Court stops circumcision.

I am not aware of any legal cases going to court on circumcision so as to raise the legal issue.

I have explained so many times to you that there are associated benefits with male circumcision and the risks are minimal in comparison.

Indeed.
People by and large have circumcisions carried out on their babies and children for religious or cultural reasons and then when challenged seem to go 'yeah but apparently I saw someone on the internet say it's healthy or something'.

It's an irrelevant argument, because it's not done for medical reasons and there is no urgent medical reason to have it done.

The benefits are so minimal that bodies like the NHS and Medicaid refure to perform them as they consider the risks to outweigh any potential benefits.

Also, you have agreed that clitoral hoodectomy (the physiological equivalent of male circumcision) can have benefits, so again, why do you consider one to be acceptable and the other not?

She has already admitted that she has longstanding cultural affiliation with routine circumcision, yet still expects people to believe that her support for it is purely pragmatic.

Did you ignore everything I said beforehand? The reason why all these studies are so FLAWED?

Hold on.
You presented three links to studies as evidence to support your argument.
I showed that they did not, as they were about a different issue.
You then claim that the reports are flawed??
WTF!

I'm guessing that you are probably quite young and do not have any experience with presenting an argument in a logical and academically rigorous fashion.

What you are experiencing is what happens when you start with your conclusion (that non-essential circumcision is justified) and then try to manipulate observation (that it isn't) to fit.

1. We test women because women have developed breast tissue and have an increased likelihood of developing breast cancer
2. No it doesn't mean that they will get breast cancer, but they are more likely, especially as they age.

Clearly medicine science have shown that circumcision has its health benefits

For the sake of everyone's sanity, I think you should demur from making any more scientific declarations.

Until you understand what a "syllogism" is, please confine yourself to religious scripture ...

I'm not surprised. Empty rhetoric is not enough for legal case, reliable medical conclusions should be provided. Scissors and self-made definitions don't help.

Too much repetitiveness* and this has gone on for long enough. We will simply agree to disagree.
*FGM has no benefits, so it is unnecessary.

Centre for disease, control and prevention (CDC) support circumcision for health reasons

Clitoral dehooding has benefits.

The CDC opinion is based mainly on the African study of HIV transmission that has been called into question.
More importantly, circumcision is not an alternative to condom use, so it should make no difference to infection risk. USA has the highest circumcision rate of any developed country (by a long margin), yet has at least double the HIV rate of countries with very low circumcision, like UK and Scandinavia.

The map of countries with highest rates of circumcision closely matches those countries with the highest HIV rate!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

All reports based on sexual pleasure and sensitivity are flawed, I did tell you that yet you insisted I provide links.

And ok
You've been debating with me for ages so why do you continue if I'm so young and inexperienced?

So why claim that it does not lead to reduced sensitivity, if you claim that the source of that claim is flawed?

Also, simply because a study relies on subjecting data sampling, it does not mean that those studies are meaningless.

Think of it as a learning process. For both of us.

Ignore list

What are the benefits?

Cdc also mentions UTIs

I didn't claim that it doesn't lead to reduced sensitivity.

It cannot be meaningful if it is based on subjective human interpretation and not objective data.

I haven't learned anything from you

So the way to defeat MRSA is to cease all circumcision operations?

Increased sexual stimulation, hygiene and aesthetics.
Also, labiaectomy (labiaplasty) has benefits for some women.
http://www.cosmeticgyn.net/blog/clitoral-hood-issues
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/labiaplasty/pages/introduction.aspx
So, as we know that male circumcision and and female circumcision both have claimed, but disputed benefits, as well as risks - why do you support one but not the other.

The study I linked did not see the benefit as justifying the procedure.

I think the CDC report should be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, it recommended routine circumcision for all males! Contrast this with all the European countries who see no medical benefit in routine circumcision.
I'm sure the fact that circumcision in the US is a billion dollar industry (but one showing signs of shrinking) has nothing to do with the call for all parents to circumcise their boys.

Don't know exact figures but I know that just like any other surgical procedure, it's a possibility but when conducted in a clean and sterile environment by a professional, it's very unlikely.