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

Human rights grounds. Ritual infantile circumcision could easily be argued to be illegal on the basis that it involves the alteration of another person's body, almost unilaterally without consent, for no sound medical reason.

but then this is denying the rights of jewish/muslim parents and their right to raise the children according to their faith.... this will open up a whole can of worms...

wider issues can be addressed, such as the rights of parents to indoctrinate their child in their religion from a young age (some argue of "psychologcal" damage or "brainwashing")....

The main argument against male circumcision is that of consent, but when religion comes into it (and this procedure being a fundamental part of the jewish/islamic faiths), the debate becomes interesting and wide ranging.....

what if the parents wish to raise their child as a jew/muslim? Surely denying them the right to decide in which faith they want to raise thier child is wrong.

I don't believe the issue of circumcised young men and the "psychological" damage they experience is true. They may be a few isolated cases, but not enough to warrant denying thousands of people the right to raise their children in the faith they wish.

Mutilation, dear god, you really are an idiot to use that word and most of you against it have probably never seen a circumcised penis before. And quite frankly if you haven't got one, IE, you're a chick, you should really stay out of it.
It's cleaner and can have medical benefits, plus if it's too tight later in life, an adult circumcision is not a weekend op.

A circumcision is the least of our worries considering the atrocious parenting we are already seeing and will see in a generations time.

That's what bugs me about retards in the UK, they'll argue about what a person's penis looks like when there are cases like Baby P.

Mutilation, dear god, you really are an idiot to use that word and most of you against it have probably never seen a circumcised penis before. And quite frankly if you haven't got one, IE, you're a chick, you should really stay out of it.
It's cleaner and can have medical benefits, plus if it's too tight later in life, an adult circumcision is not a weekend op.

A circumcision is the least of our worries considering the atrocious parenting we are already seeing and will see in a generations time.

That's what bugs me about retards in the UK, they'll argue about what a person's penis looks like when there are cases like Baby P.

And quite frankly if you haven't got one, IE, you're a chick, you should really stay out of it.

The right of a child not to be mutilated without consent by far outweighs the right of a parent to raise their child in a certain faith. That will always be my opinion on the matter.

What if, in my religion, the child had to be circumcised on his 15th birthday and there was no getting around it. But when that day came, the child said he didn't want it done, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the operating table. Am I still within my rights as a parent to force him into this procedure? Afterall, he is my child and I must exercise my right to raise my child in my faith. Can that be justified?

labiaplasty is the female equivalent of the male circumcision, is it not?

and the term 'mutilation'.... can you honestly and say this can be applied to male circumcision.

as for sewing up the vagina (the most extreme form of fgm), how on earth can you compare this to male circumcision.....

surely such a view shows the reasoning behind your opposition to male circumcision.
Is your opposition purely to do with issues of autonomy?

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.

Mutilation, dear god, you really are an idiot to use that word and most of you against it have probably never seen a circumcised penis before. And quite frankly if you haven't got one, IE, you're a chick, you should really stay out of it.
It's cleaner and can have medical benefits, plus if it's too tight later in life, an adult circumcision is not a weekend op.

A circumcision is the least of our worries considering the atrocious parenting we are already seeing and will see in a generations time.

That's what bugs me about retards in the UK, they'll argue about what a person's penis looks like when there are cases like Baby P.

Remember its not as if after surgery you can pop a pill down the baby throat.

A young infant cannot exactly take morphine. Or at least I dont think so :shrug:

Wait. Why are you permanantly altering a child's body for religion when there is no assurance the child will believe or follow the faith.

Say for example if the child concerned grows up in life seeing other children's uncircumcised penises then realises this was down to thier rekigion would that not make the child harbor resntment towards thier parents/faith.

If you read my post and the one I was replying to you'll see that I was explaining that you cannot compare FGM with circumcision directly.

Circumcision is a well described procedure with little regional variation.
FGM is a catch all term meaning any form of non theraputic surgery on womens genetalia.

FGM is a spectrum, the mildest of which IS the female equivalent of circumcision.
The more severe of which is more like hacking off the entire penis.

Have seen dozens and dozens of each sort unfortunately. And shoved tubes down the pee hole. Fun stuff.

You are right, an adult circumcision isn't a weekend op...
Its a day case procedure. The operation lasts for less than half and hour, and you are home in hours. You don't even stay overnight.

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/documents/866/Circumcision%20%28Adult%29.pdf

tbh, don't believe the issue is male circumcisino itself, rather the associated with religion and parents imposing religous belief on young children.

It's not just a belief, parents force their kids to church and sunday school, is that all wrong now?

Sometimes I hate being a liberal.



Religion like christianity has survived because the fundamentals of it are based on surviving

I’m sure they anaesthetise the penis… not morphine!

Well surely they circumcise as part of their faith….an anaesthetised penis would be considered “unclean” and not just in the physical sense…
their aim is to ensure the child grows up in that faith and remains so, hence all the religious indoctrination. It is their right (well at least under british law) to do so…denying them this right would contradict the british laws and cause all sorts of problems for the law-makes and gov.

don’t think a child would resent their parents/faith for being circumcised, as everyone in their culture is the same…. the outside influence wouldn’t be an issue… If an individual is soo deeply disturbed by their circumcised penis, I suppose they would seek professional help to get to the underlying cause of their mental woes. They could sue their parents/faith (this **** happens only in America) but would most probably be laughed out of court because they can’t prove much.

The point is that in some peoples life, religion plays a massive role, so much so that they circumcise their child at infancy. This may be hard for some in a secular society to believe, but as such society we also have laws which uphold religious
beliefs/practices..

True as a believing catholic I understand religion and its importance. (well to the religous anyway) but I just dont like the idea of cirumcision. If a child was ill and needed it for some health. Reason then yes. Otherwise is object. My parents said if it werent for my dad I would have been circumcised. All of us (me and 2 brothers) woukd have been. IMO I would have pulled an. American on my parents if it went through.

I know this is a theological issue, but if jesus was circumcised, can it be so bad (appealing to your catholic sentiment)