Israeli woman fined for not circumsizing her son.

[Aractus]

The average male in America or the UK does not need to be circumcised at birth, if at all.

Now who's making a straw man argument?

It's a decision the child should make when they come of age, yes. It is their body, circumcision removes a part of it. Unless absolutely medically necessary (and I said there were circumstances where it is necessary), it should be left alone.

Tib, parents are allowed and have every right to make decisions that other parents will necessarily disagree with, that's what makes it the right of the parents to decide. I strongly believe that it should be the rights of the parents to decide whether to immunize their children, I know of two parents who didn't and in both cases their children got measles (but lived), and I recognize the benefits to immunization - and if I had children, I would have them immunized - but at the end of the day I fundamentally believe it's for the parents to decide and no one should be disadvantaged for choosing to do one thing or the other.

Children can be taught how to clean their penis. No, it won't be sterilised, but that is a strawman argument. A circumcised penis is not sterilised either. An uncircumcised penis can be clean enough to prevent most infections.

I didn't give you a straw man argument. My argument is that infection is far more likely with a forsekin, yours was that (essentially) cleaning the forseskin will negate the risks.

As for reduced sexual pleasure, I have studies too: http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html

I read yours, will you read mine?

On a website called "circumstitions"? Oh I'm so sure they're non-biased. One look at their homepage shows their agenda is a strong as NAMBLA - what if I posted a link to NAMBLA stating that the effects of paederasty are only positive?

As for your studies, thank you, you've changed my view. There is a legitimate medical benefit to circumcision. However, these benefits can also be given (and be more successful) with condoms and not sharing partners, so my point about it being an unnecessary procedure still stands. It is only necessary in certain circumstances.

It's not the only benefit - and again, the WHO recommend it in 3rd world countries as a viable option in the fight against AIDS, why would you dismiss its benefits 'here'?