Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK?

Cleanliness isn't an excuse for the religious belief around circumcision, it IS the reason for the religious belief. There aren't other reasons like sexual pleasure or ensuring virginity like in FGM, the main if not only reason it is done is for the purpose of cleanliness.

There is no solid evidence that circumcision has health benefits or helps with cleanliness. It is done in the UK for religious reasons and people try to use health and cleanliness as an excuse for their religious

Cleanliness isn't an excuse for the religious belief around circumcision, it IS the reason for the religious belief. There aren't other reasons like sexual pleasure or ensuring virginity like in FGM, the main if not only reason it is done is for the purpose of cleanliness.

Firstly, that is not true. People do not know the reason why they carry out circumcision on boys. There is no clear explanation for it in the any of the three abrahamic religions that carry it out.

Secondly, people who carry out female circumcision do not carry it out to maintain virginity. That is a feminist lie that is disagreeable with reality. How can circumcision circumvent penetration? It cannot any way stop a woman from loosing her virginity. Thirdly, societies that carry out this procedure and they are a non-existent minority of societies, do not carry it out to reduce pleasure in women as feminists claim. They carry it out because they believe in circumcision as a concept that should be applied to all followers of the religion, men and women. What you've stated here is all feminist nonsense that is distanced from reality.

Firstly, I have no idea how you managed to quote me in this as I never wrote that and if you click the link back to my original post I said something completely different. Congratulations, you broke TSR.

Secondly, FGM (there is no such thing as female circumcision) involves sewing up the opening to a woman's vagina, so yeah it does maintain virginity.

Firstly, I have no idea how you managed to quote me in this as I never wrote that and if you click the link back to my original post I said something completely different. Congratulations, you broke TSR.

Secondly, FGM (there is no such thing as female circumcision) involves sewing up the opening to a woman's vagina, so yeah it does maintain virginity.

people who carry out female circumcision do not carry it out to maintain virginity. That is a feminist lie that is disagreeable with reality. How can circumcision circumvent penetration? It cannot any way stop a woman from loosing her virginity. Thirdly, societies that carry out this procedure and they are a non-existent minority of societies, do not carry it out to reduce pleasure in women as feminists claim.
. What you've stated here is all feminist nonsense that is distanced from reality.

Circumcision is an act of removing tissue. It does not involve the sewing up of anything...but yeah back to whatever you were doing mate.

You clearly have very little knowledge on the topic. There are different types of FGM. Often sewing is involved in an attempt to preserve virginity. Please do not comment on a topic you aren't properly informed about.

Male circumcision actually reduces risk of HIV transmission. So if anything the government alongside the NHS and other healthcare organisations should be promoting voluntary male circumcision in a bid to reduce HIV transmissions further as a part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Male circumcision actually reduces risk of HIV transmission. So if anything the government alongside the NHS and other healthcare organisations should be promoting voluntary male circumcision in a bid to reduce HIV transmissions further as a part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Mastectomies would reduce the prevalence of breast cancer in women (which kills far more women than HIV does men in this country). Would you be okay if parents decided to give their infant daughters mastectomies for this reasoning?

Yes. I support any initiative that is evidence-based and is promoting the health and well-being of the people I care about the most, the children.

So you don't want girls to grow up and have breasts so they are flat chested as boys?

It is a false equivalence comparing male circumcision to a double mastectomy - apples and oranges. Its true that HIV is a manageable disease in the West but lets not delude ourselves with thinking that HIV/AIDs is something that is not a major inconvenience. Lets get real at the end of the day someone with a HIV positive status will have a lower life-expectancy than the average population and this depends on several factors, most importantly how early the diagnosis was made. Even in a 20 year old who started anti-retroviral treatment in 2008 what you'll find is that their life expectancy is up to a decade less than the average population. Which brings me to my next point living with HIV is not an easy road you'll be on life-long antiretrovirals until you croak and these come with a whole host of side effects and differential sensitivites so it won't be an easy road. Additionally you'll be getting tested at least twice a year which is a major nerve wracking experience on the same level of waiting to hear from your doctor that your cancer is in remission...or not. I'm not trying to dampen the mood there have been many strides in the last 20 years in terms of progress for control of HIV transmission and preventing the condition from turning into AIDs. However, the reality is life sucks if you have HIV and although the media/people on the internet are peddling this idea that living with HIV is like living with a cold that never really clears is a massive, big, fat lie. What's even more scary is that in west midlands, which has one of the highest infection rates in the UK, 30% of the population is undiagnosed with HIV.

I already answered that question but it is not the answer you wanted. Its a false equivalence the two procedures are not the same one is more invasive than the other and is much more riskier. I am not here to entertain pseduointellectual comparisons between things that have nothing to do with each other. The topic is voluntary male circumcision. Stop trying to be controversial.

Mastectomies would reduce the prevalence of breast cancer in women (which kills far more women than HIV does men in this country). Would you be okay if parents decided to give their infant daughters mastectomies for this reasoning?

All of this after you were asked:

Is this the level of conversation and debate in this thread? Crude and inaccurate statements about life-saving medical intervention and equating it to hacking someone with a knife is ridiculous. I said I support evidence-based interventions. You need to improve your reading comprehension.

Would you be okay if parents decided to give their infant daughters mastectomies for this reasoning?