Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

[Sri Lumpa]

"So that ties into why its more beneficial as a young child"

I disagree. It ties it as to why it is beneficial in case of severe infection but to make a case for doing it routinely you would have to make the case that such infections are frequent enough and severe enough in uncircumcised boys to necessitate such surgery. Fore example, if 90% of uncircumcised boys get severe cases of infection and circumcised boys almost never do then it would then be a reasonable policy. If 10% of uncircumcised boys do get such severe infections it is not reasonable to subject 10 times more boys to unnecessary surgery.

As I view it, lack of circumcision is the status quo at birth and the right of a person to their body is also very important, so if somebody wants to override said right their should be a damn good reason, like the medical reason due to infection or statistically high risk of infection (for prophylaxis).

Also, the reason for the infection should be sought as if it is simply due to a lack of education on proper hygiene (for example a circumcised father might not know how to teach his son) or if it is due to the parent(s) not teaching their son due to awkwardness about breaching the subject then if a recurrence of the infection can be prevented (or the likelyhood highly reduced) by having the doctor teaching either the parent or the child on what to do then such a path should be explored first (I do not consider saving a parent from embarassment a justifiable reason to infringe on one's right).

Similarly, I do not see the convenience (monetary and paperwork wise) for the parent to be justification enough. The solution is not to have unnecessary surgery but to sort out the fucked up medical system (I can understand an empathize with parents doing it for those reason but it doesn't make it right).

"As far as using terms like mutilation, thats like saying you have herpes when someone asks what that cold sore is. Or herpes when you get shingles or chicken pox."

I did not use that term as I am not sure it applies but whether it is mutilation or not it still is an invasion of somebody's body, and of a very intimate part of it at that, and one that cannot be  Such invasion of one's body needs a proper justification.

As for calling cold sores herpes? I do because it is caused by HSV1 and while most genital herpes is caused by HSV2 it can also be caused by HSV1 and as I do have cold sores when I am very tired (verrry tired, as it almost never happen) I avoid Australian kissing if I feel one coming (it is hard to describe the feeling but I generally know when I am starting to get a cold sore even before I can visually see it in the mirror). I don't know how high the risk of transmission is but given that it is easily remedied by a little self restraint (no need of surgery or anything) I do not consider it worth the risk. And yes, I know there is also the risk of asymptomatic transmission but I don't know how to mitigate it (any ideas?).

For chicken pox I didn't know what caused it so I looked it up and it seems to be a different virus though still in the same family (like if HSV1 & HSV2 were brothers, VZV would be their cousin). 

Your example: "Thank you doctor for mutilating my childs cleft lip so he can feed and receive proper nourishment" is similar, though not as extreme, as the poster that equated circumcision with removing the throat. Here you are comparing a normal condition that does not cause problems in the majority of cases to an congenital deformity that has immediate, obvious and potentially grave consequences (and you didn't include the body image psychological problems that would be magnitudes worse than how an appendage that is hidden most of the time looks like); in such a case then clearly the medical and future psychological benefit outweigh one's right to their own person.

Also, while most uncircumcised people tend to want to remain so, I imagine that most (if not all) people with cleft lip would want to have the operation done. So in one case you have parents deciding something for their child that they likely would have decided otherwise had they had the chance, versus deciding on a clear medical basis to correct a defect;  a decision that the child is likely to have taken himself. It hardly seems comparable

"The people wanting to ban this choice". I do not want to ban this choice, I want to preserve it for those that should be taking it, excluding real medical reasons (in which case it is not a choice anymore but a necessity). 

"are overexaggerating the ill effects". It seems to me that those supporting circumcision are the ones overexaggerating the ill effects of the lack of it. Mast men are not circumcised, if it was such a medical disaster not to do it one would expect a high rate of voluntary circumcision among adult males, yet, beside medical (and then necessary) and religious reasons there does not seem to be such a wave of disease afflicting uncircumcised men followed by a wave of voluntary circumcision.

"In the end i dont know of medical cases where in the notes i read "if foreskin had been present this infection/issue would not have occured" However i have personally seen men in their 70's and 80's with recurrent UTI's and foreskin adhereing to their glans because they either forgot or physically couldnt clean all of the smegma  and it became crusted thus harboring bacteria and resulting in infection."

Another case of a medical reason why it might be necessary, but certainly not a case of why it is necessary at birth. Women do often get breast cancer as they grow older (and men too, but it is much rarer as we have much less breast tissue), should we surgically remove their breast tissue when they are small babies because it is easier than to do it after puberty when their is so much more of it?

In both cases it would solve a medical problem that occcurs later in life by physically modifying the appearance of sexual attributes and even though most people today would consider such a change aesthetically worse, it probably would be considered more attractive if it was the norm  than natural breasts, jsut like feet binding and neck rings were/are considered beautiful in some cultures:

"oh my god, what are those huge deformities you have on your chest" is not much different from "Uncircumsized penises look disgusting")

"In the end it has nothing to do medically, its just another horrible social movement trying to do nothing but cause a stir based on not science but cultlike mentality." You are talking about people wanting to cicumcise their son, right? Because it definitely applies to them.

"Pretty soon we are going to see legislation where if men masturbate and the sperm are flushed or washed away they face prison time for destroying potential unborn children (NOTE the large amount of sarcasm IE not a serious analogy)". And don't forget about women menstruating. But just like a lack of circumcision, those are natural states (yes, I consider it abnormal for somebody not to release their sperm regularly*, via consensual sex preferably, but masturbation can do in a pinch). You want to change the natural status quo of things at birth rather than offer the choice to the person later, justify it.

"People just need to let it be". That's all we are asking for, it being a young child's penis of course .

* note that regularly does not necessarily means frequently, but try not to ejaculate for a few weeks and tell me if it feel like a natural state of affairs.