Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation and should be Banned

Before I rebut, I would like to point out that I'm not certain you read all of my R1. In it I made clear that this isn't about banning circumcision for adults who consent. It's entirely about banning the procedure from being done to babies. Once they're adults they can do as they wish, Or if their Doctor claims it is a necessary procedure. I'll expand on this later. You as much as have conceded the argument already. You have agreed that we shouldn't circumcise babies. It wasn't up to you to decide what the debate was about in R1. I clarified fairly clearly what the debate was about in my R1. The topic isn't allowed to be long enough for me to clarify completely. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if my assertion here is accurate, But I'll have to address your points as if you're defending the circumcision of children, And I will rebut your flawed points. 1. Women's Preference Is it justification to mutilate the genitals of a person against their will because the opposite sex might like how it looks better? The penis is an ugly thing. I don't think many consider it a beautiful thing. If the majority of Muslim men like how FGM makes the vagina look, Is that acceptable? As far as using this reason as an adult with a partner who prefers a cut penis, We have no issues. 2. Uncircumcised Penis Smells, Et cetera. It is not necessary that an uncut penis smells. The foreskin is attached with the head on birth, But the attachments largely break by the age of 2. This is the case in 90% of boys at the age of 2. (1) It CAN take some years for it to become fully retractable, But largely this happens fairly quickly. At this point boys just need to be taught to retract it and clean it. Your anecdote sounds exceptional, And perhaps a doctor would have told you you needed a circumcision or you needed the attachments severed. I'm not a doctor, But it seems like your situation had a solution without circumcision to allow for cleaning. Uncut men aren't all out there with unclean penises. Despite your personal experience, It is generally far more difficult to clean your teeth than your penis. If it was painful for you to clean your penis, It sounds like a doctor should have to help you with that. But you're trying to take a situation that is 4 standard deviations from the norm and make it sound like it is normal. Anecdotes are sometimes worse than having no data at all. 3. AAP has concluded benefits>risks. You haven't justified this claim at all. You haven't linked a source. So I'll do it for you: "After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, The American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, But the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, Says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, Ethical and cultural beliefs. " (2, 3) In this comparison (3) they do not specify many numbers. They don't engage with the moral arguments against it either. The consent of the person being mutilated does not come into consideration. The UTI reduction rate is looking at newborns aged 0-1, When infant males are extremely unlikely to develop UTIs compared to females (1. 8% males, 6. 6% females). On top of that, This 1. 8% number of males who get UTIs (4) and the 1. 4% (5) rate of complications in circumcisions for infants is not weighed at all. This percentage is WILDLY higher when you also count traditional circumcision in it. There are nearly as many complications in the circumcision procedure as there are UTIs IN ALL MALE CHILDREN. It is intellectually dishonest that the AAP doesn't show these numbers in their publication. They know it disproves their own points. They cite reductions in STD spread in Africa as justification. This is correlation, Not causation for one. Secondly, This does not justify circumcision as a child with no consent. Adults can choose circumcision prior to engaging in copious amounts of sex. Even if they could prove something about the foreskin was the direct cause of 100% of the marked difference (extremely unlikely), It would not outweigh the consent of the person being mutilated in my books. The reduction in cancer rates is the same thing, 1. You have a correlation with no clear causal link. 2. Adults can be circumcised if they choose and potentially gain the same benefit. Neither are an argument for mutilation with no consent. If you analyze only the benefits, Of course the benefits outweigh the negatives. Note the AAP does not recommend circumcision. The AAP is trying not to stir the religious pot in some sense by saying "the decision should be left to parents on religious, Ethical, And cultural grounds. " 10% of all circumcised men wish they were not circumcised. (6) This number, In my opinion, Is much lower than it will be when people actually think about this. No. Our society should not condone mutilation of children against their will. This negatively effects millions of men directly. 4. Damage to Penis Sensitivity. It my definition reduces the sensitivity of the male. Let me explain how current science functions. The foreskin is removed. They test the glans for sensitivity and find the sensitivity is not diminished. This is similar to me saying if I cut off your pinky the sensitivity of your hand is not diminished. This is possibly true. The problem is there is a whole additional set of nerves that I have literally removed from you. This is not taken into account, Believe it or not, In all the studies that research this (7). In addition, The methods by which they measure sensitivity are not necessarily without fault. On top of this, The tests that have measured for tactile sensitivity (not heat, Et cetera), I. E. What people normally mean by 'sensitivity' have all found that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (7) This is not about ERECTILE FUNCTION. No one is saying that the penis 'functions' worse at the job of reproduction. If I numbed your hand's sensitivity your hand would still function at its primary function. It means that men who are circumcised will never feel pleasure on the level that uncircumcised men will. It is similar to FGM in its function - to disincentivize the population from enjoying sex. Your studies are flawed. If you can point out some sources to me where these things have been taken into consideration, Please do so. I have read many studies. If you disagree that my contentions should be factors in said studies, Please say so. Please do not link additional studies that do not account for these things, Or agencies that don't recommend circumcision and pretend it is evidence in your favor. To conclude, Myself, And currently 10% of the circumcised males in the US wish we were in your scenario. We wish we were not mutilated without our consent. I will forever have a religious mark upon me I never agreed upon, No different than had I been branded. To be as charitable and as fair as humanly possible - if easy regrowth of the foreskin is somehow a thing in the future, It may be more acceptable as a practice to combat UTIs and make hygiene easier in general. At that point, It would not be a mutilation with no reversal. I am, However, Arguing from today's standpoint. Children should not be mutilated without their consent. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht (Sources in Comments)