"90% of men globally aren't."

And i live in america, where i compete for american females with american men.

"It doesn't matter. It's wrong to cut a child's genitals."

Even if the children, statistically, grow up to be greatful that you've done it?

"So let's say you're an elderly person and you have dementia. Am I allowed to beat the shit out of you every few days?"

Just because you construct an analogy, doesnt mean its valid. Circumcision is a single instance. You might respond to that with: " so i can beat the elderly once?", which is again just a poorly constructed analogy. I was circumcised, and im glad i was. I imagine most circumcised men are, because i dont hear an awful lot of complaining from them. Its not like you beat the shit out of an elderly person, and 20 years later theyre glad about the broken nose you gave them.

"Firecrackers are explosions. People lose their hands/eyes to them."

...This is my point idiot. It was an extent thing. Bottle rockets are explosions, as a nuclear bombs. Ive had a bottle rocket explode in my hand, it just stings for a while. So you call it mutilation, because your just trying to attach the worst possible meaning to it. Circumcisions are to mutilations what bottle rockets are to explosions. That was my point. Getit?

"Because it's not the opinion that matters - it's the presence of choice. You want your opinion to be forcefully imposed on non-consenting people. That's rape."

opinion to be forcefully imposed on non-consenting people = rape teaching evolution to creationists = rape trying to convince republicans to vote democrat = rape parenting of any kind = rape

I think you may have created a slightly vague definition...forcing an opinion on someone is not rape...maybe you could argue that circumcision itself is...like...fondling the baby and thats rape....but idk...

But there is a more fundamental argument to be made. Babies cannot choose, and this is essentially your argument. But, its my argument as well. For by the time someone is old enough to choose, the pain is memorable and no one would choose to do it. Yet, there will be some that will have wished they'd had it done, if only the pain werent memorable. I imagine that if i hadnt been circumcised, this is the category i would fall into. And considering not very many circumcised men, from what i can tell, are out complaining, then most circumcised men must be satisfied with having had the procedure.

"Again: You're in the minority if you have a cut dick."

Which only matters if you think im in competition for a mate with every other man in the world, rather than the men in my area.

"Again, it doesn't matter. If most people enjoy vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate ice cream, that doesn't make it right to ban chocolate ice cream.

Except in this case, we're not talking about flavors of ice cream. We're talking about a functioning body part."

You just love constructing false analogies dont you? Again, this analogy would only make sense if circumcision was government mandated (like your chocolate ban), rather than a parental choice. If a parent forbid their child from having ice cream, would you be posting on reddit about that? Because thats the correct analogy.

In this case it does matter. The current practice satisfies the majority; most circumcised men are happy they are circumcised. Considering parents have no way of knowing what their childs preference will be 20 years later, why would you expect parents to not circumcise, when its more likely that they would prefer they had been?

"Yes, because Medicaid stopped funding it in many states. Do research."

Which sort of takes all the sting out of your argument then, doesnt it? Obviously, people arent deciding they dont want the procedure because they disagree with it, but because they dont have the money for it.