I'm inclined to say yes. I just think it's fundamentally wrong to do something like that and make a permanent physical alteration to an unconsenting minor. To be fair, I am somewhat sympathetic to religious arguments, but I just don't they trump the right to bodily autonomy. I think children do retain certain rights to the effect that they are not property of their parents. Admittedly, my bigger issue on the subject is the prevalence of non-religious circumcision. By far, the most common reasons in this country are to look like the father or because of culturally-derived aesthetic reasons. Those are really quite disturbing reasons to perform any cosmetic procedure on a minor child. I mean, has any son ever thought about how close his penis matches his father's? Somehow, I really doubt it.
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.
That's not surprising, considering you're from the Midwest, though I don't know how old you are. Non-medical circumcision is pretty much limited to Muslims, Jews, some African tribes, the Philippines, South Korea, and a majority of Americans. Even in the US, the current rate is now about 55%, down from about 85% in the 1960s. Prior to the 80s, it pretty much wasn't questioned. Now, it varies widely by region and by state, from 25% in the West to 75% in the Midwest and from 10% in Nevada to 90% in West Virginia.
Poll
