We considered those issues before making the decision. That one study is...shall we say, not exactly from a neutral medical provider. There are counter studies that say there's no effect at all, and yet others that having a foreskin leads to increased infections. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. In this case, we're playing the probabilities. There are well over a hundred million circumcised adult males in the US population. If any of these problems occurred in any statistically signficant percentage, I feel that the medical community would know that.
Of course, when informed about the purpose of the poll, some of the circumcision-supporters might have simply walked away shaking their head, which might lead to overblown percentages.
But that doesn't mean that this issues aren't real. Those were circumcised people, who were reporting about the issues that procedure has caused to them.
You can't simply throw that away.
And while I won't deny that infections are probably more common for uncircumcised people, did the study take the hygiene taken into account?
Because I doubt this is an issue to anyone, who maintains it properly.
These are all true things I can agree with. I'm not going to pretend like there haven't been horrific accidents and slip ups during circumcision. There are. This is the same with every medical procedure. However, I don't think I can argue with you any more on this, as we stand firm on two different POVs:
1) I and RedKing are supporters of having the option of circumcision. I don't like the idea of the procedure, but I like having the option. This is because while there are some choice few horror stories, I haven't seen overwhelming evidence suggesting that circumcision, beyond being mutilation, is a bad thing.
2) You and others believe that circumcision should not be in the parents' hands. I don't need to list the reasons why, as you've already done a good job explaining them.
Note that these are not necessarily opposite positions. Which means, possibly, that we could come to a compromise in the argument. What if, for example, circumcision was banned from being chosen by the parent and not the child, and it's only a choice that could be made by the child themselves, when they're able to make it? Obviously the rate of circumcision would be substantially lower, but I'm perfectly fine with that. I like the option being there, and can agree with it being taken out of the parents' hands and put into the hands of the operatee themselves.
I don't personally see this taking effect, but what do you guys think?