We have to consider the financial burden outlawing circumcision might cause to those who perform the procedure. After all, they work on tips.

My (late) two cents:
The STD argument is idiotic. People should not be having unprotected sex unless both parties can appropriately prove they do not have a sexually transmitted disease. Male or female, if you engage in unprotected sex with someone who is unsure of their status, you run the risk of getting an STD. That has nothing to do with circumcision. A foreskin isn't "nature's condom" and it won't protect you from AIDS, Herpies, etc.

Religion debate: Eh. I feel the same way about this as I do marriage. Doing something because it's what your parents did isn't a valid reason to do ANYTHING. It's the "All my friends are doing it" argument except it's generational/cultural. If you want to be a sheep and follow the herd, expect to be run off a cliff like a lemming.

"Bad things can happen" debate: yeah, it's surgery. It's possible that something can go wrong. Thanks for stating the obvious. If you really care about elective surgeries that can seriously hurt people, we should also enforce legislation to block all plastic surgery such as breast enlargement, facial work, and liposuction / stomach stapling. It's unnecessary and dangerous, just like circumcision and I think the results are more disgusting.

"Men will have problems getting it up." This is, partially, a red herring. There's a lot that can affect a man's capability to get an erection. Diet, smoking, drinking, stress, mental state: just pointing to circumcision and saying "This is the reason!" is an uninformed, blanket statement. There are other factors, so don't just put everything into one absolute reason. It's not that black and white.

All of this being said, yes, I am circumcised. I have no idea if it hurt or not, I have no memory of it. I've never experienced a downside to it, so when people scream ""IT'S HORRIBLE!" I have to stand up and say "no, that's not entirely true".

Should it be outlawed? Probably not a bad idea. It is (for the most part) unnecessary. In some cases it may be needed for medical reasons.

But, each side has a very passionate take on this matter, because it's related to sexuality and reproduction. People look at these matters differently due to many factors (family, religion, personal preference) and making one absolute "everyone will do this!" law removes a person's ability to choose what they feel is right. On that alone, I think it should not be passed.

"It's excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery.." How do they know? Do they remember the day they were born?

In other cultures, this is done when the boy is about 5 to 7. I have seen some of them, and they did not complain about any pain other than injection needle. That's all.

Plus, I think it looks more handsome without the hoodie.

Great, so you don't like the way foreskin looks, let's mutilate all the babies!

Well, you don't like a circumcised penis, and are rallying to make sure that everyone acts in accordance with what you think is right. You represent the other extreme end of your jest.

{Added 19:33} Clarification: pro circumcision is stating "give us the choice". You're stating "This is what you will obey".

This is very simple: People have lived for thousands of years without being circumcised. People have lived for thousands of years with circumcision. There is some evidence that circumcision can have some health benefits including prevention of certain STDs (although that is somewhat disputed) and prevention of penile cancer (again, somewhat disputed). There is some evidence that having an intact penis can have some health benefits, including prevention of certain STDs (obviously in dispute) and significant increases in sexual pleasure for both the individual with the foreskin and anyone that individual has sex with (also somewhat disputed). We do know that the foreskin plays a lubricating role in sexual activity and individuals with one are less likely to need lube.

No one states that circumcision or having an intact penis is a replacement for condom use when it comes to preventing STDs. Rates of penile cancer very low, so most health organizations do not recommend circumcision to prevent penile cancer (it would be like always dressing in rubber cause you might get hit by lightning). Currently, the evidence suggests that the penile cancer preventing benefits are lessened the longer an individual goes without being circumcised, however again it's important to note that even if you have a foreskin, your chances of getting penile cancer are very low. As far as sexual pleasure goes, the debate is pretty subjective as very few people experience sex with both a circumcised and a non-circumcised penis (although I should note that most of the anecdotal accounts I've seen are from people who experience a decrease in sexual pleasure for themselves and their partners after circumcision).

So basically we're talking about a medical procedure that may or may not be beneficial, and that many have lived full healthy lives with and many have lived full healthy lives without. There is very very little scientific medical benefit to circumcision at birth, and most of the benefits associated with the procedure as well as most of the benefits associated with not getting the procedure are just as potent whenever the individual is circumcised, whether that is in infancy or in adulthood. Therefore the primary arguments for circumcision are religious and cultural ones, which to me at least suggests that the decision to undergo a surgery of such dubious medical benefit should be made solely by the individual when they are of an age to weigh the benefits and risks of the procedure barring any conflicts with the religion of the parents (but even in that case, I believe religious leaders should carefully consider this issue to determine if circumcision at birth is still an appropriate position for their religion in the 21st century).

also good to note that something like 85% of men are intact

This is stupid, it's accepted by the public health community that circumcision reduces HIV by up to 50%. Also, circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, and lack of circumcision leads to some really smelly hygiene issues.

So because some men will grow up to be slobs who don't bathe, let us torture every male infant. Fantastic logic! It's called washing your junk, perhaps you've heard of this?

You think it's Torture? That's a pretty extreme position to take.

I absolutely 100% think that it's torture. Whether or not it's INTENDED to be torture is a whole different thing.

My infant son kept getting ear infections, so I cut off his ears. Better safe than sorry. He'll thank me when he's 18 because it happened at such a young age, he won't even remember it.

Violation of the 1st amendment of freedom of religion.

No. Some practices are so vile that you can't hide them behind religion. Freedom of religion does not protect inhumane acts, which is why we have laws against religious sacrifice, and maybe someday against maiming children without reason. There are acts so backward that they must be forced to face the normal moral questions within society, such as "should we be doing this?"

ah ah ah...not so fast there, young feller...

religion, morality and humane-ness are different terms referring to the same thing - a value system.

There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.
Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.
The KNMG calls on (referring) doctors to explicitly inform parents/carers who are considering non-therapeutic circumcision for male minors of the risk of complications and the lack of convincing medical benefits. The fact that this is a medically non-essential intervention with a real risk of complications makes the quality of this advice particularly important. The doctor must then record the informed consent in the medical file.
The KNMG respects the deep religious, symbolic and cultural feelings that surround the practice of nontherapeutic circumcision. The KNMG calls for a dialogue between doctors’ organisations, experts and the religious groups concerned in order to put the issue of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors on the agenda and ultimately restrict it as much as possible.
There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case.

@ Jesse James -OK so Human Rights at home is less important to you than human rights abroad (war).

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) 2010 Circumcision Statement:
"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.

"Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.

"Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.

"Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity."
That is the official position of the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG). But then, Holland never suffered from anti-masturbation hysteria, so circumcision never became customary there.

Nelson Mandela:
Nelson Mandela (Xhosa tribe) said his circumcision was blinding white light of electrical fire that burned throughout all his veins.

Rabbi Moses Maimonides:
Over 800 years ago Moses Maimonides tells the harms of circumcision, also known as the "Rambam", was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher. "...the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a stateas possible." & "The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child:
Cutting off of part of the male genitalia is a violation of human rights, including such
critical rights as the right to bodily integrity, the victim's right to freedom of religion, the
right to highest attainable standard of health, the right to protection against torture, and
the right to equal protection.
Several articles included in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child indicate that circumcision breaches fundamental
human rights:
• Article 19 provides that states shall take all appropriate measures
“ to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violation, injury or
abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse,
while in the care of parent (s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has
the care of a child.”
• Article 24(3) urges “abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of
children.”
• Article 6 (2) safeguards the survival and development of the child.
• Article 36 protects children against all forms of exploitation prejudicial to their
welfare.
• Article 37 (a) in parts states:
“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading
treatment or punishment.”
There is a need for a careful and sensitive analysis of what constitutes respect for
children; for their physical and mental integrity; for their right not to be harmed and in
particular, not to have pain intentionally inflicted upon them without medical and
therapeutic justification.40 Human rights principles acknowledge that children bear the
right to freedom of religion, independent of the wishes of parents or guardians, and that
they have the right to demand that this freedom be respected.41 Boyle et al. concluded
that: Enforced non-therapeutic genital cutting of unconsenting minors is overdue for
recognition by the legal community as sexual mutilation. As we enter the 21st
century, appropriate action must be taken to safeguard the physical genital integrity
of male children.

Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment's freedom of religion clause - Prince v. Massachusetts:Federal and state laws banning forced female circumcision have been in place since 1997, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws for all.

Also, the Supreme Court placed limits on the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause way back in 1944 (in Prince v. Massachusetts), stating:
"Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."

Saying Judaism requires circumcision sounds like if you don't circumcise then you're not a Jew. Nothing could be further than the truth, That would mean all those Jews, millions, in Russia were deemed not Jewish. And what about those non -circumcising forty years in the desert. Glick's Marked in Your Flesh:
Interesting read from Glick's "Marked in Your Flesh": "that the Lord's covenant and his two definitive promises (prodigious reproduction success and a lavish land grant (all of Canaanite land) appears first in Genesis 15, an earlier J text but with one crucial difference, there is no mention of circumcision." "To seal this covenant the only requirement is that Abram offer several sacrificial animals- a heifer, goat, ram, dove, and one other bird. Here we find no mention of circumcision, no change of name, no mention of Isaac or Ishmael." "Like a number of their neighbors, the ancient Israelites had practiced circumcision, but not as a mandatory rite and probable seldom on infants; nor did they associate it with the idea of covenant."
It was the Judean Priests who wrote Genesis 17 (P text) 13 centuries after Abraham's putative lifetime that called for male circumcision of infants. A initiation rite not so much for the infant but of the father who must circumcise his son himself for he is cognizant of the event whereas the infant is not. These type of circ.s were the cutting off the acroposthion (the part that hangs past the glans). No damage of tearing the foreskin from the glans (thus results scarring from the cut up to the tip of the glans) and no amputating the part covering the glans. The radical circ., also medically known as penile reduction, as we do happens centuries later. The Torah says not to mark the body, the original Covenant jives with the earliest Judea.