should Infant Circumssion be banned?

Which is worrying, because quite a few (as evidenced by this thread) don't understand why men (those most affected) are concerned.

I can't speak for other females, but I get it. I completely understand why you wouldn't want your son circumcised, but I feel like the men on this thread don't understand the argument for it either.

They have now started saying that we don't have a penis so we shouldn't comment. Right ok, that's mature. I made a thread about taxing Sanitary products and labelling them as luxury, and a lot of guys commented. You didn't see me say 'hey, you don't have a uterus that sheds once a month so stop posting'

It's not your body to decide what happens to it. You are a useless mother and should be sterilised

You don't even have a penis you have no idea what it feels like lol. It's just a horrible thing to do to someone. It's like cutting off an ear like OP said. Basically you'l still have a bit of function being able to hear through the hole but it will be ****ed up forever. And ofcourse a bit cleaner because there isn't an ear there anymore to wash lmfao. Which is the only pro MGM argument.

Ngl that 'it's cleaner' argument is the most stupid thing I've ever come across. "Well it's cleaner now because we've chopped it off." You don't chop someone's toe off just because it will save them cleaning it in the shower lol.

love how women are the only people who support this lol

#feminism #killallmen

I am a woman and this practice and those who support it make me sick to my stomach.

Which leaves the religious argument. But religion isn't compulsory, and babies and toddlers cannot be religious. Once someone is old enough to decide on what they believe, and can weigh up all the pros and cons of a circumcision, they can always go ahead with it then. That would make the gesture more meaningful (if someone truly believes it has meaning). Yes, it would hurt, but if they truly wanted a circumcision, that shouldn't be an obstacle. At least it would be their own choice.

From religious point of view circumcision is not just physical action, but rather religious rite. Are you ready to dictate religious people when and how religious rites should be performed? In fact you deny such notion as religious family, because of course it effects children physically and psychologically.

When it comes to children, religious rites involving them - and especially involving a religious sacrifice on their part - is meaningless, because they will not/cannot understand religion. When it comes to parents carrying out religious rites on their children, or any religious people carrying out religious rites on other people, then there absolutely should be limits to what they can and cannot do. I believe in freedom of religion, so long as the religion (most specifically the practice of that religion) does not cause harm to others. Circumcision causes harm.

For non religious people all religious rites are meaningless. But I'm speaking about religious people. You cannot move or change religious rites just because you don't see sense in them. As for harm - it is not proved in case of circumcision.

For non religious people all religious rites are meaningless. But I'm speaking about religious people. You cannot move or change religious rites just because you don't see sense in them. As for harm - it is not proved in case of circumcision.

Well, as said, children (especially babies and toddlers) growing up in religious families cannot be classed as religious, because that takes being able to understand religion, as well as being able to choose to be a part of that religion. So, indeed, any rites including/involving them are meaningless.

Medically unnecessary circumcision is harmful. Whilst it is rare, children have died as a result of the procedure, and every death is an unnecessary death. Other complications can occur - see here. Even if all goes well, however, there is a loss of sensitivity. I class that as harm. In fact, I would argue that removing healthy tissue without consent classes as harm.

Children are members of religious families and participate in their religious life. Again, your understanding is different from religious people.

The article doesn't say that circumcision is harmful. It just enumerates all theoretically possible complications of circumcision. And there is another article at the same site:http://newborns.stanford.edu/Circumcision.html
"Though widely practiced in various parts of the world, circumcision remains a controversial issue, with passionate feelings on both sides. The AAP has a policy of "neutrality" on the issue, and many physicians agree that both the medical risks and benefits of the procedure are small, so usually the decision is made by the family for reasons that are culturally, religiously, or emotionally based."

Just popping in with my two cents.

I come from a jewish family, however I have not had a bris due to complications that my grandfather had in his later life with his circumcision that has basically put my family off of ever performing the ceremony. Now don't get me wrong, we're not the most observant family by any stretch, but we know plenty of our own traditions and such.

Firstly, regardless of what anyone will tell you about aesthetics and health benefits, this was never the reason for a child to be circumcised. You have to remember the jewish faith is over 3000 years old and back then nobody gave a toss about those factors. However one thing that very observant jews (particularly orthodox and conservative cliques) value is the sanctity of marriage and the idea of sex only after the ceremony. The -main- reason it was originally practiced was to prevent boys from touching themselves and going after the pursuit of pleasure by removing: 1) The ability to easily stimulate yourself and 2) most of the pleasure from the act as back then the idea of following your desires was uncouth and such.

I personally am against the idea (Rare for someone of my background I accept) but I support the right of the child to have the procedure later in life if he so chooses.

For non religious people all religious rites are meaningless. But I'm speaking about religious people. You cannot move or change religious rites just because you don't see sense in them. As for harm - it is not proved in case of circumcision.