Mutilation? Do you not know that it is healthier? "You cut out a tumor? THAT'S MUTILATION!!!". Your attitude is juvenile and absurd. Just because you have some weird vendetta against religion doesn't mean you get to spout nonsense as though it would suddenly support your position. Getting an earring is more of a mutilation, but I don't see the courts putting people in prison for letting their ten year olds get their ears pierced.

A child can resist having their ears pierced - They have no say with circumcision.

A circumcision is also not performed by a proper surgeon.

Would be better if they were anesthetized before the procedure.  

And an ear piercing is?


A child can also resist getting a flu vaccine. That doesn't mean that their desires should be considered.

that is wrong for decades now; usually the people who perform circumcision are (at least in judaism) both doctors and rabbis. The procedure is healthy and not dangerous and has no apparant downsides at all; it was once said that circumsized people enjoy intercourse less, but that was proven wrong.getting ears pierced is done with a special item ddesigned especially for that, and if it is sterilized as it should be(aka one-time use each) it is perfectly safe. other piercings are done differently but also sterilized before that, and those whoperform that should be knowledgable, so as to say, about what can happen and how to treat it and what the dangers are. piercings in dangerous places that can be letal - neck, clitoris, ribs, spine etc, should be done with full anestesia. fact is that there are many, many places which do not go by these rules, but at least that is how it SHOULD be done.

I think the main argument for circumcision is the idea that it is healthier. Source: Wikipedia (Bad source, but I'm on my iPod in my bedroom).

'Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996 and "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed",[156] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social, or cultural reasons. [. . .] After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.'[47]

Finland

Finnish Medical Association opposes circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons, arguing that circumcision does not bring about any medical benefits and it may risk the health of the infant as well as his right to physical integrity, because he is not able to make the decision himself. The association emphasizes that according to Finnish constitution, the parents' freedom of religion and conscience does not produce the right to violate other people's (children's) right to physical integrity.[197]

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are as good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exist for female genital mutilation (FGM).[13]'

I will say that although it slightly reduces HIV risks, the reduced risk is small enough to be not worth the violation of the child's rights.

NOTE: Medicine is not a field I am interested in, hence the sources.

Also, Sniper is completely wrong about the vaccine. Both I and and my parents had to agree to me getting my most recent vaccine.

I think the overall consensus is that in reality the medical benefits are not clear, so as a result a child should NOT be circumcised as they are losing a body part forever and have no say in the matter.

If you're vaccinated at a young age, you can't really disagree or anything like that. Same goes for circumcision a young age.
EDIT: Oops ninjas are alive and well.

Vaccination medical benefits are clear. The only negative is a temporary small amount of pain. Circumcision on the other hand removes an entire body part for no reason as I just stated above. While that body part is considered useless to some, that foesn't mean you can just remove it - We do not routinely remove the appendix.

I was just making a point. (I'm against circumcision.)

And so was I in response to that point.

An entire body part? Hardly.
For no reason? 1. Religion is a reason. 2. Just because you don't think that the health benefits are significant enough doesn't mean you have the right to force other people into doing what you believe.

Here's something also from wikipedia:


You're calling 38-66% a small benefit?

There's a difference between your parents asking you if you want it, and them being required to. Your parents actually have the final say in your medical affairs until you reach the age of majority. Also, there is a difference between a thirteen year old and an infant.

No, Religion is NOT a reason - People often change their religion. And the parents have no right either on permanently removing a body part. Would you accept a parent removing a males nipples because of some religion? Well, they aren't useful so we may as well cut them off!

More quotes from the exact page you took yours from:

Australasia
As of 2010, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians state: "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons."[20]

International
The World Health Organization and UNAIDS currently recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic rates of HIV.[17]

United States
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[23] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.[23]
The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[67]
The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recognizes the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son."[198]
The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks, stating that "while the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection, the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits. Circumcision should not be offered as the only strategy for HIV risk reduction. Other methods of HIV risk reduction, including safe sexual practices, should be emphasized."[199]



EDIT:
More than this, you referring to it as a "whole body part" is inaccurate. I'd also have no particular problem with what you describe, provided it could be done safely. Parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with the parents religious beliefs. And people do not change their religion "all the time". Many people do change their religious beliefs, like I did, but this is generally a life changing event or at least an extremely important decision.

The reason I took those quotes was raise te majority were not actually in favour or against circumcision proving that the medical emits are questionable, with te exception of the first HIV figure (which must be somehow less valid than expected because surely all organisations would be in favour of it otherwise!). My end conclusion was not that circumcision is actually harmful, just that it is violating a child's rights and damaging a body part irrepairably for no reason.

Again with the "no reason". If there was no reason, then no one would do it.

Wrong again. Cultural and religious reason. Other peoples ideas of reasons do not fall into my own ideas. Both of these reasons are invalid.

What I meant by saying religion is not a reason is that religion is not an acceptable reason. Doesn't mean that it is not the reason people choose.

According to you. So it's ok for you to force your beliefs on everyone else, but parents can't raise their own children with their beliefs?

Yes, because it is strangling the child's own beliefs. They can still have the surgery (fr whatever reason why) later in their life, just they should not have it forced upon them without their consent.

Children don't have to give consent on medical issues. Moreover, it's not strangling anyone's beliefs. As previously stated, circumcision doesn't remove anything that serves a purpose, so what difference does it make?

BECAUSE THE REMOVAL IS NEEDLESS. I keep on stating this. Somebody may want their foreskin for whatever reason, but oh dear, looks like some untrained person from a religion I don't believe in took it off! Can I take away your nipples too, along with your appendix? of course the appendix should be taken away in the even of appendicitis but that's besides the point
The body does NOT belong to the parents, it belongs to the child.  

And you keep saying something that isn't true. It's isn't needless. And while you're right about who owns the body, you are also trying to, incorrectly, imply that parents aren't allowed to decide what is best for their child. Instead, you are insisting that you know what is best for their child.

So "whatever reason" is valid, but thousands of years of religious tradition isn't?