Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

It is unfortunate that the time that they cannot give consent is also the time the operation is best to be performed, however due to this, it must be weighed against each other. As you have stated, Anasthesia has it's risks, and as infants, anasthesia can be opted out due to their lack of memory. According to Merriam Dictionary, Traumatizing means: "Subject to lasting shock as a result of an emotionally disturbing experience or physical injury". While this can apply to someone whom has it done at an age they recognize what is happening, it can not by definition, effect an infant whom will not physically be able to remember what happened the next day, and can not suffer such shock necessary for such mental scarring. While consent is extremely important in our society, we can not ignore the fact that waiting for them to gain the mental capacity to give consent is unnecessarily risky, especially when such an easier alternative exists. I actually quoted that article for a reason, despite recognizing (and correctly foretelling that you would use) the evidence it suggests against my arguement. The reason I used it was because stated that 8% believe it increased pleasure, 6% believe their sex lives improved, and masturbation was easier in 37%. While seemingly insignificant, it suggests that people are adversly affected by circumcision, especially evident in masturbation. While treading on the line on minority and occasional contradiction, it still should not be ignored, as it is evidence we do not completely understand circumcision, and perhaps there could even be a mid-way between the two options. Your wish to make it completely illegal, which would incense many relgions,[1] as shown when attempted in other countries[2]. To make it completely illegal would be treading in very dangerous waters, as circumcision is mainly practiced due to religion, and to invalidate their beliefs with your own opinion would an uproar. Despite some religious practices seeming inhumane (ex: Kosher meat), it is nearly impossible to overturn, and if possible, would result in a outrage in religious groups everywhere, for if you deem this one inhumane, whom is to say that other's will be safe. Religion and Government are meant to be as far away from each other as possible, and Circumcision is clearly on the religious side. You claim that my HIV claim is effectively a strawman arguement, however I challenge this claim. It is very relevent to the arguement if it does indeed prevent HIV, and should effect the legality in developed countries if it helps prevent HIV in said developed countries. It is not just anaerobic bacteria that threaten uncircumcised males however[3], and are more at risk in general than circumcised males. This study was conducted in Canada, a country that borders the U.S. with similar environment and development, which makes the study more evident of uncircumcised children's risk to disease. While I admit circumcision does indeed have a double-standard attached to it, as I have shown before, it mostly likely began out of health or relgious concerns, and was not meant to be sexually oppressive. I will focus on this more on my next arguement due to my lack of time to finish this one. I am truely sorry I can not defend this position better during my arguement right now, and I hope it does not upset you too much. [1]: http://www.beliefnet.com... [2]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3]. http://www.nlm.nih.gov...