pro-choice vs anti-infant circumcision

Allowing something because it can't be stopped is not a good argument.

The human right to bodily autonomy is a much stronger argument against both forced pregnancies and genital mutilation of children.

There is a logical reason to have an abortion: to end a pregnancy. People are going to want to end pregnancies regardless of its legality. There is no logical reason to perform a circumcision. Without cultural and religious reasons, there would be no demand for it.

Developed countries banned similar procedures for female genitals, and there's no epidemic of secret underground unsafe FGM.

Criminalizing rape has possibly made rapists even more dangerous than they already are because because now the have a bigger incentive to "get rid" of the victims by killing them to not get reported but that doesn't mean we should legalize rape. That's an appeal to futility, Just because a law isn't 100% effective doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

Not true. Circumcision has no purpose, and as such people aren't desperate for them. Once they fall out of favor, they will presumably never come back, because they were an arbitrary social norm. Nobody is desperate for a circumcision.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a procedure whose ease of access is incredibly important for women of reproductive ages the world over. A woman who is not ready to have a child will resort to an illegal abortion out of desperation, either for being too poor, too young, too sick, etc.

These two things aren't really comparable since one is a necessity (and ought to be a human right, in my opinion), and the other is a cosmetic procedure whose existence is predicated solely on religious nonsense.

You misunderstand the problem, there will always be illegal abortions because they are needed for basic economic and health reasons that trump the legal ramifications. To say there will always be circumcision performed on infants for the same reason is just wrong. Making the procedure illegal to perform on infants would have far fewer negative ramifications for people's quality of life, beyond religious based preferences, or for society in general.

Yes, infant circumcision is done on someone elses body, but if the point is making sure people aren't using unsafe procedures if you can't stop them by making them illegal, shouldn't it also apply to circumcision?

This feels a little different, partly due to abortion being the decision of a functioning adult, while infant circumcision has no input from the affected party. I think the idea of someone being able to want a medical procedure on themselves and to be able to consent to it is a massive factor that you're glossing over a bit.

In addition, there are far more consequences for "not getting an abortion" than there are for "not circumcising a baby", thus making "people will do it anyway" have a different level of severity for both scenarios.

EDIT: To hopefully clarify, not only can a pregnant woman actually consent to an abortion, but will almost certainly have more access to travel and a much higher impetus to seek out an abortion if desired. "Banning abortion just bans safe abortions" is not a rule, it's a practical consideration.

we stopped female circumcision, why can this not happen with male circumcision? we just need to destroy the medical root & make the cultural root so weak no one cares to violate the law, and it's out.

[deleted]

There is a key difference here: abortion is actually justifiable. Circumcision on newborns is not.

I’m the exact same. Both are pro-choice. Pro-choice on reproductive rights and pro-choice on people choosing to be circumcised themselves instead of mutilated without permission. Both opinions support bodily autonomy.