Should underage male (non-medical) circumcision be banned?

[Green Line]

1.  All male circumcision is medical (hygine reasons obvi)

2.  It looks much better.  Non-circumcised it disgusting.  Are people on here actually not?

[Green Line]

Everyone around me that Im aware of (obviously I dont go around asking everyone this) is circumcised, for non-religious reasons.  I wasn't even aware that it was controversial in the slightest.  You learn something knew every day.

[Green Line]

^ Yes.  Why must you be such a whiny brat. Don't like it?  Dont do it to your kids then, that is your perogative.  It's none of your business if other parents do it to their own.

[Green Line]

I suppose like all seemingly unenforceable laws (like for example marital rape, although obviously I'm not conflating the two issues) the law acts more like a state-sanctioned censure that seeks to bend societal opinion.

It is not unenforceable at all, at least to the extent that circumcision could easily be discovered by healthcare workers during checkups. A government could even implement such checkups for boys with the specific purpose of discovering circumcision. Parents could theoretically face a trial -- if, of course, the government is willing to go that far. Consequences could be very serious, even if it now seems highly unlikely this will happen.

If it will banned in the Netherlands by the time I have a baby son, I will gladly make use of the opportunity to enjoy a day in Antwerp. Or Düsseldorf.

Is there a serious movement in the Netherlands to ban it?  That surprises me.