Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[Kortney]

So if we decide that kids should have a certain degree of bodily autonomy then it should apply equally regardless of people's personal beliefs.

No it shouldn't. Hundreds of cultures and religions across the globe do things to their bodies because of their beliefs - it doesn't mean we all have to either do it or not for it to be fair.

The fact that we wouldn't allow someone to sacrifice someone else for their religion goes to prove my principle.

You think that proves your principle? Wow. You set quite flimsy criteria for yourself. Last time I checked killing another human being is very different to circumcision. Obviously if people were in serious danger because of religion, then legislation would have to step in - which it does quite often.

I am not saying it is the same, but it shows the principle that law overrides religious belief does not violate freedom of religion.

If circumcision was banned in the Jewish community, that would be a direct breach in the freedom of religion. It is a practice carried out entirely within the religion. Hospitals don't have to encourage it, nor does anyone else. It doesn't effect you or the health system in any major way. Let them be.

 

[Thy Doctor]

I'm still confused... It seems those making such a huge deal out of it are the ones who are not circumcised. He'll I'm circumcised and I don't complain because frankly it doesn't matter, I'll never know what it's like to be uncut but in the same way those who are uncut will never know what it is like to be cut. I've never met someone who was mad because there Peter is shaped differently.

 

[Kortney]

snip

So basically you want to use the law to ban a group of religions people who have nothing to do with you from circumcising their babies, who also have nothing to do with you.

Uh huh. Might I suggest you get a hobby? It's not hurting anyone. They believe they have to do it. Banning it would cause serious, serious repercussions and would ironically lead to more human rights violations than keeping it legal would - but hey, you obviously don't understand any of it.

I think you need to sort out your priorities, there are many more alterations made to the body in other cultures that are more damaging than male circumcision is. The about lip discs? What about neck rings? Do you want to go into their cultures with your narrow minded view and tell them that's wrong too?

If Jewish people don't want to be circumcise their infants, then they can make that decision for themselves, as a community. Now you may say "BUT BABIES CAN'T GIVE CONSENT!" no, but they grow up as happy people and still believe that it was necessary. It's not hurting you. It's not hurting them.

 

[Kortney]

It has as much to do with me as any other interaction between people. Don't be absurd and pretend just because it doesn't directly affect me I shouldn't be against it.

It's not hurting you and it's not hurting them (beyond short term pain that they forget). Why should you want to interfere? Because you think it's wrong?

Further, alarmist posturing doesn't impress me. Oooh serious serious repercussions could happen because you say so! And of course I just don't understand it, I couldn't because I disagree with you.

So you think Israel, one of the most aggressive and efficient military forces in the World, commanded entirely by hardcore Jews would appreciate the banning of circumcision? There wouldn't be any riots? People wouldn't die? Hah. You'd have to be a moron to think that.

I'd like to see you actually go to Israel and say that. It remains one of the scariest places I have ever been to - and I've been to some awful places.

Lol? Make less assumptions. Or stop taking those mind reading lessons, they aren't working.

Well answer the question. If you want to ban male circumcision you may as well ban the things that actually do serious harm like lip discs and neck rings. Yes? It would be logical to assume so. So basically you want to ban anything that you don't agree with because.... you say so? Because it's "wrong"?

Here is a newsflash. I don't agree with circumcision one little bit. If I have a son they will certainly not be circumcised. I just realise that it is my little opinion and I can't apply my thoughts on "right and wrong" to other people, to other religions and to other cultures. Because people think differently to you and you must acknowledge that. Applying the way you think and your morals to other people's religion can only end in disaster.

They still believe it was necessary? I am amazed to learn that you know what all kids circumcised for religious reasons everywhere think. Regardless, violation of rights is a type of harm so they are being harmed. Also I am amazed that you think that cutting a piece of flesh off doesn't hurt.

First of all where did you get the impression that I think it doesn't hurt? You made it up? Yeah? Cool.

Judaism is the only religion I know of that actually makes it a requirement to be circumcised. If circumcision was a problem, there would be members of the Jewish faith demanded that it be stopped. There would be public awareness groups. Just like how in Islamic there are thousands of people right now protesting against "sexist" attitudes within Islamic communities. But there isn't. Why? Because they don't see a problem with it. They believe it is necessary. It doesn't actually do any real permanent harm beyond making the penis slightly less sensitive.

Stop trying to play Captain Planet. The quicker your realise that people have different cultures to you the better. I'd understand your case if Jewish people were making you circumcise your children. I'd understand your case if Jewish people didn't want to be circumcised. But neither is true.

My advice to you is:

A: Don't be involved in the Jewish faith.
B: Don't have your sons circumcised.
C: Get off your arse and go to Israel and make a statement to a Rabbi there.

 

[Thy Doctor]

I thinking banning it is going overboard. If you really need the consent of a child to do an operation then let's ban tonsil extraction, adnoid removal, and tubes. While were at it... The parents have no right to name their child. At age 18 they can choose the name they want.

Sorry that was ridiculous but this "controversy" is a personal matter. You can't just ban it

 

[Stollos]

No, I do not believe circumcision should be banned. I believe its a choice to be made by the parents of the child, and a decision to be made after proper consultation with the physician/doctor performing the procedure. Whether the parents make this decision based on religious factors, the medical benefits of choosing not to/to circumcise, or because of the fee involved with the procedure (when I was born, my parents told me there was a surplus fee involved which factored into the choice they made), its definitely not a thing that should be legislated against/banned.

Banning circumcision, in my opinion, would be as bad as making it compulsory. Leave the choice to the parents, and if anything, ensure that practicing physicians/doctors/surgeons are qualified enough to give sound advice and outline the risks and benefits of either path of action to the parents of the baby (which I'm sure they already are).

Snip. *snicker*

Also very good points. Especially

It's not hurting you and it's not hurting them (beyond short term pain that they forget). Why should you want to interfere?

And for the record, I would not choose circumcision for my son(s).

 

[Aurgelmir]

Circumcision slows the spread of HIV as the foreskin is prone to tearing and thus allowing entry of HIV. So no, it shouldn't be banned.

Condoms slows the spread of HIV even better, your argument is mute.
Condoms also slows the spread of pregnant girls A LOT better than a cicumsision



You see, just because something does something good, doesn't make it any less wrong.

Cosmetic circumsision is done because people think it looks better.
And the reason for it to become common practice in the US (outside Jewish culture) was simple:
Some Christian people was crazy scared of masturbation.
Children tend to grab themselves down there even from an early age.
Kids that got cut didn't grab them selves as much.
So from that day on, people in the USA started cutting into their children.

They also invented Cornflakes to combat masturbation


So yeah... tradition and stopping the spread of HIV are bad bad bad arguments

Banning circumcision, in my opinion, would be as bad as making it compulsory. Leave the choice to the parents, and if anything, ensure that practicing physicians/doctors/surgeons are qualified enough to give sound advice and outline the risks and benefits of either path of action to the parents of the baby (which I'm sure they already are).

Lets impose Kants categorical imperative on this, you are in fact saying:
You are saying it is okey for parents to give their new born child cosmetic surgery.


Honestly!? There is no good reason to do it, so why should child molestation be the choice of the parents? And not the child?



Oh yeah, and someone mentioned it would be against Freedom of Religion to ban circumsision for Jews.
Well I have news for you people. MOST COUNTRIES STILL BAN THINGS THAT ARE DEEMED BAD!
I mean does the USA allow polligamy? NO! Not even Utah really does. Even though a lot of religions thinks its a-okey to have more than one wife, the state say; Nope not allowed.

So Freedom of Religion card: Bad argument.


Cicumsising children = Child molestation.

Simple as that, you can't argue against that.

 

[mike1921]

I thinking banning it is going overboard. If you really need the consent of a child to do an operation then let's ban tonsil extraction, adnoid removal, and tubes. While were at it... The parents have no right to name their child. At age 18 they can choose the name they want.

Sorry that was ridiculous but this "controversy" is a personal matter. You can't just ban it

See, here's the thing. Tonsil extraction, adnoid removal, and tubes aren't put in just because religion says tonsils are bad. Those procedures are done because they actually need to be done. Not for religious reasons, not for traditional reasons. Purely medical. Which is the way MEDICAL procedures and surgeries should be.

Oh yeah, and someone mentioned it would be against Freedom of Religion to ban circumsision for Jews.
Well I have news for you people. MOST COUNTRIES STILL BAN THINGS THAT ARE DEEMED BAD!
I mean does the USA allow polligamy? NO! Not even Utah really does. Even though a lot of religions thinks its a-okey to have more than one wife, the state say; Nope not allowed.

I would much rather polygamy be made legal than keep circumcision legal.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I would much rather polygamy be made legal than keep circumcision legal.

Well at least that is something between grown ups, and not cutting an infant, so yeah Polygamy is better than circumsision... and we still made it illegal...


I mean More and more countries makes it illegal to cut off the tail of dogs (It's common practice to cut the tail of a lot of dog breeds)

So if it's not okey to cut off the tail of a dog, why is it okey to cut of parts of a little boys penis?

Is it okey to cut of the same kids fingertip?
Is it okey to cut of someones earlobes, because your parents wanted you to have different looking ears?

So I will sum up my arguments:
-"Tradition" is not an excuse, since a lot of traditions are banned when it turns out they are not ethical.

-"Religion" is not a good excuse, since Freedom of Religion can not, and will not trump human rights or the laws of a country. Example: Polygamy, cricimsision of women, etc.

-"Lowers the risk of STDs being transfered", is not a problem for an infant, and is rendered mute by wearing a condom.

-"Girls like sucking circumsised guys", only shows a girls vanity, and is no better than a guy saying he will only sleep with a girl with fake tits.

-"It's not hurting you, so why should you care", well neither did slavery... I am still against it. Circumsising little boys is molestation of a child. And none of the possible benefits wil lbe in effect until the child is much older, and THEN should be allowed to choose.

 

[ExileNZ]

I was sniped as a baby due to my parent's religious beliefs. I have long since renounced any ties to their (or any other) religion, and I want my damn foreskin back! How dare they make a permanently disfiguring choice without my consent?

So I'm firmly in the "ban for kids" category. And no, I don't make exemptions for religion or tradition. If there's a legitimate medical reason, then alright, snip away. Otherwise wait til they're 18 and let them choose.

Here here. +1 that man.

Although to be nit-picky, I think you mean "snipped", unless you really were shot by a hidden gunman.

 

[ExileNZ]

It also makes sense for the ban on homosexuality. "Babies don't grow on trees you idiots, get out there and bang some women!"

That and the fact that in unprotected anal sex there's a certain risk of sharing blood, again meaning that anything that one person has the other will have too.

Any transfer of sexual fluids carries the same risk. Plus guys can pull out and get slightly better protection than with women, since it's not the previously-theorised microlesions in the anus but the fact that it gets absorbed by the intestinal wall that makes it dangerous.

 

[newfoundsky]

I fail to see you point. My main point was that while it may be somewhat painful, and it may very well be, you won't remember it. It's kind of like getting gassed at the dentist. Honestly, how many here, at the Escapist that is, honestly miss the part of the penis they had for a short time after they were born?

I personally don't, because I don't remember even having it. So why ban the damn thing?

That has to be by far the very worst argument that has every been put forward in favour of anything whatsoever.

You know, raping an infant is something that it won't remember either, so you think that should be legal?

Nonsense, rape is illegal anyway.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

I wasn't circumcised when I was born. Instead, I got snipped when I was thirteen.Since then, I've always been pro-circumcision. If I ever have male children, they will be circumcised, no matter what the mother says.

Glad the woman who carried the kid for nine months FOR YOU gets ANY say in the matter. I'm pretty sure, he's HER KID TOO.
.

Wow. You got really offended by pretty much everything in this thread, didn't you? Chillax.

I was really hoping that this whole argument would be over. But fine, I'll partake once more.

If my wife had the penis, she could decide. But she won't, so she doesn't really have any personal experience with the issue. I'll compromise on almost every situation, but not this one.

Go ahead and yell at me some more though. It isn't going to change my mind.

 

[mike1921]

I wasn't circumcised when I was born. Instead, I got snipped when I was thirteen.Since then, I've always been pro-circumcision. If I ever have male children, they will be circumcised, no matter what the mother says.

Glad the woman who carried the kid for nine months FOR YOU gets ANY say in the matter. I'm pretty sure, he's HER KID TOO.
.

Wow. You got really offended by pretty much everything in this thread, didn't you? Chillax.

I was really hoping that this whole argument would be over. But fine, I'll partake once more.

If my wife had the penis, she could decide. But she won't, so she doesn't really have any personal experience with the issue. I'll compromise on almost every situation, but not this one.

Go ahead and yell at me some more though. It isn't going to change my mind.

So, let's say you had a girl and your wife wanted to circumcise her, would you let her do whatever she wanted with that because you don't have a vagina?

Also, as for it not changing your mind, THAT'S WHY I WANT IT ILLEGAL. There are some people who will not compromise on forcing a surgery on an infant just for a meager chance that something may go wrong in the future. There are also people who will force a surgery on someone else to just reaffirm their own religious beliefs.

I fail to see you point. My main point was that while it may be somewhat painful, and it may very well be, you won't remember it. It's kind of like getting gassed at the dentist. Honestly, how many here, at the Escapist that is, honestly miss the part of the penis they had for a short time after they were born?

I personally don't, because I don't remember even having it. So why ban the damn thing?

That has to be by far the very worst argument that has every been put forward in favour of anything whatsoever.

You know, raping an infant is something that it won't remember either, so you think that should be legal?

Nonsense, rape is illegal anyway.

The current legal status of something doesn't determine whether it should be legal or not. Slavery was legal but that doesn't mean it should've been. "Blasphemy" was illegal but that doesn't mean it should've been.

 

[mike1921]

Nonsense, rape is illegal anyway.

So is physical abuse, what's your point?

If a doctor strapped you into a surgical bed and proceeded to slice off abit of your penis without painkillers and without your consent, you'd be charging him with assault without hesitation.

I'm pretty sure you'd charge him with assault whether or not he gave you painkillers.

 

[KorLeonis]

I was sniped as a baby due to my parent's religious beliefs. I have long since renounced any ties to their (or any other) religion, and I want my damn foreskin back! How dare they make a permanently disfiguring choice without my consent?

So I'm firmly in the "ban for kids" category. And no, I don't make exemptions for religion or tradition. If there's a legitimate medical reason, then alright, snip away. Otherwise wait til they're 18 and let them choose.

Here here. +1 that man.

Although to be nit-picky, I think you mean "snipped", unless you really were shot by a hidden gunman.

Nit-pick acknowledged. I was indeed *snipped*, the hidden gunman missed me and got the nurse instead. Post has been corrected. Thank you.

 

[newfoundsky]

You're straw-manning. And quite poorly. Painkillers ARE used. Besides, parents have the right to have any non-lethal operation they want performed on their children provided the child is held in the best interest. And he is. Furthermore, are you circumsized? Do you wish you weren't?

 

[mike1921]

Besides, parents have the right to have any non-lethal operation they want performed on their children provided the child is held in the best interest.

I like the way you're not focusing on the important stuff like you know...CONSENT

I'm pretty sure having your arm amputated wouldn't be lethal, are parents allowed to have their kids' arms chopped off because it won't kill them? If you're going to say yes I want a source

Whether they have the right or don't is irrelevant whether they should have that right. No one should have the right to force a surgery on someone for non medical reasons.

Also, I am circumcised and I do wish I wasn't. KorLeonis said the same thing

 

[tkioz]

I'm just not going to let my son risk the same issue I had.

That's the same justification my paternal grandmother had for an extreme medical procedure she had done on my father when he was 11 or 12. She had all his teeth removed because she had an issue with her own teeth, some genetic thing that required her's be pulled out. I don't recall the name to be honest, I wasn't an attentive child about things like that.

My father is still rather put out about that, he has had false teeth since he was a teenager because of something that might have happened later in life.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Besides, parents have the right to have any non-lethal operation they want performed on their children provided the child is held in the best interest.

I like the way you're not focusing on the important stuff like you know...CONSENT

I'm pretty sure having your arm amputated wouldn't be lethal, are parents allowed to have their kids' arms chopped off because it won't kill them? If you're going to say yes I want a source

I was going to mention the Hippocratic Oath as a proof that not only is it wrong to operate on a healthy person, a doctor has taken an oath not to do so. But the Modern version of the oath is just a big pile of crap really.

None the less, if it is okey to cut off a child's foreskin it is also okey to cut of a child's arm, nose, ears, legs, fingers, if you as a parent think this would benefit your child...

I must also ask this question:
Why is it that the people who are okey with being circumsised, think it is okey for them to decide for their children?
We already have accounts of people saying they wish they weren't, so what would make your child any different?

As with all other cosmetic surgery it should be illegal to preform on children. You would not preform a breast surgery on an infant girl...

Food for thought - the cultures that practice circumcision have likely been doing it for longer than they've known there are actually semi-medical reasons to do it, amirite?

Um there must have been a reason for them to do it in the first place...

Jews and Muslims probably found out that it was easier to keep clean that way.
American Christians found it prevented the deadly sin of masterbarion in young children