Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

[Sri Lumpa]

chocoloco said:
When you never had something you don't know what your missing and so no real harm is done.

Not necessarily true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

It actually depends on how important the thing you miss is. Lacking a foreskin is small enough that it shouldn't matter much.

For those being against a ban against underage circumcision because a ban is forcing people out of a choice let's not forget that underage circumcision in itself is forcing people out of a choice, and whilst the ban temporarily prevents a choice that can later be made by the primarily concerned party, the lack of a ban prevents said primarily concerned party from having any part in the choice, with their only option being to cosmetically remedy it.

Either case you are restricting somebody's freedom, so as I do not believe that parents have any rights on their child's body but dutys towards it (feed it, including mentally and emotionally, clothe it, put a roof over its head...) I would have no problem against such a ban, at least until they reach puberty* or the age of consent (given that the major benefit seems to be lowering the risk of infection by STD).

Stever, can you think of any medical reason why it is advantagous to do it at birth rather than when the child is old enough to choose for himself? The only reason I can think of is that you are then at an age where you can feel the pain of the operation but not only is it not enough in itself to remove that freedom of choice from a person as the potential pain is simply one more factor in the decision (like the pain of getting a tattoo can be a factor in whether to get one or not) but I suppose that it can be alleviated with anaesthesia. 

 

* note that the foreskin is fused to the glans of a child so having little children not like to bathe is no excuse as by the time it separates they are old enough to understand why they should clean it properly.