Court stops circumcision.

The claimed benefits may have some weight in African countries with a high HIV rate, but in the West I believe it's somewhat speculative.

There are also botched circumcisions. Being gay I've seen a few penises and that includes a couple of guys who obviously had quite poorly executed circumcisions (was it done with a blunt instrument? I don't know, but it was obviously a mutilation).

The foreskin evolved for a reason, and the HIV-related justifications really are an after-the-fact excuse. That wasn't the reason they were originally done, and even if that justification didn't exist various religious people would still do it.

It is wrong to hack at a child's genitals based on the fact that a bronze age text purports it is required by some sky deity whose existence is unproven

I never said anything about dripping; kindly refrain from misquoting me.

While I agree - as I said before - that if it's not necessary then it shouldn't be done, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's mutilation; the foreskin is a usless piece of skin whose only function is to impede hygiene. When a circumsision is performed properly, the erogenous flesh - namely the frenulum - remains undamaged, mooting any arguments people might make concerning a patient's future ability to experience pleasure (remembering an article I read once which claimed that cut men can't orgasm, which I can personally guarantee is incorrect). There is no advantage to be had from retaining one's foreskin, and removing it is, as far as I am concerned, akin to removing an appendix.

Blah, blah, blah. Dude just admit there are many benefits than risks.

I don't see why people are against circumcision the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. And if your saying that its against the baby's will then the reason why its done when the baby is young is because the surgery is much less risky.

Err, it's an opinion that there are boys whose circumcisions are botched? No, it's not an opinion; it's fact. I've seen it with my own eyes,

The judge didn't "take the side of the divorced mother" automatically. The judge made the decision likely based on the fact that given one parent opposes it, and given it's a substantial medical operation which is not medically necessary and that it can't be reversed, it is better to err on the side of caution and allow these boys to decide when they are able to have an opinion on it.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to worship yourself; it doesn't include the freedom to mutilate your children

Sorry. You are correct. You said that problem foreskins run in your family. My mistake.

I have noticed that this kind of argument always seems to be put forward by people who have been circumcised, whereas the medical consensus does not make these claims. The NHS no longer performing elective circumcisions, for example. If there really was a benefit in routine circumcision, not only would it be recommended, but we should hear of many people electing to undergo the process. Neither of these are the case.

Who told you that they are poor and mutilated? It's just an opinion.

Irrelevant. In this case the judge as usually took the side of divorced mother. It's almost automatic decision exactly because Britain is not "Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Indonesia, etc".

Yes, but tradition is not religion.

And there is specific freedom of religion in democratic countries.

And there are many cases of failed medical treatment. There are complications after child vaccination. There are tragic and even fatal cases in child sport.

There are.. "There are" is not argument.

The bold is just your edition

No, male circumcision is not mutilation.

Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.

Blah, blah, blah. Dude just admit there are many benefits than risks.

When a circumsision is performed properly, the erogenous flesh - namely the frenulum - remains undamaged, mooting any arguments people might make concerning a patient's future ability to experience pleasure

My edition? What's my edition?

Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.

The bold in my previous post is your fantasy.
Now is it clear?

About 170 babies die in America each year from circumcision. Clearly it is dangerous for some.

shiiit, that court case was in my town
also, child circumcision should always be illegal until there is a genuine medical justification (hygiene or preventing STDs not being one of them.)
it's a shame that this case seems to be not based on the immorality of forcing genital mutilations upon kids, but based on the conflict between the rights of the father vs the rights of the mother (a neutralisation)
if we're going to criminalise female circumcision, then why is male circumcision still around?
the justifications for female version are basically the exact same as the male version

Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.