Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[tkioz]

Recently there has been talk in a few places (my home state of Victoria, Australia, and in San Francisco in America to name just two) of banning (male, female is already banned for very good reason) circumcision on children.

Where do fall on the line? As far as I know there is virtually no medical benefit from doing some, and like all sugary has risks (though rare).

Speaking as a man who was circumcised as a child, I honestly don't think I'd be able to imagine my errr... lower half any different, but I doubt I'd do it to my own sons if I ever had any, and I did talk my sister out of having it done to her boy last year (around the same time I smacked her in the head with a medical textbook when she was talking about not vaccinating her son... my nephew is healthy, happy, with intact genitalia and an immunity to some nasty bugs.)

So where do you fall? Do you think it's personal choice for the parents? Should be totally banned? Or banned only for children (if an adult wants it I have no issue with it)?

Please note I'm talking about cosmetic circumcision, not religious circumcision, I was circumcised and it had nothing to do with my faith.

 

[Kenko]

Medical reasons yes. But otherwise it should be illegal until a person is 18.

Its not circumcision. Thats just a pretty word for "GENITAL MUTILATION". Its a sick and twisted act commited by demented and sick religious types.

 

[DJDarque]

I don't think it should be banned, but I think it should be discouraged. There is no benefit. It's just more dollars in the hospital's pocket.

EDIT: Except for religious reasons, of course.

 

[j0frenzy]

Um, I'm Jewish.. so, uh...
I don't have a strong opinion on cosmetic (i.e. non-religious) circumcision. As long as there is not an outright ban that would prevent religious circumcision.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

Eh, the choice should the person's own, not their parents, their neighbor, or their honourable chairman/other leader.
All I have to say on the matter, really.

 

[Mr Montmorency]

The only thing it does is increase the risk of surgical complications.

Oh, and you essentially feel a lot less during hanky panky. So, good luck living without a foreskin. Did you know that the foreskin is made of the same original tissue in that of a clitoris?

Yeah. Stop cutting your dicks up, America.

 

[Ren3004]

You mean that people actually cut their kids' foreskin for cosmetic reasons? *sigh*


Okay, my opinion, circumcision should be done when there's a medical reason, and I can accept religious circumcision. But you shouldn't have a kid circumcised just because. Sorry, no, you don't do something that is completely unnecessary to a kid. Just... no.

When you're an adult, I have the same opinion that I have for any cosmetic surgery. It's your body, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you pay out of your own pocket.

 

[Grounogeos]

If your culture (religious or otherwise) has reasons for performing them, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
But since circumcisions have absolutely no medical benefits, doing it for no reason shouldn't be allowed.

 

[rokkolpo]

Medical reasons yes. But otherwise it should be illegal until a person is 18.

Its not circumcision. Thats just a pretty word for "GENITAL MUTILATION". Its a sick and twisted act commited by demented and sick religious types.

And people's that like how it looks.
BLASPHEMY!

 

[tkioz]

Can people make their own decision? I mean, is there a medical reason that if it is going to happen it should happen early in life. Also, you might not be able to imagine it any different... but would you not like the choice to have it natural?

I honestly don't know if there is any medial reason for it. Wait I tell a lie I recall a vague story about a French King from High School whose foreskin could not be retracted, he go err go number 1, but not any of his "Kingly Duties" to his wife, it was only after some nasty and horrible primitive version of it was he able to provide an hair.

But as I said that's only a vague memory, so I could be totally wrong. It's past 1am here and I'm so not going on a wiki hunt that will keep me up until dawn.

However I'm not talking about banning it if there is a real medical reason, I honestly don't think that's is what is being proposed by the legislators, but for what basically boils down to cosmetic reasons.

Speaking for myself, while I can't imagine myself with a foreskin, I doubt I'd have chosen to have it done to myself. I also can't imagine myself with blue eyes or smaller feet, it's just something I so use to.

 

[Stephanos132]

If female is banned for good reason, why does not the same reason apply to males? Both are getting mutilated genitals, both can affect enjoyment from sexual encounters in a negative fashion (girls more than guys, granted, but the point still stands), both are held up by archaic and outdated beliefs that seek to control people. Unless you have a bad infection going on, there's no good reason to remove the foreskin.

 

[zen5887]

Its such a crazy idea.

I mean.. You're cutting a piece of a childs junk off, and most of the time (religious and medical are an obvious exception) for no real reason apart from some people think "it looks good"

I'm not sure if I'd go so far as an outright ban...

EDIT:

If female is banned for good reason, why does not the same reason apply to males? Both are getting mutilated genitals, both can affect enjoyment from sexual encounters in a negative fashion (girls more than guys, granted, but the point still stands), both are held up by archaic and outdated beliefs that seek to control people. Unless you have a bad infection going on, there's no good reason to remove the foreskin.

Exactly. Imagine a world where it was reversed, its not that hard. What if, for some reason its the norm for it to happen to girls. There would be people who are all "Mm.. That looks nice like that" and then if you mention it doing to a boy they would be "Oh my god that's hideous! You monster"

Tradition is a funny thing...

 

[Zoomy]

I'm opposed to all non-medical circumcision for children, even the religious stuff. To explain that last part, let me remind you of something. Religion is a choice. It is within the realms of possibility for Jewish parents to raise their son in the Jewish faith and have said kid reject it when they become an adult. Forcing someone to carry a mutilated dick because you follow a certain path is wrong.

If an adult wants to lob off bits of dong, let them. They can make that choice.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Stop doing it to kids, but leave it open for people to decide on their own when they're old enough to make such a decision.

 

[Verlander]

There are medical reasons someone may need to have a circumcision, and at the end of the day there are health benefits to it as well. There are plenty of medical studies stating that the likelihood of STD's drop dramatically among circumcised men. Obviously that's dependent on lifestyle choice, but also majorly because it's easier to keep clean.

Also sounds like the anti semetic brigade to me. I kinda want to get rid of Jews, just so we can get rid of anti semites (jk)

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I won't stop the religious for having their freedom to do it if they so wish, as long as they take the correct medical precautions in.. mutilating.. their.. sons genitalia.

Otherwise, I'd be strongly pessimistic about it. There may be some valid medication reasons for it with some individuals, but I will personally never let another human being take a sharp metal object with the intent to cut up my penis in this existence get close to my pelvis without a foot to the fucking nose. I'll even refuse sex with a woman that would make me get it done just for sex.

That is all.

 

[deadxero]

It is done for health reasons. In the mid 20th century it was discovered that circumcision reduces the likely hood of a number of health issues for both men and their sexual partners. This lead to a mojor push to make cirumcision as norm. Many men were reluctant, until their significant others said, no snip, no sex... circumcision became the norm.

Considering it is done as a preventative health procedure, I can't imagine why anyone would want to ban it. It's like a getting your tonsles out, get it done young and get it overwith.

Edit: I though I should expand on that a bit. Health issues were related to the buildup of bacteria, persperation, dead skin, etc. under the foreskin.

 

[Stasisesque]

Can people make their own decision? I mean, is there a medical reason that if it is going to happen it should happen early in life. Also, you might not be able to imagine it any different... but would you not like the choice to have it natural?

I honestly don't know if there is any medial reason for it. Wait I tell a lie I recall a vague story about a French King from High School whose foreskin could not be retracted, he go err go number 1, but not any of his "Kingly Duties" to his wife, it was only after some nasty and horrible primitive version of it was he able to provide an hair.

But as I said that's only a vague memory, so I could be totally wrong. It's past 1am here and I'm so not going on a wiki hunt that will keep me up until dawn.

However I'm not talking about banning it if there is a real medical reason, I honestly don't think that's is what is being proposed by the legislators, but for what basically boils down to cosmetic reasons.

Speaking for myself, while I can't imagine myself with a foreskin, I doubt I'd have chosen to have it done to myself. I also can't imagine myself with blue eyes or smaller feet, it's just something I so use to.

There are medical reasons for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanitis as two.

I don't believe it should be banned at all. I agree with not performing it on children provided there is no medical reason or religious tradition - but the same goes for any and all cosmetic surgery. You can do what you please with your own body, provided you can be certified as being in a healthy state of mind by a medical professional.