research research research. Its easier than an flaming rant that makes you look unaware.

Edit: Why am I putting so much effort into talking about penises, and also, why the hell are they wasting time with a stupid bill such as this. Yet again another liberal cities attempt to cut into parenting.

You seem highly uneducated about how certain practices tend to spread throughout society even though there's no solid reasoning or scientific evidence to support them. The lowering of URI's is statistically insignificant, and is further offset by occasional circumcision that goes wrong and complications arise, sometimes serious complications. That is a good reason right there.

Of course it hasn't "hurt" anyone in the sense that they are permanently inferior in a vast way, but they are definitely missing some nerves that produce sexual pleasure. The argument that you don't remember it or it hasn't "hurt" someone are not reasons to keep on doing these things. There is no good reason to cut off a part of your penis. They can do it themselves when they reach consensual age.

And btw, no lots of the world does not do it. Not a single part of Europe or Asia where there isn't a seizable muslim population does it. I was corrected in that yes it is also popular among Muslims, but Islam isn't exactly a model of social and scientific integrity.

Your argument that "a girl will laugh at your pecker" is the uneducated one. Travel to Europe. Or Asia. You might get more than a laugh. Maybe even a shock that you think cutting off a part of your penis for no good reason is a grand idea.

By the way here's a very important quote that is often brought up in this idiotic controversy of a practice that should have died out long ago:

The American Medical Association report of 1999, which was "?confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes," states that "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."

[Calum Veteran]

It would be overturned because it would be viewed as an attack on the freedom of religion, and perhaps also as a direct attack on Jews: http://www.torahview.com/bris/html/the_bris.html.

Animal rights activists don't like kosher and halal practices, but attempts to ban them would also be viewed as attacks on the freedom of Jews and Muslims to practice their religions.

But in that sense surely not executing homosexuals is an attack on Islam? If the government of Iran decided to abolish the law that states homosexuals are executed (not that they would) that could be viewed as an attack on the freedom of Muslims to practice their religion, right? My point: If a religious practice harms people, surely that practice should not be allowed or protected, even if disallowing it prevents a religion from practicing their traditions? I'll bring up this question again: What if it was tradition in Christianity to rape women; should rape then be allowed because disallowing it would be an attack against the freedom for Christians to practice their religion? Harm is harm no matter how severe; while rape would probably be seen as more harmful than unconsensual, forced circumcision, circumcising an unwilling, unconsenting child is often harmful.

[Calum Veteran]

And a very large segment of the population feels that the fetus is a human being even before. But I guess they don't count, since most of them are religious :rolleyes:

Abortion has very little to do with the issue of circumcision. It's not the fact they're religious that means their opinions or views don't count, it's the fact their opinions or views can often result in harm being caused to other people.

[DeadEndAccount]

Who is "they"? This is a petition by a group of citizens trying to put something on the ballot.

You do realise that a referendum costs money to run? another few million added to the deficit to run said pointless referendum mustn't be much of a concern for a city already hundreds of millions in debt.

[Calum Veteran]

I'm not advocating it being right, just saying that in the long run, the harm that is done is very little. Most kids grow up thinking that how they are is how everyone else is, except of course for the big exceptions. You don't normally find out that you are without foreskin and others are with it until you have normally reached a mature age. Hell, for a good while, I just though some peoples junk was different, not knowing it was due to an operation had as a kid.

I do completely understand that, but I reckon if I got to the age where I realised and understood I was born with a foreskin, I'd be gutted because I like having a foreskin for many reasons; maybe if I had been forcefully circumcised, I'd want a foreskin after finding out about them. By then it'd be too late. Would you like it if anything else of yours had been removed when you were born, if removing those body parts was legal? What about if your parents had a finger of yours removed; would you be fine growing up with only 3 fingers on one hand?

I love all the people who have never gotten circumcised, talking about what a horrible experience it is and how anybody who's gone through it would feel devalued or some bull****.

[. . .]

As I've pointed out, I reckon (but obviously cannot say for sure) that I'd hate it if I'd been circumcised. I already despise the fact I was unwillingly christened and christening didn't even harm my body.

[ShMaunder]

You seem highly uneducated or unaware of why circumcision is performed when babies are born. It "lowers" the risk of a URI (Urinary tract infection). Thats a good reason right there.

Also, I'm pretty sure that circumcision has hurt nobody for the rest of their life if it was done at birth. Are you circumcised? If so, I'm pretty sure you have NO MEMORY AT ALL if it was done in your first three years of life. I know I don't remember anything until I was at least 5 years old, maybe 4. And even then it is just bits and pieces.

And, btw, lots of the world does it. Research research research. Its easier than an flaming rant that makes you look unaware.

Edit: Why am I putting so much effort into talking about penises, and also, why the hell are they wasting time with a stupid bill such as this. Yet again another liberal cities attempt to cut into parenting.

I believe its a balanced medical argument - in which case, if the advantages and disadvantages weigh in about the same, then why should any decision even arise.

Anyway, i had a quick look at URI - there seems to be a divide in the scientific community on the benefits of circumcision in relation to URI (i.e. http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/circum_y.htm). Some .edu sites state that it does decrease the chances whilst others say it increases the chances.

Agree yes, it is performed in many places. I also agree with you when you say "cut into parenting" - i don't want this ban to come into force; i want solid scientific evidence weighted in and the information spread to all parents. Parents should then take this over any religious beliefs.

Edit: i'm late to the party

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

But in that sense surely not executing homosexuals is an attack on Islam? If the government of Iran decided to abolish the law that states homosexuals are executed (not that they would) that could be viewed as an attack on Islam, right? My point: If a religious practice harms a person, surely that practice should not be allowed or protected, even if disallowing it prevents a religion from practicing their traditions? I'll bring up this question again: What if it was tradition in Christianity to rape women; should rape then be allowed because disallowing it would be an attack against Christianity? Harm is harm no matter how severe; while rape would probably be seen as more harmful than circumcision, circumcising an unwilling, unconsenting child is often harmful.

I certainly think killing anyone is wrong. I don't support the death penalty at all. I don't believe in rape either. But this is really apples and oranges, I think.

I mean, circumcision is not rape or murder. It's more about belonging to a group. If I were a Jew and my parents did not circumcise me, I'd probably be rather unhappy about it.

I guess I really don't see the comparison.

Alas, it's a tricky world! :)

[ShMaunder]

I certainly think killing anyone is wrong. I don't support the death penalty at all. I don't believe in rape either. But this is really apples and oranges, I think.

I mean, circumcision is not rape or murder. It's more about belonging to a group. If I were a Jew and my parents did not circumcise me, I'd probably be rather unhappy about it.

I guess I really don't see the comparison.

Alas, it's a tricky world! :)

This is a good point. I remember an episode of the inbetweeners where one of the lads (uncircumcised) got undressed in front of a Jewish girl; in ended with her screaming and running out of the house. Not sure if i should take that as a creditable source but i do see your point.

I haven't got anymore to say other than let the doctors and scientists publish their work and hope people listen.

I feel its a changing world.

[Udedenkz]

It seems that no one mentioned Penile Pearly Papules.

Skin condition that appears with Normal Penis + Moisture + Friction.

[iamawesomewicked]

It seems that no one mentioned Penile Pearly Papules.

Skin condition that appears with Normal Penis + Moisture + Friction.

Or in other words. Dirty dick.

Lrn2clean and no issue.

[Udedenkz]

Or in other words. Dirty dick.

Lrn2clean and no issue.

I wouldn't mention any negative aspect of an uncircumcised penis if it was simply due to poor upkeep.

[Calum Veteran]

I certainly think killing anyone is wrong. I don't support the death penalty at all. I don't believe in rape either. But this is really apples and oranges, I think.

I mean, circumcision is not rape or murder. It's more about belonging to a group. If I were a Jew and my parents did not circumcise me, I'd probably be rather unhappy about it.

I guess I really don't see the comparison.

Alas, it's a tricky world! :)

Yes, but if you weren't a Jew and your parents got you circumcised, then you might be rather unhappy about that. If your parents didn't get you circumcised, but you decided to be Jewish, you could choose to become circumcised when you reach an age that allows you to make an informed decision to consent; however, if your parents had you circumcised before you had the ability to say "No," the damage is already done. That is my point.

[OuchOfDeath]

Yup. Callum hit it. Big deal if a Jewish kid is unhappy about not being circumcized. He can go and do it himself whenever he reaches of age. While on the other hand a kid missing a part of their penis can never get it back. This is a big f*cking difference.

[iamawesomewicked]

I wouldn't mention any negative aspect of an uncircumcised penis if it was simply due to poor upkeep.

But they're not exclusive to uncut males. So I don't see your point.

[Seizure1990]

Yes, but if you weren't a Jew and your parents got you circumcised, then you might be rather unhappy about that. If your parents didn't get you circumcised, but you decided to be Jewish, you could choose to become circumcised when you reach an age that allows you to make an informed decision to consent; however, if your parents had you circumcised before you had the ability to say "No," the damage is already done. That is my point.

That isn't how it works, genius. As if no one thought of that before? It's not like we can go back and re-write what God told us, word-for-word, in the Torah. My religion dictates that at the age of 8 days old, the foreskin of my penis is to be removed. It didn't say "when you feel like, to give the child ample time to come to his own decisions". It said 8 days, and it says it for a reason, and who are you to decide otherwise? You can go on and on all you want about the 0.1% of the circumcised population that apparently never quite got over it, but trust me when I say that doesn't come close to the considerably larger number of people who will be every bit as disturbed that they WEREN'T able to follow their faith as they were supposed to.

But as I said before, it's not like it matters when it's got to do with religion, right (never mind that this country is founded on the principle of freedom to practice and not be oppressed by the government)? Talking **** about how "if I were circumcised, I'd be pretty upset about it" doesn't really matter, because guess what? You weren't! You know who is circumcised? Nearly all of Jewish boys. It's no wonder it's barely an issue at all until some dumb lobby whips it all up into a froth. Generally the people who wouldn't want to be circumcised aren't, and the ones who are circumcised are circumcised because that is most likely the norm for their community, and in fact, would be glad the procedure was performed.

But I guess when you see everything in black and white, it's easy to marginalize the needs of an entire group of people so that you can protect the rights of a million people in theory

[iamawesomewicked]

That isn't how it works, genius. As if no one thought of that before? It's not like we can go back and re-write what God told us, word-for-word, in the Torah. My religion dictates that at the age of 8 days old, the foreskin of my penis is to be removed. It didn't say "when you feel like, to give the child ample time to come to his own decisions". It said 8 days, and it says it for a reason, and who are you to decide otherwise? You can go on and on all you want about the 0.1% of the circumcised population that apparently never quite got over it, but trust me when I say that doesn't come close to the considerably larger number of people who will be every bit as disturbed that they WEREN'T able to follow their faith as they were supposed to.

But as I said before, it's not like it matters when it's got to do with religion, right (never mind that this country is founded on the principle of freedom to practice and not be oppressed by the government)? Talking **** about how "if I were circumcised, I'd be pretty upset about it" doesn't really matter, because guess what? You weren't! You know who is circumcised? Nearly all of Jewish boys. It's no wonder it's barely an issue at all until some dumb lobby whips it all up into a froth. Generally the people who wouldn't want to be circumcised aren't, and the ones who are circumcised are circumcised because that is most likely the norm for their community, and in fact, would be glad the procedure was performed.

But I guess when you see everything in black and white, it's easy to marginalize the needs of an entire group of people so that you can protect the rights of a million people in theory

Oh so religion makes it ok? LOL. :laugh: :laugh:

[Seizure1990]

Oh so religion makes it ok? LOL. :laugh: :laugh:

So your entire argument about why it's wrong is about the supposed damage it does to the person, and when presented with the concept of people actually being damaged by NOT having it performed, you just parrot that back, mindlessly?

I can see I'm dealing with an idiot here, so I'm not sure I want to take this any further.

[Calum Veteran]

That isn't how it works, genius. As if no one thought of that before? It's not like we can go back and re-write what God told us, word-for-word, in the Torah. My religion dictates that at the age of 8 days old, the foreskin of my penis is to be removed. It didn't say "when you feel like, to give the child ample time to come to his own decisions". It said 8 days, and it says it for a reason, and who are you to decide otherwise? You can go on and on all you want about the 0.1% of the circumcised population that apparently never quite got over it, but trust me when I say that doesn't come close to the considerably larger number of people who will be every bit as disturbed that they WEREN'T able to follow their faith as they were supposed to.

But as I said before, it's not like it matters when it's got to do with religion, right (never mind that this country is founded on the principle of freedom to practice and not be oppressed by the government)? Talking **** about how "if I were circumcised, I'd be pretty upset about it" doesn't really matter, because guess what? You weren't! You know who is circumcised? Nearly all of Jewish boys. It's no wonder it's barely an issue at all until some dumb lobby whips it all up into a froth. Generally the people who wouldn't want to be circumcised aren't, and the ones who are circumcised are circumcised because that is most likely the norm for their community, and in fact, would be glad the procedure was performed.

But I guess when you see everything in black and white, it's easy to marginalize the needs of an entire group of people so that you can protect the rights of a million people in theory

Your sarcastic use of 'genius' is not a nice tone.

The fact of the matter is, no one is religious when they are 8 days old; they do not have the capacity to understand religion or choose to follow a religion at that age. It is fact that this circumcision is being forced upon them. If that is what your religion states, then it is quite clearly something that the law cannot allow, just like Islam states that homosexuals should be murdered. Their religion states that, so why shouldn't it occur? Because it is immoral to a lot of people.

I have one question though, if God created us with foreskins, why would he do so only for us to go through the immense pain of having it removed at 8 days old? He would clearly have the ability to create us without foreskins. I think this alone makes the Torah's claim dubious, and I don't think causing such pain to an 8 year old child is justified when something cannot be proven, especially if this pain also involves removing a body part when no consent was gained. The country may have been founded with the principle of allowing others the freedom to practice their religion, but it was also founded on allowing others their freedom; allowing children the freedom to retain their foreskin unless they consent to its removal. The Bible states parents should stone their misbehaving children to death; do you also think this should be allowed by law, if you're using the 'freedom to practice religion' argument?

You say "generally the people who wouldn't want to be circumcised aren't," which appears to suggest you admit that sometimes, or even often, people have been circumcised when they'd rather not have been.

I see the world in full colour, not black and white. I am a very open-minded individual; I just don't agree with allowing people to harm others, just because they believe it's what God wants.

Yup. Callum hit it. Big deal if a Jewish kid is unhappy about not being circumcized. He can go and do it himself whenever he reaches of age. While on the other hand a kid missing a part of their penis can never get it back. This is a big f*cking difference.

Thank you :) I agree with your posts as well.

[OuchOfDeath]

That isn't how it works, genius. As if no one thought of that before? It's not like we can go back and re-write what God told us, word-for-word, in the Torah. My religion dictates that at the age of 8 days old, the foreskin of my penis is to be removed. It didn't say "when you feel like, to give the child ample time to come to his own decisions". It said 8 days, and it says it for a reason, and who are you to decide otherwise? You can go on and on all you want about the 0.1% of the circumcised population that apparently never quite got over it, but trust me when I say that doesn't come close to the considerably larger number of people who will be every bit as disturbed that they WEREN'T able to follow their faith as they were supposed to.

But as I said before, it's not like it matters when it's got to do with religion, right (never mind that this country is founded on the principle of freedom to practice and not be oppressed by the government)? Talking **** about how "if I were circumcised, I'd be pretty upset about it" doesn't really matter, because guess what? You weren't! You know who is circumcised? Nearly all of Jewish boys. It's no wonder it's barely an issue at all until some dumb lobby whips it all up into a froth. Generally the people who wouldn't want to be circumcised aren't, and the ones who are circumcised are circumcised because that is most likely the norm for their community, and in fact, would be glad the procedure was performed.

But I guess when you see everything in black and white, it's easy to marginalize the needs of an entire group of people so that you can protect the rights of a million people in theory

I don't think anyone trusts your insane extremist opinions, so don't bother using the word "trust".

How about I made things really short and sweet for you. Your ancient book that you and also half of the world believe in hold no ground when it comes to discussing -anything-. Religion does not belong anywhere except in people's private lives. This is a topic about male circumcision, and in order for you to be taken seriously you have to take -all religious beliefs, opinions, and biases- out of the picture. Your religion can dictate what day of the month people go around streaking for all anyone cares. Religion does not belong in any discussion about anything, and definitely not anything remotely close to something as sensitive as human rights, which this happens to touch on. So please take your religion where it belongs, which is in your private life and in religious discussions. You do not dictate what other people can or cannot do based on religion as that is kind of insane, and is the exact same excuse Islamist militants use. They use religion as a pretext for their behavior, and I know that's quite the extreme example, however the point stands is religion cannot be used as an argument for anything as it is not something based in logic or science.

Furthermore that 0.1% number you pulled out of your ass, and even if there is only 0.1% of people that happen to be hurt about being circumcised without their permission, it stands to reason that that 0.1% minority be protected from harm. Everyone else can chose to circumcise themselves by their own choice freely. However as soon as there is a population that is forcibly being circumcised(which there is, it's impossible everyone is happy with having parts of themselves cut off) then the act must stop taking place. No amount of your or anyone else's religious beliefs stand in the way of individual rights. That's the bottom line. There is no excuse for it. It's simply a violation of people's rights and needs to stop.

[Seizure1990]

Your sarcastic use of 'genius' is not a nice tone.

Your implication that it's such a light-weight matter to simply write off or change a part of our religion is not nice, to make an understatement.

The fact of the matter is, no one is religious when they are 8 days old

But I am now, and I am also aware that it was supposed to have happened at the age of 8 days. Having failed to meet this requirement is something I would have been upset about. I am not anywhere near the only one like this. I'm not sure why you keep avoiding this issue.

just like Islam states that homosexuals should be murdered.

As far as I know, that's false, so I'm not even gonna bother.

I have one question though, if God created us with foreskins, why would he do so only for us to go through the immense pain of having it removed at 8 days old?

I could answer that question, but I doubt you care about the answer, just as you couldn't care less about the idea of religion actually being important to people, even if it isn't to you.

You say "generally the people who wouldn't want to be circumcised aren't," which appears to suggest you admit that sometimes, or even often, people have been circumcised when they'd rather not have been.

Yes. But far less then the other side. If you have a reason for somehow deciding that the needs of those few are more important then the other hand, even when out-numbered many times over, then speak up, because you haven't so far.

I see the world in full colour, not black and white. I am a very open-minded individual; I just don't agree with allowing people to harm others, just because they believe it's what God wants.

But harming the people who do believe in God so you can protect those that don't - that is ok. I see, interesting.

...

The major point I got out of this is that protecting the rights of the people is top priority, until it comes to protecting the rights of the religious.

[ylcard]

If people over 18 would like to be circumcised, I see nothing wrong with that, but forcing unconsenting children to be circumcised is awful, immoral, and damaging. What if they don't want to be religious and decide not to follow a religion? What if they'd rather have a foreskin? Why do children not get a choice in the matter? It's a disgusting tradition that should only be carried out when the person being circumcised consents.

What if they want to be religious ? It's a lot easier for the guy to have it done while he's 8 days old and not when he's old enough to feel it for two weeks.

What the **** is wrong with you and the rest of the guys here that think it's immoral and such ? Ignorance ? Prejudice ? Too much Liberalism in your bloodstream ?

Children, up to 18 years old (in some countries it may be up to 21 years) can't make their own decisions, that means that for 18-21 years their parents make decisions for them, other than the fact that it's irreversible, I see nothing wrong with that.

Irreversible doesn't automatically mean it's "awful, immora, and damaging". That's merely your (ignorant and pretty much false/wrong) opinion of it.

I personally see no benefit either way, I'm not circumcised so I have no way of knowing how it feels, but the fact is **** can happen to anyone and it doesn't give a **** if your dick is missing some skin. An infection occurs because of retarded doctors using dity tools and whatnot, it doesn't happen because he no longer has skin on his penis to protect him from evil.

God, you people are ****ing ridiculous. There's absolutely no reason to ban circumcision, if you don't want to, don't ****ing tell others what they can or can't do, liberals, you forgot what it means.

[Calum Veteran]

What if they want to be religious ? It's a lot easier for the guy to have it done while he's 8 days old and not when he's old enough to feel it for two weeks.

Are you suggesting a baby who is 8 days old is able to give any inclination that he or she would like to be religious? If so, I'm surprised you don't realise that a baby of that age does not have the capacity to understand the concept of religion, let alone agree to be part of one.

What the **** is wrong with you and the rest of the guys here that think it's immoral and such ? Ignorance ? Prejudice ? Too much Liberalism in your bloodstream ?

Wow, what an excellent rebutal of my point and an unarguable idea you present here /sarcasm. It is immoral because it is removing a body part of a person who has not consented. Would you like it if someone removed a body part of yours without your consent? How about if someone removed one of your fingers while you were sleeping (placed you under anesthetic so you didn't feel anything)? You wouldn't find that a tad immoral?

Children, up to 18 years old (in some countries it may be up to 21 years) can't make their own decisions, that means that for 18-21 years their parents make decisions for them, other than the fact that it's irreversible, I see nothing wrong with that.

Irreversible doesn't automatically mean it's "awful, immora, and damaging". That's merely your (ignorant and pretty much false/wrong) opinion of it.

Of course irreversible doesn't always dictate awful, immoral, and disgusting, but in this case it is. If you think it's fine to just go around removing people's body parts without their consent, and causing them unneeded pain, then I personally think you need to review your morals and values. It's fine for parents to make some decisions for their children; required decisions that the child is unable to make. But there is no way circumcision is a required decision; it's a choice by the parent and is thus not something that is needed. The kind of decisions it is fine for the parent to make is what kind of lunch the child has or something; after all, the child requires food and cannot make himself or herself lunch.

[. . .]

God, you people are ****ing ridiculous. There's absolutely no reason to ban circumcision, if you don't want to, don't ****ing tell others what they can or can't do, liberals, you forgot what it means.

It makes me laugh that you articulate your points in this kind of manner because it really does imply a lack of intelligence, and a lack of intelligence is what I believe is one of the main reasons people follow the kind of right-wing views that promote intolerance and prejudice. I'm being intolerant of religion in this case because their tradition causes harm to many people, but I'm not intolerant of religion in general; they should be able to believe in what they like and practice what they like as long as what they are doing is not harming anyone. It has nothing to do with being a liberal and I wouldn't even class myself as a liberal; my political views are more moderate.

What makes you think my opposition of circumcision has anything to do with me not wanting one? Of course it doesn't. I'm so against it because it causes harm to others, so suggesting I just "don't get one" won't help because others are still being harmed and having their body parts removed without their consent.