[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
It is amazing how the red herring of a medical argument is presented to hide the primary religious/aesthetic reason for doing circumcision.

It is amazing that the human race didn't go extinct before the medical necessity of circumcision was discovered. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people understand that it was originally a religious/aesthetic motivation for performing circumcisions. I think most people would admit that it is STILL primarily a religious/aesthetic motivation for performing them. But as long as you can come up with a legit medical justification, then it doesnt really matter WHAT your reasons are, right? IOW parents are allowed to force their kids to go to church because that hasn't been shown to cause death or cancer. Parents arent allowed to prevent their kids from getting medical treatments or blood transfusions because that HAS been shown to lead to death. We allow parents to abuse kids in lots of subtle ways (and I'm using abuse lightly here, obviously) and we call it parenting. I think that from a legal standpoint it makes a lot of sense to err WAY on the side of "letting parents do what they want to their kids." That means you have to show that something unequivocally harms children before you can start stopping parents from doing it. I dont think this is the case with male circumcision but thats the point of the medical arguments.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not a parent SHOULD do it. Its more about justifying the parents ego. I would never recommend that a parent get this procedure done on their child.