"Lower satisfaction with one’s circumcision status—but not men’s actual circumcision status—was associated with worse body image and
sexual functioning" Being angry about it is the cause of the problems according to this study they tried to spin

I don't even care *that* much about the long-term ramifications. Just learn about how the surgery works. It's horrific torture and they do it to newborn boys *with no anesthetic*

In all fairness, no newborn remembers it.

I had a friend that got the chickenpox to grow under his foreskin, and I tell you what, that left him scarred a whole lot more than circumcision would have.

I'm not sure none of you here know how terrible it is to do this (well some might).

@DJ_Anuz "In all fairness, no newborn remembers it" Not true.

Newborns don't have conscious memories of the procedure but I have read studies that indicate circumcized boys are more fearful and sensitive to pain than intact.

The notion that such an event would have no impact on a developing infant is childishly wishful thinking.

I would need to see the studies. As a general rule, every study has something wrong with how the conclusions are met that may or may not damage their legitimacy.

None of that even matters because *inflicting an unnecessary surgery on a newborn is clearly wrong* regardless of the long-term outcome

On the one I read they made the major mistake of self selection based on men answering an ad that said it was for research about circumcision (who do you think will answer that)

As would mandating that those compelled by a religious faith to be unable to do so would be wrong.

I don't know, there are lots of things we don't let people do to their children even if they have a religious motivation.

I have yet to see evidence compelling enough to determine that the practice significantly degrades a child's quality of life.

*like FGM for instance*

I just do not see how you can oppose one and not the other.

I'm actually fine with the surgery that removes the clitoral hood, though not the entire clitoris.

Well at least you are consistently wrong...

XD

If I wanted to remove the last joint of my children's left little toe at birth, because I had a religious conviction that Satan lived in the left little toenail, would you prohibit or allow that practice @DJ_Anuz?

I'd think it's silly, but I don't think the government should prevent it.

If it were the big toe or the thumb I would say no.

So at what point does mutilating newborns go from 'silly' to 'unacceptable' in your book?

When it significantly will reduce the normal function of their body.

Because for me it's the part where you are removing or damaging any healthy, normal part of their bodies.

That is a completely subjective standard. What if that child was going to grow up to be a gold medal gymnast but the loss of proprioception from that missing toe joint makes them fall off the balance beam at the Olympics?

Would that count as a 'significant loss of function'?

How about we *just don't let people cut up children*?

Can you cut your child's hair?

@uncephalized No, because the Olympics isn't normal function.

It's nonliving tissue that grows back so yes, of course.

Being an Olympian is near super human, and being born short could do the same thing.

It would need to inhibit you from doing something that anyone else could do.

Yes but you don't see a difference between *being born short* and your parents *deciding to shorten your shinbones surgically*?

Really?

There is a clear difference between cutting off a piece of the body that is mostly under used, and shortening your shins surgically, which btw, can't be done safely to newborns.

If parents wanted to genetically alter their child to be short, during gestation I wouldn't want the government to ban that either.

Its not just botched circumcisions that's a problem, ones that go well also cause problems (and sometimes death in case some aren't aware). They lead to many sexually issues for men, and we don't have enough evidence for me to say with certainty, but we are getting more evidence that its a factor in men's ever growing problem with ED (and other problems that were pointed out).

I would like to say, for a newborn baby who has just come into this world. And one of the very first things you do to that baby boy is cause it horrible pain (like we could not imagine).
Do you not believe this would cause psychological damage? We don't know how much yet, but this often manifest in many issues for a person like @uncephalized said, of fear and trust (as well as others).
Now can humans over come those issues? Sure. But why would you purposely impose that on a human.

I just have yet to see enough evidence showing that a circumcision harms someone's quality of life enough that it justifies the damage caused by giving the govt control over that decision to children of people religiously or otherwise compelled to circumcise.

If it's ok to remove dead tissue, can you remove your child's epidermis?

Micamike, that's a ridiculous comparison and you know it.

Removing the epidermis causes severe pain and increases risk of infection.