We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Circumcision banned
| 139 | 15963 |
- 139 Replies
As much as I'm for voluntary decisions, keep in mind that we are talking about infants. The whole "it should be up to the child" argument doesn't fly - at all. Babies are unable to make their own decisions, it's up to the parents to make decisions for their infant.
I'm not saying whether circumcision should be legal or not, but anyone who says it should not be legal, or anyone who says it's wrong, should try to omit the "children's choice" argument.
murdering, torturing, mutilating, or sexually abusing him, with intent.
I would like to clarify. All of these things are up for debate. Torturing? to what extent is it torture and not punishment. To what extent is it mutilation and not circumcision or removing unnecessary parts of the body, such as the appendix or colon? To what extent would it be sexual abuse instead of bathing a child?
There is a grey area that circumcision falls into. The removal of a leg is much worse than the removal of skin, yet both are forms of mutilation. Where do you draw the line? Who draws the line? Who stands up for the children? What about religions that endanger the lives of children?
I didn't bring this up but what about drugging and brainwashing of children? Should that be legal or illegal? To what point? Who determines this?
I would just like to point out that making anything illegal is infinitely worse. The black market is just a workaround the law for the free market to work. Once goods and services enter the black market, it is infinitely worse.
However, the question over whether circumcision is right or wrong is highly subjective. Is it possible for there to be a system where the child is protected but the parent has full control? The answer is no; at least not for any multicultural society. However, most cultures, religions, and people are humanist. They value human life. It is impossible to definitively define what is right and wrong, even if there are many who dissent.
It would be nice if children were protected from abuse, but it almost impossible to do so without restricting property rights.
But not afterward. There are known complications, complications have a statistical probability of happening which reflects that they happen to people, and some of them have long-term implications.
Yes it is painful afterwards, especially when you take a bath but the worst of the pain goes away after several days and it isn't as painful for infants as it is for older children.
It shouldn't be up to the government to ban circumcision when there is no evidence of any side affects or deaths caused by it. Regardless of it being an outdated religious ceremony, if the child's parents want them to do so or the child does when he reaches a certain age, why should they be stopped from doing so?
unfortunately my man, I have to contest that. you lost your's in your religious ritual, not all circumcisions are religious
Yes, however the ruling in Germany prevents Jews from practicing one of our most sacred rituals. We cannot perform any sacrifices anymore (Temple was destroyed), however we still are able to circumcise our male children. And what are you contesting?
esides, the law wants consent, which means you can just wait a couple years or so and ask the child.
Negatory in Judaism. Circumcisions take place at 8 days old. For non-religious and non-medical purposes, I would say "Fine, wait for child consent." However for religious purposes where the ritual takes place at a very young age, let it happen.
ircumcision is a mutilation of a part of the body, and even though it might not be very dangerous, it still presents certain risks. This is the main difference; a child will not get a bad infection from being told about Santa.
Very rarely do children receive infections from circumcision. The process is VERY safe, and there are no real downsides to the operation. Losing your foreskin is not like losing an arm or a leg...you can still function perfectly normal without it.
Circumcision should not be banned, because it is a symbol of a religious covet. That is taking someone's freedom away. And babies don't have a say, you don't get rights until you're 18, at least in America. Circumcision also has health benefits, because the foreskin can actually tear off during intercourse and it also can become infected.
Precisely my point.
It shouldn't be up to the government to ban circumcision when there is no evidence of any side affects or deaths caused by it.
But there are. Read the first few pages.
Also, when Strop says there are known complications, then there are known complications.
/argument
Apart from the fact that circumcision is not generally banned (something some people here seem to ignore), circumcision for medical reasons is perfectly fine because it makes sense in case you have a long/narrow foreskin (which has implications indeed).
It is a wholly different thing if you make that operation outside of a sanitary complex on perfectly healthy/unproblematic kids that cannot fathom what long-term changes this will have.
Basically the government doesn't care whether it's a religious ritual or not, and they do not ban the ritual (therefore they do not infringe any freedom), they simply decided to punish an operation that was 'hand-made' on an unproblematic patient without his conscious consent, which means an unsuspecting person was gratitously subjected to potential health risks. Is it so hard to understand why the court found that guilty?
Basically the government doesn't care whether it's a religious ritual or not, and they do not ban the ritual (therefore they do not infringe any freedom), they simply decided to punish an operation that was 'hand-made' on an unproblematic patient without his conscious consent, which means an unsuspecting person was gratitously subjected to potential health risks. Is it so hard to understand why the court found that guilty?
I've been trying to jump into the discussion for ages, but nothing anyone has said made sense until you said that. I know what circumcision is, and, if for medical reasons, it is done in an unsafe manor and/or the male participant isn't consensual, then it is deemed unlawful according to wherever this is taking place. In a religious setting (e.g. Judaism) it is deemed lawful as long as the male participant is consensual.
I see no reason to argue. The same goes if you were to, say, give your wife open-heart surgery in your bathroom, and she isn't consensual or it is unsanitary, which it isn't.
You're missing the point. I used children instead of newborns for a reason. Children can understand what is right and wrong by two years of age. Until a child no longer wants to be owned, the parent has the ability to do whatever he likes with him. Any person should be allowed to buy or sell a child because they are essentially slaves, or property. However, this form of property, in my eyes, is conditional. If the child claims self-ownership, or no longer wants his biological parents to be his guardians, he should have the right to. Read the article I linked.
Can't say I agree. Even at two there are still many decision making skills in development that should form before being given choices with such long lasting results. I also disagree with your view of children as property.
As much as I'm for voluntary decisions, keep in mind that we are talking about infants. The whole "it should be up to the child" argument doesn't fly - at all. Babies are unable to make their own decisions, it's up to the parents to make decisions for their infant.
Though what other form of unnecessary body modification do we allow parents to choose to be done on infants that would have such a permanent ramification? If we are to leave it up to the child such a procedure should be left til they are no longer a child and are able to make such decisions for themselves.
The removal of a leg is much worse than the removal of skin, yet both are forms of mutilation.
You're also removing a rather large number of nerves along with that skin.
Just wondering those of you in favor of circumcision for religious reasons. How would you feel if a religion required infants to undergo tattooing, if women had their breast issue removed or they removed the earlobes at birth? Would you be in favor of such practices done on infants?
It's interesting to note that the practice of removing the clitoral hood, which would be comparable to the removal of the foreskin on males is regarded as female genital mutilation. Why the double standard?
Okay so I'm just going to put it out there that I might have absolute no authority on this issue because I am a girl here. With that being said, let me go ahead and state my opinion on this issue.
I don't think that they should ban circumcision in any country because I think that it is the parents' choice and it is a religious practice. As long as it is being performed by an experienced doctor who knows what he/she is doing, the operation is fine. It is only in rare instances that something seriously goes wrong.
I don't think that people should be told what to do/what not to do. Let me just say that while I am not especially religious and even if I were my religion would not tell me to circumcise, I believe that if I were to have a child tomorrow I would have the child circumcised.
I fail to see how this is any different than taking young babies to get their ears pierced and so on. That too is scaring a person and changing them permanently. Anyone who says that the ears closes up might be right on some cases, but most of the time by the time the child is old enough to want to have their earrings taken out, it is too late.
How would you feel if a religion required infants to undergo tattooing, if women had their breast issue removed or they removed the earlobes at birth? Would you be in favor of such practices done on infants?
Having your breasts removed at a young age is completely different than having your foreskin removed. Breasts are important in motherhood and a newborn baby will probably rely on breasts for a few weeks at least. Foreskin is not a necessary thing. There is no reason to have it or not other than personal preference/religious reasons. Your comparison between it and the clitoral hood is a better comparison, but breasts? They serve an important role in human development.
This is completely straying far away from the other points I have made, but I can honestly say that I find it to be more attractive when it is circumcised vs uncircumcised. Yeah, I know that there is the argument that it looks the same and yaddah yaddah yaddah but really it doesn't. I would prefer any men to be circumcised...it just looks better. I hate to sound shallow but that's just my two cents.
I fail to see how this is any different than taking young babies to get their ears pierced and so on. That too is scaring a person and changing them permanently. Anyone who says that the ears closes up might be right on some cases, but most of the time by the time the child is old enough to want to have their earrings taken out, it is too late.
It's different because they can just put on and take off earings. You cannot put on a foreskin once it's been removed. Foreskins have a lot of nerves which give a great source for sexual pleasure. Once you are circumcised, that option is gone. As far as I know getting earrings gives more options and doesn't actually lessen any other options.
Yeah, I know that there is the argument that it looks the same and yaddah yaddah yaddah but really it doesn't. I would prefer any men to be circumcised...it just looks better. I hate to sound shallow but that's just my two cents.
You perfer it circumcised, others perfer in non-circumcised, others don't care.
I don't think that they should ban circumcision in any country because I think that it is the parents' choice and it is a religious practice.
Why is it the parents choice whether or not I get to keep a part of my body? What if I want that part? The parents are forcing a descison to be made to their child's body. The child gets no say in wheather they get to keep that part of the body and they never will don't you think that's a little unfair?
Yeah, I know that there is the argument that it looks the same and yaddah yaddah yaddah but really it doesn't.
I was pretty sure that if you pull the foreskin back compleatly it should look like a cicumcised penis.
I fail to see how this is any different than taking young babies to get their ears pierced and so on.
It's putting a hole through the ear that if the earnings are removed long enough closes up leaving minor scarring. Circumcision is the removal of a body part that doesn't grow back.
Breasts are important in motherhood and a newborn baby will probably rely on breasts for a few weeks at least.
While there are psychological and immunity advantages t breast feeding an infant can get along just fine on formula.
Foreskin is not a necessary thing. There is no reason to have it or not other than personal preference/religious reasons.
There is debate on the function of foreskin, Some suggest it serves protective measures while others believe it has sexual functions.
I was pretty sure that if you pull the foreskin back compleatly it should look like a cicumcised penis.
given the graphic nature but there is an example of this on wiki under the article on foreskin. It shows a side by side comparison of a penis with intact foreskin flaccid and erect. When erect the extra skin is not noticeable.
While there are psychological and immunity advantages t breast feeding an infant can get along just fine on formula.
Circumcision is nothing like having your breasts removed. Let me bring up another point. You can't see circumcision. I mean the person who had it done can, but not the average person walking by. While I'm not saying that the equivalent would be chopping off your penis, cutting breasts off is not even in the same boat as circumcision. Millions of men function without their foreskin, but you can't say the same about women and breasts.
Furthermore, it isn't healthy for infants and young babies to only be fed formula. They lose important nutrition that they would otherwise get. If a women can't breastfeed because she has no breasts, her child will be at a serious disadvantage.
There is debate on the function of foreskin, Some suggest it serves protective measures while others believe it has sexual functions.
But again, the functions are nowhere near that of breasts. The previous comparison to a clitoral hood removal is better.
Why is it the parents choice whether or not I get to keep a part of my body? What if I want that part? The parents are forcing a descison to be made to their child's body. The child gets no say in wheather they get to keep that part of the body and they never will don't you think that's a little unfair?
Again, I firmly believe that it is the parents' option. They are in charge of the health of a child and if they deem that it is better for their child then they should be allowed to do it. If a religion states that it is mandatory, some state should not come in and say what the parents should or shouldn't do. A person can learn to live with it. I can guarantee you that most circumcised males don't care that they were circumcised.
I was pretty sure that if you pull the foreskin back compleatly it should look like a cicumcised penis.
Yes but that is not all the time. And there are times when you will be able to tell if it is circumcised or not...without getting too graphic. That is personal preference. Like men and breast size. It's just an opinion.
It's different because they can just put on and take off earings. You cannot put on a foreskin once it's been removed. Foreskins have a lot of nerves which give a great source for sexual pleasure. Once you are circumcised, that option is gone. As far as I know getting earrings gives more options and doesn't actually lessen any other options.
If a child is pierced young and when their ears are still growing, then there is a chance that the earrings will not be mirrored and that they may be off. I had my ears done when I was 10 and they grew differently. I have known people who had theirs done when they were a baby and theirs came out horribly lopsided. Sometimes (a lot of the time actually) if a child is pierced too young it limits options in the future. I can't get any more than 2 piercings on my earlobe because it is lopsided. So in some cases, yeah, it does limit options.
Again, I firmly believe that it is the parents' option. They are in charge of the health of a child and if they deem that it is better for their child then they should be allowed to do it. If a religion states that it is mandatory, some state should not come in and say what the parents should or shouldn't do. A person can learn to live with it. I can guarantee you that most circumcised males don't care that they were circumcised.
Just because a parent believes it's healthy or good doesn't make that true. Do you believe the same should be allowed with the clitoral hood? It's unnecessary to remove the foreskin. The reason most circumcised males don't care they were cicumcised is because it is seen as a normal thing to be circumcised. But in most cases cicumcision really would not benefit the child, so why not let the child decide?
I had my ears done when I was 10 and they grew differently. I have known people who had theirs done when they were a baby and theirs came out horribly lopsided. Sometimes (a lot of the time actually) if a child is pierced too young it limits options in the future. I can't get any more than 2 piercings on my earlobe because it is lopsided. So in some cases, yeah, it does limit options.
So theres a possiblity you could have less options? I think it still sounds better than not having a option at all. And when you get your ears pierced, even when your young, it actually opens up the possiblity to wear earrings. Circumcision doesn't do anything like that. It's just cutting skin off, for... Well because for some reason they want the skin off. I can understand in a case where the skin would be too tight and would hurt the the person, or if the skin would later have negative effects on the person, but that isn't the case for most. For most it is just cutting off a part of the body for no good reason. It doesn't grow back, it doesn't open any options, it's just not needed. Would you feel the same way if a docter messed with another part of a person's body at a whim?
Circumcision is nothing like having your breasts removed. Let me bring up another point. You can't see circumcision.
You're not going to really notice a difference between a girl with no breasts or a girl who is simply flat chested.
Millions of men function without their foreskin, but you can't say the same about women and breasts.
That's because it's not socially acceptable to do so.
Furthermore, it isn't healthy for infants and young babies to only be fed formula. They lose important nutrition that they would otherwise get. If a women can't breastfeed because she has no breasts, her child will be at a serious disadvantage.
Nutrition can be supplemented and there are cases where this is necessary.
But how about we settle this with just the removal of one breast? They can still feed a kid without a problem and they would have reduced chances of getting breast cancer.
The point I'm trying to get at is I can make pretty much the same arguments for the removal of breast tissue as one makes for the removal of the foreskin. That's how it's comparable
If a religion states that it is mandatory, some state should not come in and say what the parents should or shouldn't do.
Do you feel the same about neck rings or foot binding?
What if we take it a step further and the religion calls for the sacrifice of an animal or even further, the sacrifice of a person? Just because a religion mandates something doesn't mean it should be legal to do.
A person can learn to live with it. I can guarantee you that most circumcised males don't care that they were circumcised.
People can learn to live without a lot of body parts.
Circumcision is the removal of a body part that doesn't grow back.
Unless the kid's a lizard, or the mom's been doing some weird stuff with lizards.. There's all sorts of people, you may never know.
Anywho,
I don't think that they should ban circumcision in any country because I think that it is the parents' choice and it is a religious practice. As long as it is being performed by an experienced doctor who knows what he/she is doing, the operation is fine. It is only in rare instances that something seriously goes wrong.
It's my penis, and if I want an extra blob of skin on its end, then who are my parents to say "Oh, you can't have that extra blob of skin just cause we said so". While it may seem okay for some, I know some people who are mad at their parents for getting them circumcised.
If a women can't breastfeed because she has no breasts, her child will be at a serious disadvantage.
How can a woman not have breasts? As far as I remember my high-school biology, when women get pregnant, their breasts increases a little in... Diameter? to be able to hold the milk for the infant. So, even if the woman were flat chested, she'd still have some cleavage when she gets pregnant. Now, there may be cases where the milk can't flow through the nipple, but I don't know too much about that.
A person can learn to live with it. I can guarantee you that most circumcised males don't care that they were circumcised.
I can guarantee you a lot do care, too. A lot of men(that I know) don't like wasting(is it wasting, though?) money on lubrication, and/or sometimes special condoms to do something an un-circumcised male could do for $20 less. And they say it hurts, so I'm glad I'm not circumcised.
Millions of men function without their foreskin, but you can't say the same about women and breasts
I'm sure that the shortage of breasts won't affect their lives, except in cases if the woman has got a child. If she fears for the social aspect of not having breasts, that's a different thing. Some won't mind, some will. In the end, it doesn't really mean anything.
Okay so I'm just going to put it out there that I might have absolute no authority on this issue because I am a girl here
I always read comments in really deep Russian accents, but then when someone mentions they're girls, my mind reads it with a high-pitched American teenage girl. Meh
I can guarantee you a lot do care, too. A lot of men(that I know ) don't like wasting(is it wasting, though?) money on lubrication, and/or sometimes special condoms to do something an un-circumcised male could do for $20 less. And they say it hurts, so I'm glad I'm not circumcised.
That one post just changed my mind. That must be a real buzz-kill paying extra money for less friction.
You must be logged in to post a reply!