In 2000 over 80% of american males were circumcised. That has since decreased to just over 40%. And 70% of those are done in infancy.

The UK around is supposedly less than 1%. So yes lots compared with here.

Since yur so into statistics, why don't you tell us, out of all of the MILLIONS of men that are circumcised, how many of them suffered any horrible consequence because of it?

How about you start giving us some statistics.

Tell me, how many men are circumcised, and what percentage of those men,m have suffered any kind of ill health, or problems because of it.

When are you gonna start showing us some real numbers? Tell us what percentage of circumcised men would call themselves "mutilated"?

You've got a big mouth, and so far nothing to back it up.

Yes but we are talking about non jewish.

How many non-jewish americans are circumcised

Sure, but first point me to the post that states that there are "horrible consequences" or "ill health"

Just the #number will be fine

That kind of information isn't available online easily so I can not tell you exactly but it does tell you only 1.4% of America are jewish so that would make 38.6% of non-american males circumcised considering all the jews in America are circumcised. Happy?

It's different in the US. A lot more gentiles* are circumcised in the US than in the UK.

*Just lining you up for the inevitable genitals joke.

Oic, so you want to ban it, even though it doesn't cause any harm to anyone?? WHAT are you TALKING ABOUT!!?? suppossedly yur entiure argument is that it MUTILATES men.

Are yur now admitting that no, it DOESN'T mutilate people??

pick a position and stick with it., It's hard to argue with someone that doesn't know what they are arguing.

Some women prefer it. Just saying....

Some men prefer it too. ;) just saying...

are you drunk?

Thankfully it is a rapidly dwindling number and should die out fairly soon

i'm not the one that's not making sense. You just asked me to link to the post where you say it causes medical problems and ill health. You've been saying it's MUTILATION this entire thread. i'm sorry, but umm, doesn't mutilation imply that it's a PROBLEM and causes medical PROBLEMS...??

IF not, then what did you mean by "mutilation"?? cause we must have very different understandings of the word MUTILATION.

So are you admitting then that it doesn't actually cause problems for people? and if you admit that, then why the EFF are you arguing that it should be banned?

Why thankfully. It makes no difference. So what is the problem?

Yes, you dont understand what the word means.

At least 5 studies have shown that two thirds of therapeutic circumcisions conducted by the NHS are unnecessary. The BMA's Michael Wilks has admitted on the BBC that the majority of 'medical' circumcisions are 'unnecessary and premature'. If you're a man circumcised in the UK to resolve a medical issue, we estimate there is a 90% chance that you could have kept your foreskin by using some cream or doing some stretching exercises for a few weeks.

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html

still waiting for you to give me the statistics about how circumcision is hurting men, and causing misery, and how they are MUTILATED.

the worst you can come up with is that it's "unneccessary"???

People do a lot of "uneccessary" things every day, we don't ban them though.

Mutilating children for superstition is wrong. Circumcision is unnecessary and should be a choice for adults only. That is what is being argued.

All religions have their traditions. Some might say circumcision of boys is wrong... some might say Catholics instilling children with a sense of guilt that last some of them a lifetime is just as wrong. It's the way it is.

Both are wrong and should be stopped.

I'm catholic and we were told by priests, bishops (I live in South Dublin) that if we show remorse we shall be forgiven and should forgive/not judge others. I know circumcision does no damage to anyone but if it has no benifits is it not just a cosmetic surgery. It is not mutilation and is different to female circumcision. I just think it should be the persons choice whether they shall have foreskin.

People don't get any other choices about their genital appearance so I don't really see why it matters. I'm sure more people would be able to choose the size of their penis than the small amount of skin on the end but people don't get that choice.

Oh yeah, the Catholic church is all about forgiveness and not judging people.

There you are making the case for your own religion while insisting Jewish boys should not be circumcised despite 5000 years tradition because it's something you thought of in the last few days. Haven't seen anyone on here weeping and moaning about being circumcised. I have never - ever - heard any man moan about the fact they are circumcised. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Sam, you've spelt Amy Winehouse's name wrong on your sig. Is it a mistake or is it a joke I don't get?

haha

The Queen of Soul's name is spelled Aretha Franklin.