Should non-medical circumcision of under-18s be banned?

Yes the first thing that comes to mind when someone says human rights is foreskin :rolleyes:

I think most people are concerned with combating diseases and poverty which ironically with the prior, circumcision helps to prevent

Well, most men would argue sex is one of the most important aspects of their lives, and as the penis is the main instrument of sexual activity, the unnecessary, irreversible removal of part of it is too.

The idea it prevents disease is also pretty much a myth. Source.

Tattoos aren't allowed to be performed on children without consent. Why is circumcision any different?

Reply 21

moregano

18

There are pros and cons to circumcision, it can't really be compared to "cutting off part of your earlobe", or to female "circumcision".

If we want to allow parents to have the freedom to bring up their own children and to do what they believe is best (within reason - and considering there are some benefits to circumcision as well as the negatives, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to want to do it), then we need to accept that there are some things which will never be seen as universally "good" for a child.

I know a girl who feeds her two year old daughter a happy meal five days a week. I think this is unhealthy and potentially damaging the child's current and future health, without her consent. Should that be banned too, just because I think it's wrong?

Reply 22

Potiron

17

Original post by lovely_me

I agree, but not strongly enough to elaborate.

I agree with this really.

Original post by haloturk

Well it was religion in the first place,
I would most likely have done it in the future because apparently its more hygenic, Might not be off course ...Plus porn stars do it lol

Other than hygiene, which might count as a medical reason and therefore is accounted for in the OP, don't you think that the person having it done should decide for themselves? I don't know what the age limit would be, but more importantly I think the OP was arguing that parents shouldn't 'mutilate' children for religious reasons, when the kid in question hasn't even had a chance to have a say.

You can do whatever you want to your own knob if you think it'll give you the stamina of a porn star. That's your decision to make.

Reply 23

HEJ92

12

Original post by Teveth

I find it disgusting that in the 21st century we still allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their children for ritualistic purposes. If an adult wants to have part of his penis removed for whatever reason, then let him go ahead, but to enforce it on a defenceless child is abhorrent. It's child abuse, it's sick, and it's a barbaric practice that needs to stop.

So basically you're saying a religious act should be stopped just in case the kid wants his foreskin?

It doesn't really make much difference if you have it or not.

Reply 24

User414413

18

What's the argument against it? I don't really see a problem. I had it circumcised and even though I probably wouldn't circumcise my children, I don't really see the problem with other parents circumcising theirs. What's the medical disadvantages? What's the harm? How likely is the harm? What's the medical benefits? How likely are these benefits? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? If someone answers those questions, I will reconsider my viewpoint. Also, how comes the circumcised adults rarely complain or campaign against it?

Reply 25

Diaz89

3

Original post by lovely_me

Well, most men would argue sex is one of the most important aspects of their lives, and as the penis is the main instrument of sexual activity, the unnecessary, irreversible removal of part of it is too.

Actually no, if this thread is anything to go by, most men have made it clear that they have no problem with being circumcized.

The idea it prevents disease is also pretty much a myth. Source.

It cites studies from 1898 and 1930,

Get with the times please
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/782656.stm
http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7249/1592.extract

Tattoos aren't allowed to be performed on children without consent. Why is circumcision any different?

Because they're two completely different things. One is predominately a fashion statement, the other is a prerequisite to religious and cultural norms as well as entailing medical benefits and at later stages in life it may become a necessity.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 26

Cinqueta

10

Original post by moregano

T

I know a girl who feeds her two year old daughter a happy meal five days a week. I think this is unhealthy and potentially damaging the child's current and future health, without her consent. Should that be banned too, just because I think it's wrong?

Well yes, since that it is illegal and you could report her for child abuse. The child would undergo medical and dietary tests and soon afterwards be put into care whilst the mum faces criminal charges for abuse and malnourishment of a child....

Reply 27

There will be Particles

1

This is a direct attack on the Jewish and Islamic faiths.

Reply 28

haloturk

11

Original post by Potiron

Other than hygiene, which might count as a medical reason and therefore is accounted for in the OP, don't you think that the person having it done should decide for themselves? I don't know what the age limit would be, but more importantly I think the OP was arguing that parents shouldn't 'mutilate' children for religious reasons, when the kid in question hasn't even had a chance to have a say.

You can do whatever you want to your own knob if you think it'll give you the stamina of a porn star. That's your decision to make.

Ahh i see where everyone is coming from and yes it should be the childs choice but like alot of things its decided by our parents, but if it was banned im sure alot of people will do it illegally and possibly under unsafe circumstances resulting in more problems.

Reply 29

moregano

18

Original post by Cinqueta

Well yes, since that it is illegal and you could report her for child abuse. The child would undergo medical and dietary tests and soon afterwards be put into care whilst the mum faces criminal charges for abuse and malnourishment of a child....

Lol, I hope you're being sarcastic.

Reply 30

blue acre

1

Allah has smiled on us, well actually he was smiling at everybody, we just happened to be in his direct line of sight.

Reply 31

duibb

Original post by ragnar_jonsson

Baby say it shood be banned....[Come on a baby can not say much also if women can murder their innocent guiltless children without anyone caring then what is shedding a little skin of a child in comparison with that which has proven to be beneficial by many experts. :mad:

]

Reply 32

Potiron

17

Original post by There will be Particles

This is a direct attack on the Jewish and Islamic faiths.

Would it not make more sense for adherents of the Jewish faith to cut off a bit of their penises/peni when they're older than 8 days old, so they actually understand the meaning of their covenant with God? Or do you think the take up would fall dramatically if people were actually given the choice?

Im a girl

There will be Particles

1

Original post by Potiron

Would it not make more sense for adherents of the Jewish faith to cut off a bit of their penises/peni when they're older than 8 days old, so they actually understand the meaning of their covenant with God? Or do you think the take up would fall dramatically if people were actually given the choice?

That is an inflammatory anti-semitic comment which I find most disgusting and invasive of my rights as a semite.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 35

lovely_me

18

Original post by Diaz89

Actually no, if this thread is anything to go by, most men have made it clear that they have no problem with being circumcized.

It cites studies from 1898 and 1930,

Get with the times please
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/782656.stm
http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7249/1592.extract

Because they're two completely different things. One is predominately a fashion statement, the other is a prerequisite to religious and cultural norms as well as entailing medical benefits and at later stages in life it may become a necessity.

Lol, 'if this thread is anything to go by' as if an internet forum is reliable enough to use as scientific evidence in a moral debate.

Furthermore, you obviously didn't read my source properly (what a surprise :rolleyes:

)
My source had recent studies, some were around one or two years old. :lolwut:

Also, from some of your sources some of them even argued against circumcision! In the BBC article posted, here is a following quote:
'We know from the US example, where the majority of men already are circumcised, that circumcision does not protect against infection from anal intercourse.'

The argument for circumcision that it protects against sexually diseases is irrelevant really, because most circumcisions occur when the victim is a child and obviously children do not have sex.
Therefore when a person becomes emotionally and mentally mature enough to have sex that they would be old enough to give consent for circumcision.

As for 'religious and cultural norms' I really do not give much weight to them in today's increasingly secular world. How can a child be religious? Stop forcing your religion onto defenseless minors, until they are old enough to decide.

Reply 36

Psyk

16

Original post by moregano

There are pros and cons to circumcision, it can't really be compared to "cutting off part of your earlobe", or to female "circumcision".

If we want to allow parents to have the freedom to bring up their own children and to do what they believe is best (within reason - and considering there are some benefits to circumcision as well as the negatives, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to want to do it), then we need to accept that there are some things which will never be seen as universally "good" for a child.

Personally, I think we should default to not cutting off a child's body parts unless there is a clear and significant medical benefit in doing so. In this developed and hygienic country, I really disagree there is a clear medical benefit to it.

Original post by Diaz89

Because they're two completely different things. One is predominately a fashion statement, the other is a prerequisite to religious and cultural norms as well as entailing medical benefits and at later stages in life it may become a necessity.

They're the exact same thing.

Reply 37

wtfCharlie

17

Yes. it's unnecessary, and immoral. If someone likes it so much they could've got it done later in life. I like my tattoos, but I wouldn't want my mum to have got them put on me when i was a baby.

Reply 38

Ocassus

12

Original post by Teveth

I find it disgusting that in the 21st century we still allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their children for ritualistic purposes. If an adult wants to have part of his penis removed for whatever reason, then let him go ahead, but to enforce it on a defenceless child is abhorrent. It's child abuse, it's sick, and it's a barbaric practice that needs to stop.