@ Crunkster -

No, the parents have no right to decide whether the child has a fully functional genitalia or not, that is the childs right to decide and the child has his rights violated if it's forced on him prior to becoming an adult. Nobody has anything against adult circumcision. If the adult is so silly to wish for mutilated genitals that half function, then who cares? People also tattoo every inch of skin on their body and pierce their faces shut, and that's totally acceptable for a consenting adult.

If you cut your kids, you and the Doctor that does it are bastards. And in my eyes, criminals.

What makes you think a parent has the right to force an amputation of a critical body part of a child without a significant medical emergency requiring it?

Should they be able to decide if they want to remove a babies pinky toe? Because its a lot less useful than a foreskin.

Pinky toes are hella more useful than foreskins. In fact, there is no reason why it's better to have a foreskin. It's basically what you want your dick to look like. If you want an anteater, cool, but I see no reason to look down upon circumcision other than that there are slight risks to the procedure (just as there are with any medical procedure). If I was given the option right now to choose between having a foreskin and not having one, I would choose circumcision ridiculously fast.

Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after ci... [Urol Int. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

^ You obviously know nothing about the functionality of the foreskin, even though its been posted in this thread over and over. Which goes to show what patterns of selective reading people take to justify their own mutilation's.

People like you are the reason it continues in this country. Graciously accepting the long spewed lie that its just a piece of useless skin by the Medical community that runs and operates a billion dollar circumcision industry at the expense of leaving innocent children with only partially functional nubs.
Congratulations, you win.

He just posted a study undertaken dumbnuts, which goes to show the inconclusiveness of the research thus far.

I think the foreskin is arguably a vestigial structure, with no real (or at least major) downsides to not having one.

The problem I'd have is the removal of it, which a lot of people will argue is unnecessary (and I agree with).

In summary: I think it's a completely unnecessary tradition that's rooted in religion that for one reason or another has been accepted into the mainstream. I will not have my children circumcised, I'll just teach them how to properly wash their respective dicks. I think the hygiene argument is silly, and I agree with those of you who have said you should let the children decide when they are capable of making such a choice. It's really not that uncommon, I know several men in the city I live in alone who decided to become circumcised when they were adults for both religious and cosmetic reasons.

If it aint broke don't fix it?

Uncircumcised penis' ftw. Unless you got circumcised for health problems, then you're ftw too.

He posted one inconclusive study, dummy, taken from a sample of adults that were recently circumcised. Recently, get it? Meaning not yet having the wear and tear of years of keratinization on the glans, like children who are circumcised at an early age. Likewise even in that, its inconclusive and shows variables that state sensitivity is lost and variables that don't like it.

And this is a test from a Medical association that exists in a heavily pro-circ society. A society that has developed a billion dollar industry around it.

On the other hand, anyone can find tons of information that circ is heavily damaging, unbelievable amounts, some of which already has been posted in this thread. Perhaps you missed that, but one inconclusive study from a control group that doesn't apply to the real issue is a proper retort to the globs of information, independent and official, stating otherwise.

Why do you think women in the US often complain of not having orgasms in intercourse? Why do you think ED runs rampant in American men after 35?

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Let us ponder some reason why..... ??? Don't know....

The whole issue is children not being able to make the decision for themselves. Which you state that you're against, so why debate against me? That's what I'm against and my posts clearly define that.

I am against you, in that I think aside from it being unnecessary and at risk for surgical complications it's a relatively harmless procedure. And I don't think you're angry, emotional rants are very effective.

Wrong. Test was done in the UK, where only 16% of males ages 16-44 are circumcised. Maybe you should actually confirm things before pre-emptively making statements that cater to your points.

http://www.circinfo.net/rates_of_circumcision.html

Anyways I don't have the time nor interest to argue further. Maybe some other time.

Did someone complain about your uncircumcised cock? You seem a lil hell bent on the acceptance of uncircumcised penis just saying.

Oh in regards to this...

America vs. China

Reportedly, 26% of Chinese men report ED as opposed to 18% in the US.

And yet, China only has around 15-20% circumcision rates to US's 90%.

I realize that there is more to ED than circumcision, but that's a hell of a gap to be blaming circumcision for it, especially when the US doesn't even have the highest rates of ED.