Court stops circumcision.

A few years ago, the High Court had to meander the "rights" of parental faith and the child’s best interests. The case concerned whether a Jehovah’s Witness boy can receive blood transfusion despite the religious objections of his parents. The court made the correct decision and ruled against the parent's religious views.

I am not aware of any legal cases going to court on circumcision so as to raise the legal issue. But the precedent set by that case should be relevant. They're connected in the parents' denying a life-saving treatment because of religious dogma, and parents insisting on a harmful medical procedure because of religious dogma. In both cases, we'd anticipate the courts telling them that, on these issues, the parents don't know what's best for their children

It reminds me of these horrific stories of children being absolutely beaten & terrified by Voodoo witches in the hope of exorcising the demons out of them. Parents who inflict harm entirely because their religion says so ...

Not necessarily.

In jurisprudence, there is a school of thought called positivsm which argues that there should be a separation between law and morality. I am very sympathetic to this. HLA Hart wrote that just because an action was considered in society to be morally wrong; it should not automatically follow that it warrants legal sanction.

Or perhaps they are not included because their purpose is to increase sexual pleasure

Don't try and be funny when you're the one that said we can't have opinions about things we haven't personally experienced

Taken from the NHS website:
UTIs are a relatively common infection during childhood.They are more common in boys up to the age of six months old, but after this tend to be more common in girls. It is estimated that around 1 in 10 girls and 1 in 30 boys will have had a UTI by the time they turn 1

No, because male circumcision is not mutilation - it was already proved in this thread.

Taken from the NHS website:
UTIs are a relatively common infection during childhood.They are more common in boys up to the age of six months old, but after this tend to be more common in girls. It is estimated that around 1 in 10 girls and 1 in 30 boys will have had a UTI by the time they turn 1

Type 2 specifically includes labiaectomy. Clitoral hoodectomy can increase sexual pleasure, but it is still classed as FGM by the WHO.
Are you seriously trying to defend FGM now? Jeez!

Of course we can have opinions about things we haven't experienced. However, we can't make objective statements of persinal experience. If you have never had a foreskin, you can never know how sensitive the head of the penis is in comparison, and thus cannot make objective statements about it.

As Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".

Fair enough, we have different sources with different figures. But, still not "common", and more of an issue with girls than boys.

And more importantly, does either source recommend circumcision as a means of reducing the risk? No.
So we can reject UTI prevention as a legitimate reason for non-essential circumcision.

You do know circumcision can lead to infections right? Some chap I know ended up with MRSA after his, in his penis!! Can you imagine.

Where does it explicitly include a labiaectomy without chopping off part of the clitoris as well?
I'm not defending FGM, I'm just saying that the procedures you refer to are seen more as cosmetic surgeries.

No we can't. You can reject UTI prevention as a legitimate reason. You can't speak for anyone else. Some people may have a family history of UTIs, and recommendation from a health professional isn't essential, I never actually claimed that a health care professional recommends it. All I said was that UTI prevention is a benefit of circumcision.

Everything can lead to infections. MRSA as a result of circumcision is so incredibly rare, so if we're gonna bring up the risks no matter how rare,why can't I bring up the benefits no matter how rare?

Everything can lead to infections.

Which is why unnecessary surgery is to be avoided. Which is why the NHS and Medicaid do not approve the procedure.
In some countries, it is illegal except for medical or religious reasons.

What?!
You showed, with your own argument, that the procedure corresponded with a definition of "mutilation".

The confirmation bias of those who have a doctrinal necessity to justify the unnecessary removal of part of a child's genitals is breathtaking!

OED

damage: Physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something

So, severe damage = "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something".

Could you provide solid medical proof that male circumcision is "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something"?

That's easy.

How likely are infections from circumcision and how harmful are they?

How likely are UTI from not having a circumcision and how harmful are they?

Hint: Infections from surgery are not incredibly rare, far from it and MRSA in the penis is significantly more harmful than a UTI.

Everything can lead to infections. MRSA as a result of circumcision is so incredibly rare, so if we're gonna bring up the risks no matter how rare,why can't I bring up the benefits no matter how rare?

You do know circumcision can lead to infections right? Some chap I know ended up with MRSA after his, in his penis!! Can you imagine.

Which is why unnecessary surgery is to be avoided. Which is why the NHS and Medicaid do not approve the procedure.
In some countries, it is illegal except for medical or religious reasons.

Interesting.
I appears that circumcised men don't sexually satisfy women as well as men with a foreskin.
http://www.circumcision.org/femalesex.htm

Turns out that the HIV protection argument may be flawed as well.
http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

Other benefits of circumcision include lowered risk of penile cancer aswell.