Comment: circumcision damages the penis

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Like I said... (see in situ)

circumcision damages the penis

They are not perfectly good statistics because they are taken from a contaminated sample pool, namely the USA. Care-givers in the USA (doctors, nurses, parents) often do not know how to care for intact boys. Premature forced retraction is not uncommon. This can cause infection, among other problems. It is likely that intact boys with infections were the result of PFR.
The majority of the world's men are intact and have no problems, just like the majority of the world's women. Circumcision of boys and girls was started in the USA in the 19th century to prevent, punish, a cure masturbation.
There is obviously no health benefits to removing healthy functional tissue, and even if there were, the foreskin is there for a reason and it has functions, so shouldn't we let the owner of the penis decide for himself?
The US government has already ruled it illegal to circumcise baby girls. Boys should be afforded equal protection under the law.
You speak of freedom and privacy of the family (i.e. parents) but what about freedom and privacy of the child? Doesn't the child have a right to an intact body? Doesn't the child have a right to privacy of his own in propria persona? We recognise this immediately with little girls; what makes boys' bodies any less important?