ShakyFt Slasher said:
It should be a right because: 1: It is a religious practice, 2: It can keep it from getting certain diseases, and 3: It makes sex more pleasurable
1. I agree with you on this point. Religious freedom is important, and this is pretty clearly an important part of several religious faiths.
2. The only disease of which it significantly decreases the incidence is penile cancer, but I don't think that's really worth it, because the incidence
without circumcision is less than .0001%. So we're talking about a benefit of going from .0001% to .000001% for a disease that is almost always caught really early. Not exactly impressive.
3. There's no evidence to suggest this. In fact, most evidence is to the contrary. There are more nerve endings in the prepuce than there are in the entire vaginal canal, and most physiologists believe the nerve endings that remain after the procedure are desensitized by the skin being exposed. Few people would suggest that removing a woman's vaginal lining would increase her sexual pleasure.
I think the routine circumcision of children in the U.S. for non-religious purposes needs to stop. It was introduced in the late 1800's when a group of physicians, led by John Harvey Kellogg (who also was a proponent of oatmeal enemas), noticed that little boys who had been circumcised were less likely to embarrass their parents by messing with themselves in public.
This is not a good reason to amputate a part of someone's body.
