Forums → WEPR → Circumcision banned

I also disagree with your view of children as property.

Then what are children? Essentially, they are property in today's society. We just don't refer to them as such. If children aren't property, then how is it that another individual can claim responsibility for it? How can another individual coerce it into doing something it doesn't want? How is that something that was created by an individual, isn't property?

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.

I noticed that your main argument is that circumcision is a permanent removal of skin with lots of nerves and that if one wants to remove it, it should be when they are an adult.

However, you insist on trying to protect another's property. Babies getting circumcised does not directly affect you, so why do you insist it should be banned? You don't stop other people from doing as they want. Is it terrible and unethical? Maybe, but you cannot coerce them to do anything they don't wish to do, which is as immoral as circumcision performed on a newborn.

You're also removing a rather large number of nerves along with that skin.

I don't understand your point. The removal of a leg is much worse than circumcision.

You're not going to really notice a difference between a girl with no breasts or a girl who is simply flat chested.

I'm not super full chested and I still have some breasts. Most girls, even though they are flat chested, have at least something. Believe me, you will be able to notice a girl who is just flat chested vs a girl who has nothing at all. Most flat chested girls have an A cup, but you can still tell that they have something there. If a girl has them completely removed, it will be completely different.

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.

I hate to pull the girl card, but it is a lot more traumatic for girls to have no breasts vs small ones. There is a reason that when women have breast cancer, they get reconstructive surgery. I have family members who went through that and they say that the hardest thing about breast cancer is losing your breasts. Girls are more judgmental than men and we are also more sensitive. Like I stated before, I have small breasts and when I was younger I was made fun of because of it. I mean now I have learned to accept it, but I am still joked about because of it. To have no breasts would be extremely detrimental. I couldn't even begin to imagine the social impact of it. I don't expect men to understand this because you are men and you will never have breasts.

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.

I can honestly say I've never heard of this being an issue. Any guy I've ever talked do who is circumcised does fine with normal condoms. I have never heard that it hurts. I can't speak for other girls but I know that if a girl is lubricated enough naturally, this shouldn't be an issue.

However, you insist on trying to protect another's property. Babies getting circumcised does not directly affect you, so why do you insist it should be banned? You don't stop other people from doing as they want. Is it terrible and unethical? Maybe, but you cannot coerce them to do anything they don't wish to do, which is as immoral as circumcision performed on a newborn.

I completely agree with this. Don't have your kid circumcised but also don't stop me from having my child circumcised. If the country I live in won't allow it, then I will just go to other countries where it is practiced and get it done there. Banning it in a country isn't going to stop people from having it done if it is really important to them. It is only going to make it harder and more dangerous.

I completely agree with this. Don't have your kid circumcised but also don't stop me from having my child circumcised. If the country I live in won't allow it, then I will just go to other countries where it is practiced and get it done there. Banning it in a country isn't going to stop people from having it done if it is really important to them. It is only going to make it harder and more dangerous.

right u r

Then what are children? Essentially, they are property in today's society. We just don't refer to them as such. If children aren't property, then how is it that another individual can claim responsibility for it? How can another individual coerce it into doing something it doesn't want? How is that something that was created by an individual, isn't property?

Children should not be property. Children are their own people with their own thoughts and feelings. Most will grow up to be productive members of society. They are human, and shouldn't be treated as anything less. The reason parents take responsibility is because as children they are likly inexperienced and incapable of making good choices. It's only temporary.

However, you insist on trying to protect another's property. Babies getting circumcised does not directly affect you, so why do you insist it should be banned?

Because it is not fair to the child. I don't consider people property, they are much more than that. I see it as more of human right than a property issue.

I completely agree with this. Don't have your kid circumcised but also don't stop me from having my child circumcised. If the country I live in won't allow it, then I will just go to other countries where it is practiced and get it done there. Banning it in a country isn't going to stop people from having it done if it is really important to them. It is only going to make it harder and more dangerous.

Nobody should decide to have a body part removed from someone else without permisson. Do you put yourself in the child's place? What if you were under 18 and your parents just decided that they would have your clitoral hood removed. Is it still fine?

Because it is not fair to the child. I don't consider people property, they are much more than that. I see it as more of human right than a property issue.

Again, it is not your child. Don't tell me what to do with my kid. These will be my parental decisions when I get older, so you have no say in the matter. Absolutely none. And if you decide to tell me that I can't have it done, then tough for you. I'll just go to another country. I really don't care what you think.

They are human but they are also young and immature. They don't know what is going on and their mind is still developing. Sure, they're not property, but their also not grown human beings. They have no concept of many important issues and problems and that is why they have less rights until they are 18. You're right. They're not property, but they're also not quite to the point of functioning adults. Parents need to be in charge of them so that they can be productive. If we let children do whatever they want, then I can guarantee you that most will not be well of when they do reach adulthood.

Nobody should decide to have a body part removed from someone else without permisson. Do you put yourself in the child's place? What if you were under 18 and your parents just decided that they would have your clitoral hood removed. Is it still fine?

Honestly if they had decided that, I wouldn't care. It's not like it's a big deal. It's a body part that is seldom seen. I've also heard that it keeps down there cleaner if it is removed. I'm not attached to it in the way that you are obviously attached to your foreskin. If someone gave me money in return for it being off now, I would consider it, with the only drawback being that it tends to be worse if you take these things off at an older age. But if my parents had for whatever reason decided to remove it, I wouldn't really care. If they took me in tomorrow and said you are having it removed, sure, I'd have a problem with it because I really dislike surgery and have a fear and again I've stated that since I'm older it's worse. But back then looking to now, I don't care.

I wouldn't really care. If they took me in tomorrow and said you are having it removed, sure, I'd have a problem with it because I really dislike surgery and have a fear and again I've stated that since I'm older it's worse. But back then looking to now, I don't care.

Woah woah woah. Why should it matter that you don't want it? You're their kid, and you're not an adult. You can't tell them what to do with their own kid right?

Parents need to be in charge of them so that they can be productive. If we let children do whatever they want, then I can guarantee you that most will not be well of when they do reach adulthood.

I don't think a giving you the choice of keeping a part of your body is really letting kids do whatever they want.

Again, it is not your child. Don't tell me what to do with my kid.

You're forcing a person to have a permenant change to their body for no good reason. When your chlid becomes 18, he will be an adult. And your decison to cut his foreskin will still be with him. You do not own him the same way after he becomes an adult, yet your choice to change his body may still affect him and he had absolutly no say in the matter. This is not fair. Why don't you let your child choose whether or not he wants his foreskin removed? Again, children aren't property and shouldn't be treated that way. People shouldn't be allowed to permenantly scar their child's body just because they're the parent. The only reason so many are okay with it is because over time it has become so common it's normal.

Woah woah woah. Why should it matter that you don't want it? You're their kid, and you're not an adult. You can't tell them what to do with their own kid right?

Dude it's different. I'm of legal age that I can choose. It is a heck of a lot different me now telling my parents that I don't want it done because legally they can't make me vs back then. You asked me if I would care now and I answered your question. You aren't really making any sense.

I don't think a giving you the choice of keeping a part of your body is really letting kids do whatever they want.

Okay then, let's let kids do whatever the heck they want. Let's let them eat everything and get fat and get sick. Let's not force them to go to the doctor if they get sick. Parents should do what they feel is best for their child. You might not agree with it, but that is the beauty of being a parent - it is what you think is right, not what your kid or anyone else thinks is right. Kids don't always know best. There are things that we should allow them to choose and things that we shouldn't.

Then what are children?

Developing people in need of guidance to help along that development. But people non the less.

Babies getting circumcised does not directly affect you, so why do you insist it should be banned?

I come from a predominantly Catholic family, what makes you think this practice of circumcision hasn't had a direct effect on me?

You don't stop other people from doing as they want.

You do when it comes to doing harm to another person against their will. In this case you're irreparably altering a persons body.

I don't understand your point. The removal of a leg is much worse than circumcision.

It's not just some flap of skin that gets removed, saying that's all it is would not be accurate.

I couldn't even begin to imagine the social impact of it. I don't expect men to understand this because you are men and you will never have breasts.

The social impacts are just that. If the situation with circumcision were applied to breast removed culturally you're argument could very well be in reverse. Such as with the use of neck rings to make the neck look unnaturally stretched or foot binding.

Oh and as for guys will never have breasts, THE MANTITS SONG (some language) :P

I completely agree with this. Don't have your kid circumcised but also don't stop me from having my child circumcised. If the country I live in won't allow it, then I will just go to other countries where it is practiced and get it done there. Banning it in a country isn't going to stop people from having it done if it is really important to them. It is only going to make it harder and more dangerous.

I have to admit this isn't a bad argument. This arguments does work better for personal choices. But this is something being done to another person.

Dude it's different. I'm of legal age that I can choose. It is a heck of a lot different me now telling my parents that I don't want it done because legally they can't make me vs back then. You asked me if I would care now and I answered your question. You aren't really making any sense.

I was still talking under the idea that if you were under 18. Sorry that it wasn't clear. My point was that children should not be forced to comply with whatever their parents want. Right now I'm 15, but if parents have the right to circumcise their children just because they're children it would be okay to circumcise me now. I would not want to be circumcised and it shouldn't be my parent's choice just because I'm a kid. That was the point I was trying to get across. Even if a babies are people too, and you shouldn't have the right to treat them however you feel like just because they're kids, or just because you're their parent.

Okay then, let's let kids do whatever the heck they want. Let's let them eat everything and get fat and get sick. Let's not force them to go to the doctor if they get sick. Parents should do what they feel is best for their child. You might not agree with it, but that is the beauty of being a parent - it is what you think is right, not what your kid or anyone else thinks is right. Kids don't always know best. There are things that we should allow them to choose and things that we shouldn't.

Being a parent is not whatever you think is right. There are many parents who think beating their kids is the magic solution to their bad behavior. They are wrong. They are treating their child unfairly, and they do get punished for it. Circumcision is different from all of your examples because it can be held off. You must feed your child and bring them to the docter. If you don't they will die. They aren't experienced enough to make those decisions, but someone needs to make them. You can go your entire life without ever being circumcised, and since the child will be old enough to make that decison I say we let them make it. I said that the child should be allowed to decide once they've grown up. Because by then it's their body and they're compleatly in charge of it. I hope you understand that when I said let the child decide, I didn't mean let the actual baby, or toddler decide. They shouldn't decide because they aren't adults, but once they are they can decide for themselves whether they see docters, eat junk food, or whatever else. Some things, like circumcision, can wait until your an adult. Others, like the kind of food your child eats, can't wait. That is why parents must decide the food, but have no good reason to decide circumcison.

Good for Germany! Circumcision is a horrible thing to do to a child. I am sure if I ritually cut of the toe tips of babies, I would be locked up. Why is it any different for foreskins?

Why would it be aloud? At the very best, it is an unnecessary surgery on a vital part of the human body, on a human infant. Why would that be aloud? I can name any other body part, and I am sure that you would not allow me to cut it off a human baby just because my god says to.

The day religion is aloud it's own law is the day everyone has their own law.

First off, allowed*

Second, it's really not unnecessary...I don't feel like looking for links (because googling that isn't something I really want to do), but the procedure has been proven to lower the risk of transferring certain STDs and reduces the chances of infection.

Also, religion does not have "its own law", various religions have practices and traditions, good or not so good (the not-so-good ones are often called out and resolved in time).

Second, it's really not unnecessary...I don't feel like looking for links (because googling that isn't something I really want to do), but the procedure has been proven to lower the risk of transferring certain STDs and reduces the chances of infection.

The studies were stopped early, some physicians remain unconvinced. Even if this is the case, the use of condoms and providing better education has a far better reduction rate then what these studies suggested. Again even if it does help reduce the odds I would still call it unnecessary in the same way as per my example of cutting a breast off reduces the chance of getting breast cancer is unnecessary.

Again even if it does help reduce the odds I would still call it unnecessary in the same way as per my example of cutting a breast off reduces the chance of getting breast cancer is unnecessary.

But it isn't even in the same boat as chopping off a breast. I've previously stated that chopping off a breast is completely different. That is like saying that it is better to go ahead and remove the prostate to prevent prostate cancer because it is not necessary. Like it or, the foreskin has no necessary purpose.

The studies were stopped early, some physicians remain unconvinced. Even if this is the case, the use of condoms and providing better education has a far better reduction rate then what these studies suggested.

Anyone who doesn't use a condom is a doof. Unless you are trying to get pregnant, but for the average hook-up, you should always use a condom. It still gets me how many people fail to realize this. Anyway, there are studies that are showing that there is a higher rate of men with HIV who also are circumcised vs men with HIV who are circumcised. I can give you the link to the study if you don't believe me. They are actually suggesting people in Africa have their kids circumcised now...

Your main argument is that the banning of circumcision is that it is a violation of human rights while mine is that it is a violation of human freedoms and freedoms of religion.

But it isn't even in the same boat as chopping off a breast. I've previously stated that chopping off a breast is completely different.

And I've argued otherwise.

That is like saying that it is better to go ahead and remove the prostate to prevent prostate cancer because it is not necessary.

Yeah in a way you can make that argument as example.

Like it or, the foreskin has no necessary purpose.

Nor does having two breasts. I've even pointed out you can get along with out any. I will admit there are benefits to breast feeding but I have also stated there may be functions to the foreskin as well.

Anyway, there are studies that are showing that there is a higher rate of men with HIV who also are circumcised vs men with HIV who are circumcised. I can give you the link to the study if you don't believe me. They are actually suggesting people in Africa have their kids circumcised now...

Yeah I know of the studies, those were the ones that weren't completed and are contested. But it doesn't matter, it's still unnecessary when you can do just as good or even better with other less evasive methods.

Your main argument is that the banning of circumcision is that it is a violation of human rights while mine is that it is a violation of human freedoms and freedoms of religion.

The freedom to go around and cutting off other people's body parts without consent from that person isn't a freedom someone should have.

The studies were stopped early, some physicians remain unconvinced. Even if this is the case, the use of condoms and providing better education has a far better reduction rate then what these studies suggested.

Drinking water instead of alcohol is also allot healthier, but I don't see them ban alcohol anytime soon.

Again even if it does help reduce the odds I would still call it unnecessary in the same way as per my example of cutting a breast off reduces the chance of getting breast cancer is unnecessary.

how can you even compare breast to something that is totally unneeded as foreskin.

The freedom to go around and cutting off other people's body parts without consent from that person isn't a freedom someone should have.

A part that is totally not needed. I wonder when it gonna be a crime to cut hair...