I'm fairly certain almost every Jewish man on this subreddit is satisfied with not having a foreskin.
Every boy who grew up to be Jewish would obviously be satisfied with not having a foreskin. I am speaking of the countless boys born to Jewish families who grow up to be atheists.
No, it's physically cleaner.
Fine, whatever. Still, that isn't a justification for doing it. He can choose to do it at a later time if he wants to sacrifice his foreskin for cleanliness.
Uncircumcised men who aren't properly clean could be spreading diseases to women or causing vaginal infections.
By deliberately engaging in sex. This is why it's different than vaccinations, vaccinations should be mandatory because they prevent the involuntary transmission of diseases to others.
Lotion is not harmful for the skin.
What about for the glans?
And I'm not sure how masturbating with a foreskin is better. That actually sounds more painful.
You realize that foreskin when uncircumcised rests naturally over the head of the penis, right? So masturbation would be sliding it back behind the head then forward to its natural position over the head. That would not hurt, you're not stretching anything beyond its natural limits.
Because I wouldn't consider a piercing or circumcision to be an injury.
Merriam-Webster defines injury as "an act that damages or hurts". I'd say circumcision hurts quite a lot, but it is also damage done to the foreskin.
No one gets any sexual arousal out of circumcising an infant.
So you oppose rape on the basis of sexual arousal? I oppose rape because it is an unconsensual imposition of a person's wants onto another. Circumcision at birth is also an unconsensual imposition of a parent's wants onto another.
Circumcision represents the covenant Jews have with God.
Okay, so if the child wants to become a Jew as an adult, then he can then get circumcised. But he doesn't just adopt your religion the second he is born, that's not how it works.
Then why aren't you on /r/Christianity crusading against infant baptism?
One, because I wasn't baptized, two, because baptism isn't physically injurious so it's much less severe and has no lasting effects other than emotional if the child is scarred by the process of being dunked underwater, and three, because I am sick of the double standard in (rightfully) opposing female genital mutilation but being totally supportive of male genital mutilation, which is only called "circumcision" because it is deeply ingrained in society and we refuse to step back and recognize it for what it is, the mutilation of a baby boy's genitals. Not as severe as most instances of FGM, no, I will concede that. But it is still mutilation.