should Infant Circumssion be banned?

Your repeated reference to the law does nothing to strengthen your case; the debate is over what the law should be, not its current applications.

Bold bit: This doesn't apply to unnecessary decisions like genital mutilation, which has no benefits.



The same could be said for genital mutilation.

I didn't compare them; I simply highlighted the ludicrousness of your argument in implying that parents have the right to mutilate their children's genitals simply because they're the parents.

I recommend leaving before you embarrass yourself further.

And the skin is presumably not part of the penis? I think I'm pretty justified in calling that dumb.

No thanks, I'll keep quoting stupid people making stupid arguments to remind them of their stupidity. To call the foreskin 'just skin', even ignoring the stupid assertion that it's not part of the penis, is to diminish its function and impact.

The benefits are aimed primary for the future. Parents choose to circumcise their kids as babies because it's less painful/easily forgotten compared to doing so at 18 or whenever.

It's rare, but if you can significantly reduce the risks, why not? It's not detrimental to your health so in conjunction with the other benefits I mentioned, it's an added bonus. It's something your child won't have to worry about in the future.

It may be difficult to completely remove dirt and dead skin cells that reside in the foreskin, especially as a small child/preteen or even as a teenager.

Correlation does not imply causation.



Great, let's also remove the child's brain while we're at it so that it never has to experience discomfort of any kind, let alone discomfort in their genitals.



Why not cut off the child's hands too? And their arms and feet too so that they never have to undertake such a hefty task as washing themselves properly.

Even if these laughable excuses for 'benefits' were true, it would not do anything to suggest that male genital mutilation should be tolerated by the law.

Benefits:Reduces the risk of STDs & UTIs

The benefits are aimed primary for the future. Parents choose to circumcise their kids as babies because it's less painful/easily forgotten compared to doing so at 18 or whenever.
.

It is just skin, idk why that seems to hurt your feelings so much. Literally skin.

I doubt that's the rationale behind the decisions made by the majority of people who indulge in male genital mutilation. More often than not, it is a religious conviction that they have and one that they would not hesitate to fulfil if it turned out later in life that it wasn't done or was done incorrectly.

These 'benefits' do not exist and, even if they did, the cost of obtaining them is too great to allow parents to decide to carry out something as irreversible as genital mutilation on behalf of the child.



You're clearly blurring the lines between what can and cannot be seen as future planning on the parents' part. If you can't tell the difference between cutting your child's genitals and deciding whether to open them a savings account when they turn five, then you're beyond any help.



Yes, let's continue allowing this atrocity on the off-chance that you think it takes some effort to wash up properly. What really astounds me about your case here is how casually you're taking it, as if it's as routine as washing hands. I do hope you never have children if this is your attitude.

No it shouldn't, aesthetically it looks better and its mandatory for Jews to have it and has health benefits.

The risk of UTI is not only small, but pretty irrelevant. It is easily treated. and non-permanent (unlike circumcision).

The reduced risk of STDs is pretty minor when you compare it to traditional methods of protection. Not to mention this is no justification for doing so on infants. And in all honestly, is only really relevant to the 3rd world.

That being said, the idea that circumcision reduces the risk of either is contentious.



And what do you say to men who, upon growing up, are no happy with their parents choice?


Your completely disregard for a man's right to autonomy of their body is mind-numbing.

Just because the risks are small, doesn't mean they do not exist. I'm bored now

So are you suggesting that parents should not be responsible for their child? For some people, particularly strongly religious people, it is necessary.

We are nobody to judge their decisions regarding something that, IMO is pretty trivial and has been over exaggerated in this here thread.

How does circumcision remove a child's innocence? How does it negatively affect them physically, emotionally and mentally? How does it leave devastating effects on future relationships?

I'm not at all embarassed. Just because I understand both viewpoints therefore disagreeing with the majority, I should be made to feel embarrassed?

I didn't say it wasn't part of the penis, but the person referred to circumcision as something vulgar 'chopping off part of your dick'

It's hardly chopping off part of your dick! It's just removing skin!

It is just skin, idk why that seems to hurt your feelings so much. Literally skin.

lol so now we're talking about pretty much killing a child or leaving a child severely disabled & to compare that with the removal of foreskin? I'm tired.

religion is not the only reason for circumcision, which is why I made that point.

The benefits do exist.

What astounds me is how serious you're taking it. It's really not that serious.

You kidding me? I'm gonna have a house full of mini me's and if I decide to circumcise my future sons, I will and it would be none of your business

It is not necessary, mandatory, compulsory, obligatory or any other variant of that word. You and those who agree with you on this thread have said this so many times that I'm sick of it -- there is no law of nature that says that the genitals of children must be mutilated. It is therefore unnecessary, non-mandatory, non-compulsory and non-obligatory. If they feel so strongly about it, they're free to mutilate their own genitals. If particularly religious people said that their religion tells them to rape their children, would that be okay? I suspect not.

You obviously don't understand the word 'responsibility' if you think cutting off the part of the genitals of their child is something parents should be allowed to do.



Of course we have the right to judge their decisions. In the same way that I judge those who do anything else that is harmful to their children, whether that be beating them, raping them, or killing them.

'Trivial.' Hmm. I somehow doubt you'd see it that way if your parents decided to peel the cut off your nose when you were born. What you dismiss as 'just skin' serves a useful function when it comes to sexual activity -- which, again, I doubt you'd see as trivial if your parents decided to come into your room right now and peel the skin off your face or other body part.



Physically: tissue damage, pain, loss of blood, risk of infection during the procedure, disfigurement of the penis by leaving an ugly scar, difficulty engaging in sexual activity in the future, glans dries out and becomes desensitised due to friction with clothing material etc.

Mentally and emotionally: distress and pain during the procedure and subsequently while urinating as the wound heals, reduced pleasure from sexual activity in future, including masturbation and intercourse, possible feelings of resentment towards the parents if they happen to arrive at the correct conclusion about the morality of what was done to them etc.

Future relationships: Sex isn't as pleasurable with all those missing nerve endings because the penis is no longer as sensitive, (if in the UK) not being able to satisfy partners who prefer 'uncut' penises, feelings of inadequacy as a result etc.

Child's innocence: Hmm. Let's see... Geez, that's a hard one... I can't possibly think why cutting off a part of their body and putting them in immense emotional and physical pain (given the thresholds in children) might count as taking away their innocence.



You understand nothing. Your argument thus far has been paltry at best and morally reprehensible at best. 'it's legal so it's okay.'

We don't have the right to judge. Circumcision carries very small risks. Opting against circumcision also carries small risks. There is no right option, I wish you'd understand that

It's the reason in the majority of cases, which is why I made my point.



Proof, or GTFO.



Only a morally contemptible idiot would say that this isn't serious. Unfortunately, you're also immune to analogies. That usually works for idiots who're slow on the uptake but they seem to go over your head. By all means keep posting nonsense on this thread. It ensures that you develop a well-deserved reputation for obstinacy in the face of reason and helps members of this website save themselves the trouble of arguing with you.



Hmm. I'll continue to hope that you're infertile and, if you aren't, that this practice is outlawed by a more enlightened parliament than the current one. People like you don't deserve children.

P.S. Learn how to multi-quote, you noob.

So if parents decided to remove a daughters breast tissue would that also be their right? It has no real risk while removing the chances of their daughter developing breast cancer. Your arguments hold the same for this, hopefully you will see that this is a terrible thing to do as is circumcision. It is mutilating your child end of.

The breast has a purpose though. Not only does it compliment the feminine body, but it's a direct agent to breastfeeding and building a strong attachment with a newborn for the first few months of their life. It wouldn't be fair to take away that opportunity because of something that may occur in the future. Foreskin serves little benefit in comparison. Circumcised men are open to the same opportunities as uncircumcised men. Some would argue that it's better to make the risks as little as possible whilst also ensuring your child lives a relatively normal life.

I don't have a problem with circumcision, each to their own

Just because it's not compulsory, doesn't make it wrong. Not everyone agrees with you, and that's their choice and completely within their rights to disagree. You're right about that, there's no law that says parents should circumcise, but there's also no law that says parents should not circumcise.

If their religion involves doing something that may not necessarily be morally right in all societies, but is not law-breaking nor causing significant damage to the child, the choice is up to them.

Peeling skin off my face? Really? Yeah because I hear doing that can benefit me significantly in the future. :s

Physically: You and a couple others have stated that the reduced risks of STDs and UTIs isn't worthy of a benefit because the chances of contracting them is very low. The same applies to the physical complications of circumcision. When carried out properly and professionally, it is an incredibly safe procedure that lasts all of 20minutes (if that)

When people resort to insulting me, I tend not to respond and so this is the last time I quote you, hopefully the same goes for you.