This decision tree stops after the first branch.

The last sentence from this article wouldn’t hold up to any level of logical scrutiny, so I’m assuming it received none.

People against circumcision argue that the procedure is an inhumane thing to do to a child because general anesthesia cannot be used on babies because of breathing risks, and local anesthesia causes inflammation, which makes the surgery much more risky.

That’s nowhere near correct or justifiable. I’d edit it thusly, given the equivalent space constraint and intellectual rigidity to the common, non-thinking approach to excusing imposed surgery on another person as a valid religious practice.

People against circumcision argue that the procedure is an inhumane thing to do to a child. because Also, general anesthesia cannot be used on babies because of breathing risks, and local anesthesia causes inflammation, which makes the surgery much more risky.

Would anyone accept the argument for ritually cutting off a child’s fingers if people for the finger amputation of children argue that we can provide anesthesia? The procedure is an inhumane thing to do to a child because it is medically unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting individual. Inhumane treatment doesn’t become humane through better pain management. The lack of proper pain management is an additional inhumane imposition, not the reasoning to explain why circumcision is unethical.