Male child circumcision is as immoral as female child circumcision

Thank you for your reply and for your civility. Point 1) "if a child is suffering from something internal, then he will be forced to take a surgery whether he likes it or not. Because it's for his own good... Now, that's no different to circumsicion(sic) on the male." Rebuttal: Elective surgery (circumcision) and surgery to repair an disorder, damage, or birth defect are not the same. One must declare the foreskin a birth defect before it could be considered a repair to remove it. Much in the same way we don't buy a new car and then, while still at the dealership, remove the tires and take it home on the rims only. Point 2) "Circumsicion has been proven to reduce the risk of UTI and STDs, it may also reduce the risk of developing cancer on the penis and may reduce the risk of female partners from developing some types of sexually transmitted infections such as Bacterial Vaginosis or Trichomoniasis." Rebuttal: Babies do not need protection from sexually transmitted diseases, nor do they need to protect a sexual partner from STD's because babies do not (typically) have sexual contact. Furthermore, I have asserted the age of consent to be 16 years old. If a male elects to have a circumcision at that age, then so be it. The protections would be in place at the request of the one undergoing the surgery. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), "Bacteremia associated with UTI occurs during the first 6 months of life and is inversely related to age." (1) This then means that the older the child gets, the less likely they are to experience an UTI caused by foreskin. They also state the 0.1% of circumcised males will experience an UTI. Compared to 1% of uncircumcised males. This would mean that we are removing the foreskin from 100 babies to save one from a very treatable UTI. I find that 'reward' to be null and not worth the permanent risks associated with circumcision. Point 3) "Female Genital Mutilation has been outlawed not because of no proper consent, but, because it brings more HARM than good. " Rebuttal: FGM was indeed outlawed, in part, because no proper consent can be given. Proof of this is simply that a female of the legal age to consent can request and obtain a clitorectomy without any legal repercussions to the doctor. It is only made illegal for a doctor to provide this elective surgery on a minor. Thus proving there is a consent element to this procedure. Point 4) "As I said, there is ALOT(sic) of benefit done due to the cause of circumcision. So, if you do, say an eye surgery on a child: "Does it mean that he is denied the right to body integrity?"" Rebuttal: To quote the American Academy of Pediatrics: "At this time, there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Although there are potential benefits and risks, the procedure is usually not essential to the child"s well being. " (1) Their statement negates your assertion. Furthermore the comparison you draw with eye surgery was addressed in my rebuttal to point 1. Explicitly stated; losing eyesight without surgery is not morally equivalent to elective surgery to remove the foreskin. (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Thank you for the well wishes and please allow me to return the gesture; good luck on the next round.