I'm getting an odd feeling of deja vu.

I am against infant circumcision, if there is no medical requirement to do so (e.g. phymosis).

On boys, it may keep it cleaner but does that justify the pain? It also makes orgasms less intense since the head of the penis won't be as sensitive On girls, it can prevent them from even having orgasms and sometimes any sexual pleasure at all, it also seems a lot more painful than male circumcision.

I honestly am pro-choice when it comes to circumcision. I can't see much wrong with it health wise there are tons of benefits as listed in the poll. As someone who ended up getting circumcised as a teenager I must say I'm pretty upset it wasn't done when I was a kid. My fore skin didn't grow when my you know what did. At around 13 I was bleeding constantly and went to the doctor. The doctor said that my for skin hadn't grown and essentially had prevented my thing from growing as a side effect. They had to cut the foreskin off immediately because it wouldn't stop bleeding.

So yah its even backed by my God that you should be circumcised and I was not. It was so painful I was out of school for almost a month. Peeing was insanely painful and so was walking.

In the end I know situations like this are rare. However infections and all kinds of things result from having the foreskin. It is for your own health that you should have it done. For those of us who end up with foreskin problems we would have much rather had the issue dealt with when we were babies.

Apparently you don't have half a brain. There are no medical benefits for circumcision. Anybody claiming that should try washing their penis once in a while. And yes, I understand circumcision was a necessity in your case.

There really is nothing more to add.

"Circumcision of males represents a 'surgical vaccine' against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks.

The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes,  bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals." - Professor Brian Morris molecular Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney  (Source)

The World Health Organization and Center for disease control and prevention have clearly stated "male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex"

Other sources include Dr. Edgar Schoen

Anyways while their is debate about whether it is morally right or not or whether their is any danger involved with the procedure. Fact is there are benefits to getting circumcised and their are negatives to getting circumcised just like almost every medical procedure. I guess WHO and CDC and such don't have half a brain eh?

Don't want an infection on your penis? Try washing it. Don't want HIV? Try using a condom. Yes, circumcising reduces the risk of infections and HIV for all you dirty boys who refuse to wash down there. But if you keep thing hygienic you don't run any risk at all. Saying circumcising is medical beneficial is like saying removing your breasts reduces the risk of getting breast cancer. In a way it's true but it's obviously a ridiculous statement.

Listen, all fun aside about holy dicks and super orgasms... denying the health benefits that accompany circumcision is like me denying that uncut dicks are more sensitive -sex is not more enjoyable.

That kind of mentality you have there is unattractive. You can wash your dick as much as you want but the foreskin still makes you more vulnerable to infection, disease etc, etc.I'm sure you can find scientific studies with just a few Google clicks.

I'm personally pro-choice, and I see the benefits of both sides of the argument. I just can't sit by and watch you call people half-brained and stupid just because they believe something  (benefits) that are actually proven. And there are even negatives ... so there's no reason to get all pissy. Argue points, don't shun them. You'll sound more respectable that way.

The problem is that you're (purposely or not) exaggerating these so-callled benefits. The 'benefits' of circumcision are so mild, that they're not really worth going through this procedure, if there is no real medical reason to do so (e.g. phymosis). But the real issue is having this procedure performed on infants for non-medical reasons, which is just wrong and cruel. An adult can choose to do whatever he wants with his own penis (including getting a circumcision for whatever reason), but no one has the right to force this (largely irreversible) procedure on an infant who doesn't require it.

That's why I'm pro-choice. I don't think I've mentioned my opinion on newborns. I personally think me pushing my point of view or decisions on parents is no different than them forcing their choice of circumcising their new born. Exaggerated or not, mild or serious, diseases exist  and sometimes prevention goes a longer way than treatment. Though I want to say that still doesn't excuse the "cruelty" or freedom of choice the parents may rob their child from, but who am I to tell them no?