Do you have a problem with your opinion being in the minority?

It is rarely medically indicated in the first world, should not be afforded religious protection and therefore should not be allowed on children.

For adults, knock yourself out.

100% against

I was circumcised at the age of 5 and you can't imagine how this hurts(my leg was cut at an accident,5inches long,down to bone_even this was not so painfull)-those religious bustards are perverts.

Circumcision at the age of 7 days(jewish) maybe 5times worse than at the age of 5 as new born babies are still suffering from the shock of birth.2shocks within 7 days is no good for mental balance and evolution.

The real perversion is:if i'd do this to a Rabbi or Imam(just cutting of a very very small piece of their penis skin)i would be imprisoned for years beceause of massive violence,but doing this to little children is allright?)?
Seems people can easy be perverted when they grow up with perversion and told by authorities that the perversion is allright.(some rabbis even suck the little boys penis after circumcision-you don't believe,do some research.)

I'm 1000% against female circumcision.
(i think your correct english word is:infibulation)
this extremly primitive and barbaric ritual is done in many muslim countries.Sadly i don't know all the specific words to describe you what these bastards are doing to little girls,but that doesn't matter as most of you wouldn't believe me.It's male circumcision x10 the pain.
It is supposed that 1-2million girls die because of the infection caused by infibulation each and every year.

Muslims are against/forbid female circumcision.

But they are pro male circumcision.

I'm for it. Or rather, I'm for the option of parents to choose it. Mutilation is such a sexy word, but circumsision is not mutilation. It looks better, it has no negative side effects and it's much healthier. For it to be mutilation it would have to be a bad thing. It's like saying pulling wisdom teeth is mutalation because they occur naturally and the only reason you're taking them out is because it will keep your teeth straight. Or you shouldn't cut a child's hair until they are able to choos for themselves. Of all the girls I've ever talked to on the subject, at most 10% have ever said that they prefer uncut, and those are usually weird girls who don't shave their pits. Some are indifferent but most prefer cut, especially when giving head. Apparently it's just better.

Anyway, I've never talked to a guy who was circumcised as an infant and regreted it. The only people who complain about the practice are those who weren't, or those who have alterior motives against people of Judeo-Christian beliefs. I would certainly have my son circumcised if I ever have one. Why not? If I can do something for my child that has no negative effects but will make him more sexually appealing and reduce his likely hood of contracting AIDS by at least 40% and other diseases such as HPV even more dramatically, I'm going to do it. Other people can like it or not, but I believe in staying out of others business and beliefs.

Less sensation for both partners, less natural lubrication, potential for the surgery to go horribly wrong, (so much so that many victims of botched circumcisions undergo gender reassignment) the pain inflicted on the child, and the removal of that circumsized person's right to make a decision that will affect their body for life.

The only thing you're saying that is true is the possibility of botch surgery, which ridiculously rare. We don't let children choose not to get a vaccine, I'm fine with not letting them choose this. You do what you want, but I don't know anyone who was traumatized by their infant circumcision.

Actually, it's all true.

And millions upon millions of people are alive today because of vaccines; not so for circumcision.

1. There are side effects, the loss of sexual sensation causing sexual intercourse to be be a long and arduous process. It makes me cringe in depression when pro-circumcisionists say that "Sexual pleasure is 95% mental anyway" because that is not the case with fully equipped males. You can see porno stars who were circumcised taking much longer to ejaculate than what is natural. Also, it's known there are no health benefits, the reason why circumcision was first instituted in western non-Jewish/Islamic culture was not for religious purposes, but to help curve masturbation among males because circumcision makes it not pleasurable. This also began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the English world, and not in times long past as some people like to argue.

2. Against Judeo-Christian beliefs? I believe I am one of the most pro-Christians on this website. According to the Pauline letters, Jesus abolished Circumcision was being necessary due to the act being performed in one's heart, and not by chopping off a piece of his penis.

There is absolutel no reason genital multilation is necessary, and when parents enforce it on their children, that is akin to rape; whether it be mutilating the penis to feel less sexual sensation, or mutilating the clitoris to feel less sexual sensation.

Let's put it like this: Does not being circumsized have any negative effect on a person's life? Yeah, I thought so. If they want to get circumsized later, let them, but don't force such an irreversible thing on a child.