Should non-medical circumcision of under-18s be banned?

Provide one argument against circumcision please and try to be as specific as possible.

It involves pain and risk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11652219

Halfing the chance of HIV has it's advantages in extending your life.

Put your religious prejudices aside. Not everyone does it for religious purposes.

That's totally different. Clothes are not permanent. When the child grows up they will be able to dress however they want. However a circumcised man can't decide regrow his foreskin.

Benefits that don't apply to childhood (I don't know any sexually active babies, do you?). It could be left until the person was old enough to choose for themselves, with no disadvantage. Certainly no disadvantage that justifies making an irreversible decision for somebody else.

Would you circumcise an adult without their consent?

There are disadvantages of adult circumcision, which is the reason for doing it as a child.

Since when do kids consent to anything? Do you plan on asking your kids consent before sending them to school?

As a parent, you should know better than the child, and so you are be allowed to make decisions on their behalf.

Parents are the legal guardians of their child and have legal authority over them. Hence children are forced to go school without their approval and indeed parents are punished if they do not force them to do so.

This idea of "freedom of expression" or whatever else is nonsense when applied to children.

And if you actually talk to people who have been circumcised, they do not lose any sleep over that "nerve ending" mantra.

Well, most men would argue sex is one of the most important aspects of their lives, and as the penis is the main instrument of sexual activity, the unnecessary, irreversible removal of part of it is too.

The idea it prevents disease is also pretty much a myth. Source.

Tattoos aren't allowed to be performed on children without consent. Why is circumcision any different?

I'm not really arguing about freedom of expression, or at least not while the person is still a child. Forcing a child to go to school or baptising them or making them go to church or something like that doesn't permanently and irreversibly change their body. Big difference.

They don't know what it feels like though because they don't have a foreskin. And so what if most people aren't particularly bothered by it? A lot of men don't like prostate stimulation, but some do. I don't think the removal of a source of sexual pleasure is a decision for a parent to make. It should be up to the person themselves to decide when they are old enough.

Parents are the legal guardians of their child and have legal authority over them. Hence children are forced to go school without their approval and indeed parents are punished if they do not force them to do so.

I'm sorry but that's just a blatant cop-out, your whole previous posts alludes to the liberty of a person to express and do as they please but then you backtrack and say you're not talking about freedom of expression. So yes, the issue is about the supposed freedom of an individual to do what they want.

I'm sure it must F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C, but I don't care and to tell you the truth, it's a bit creepy to think that other men worry about my sexual stimulation or lack of.

Parents do not have complete authority over their children. You could not cut off one of your child's toes because you thought it appropriate. That would be abusive, because it is not in the interests of that child.

Very arguably, infant circumcision is not in the best interests of the child

Schooling, necessary medical procedures, whatever other poor comparison you want to come up with

1) They are quite obviously in that individual's best interest

2) The decision cannot be delayed until that person is in a position to provide consent without serious negative consequences

Even if you believe ritual circumcision meets criterion 1), the argument for it reaching criterion 2) is extremely poor.

Well I would say it's more about freedom to not have body parts removed without your consent rather than freedom of expression. If it was an issue that purely affected their childhood, then I'd agree with you. You're right that parents have the responsibility to raise a child in a suitable way, but when the child is an adult they should be free to make their own decisions whether or not that agrees with how their parents raised them. Infant circumcision violates that because once it's gone you can't get it back.

Yes it is pretty creepy. Which is why I find it pretty creepy that parents make decisions like that for their newborn children. It really shouldn't be the parent's concern what their child will or will not find sexually pleasurable, so they should leave it alone and not remove body parts that could possibly be involved with that.

Saying "Oh it's not a big deal, it doesn't feel that good anyway" is a pretty weird argument because it should be up to the individual to decide what they do and don't find pleasurable. It shouldn't be up to a parent.

Not sending my children to school will have permanent negative consequences for their future. They won't be able to choose to have gone to school when they are older, it will be too late.

Not circumcising my children is nothing like that. It will never be "too late" for them to decide to get a circumcision if they want one. The disadvantages of having an adult circumcision are not worth the price of them not being able to consent to that procedure.

I don't hate circumcised penises. My boyfriend is circumcised. But I very strongly disagree with making decisions for people without their consent when there is really very little disadvantage in just waiting to see how they feel about it. Which is certainly the case in circumcision. The whole reason it is done to infants is because they are not in a position to refuse, be honest about it.