(For the one who seconded the motion to silence discussion of this topic, VinylBoy is not exactly doing his bit.)
My argument was more on the subject of prevention, not necessarily describing each technique in detail.
But there is NO other prevention actually practised that involves permanent removal of a functioning part - even though we could prevent all sorts of diseases by preemptively removing the parts they infest or infect.
I think most rational thinking parents do consider these things about their newborn babies.
Circumcision is offered and
pushed on all parents, not just most rational thinking ones (and nearly half of parents now decide not to do it).
One down, and about 3 more million to go.
You moved the goalposts. You said
But for the sake of arguing, can you find me any male under the age of 18 years of age who is not sexually aware and has suffered some kind of physical or mental drama because he was circumcised?
and I did. Now you want 3 more million. That'll take a little longer.
VERY few 13 year olds would even have the knowledge to link their unhappiness with their own bodies to a piece of foreskin.
An excellent point, nor sexual malfunction, even when it is quite serious. People are inclined to think that what they've got is all there is to have.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children until the age of 18. You can't get more logical than that, because it's a federal law.
Irrelevant to the question of prepubescent children having problems caused by their circumcisions.
The argument proposed by the OP is to ban the practice of circumcision so that men can make their own decisions when they are adults. If that was to happen, that would mean disregarding a lot of documented medical research
which is not enough to convince any national medical body in the world to even recommend circumcision, and which mostlly originates from the US, where circumcision is a fait accompli, an operation looking for a disease.
discrediting 90% of men who live normal lives after receiving the procedure,
So you admit that it has a
10 percent failure rate? That's
horrendously high for a procedure that's purely optional. You're saying more than 120,000 US babies are damaged each year.
as well as repealing some people's religious beliefs
nobody's repealing anyone's beliefs, just removing the option of practising religion with a knife on someone else's body.
Unless you can come with some scientific or medical evidence that shows real health benefits for those maintaining their foreskin
We don't have to do any such thing. Does anyone have to prove medical benefits of retaining their earlobes or their toenails? Yet it would be illegal to remove them from a baby without pressing medical need. Sufficient that they are born with them.
...getting them to focus on the real reasons they're unhappy.
There's no reason to suppose that the real reason their unhappy is anything else than having had a normal, healthy functioning part cut off them without any good reason.
Yes, because I failed to mention that not only are there the botches that are discovered immediately, but many more that only come to light as the boy grows up, and some not till he's sexually active. Even then he may not realise at first that it is his circumcision that is causing his problems.
As I stated before, there's no such thing as a 100% foolproof surgery or operation. If you're so worried about whether or not any medical procedure is performed properly or not, then you may as well not get it done because there's ALWAYS a risk of error.
For that reason, in every other case, surgery is a last resort (or else an elective option of the person it's done to), not a preventive option given to parents to decide.
But as it stands, about 90% of circumcisions in this country are done without problem or error according to the source I sited previously. That's a better ratio than those who go in for repeated chemo treatments to get rid of cancer.
Exactly! Not much better success than a despearate life-or-death measure! Yet people call it "just a snip".
There's still no logical reasoning to ban the practice.
Except the fundamental right guaranteed in
various legal declarations, to security of the person, and the right to undisturbed possession of all one's property.
And to be quite honest, I'd be a little offended if I was to have a baby boy, wanted to consider all the legalized procedures necessary to help raise a healthy child
If it were no longer "legalized" you would no longer have to consider it. Just as you are spared the option of slitting your son's tongue, tattooing his head blue, or having your daughter's clitoral hood surgically removed.
the majority of them being sexually active adults
Who better?