Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[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

 

[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

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...

I disagree that it should be illegal (I'm assuming you're using the under 18 legal definition of child here). I just think this is an issue where you can't confuse their consent with parental consent. Sorta like sex (in states that don't have ridiculous AoC laws that make a 17 year old having sex with another 17 year old a felony). It doesn't matter if your daughter can legally have sex with that guy, you can't force her to do it and say it's not rape because you consented.

 

[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...

I disagree that it should be illegal (I'm assuming you're using the under 18 legal definition of child here). I just think this is an issue where you can't confuse their consent with parental consent. Sorta like sex (in states that don't have ridiculous AoC laws that make a 17 year old having sex with another 17 year old a felony). It doesn't matter if your daughter can legally have sex with that guy, you can't force her to do it and say it's not rape because you consented.

What I am trying to say is that Circumsision should be equal to other cosmetic surgeries, in that it is something you can do if you are over the Legal age to do so, and anything under that age is up for debate.

I am also a believer that circumsision of infants is equal to child molestation, and therefore should be illegal.

To sum up:
If I want to take a knife to my penis, I as a 27 year old man can do so.
If I want to take a knife to my new born sons penis, I should be arrested if I go through with it.

There is no good valid reason for molesting a child, end of discussion.

 

[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.

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

Unless he was a really, REALLY good shot, and managed to only take off the tip at 400 yards... though that nurse really shouldn't have been standing there...

 

[BlackWidower]

It should be illegal for children in all cases, even religious, for the same reason we don't allow female circumcision, or human sacrifice for religious reasons.

It's barbaric! There is no medical reason to do it, and it's child abuse. If you want to do it as an adult, have fun, if you can have your penis cut in half (seriously, people do that), you are perfectly permitted to remove all the skin on it if it so suits you.

Some may argue there are a few cases where it's medically necessary later on, fine, deal with that when it happens. But doing it to all kids is like removing the appendix of all newborns to prevent appendicitis.

Oh, and hygiene is not a reason, the glans does a good job of cleaning itself, without outside influence. If it didn't the ancient humans would have had their penises rot off millions of years ago and we wouldn't be here now.

You know I cannot believe people are still doing this. It's disgusting.

 

[thebreadbinman]

I don't 'bathe' I shower, but point taken.

Although in WWI, people had to sit in those trenches for months without washing,
imagine how stinky their dicks were...

 

[Aurgelmir]

I don't 'bathe' I shower, but point taken.

Although in WWI, people had to sit in those trenches for months without washing,
imagine how stinky their dicks were...

Yeah, but I don't think soldiers in WWI was concerned about their smell. Nor do I think a circumised would smell much better after that time.