Male Infant Circumcision? YES or NO

You talking to smt there, joe, or all of us?

............Not according to the Biblical account of Abraham, who incidentally performed his own circumscion.

..........How could it be made illegal, when it's part of a religious ceremony? Would baptism also be made illegal, because of possible micro-organisms in the nonsterile baptismal water?

Miller wrote:

..........How could it be made illegal, when it's part of a religious ceremony? Would baptism also be made illegal, because of possible micro-organisms in the nonsterile baptismal water?

all laws are designed to prevent 'abuse'; when someone is being hurt, by a practice, the freedom in question is legally abandoned!

and i am fully in support of any legislation protecting the right of an individual to have control over the choice of what to do, or allow to be done to their own body; includes genital mutilation male/female; decision whether, or not to continue a pregnancy; even down to body piercing, and tatoos.
[and i disdain any group, or organization, that would attempt to 'program' an individual to accept such abuse, without the chance to make an informed decision!]

..........But circumscion, practiced since the days of Abraham, is not considered to be "abuse". Female circumscion is abuse. If in doubt about the latter, see photos of the females, prior to surgery to repair their reproductive organs.

.........Relative to relgious circumscion ( Judaism+ Islam ), informed consent forms are not signed ( at least when performed outside of a hospital). Are these forms ever signed in a hospital setting?

7. Infant circumcision is unethical because it alters the basic function of a body part.
Agree [X] Disagree [ ] In this case, yes. When taken in the context of the lack of medical benefits and the severity of the change in function.

agreeing with all the above, i would add the following (assuming it has not already been mentioned):

The foreskin serves the purpose of protecting the sensitivity of the head of the penis; this sensitivity is lost when the foreskin is removed, reducing the
depth of feeling during intercourse.

The practice was initiated by religious elders, the motive for such being open to speculation.
Old men, preoccupied with minimizing any enjoyment to be had from sexual activities, especially by those more likely to be in a position to 'have' sexual activities!
Fill in the blanks.............

Yes, I'm circumcised. My question would be, the source for your contention about sensitivity. Did you round up a batch of hetero- and homosexual men, half of each group circumcised, and not? Did your proceed from there to a balanced provision of sexual experience for every member, and have them rate their experience of glans sensitivity on a a scale of one to ten? [er, no.... ]Any such contention cannot be based on anything more than anectdotal information, i defy you to provide any means of measurement which would not be laughed out of court. I consider you position only slightly more defensible than the women who come here to rant, in that you do possess the equipment in question. [yup!]

This sort of thing does not meet your usual standard of logical consideration, Bo.

I will refrain from providing the ridicule that your quasi-conspiracy theory of the reason for "old men" ordering the circumcision of infants actually deserves..