Indoctrinating Children in Religion

[GrandizerII]

I'm not the one who ignored part of the whole sentence.

I didn't either. I simply cut it off for convenience. See:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

If I had unbolded your part, that would have been infringing on your post. I suppose you would have complained had I done it this way, too:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

And yet the key point you choose not to focus on is that it's not essential because the benefits are not great enough.

And circumcision having some benefits does NOT mean that there are no benefits to not being circumcised.

[Silver]

And yet the key point you choose not to focus on is that it's not essential because the benefits are not great enough.

And circumcision having some benefits does NOT mean that there are no benefits to not being circumcised.

Not essential? That may be your perspective.

Circumcision for male infants is becoming less common in the U.S., according to new data published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. The paper also finds that over their lifetime, half of all uncircumcised males will contract a medical condition related to their foreskin.

Their findings further back up a 2012 public statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of widespread education initiatives and access to infant male circumcision.

"Infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination," said Brian Morris, coauthor of the new report and professor emeritus in the School of Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney, in a press release. "As such, it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision...tudy-says/

[Spooky]

Quick way to piss a kid off for life. I was emancipated at 17, and it's now been a decade since I've said two words to the people who did it to me.

To answer the original question: Absolutely not.

[GrandizerII]

Not essential? That may be your perspective.

And the perspective of WebMD, remember?

[robvalue]

It seems it's not as clear as I thought, so sorry for shooting my mouth off about it.

[GrandizerII]

Also, I can post links to studies about the adverse effects of circumcision as well if you want to go that route. But whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks, it should be emphasized that there are still ethical issues to be considered ... especially that circumcision has not been deemed as medically necessary.

Have a look here:
http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

[Silver]

It seems it's not as clear as I thought, so sorry for shooting my mouth off about it.

That is why even though I am in favor of circumcision, I am not going to take away the parent's decision to not do it for their children if they are against the procedure. I am basically pro-choice when it comes to the issue. i just find that many people who are against circumcision tend to be against it for irrational reasons.

[GrandizerII]

It seems it's not as clear as I thought, so sorry for shooting my mouth off about it.

That is why even though I am in favor of circumcision, I am not going to take away the parent's decision to not do it for their children if they are against the procedure. I am basically pro-choice when it comes to the issue. i just find that many people who are against circumcision tend to be against it for irrational reasons.

Parental abuse is not something to be pro-choice about.

[Silver]

Parental abuse is not something to be pro-choice about.

^^^^And this is what I mean by irrational.

[GrandizerII]

Yes, because just saying something is irrational makes it irrational.