58 is correct. Teaching is one thing - no physical harm done, and eventually the person on the learning end can discern what s/he wants to get out of the subject at hand. The minute that teaching becomes a physical alteration of the body against a person's consent, that elevates it to a different level entirely. Unfortunately, a baby can't say: Teach me all you like, but do not touch or cut me without my consent..

The adult is rare that does not impose their values on their children. They don't "impose" as with a whip, but they say (knowingly or unknowingly) 'this is the way I believe and you should believe this way too'. If for the sake of argument circumcion is mutilation (a premise I strongly disagree with) its' being defined as "coercion performed for a lifetime" is your own personal definition. It holds no water.

Circumcision is done ‘without’ the child’s consent, not “against” it. There is a difference. Men who have been circumcised as children have a lower risk of getting penile cancer than those circumcised as an adult. Some studies seem to indicate a higher risk of penile cancer in those not circumcised. (cancer dot org) I’m sure the grown man would love to know that his parents waited until he was ‘old enough’ and thereby possibly increased his chances of getting the cancer. A minor detail, I'm sure.

Penile cancer is very rare, even in Scandinavia, where almost all males are intact. Even though the breast cancer rate is much much higher (and even higher than the norm in the Ashkenazi - see breastcancer.org), I don't see anyone on ynet recommending mass mastectomies of girls before they can give consent, but then no religion has that in its tenets with a need to justify itself.

Most 'cancers' are being recognized as being more distantly related as first thought, hence different treatments for different cancers. Added to that, you are comparing penile cancer to breast cancer; you are comparing the two? I take it you did not read cancer dot org. No one who shuts their eyes has a need to justify themselves.

I have not compared the two cancers. What I have compared is the justification of surgery on an infant as prevention for an extremely rare cancer (when we all know that the true purpose of that surgery has nothing to do with disease prevention). Breast cancer afflicts 1 in 7 or 8 women (even more in Ashkenazi women) in the course of their lifetimes, yet no one would think of subjecting babies to mastectomies as prevention, because it is not part of any religious rite that needs to be justified to make it more palatable to non-believers.