Yes of course we should “impugn” upon them. You do not have the “religious right” to perform surgery on someone without their consent, especially a detrimental surgery that carries a risk of death.
Your medical books are outdated and/or outright wrong. It wasn’t until the Victorian anti-sex era that anyone disagreed that circumcision made a dramatic effect on sexual ability and functioning(1). Back then, you’ll look in medical books and hear from mohels that oh yes foreskin meant a lot to sexual appreciation and that’s why they got rid of it.
Most medical authorities disagree with circumcision, in fact many national medical organizations advocate for its ban or actively participated in its banning (particularly in Europe)(2). Most “reasons” to circumcise are bourne from a lacking sexual education that many North American doctors receive (you wouldn’t believe how many recommend circumcision simply because they don’t know what to do with a foreskin - people have sued over this) including the idea the foreskin is “useless”(3) and from purposely manipulated studies done into it that do not have objectively repeated results (the results from the trials in Africa have yet to be reproduced)(4).
I can give you a plethora of studies that say something quite a bit different(5), but the news apparently doesn’t make it to America because circumcision is money (especially since infant foreskins make it big in the cosmetics industry(11)) and Americans are fucking damned determined to circumcise. Many doctors in the US will PUSH for circumcision, even if you say no, and some will even circumcise older children regardless of their own feelings(6). Do also note that many circumcision devices are well in violation of the max amount of complications and failures but have yet to been recalled or updated(7). Politicians are constantly lobbied by pro-circumcision interests and blatantly ignore medical testimonies right before them, in fact they even go so far as to suggest circumcision will reduce STD rates because of the evidence that it reduces sexual pleasure “thus boys will less likely be promiscuous” (literal fucking thing that happened this year)(8). The AAP recently advocated for the most common form of female circumcision (nicking the clitoris) to avoid explaining why male circumcision was legal(9). Sound suspicious or fucking what?
Even if it was just a “slightly decreased sensation” and “rare complication”, people do not have the right to make that decision for others. Your hearing would only be minutely affected if we removed your outer ears but that doesn’t mean it’s okay, does it? You could still see without your eyelids, you’d just lose your sensitivity, but does that sound all right to you? And these things are legitimate comparisons to the human prepuce because they serve the same functions - protecting and creating a mucous membrane (eyelids) and enhancement of functioning (both)(10). The pinky toe, you can still walk, let’s get rid of it. One finger less won’t make a big difference. Maybe you don’t need that much labia. Maybe you don’t need that big of a nose. Why not get rid of appendixes right away? No breast buds means no breast cancer, too. Or do you not understand that it’s not right to chop people up willy nilly based on possible future benefits (that are NOT guaranteed, mind you) and the possibility it “won’t affect them much”?
Most of what you’re saying is the same stuff said for female circumcision. Religious rights! It only affects a little! (Hint: the WHO acknowledges most female circumcisions are less extensive than the average male circumcision! And even women who face infibulation can experience arousal and orgasm!)(12) Complications are rare when done by an actual doctor! They don’t remember it! Health benefits! Cleanliness! (Hey, there’s even wonderful studies into female circumcision saying the same things about “benefits”!)(13) Well I’m circumcised and I’m fine! (YEAH most people circumcising and advocating for the circumcision of girls? CIRCUMCISED WOMEN.)(14)
Switch female with male and suddenly these excuses make sense? I say no, they don’t. And consider too that we are horrified by any study done into female circumcision, but we won’t stop to keep finding new things that male circumcision apparently cures(15). (Male circumcision has been prescribed as a treatment more than any other medical procedure(16), and each time it gets shot down and each time they find something new it MUST treat, and this isn’t suspicious?)
PS: If there were health benefits? Still shouldn’t be legal, because guess what? You still need a condom and vaccines to prevent STDs, not a painful erection! (You need that “extra” skin, believe it or not!) Circumcision does not affect this requirement! Which makes it unnecessary and invasive overtreatment, a blatant violation of the Hippocratic Oath (see: the part about promising not to use overtreatment and invasive methods if less invasive methods are available and especially if proven better at it, and they are).
I am curious, would you refuse to date a circumsized man or adopt a child who had been circumsized?
No and no. It’s not his fault that he’s circumcised so that wouldn’t be fair. Hey, the guy who took my virginity was loosely cut.
But way to go in assuming just because I’m against an unauthorized amputation means I’m some prejudiced bitch. That’s a fallacy, friend. You’re attacking my character in an attempt to undermine my argument. That’s ad hominem, character assassination, and Red Herring.