should Infant Circumssion be banned?

"compliment the feminine body" you can have fakes that achieve that (which you can't do with a foreskin). Breastfeeding is in no way necessary although positive so one could easily argue it is a good trade off to make sure your child never gets breast cancer. Surely if you think parents should be allowed to circumcise it follows they should be allowed to do this?

"compliment the feminine body" you can have fakes that achieve that (which you can't do with a foreskin). Breastfeeding is in no way necessary although positive so one could easily argue it is a good trade off to make sure your child never gets breast cancer. Surely if you think parents should be allowed to circumcise it follows they should be allowed to do this?

Also, the risk of breast cancer increases with age and poses very little threat as a teenager and even as a young adult, whereas infections/UTIs are things that can occur from infancy and early childhood and for something like a UTI, once you've contracted it once, you're likely to get it again

Thats completely different, what the hell does this have to do with gay marriage anyway.

The idea of parents making decisions on behalf of their child is frightening.

There is no risk of penis infection if it is washed everyday. I have never had one in 26 years.

We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore and people wash regularly, so this argument that 'circumcision reduces the risk of infection" is totally ludicrous. Following your logic, you could also say that we should shave our heads to get rid of head lice.

The health/hygeine benefits only apply if the person in question does not wash themselves. There is also a risk of complications which can cause a whole series of problematic issues.

Also, I didn't realize child mutilation was a joke.

This is one of those rare instances where the government would be quite justified in banning something. Outdated and ridiculous practice.

What's wrong with it? They do it to everyone here in the US, and the men here all seem to be doing okay. I've never heard of a guy here keeping the foreskin unless he was a Catholic or a Muslim.

It's just excess skin that would require me to bathe more regularly. I've never missed mine. And if I'm going to need it done, I'd rather have it done when I'm younger and won't remember it.

It's pretty unsanitary to keep that thing anyway. Eww. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.

Lmfao

Prepare to be attacked

What's wrong with it? They do it to everyone here in the US, and the men here all seem to be doing okay. I've never heard of a guy here keeping the foreskin unless he was a Catholic or a Muslim.

It's just excess skin that would require me to bathe more regularly. I've never missed mine. And if I'm going to need it done, I'd rather have it done when I'm younger and won't remember it.

It's pretty unsanitary to keep that thing anyway. Eww. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.

It's just excess skin that would require me to bathe more regularly. I've never missed mine. And if I'm going to need it done, I'd rather have it done when I'm younger and won't remember it.

.It's ultimately the parents decision, whether people like it or not. .

I honestly don't think it makes any difference and I don't prefer one over the other.

I agree 100% with your statement. Why is it that FGM is seen as a terrible thing whereas the mutilation of male parts is acceptable. It is fooked up. It may be part of Jewish and Muslim culture to do it but that doesn't mean it is cruel. When the child is an adult they shouldbe free to do it but until they are old enough to consent it is morally wrong to perform an irreversable medical procedure on a child.

While you might be fine with it, there are many many men that are not, that would have preferred to be circumcised against their will. And this is the ultimate issue; if you would like to be circumcised, you can have the procedure done when you are older. If you don't want to be circumcised, you cannot be uncircumcised



I want to tackle this, because it seems to be a consistent issue here: we are not not discussing whether it is current legal to circumcise a child..

We are discussing whether parents should have the right to circumcise a child, not what the current law in the UK is.


Maybe if it was a piece of you they were taking away, you would feel different.

FGM is carried out non professionally by an untrained invidiual. No anaesthetic is used. Girls can undergo it any age (from infancy right up to the age of 15, and sometimes even later) and is even carried out against the parents wishes. They literally take a razor blade or knife, forcibly restrain the girl and cut out the entire clitoris and the inter and outer lips of the vagina, therefore severe blood loss is likely. As it is carried out in unsanitary conditions, the risk of contracting tetanus, hepatitis, septacemia and other types of infection is incredibly high, as well as complications during childbirth and possible infertility. In addition, there's a risk of inability to urinate, recurrent UTIs, cysts and abnormal periods. Unlike male circumcision FGM prevents all sexual pleasure, so they literally feel nothing during sexual activity. In addition, FGM carries no potential health or hygienic benefits.