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

I agree that it shouldn't be allowed for religious purposes unless the child is old enough to understand what's happening and give consent. Same with piercing a baby's ears, makes me sick!

Actually it is.

THere are many grades of FGM, the mildest being excision of the clitoral hood, the worst being excision of clitoris, and labia and then sewing the vagina up.

Actually it is.

THere are many grades of FGM, the mildest being excision of the clitoral hood, the worst being excision of clitoris, and labia and then sewing the vagina up.

Doctors should be told to strongly advise against it. However if it is banned, the bad effects may outweigh the good ones - they might be done 'backstreet', most likely leading to severe damage.

I can just imagine the conversation when a baby is born.

Doctor: Congratulations you've given birth to a beautiful and completely healthy baby boy.

Parents: That's wonderful! He's perfect. Except for that bit of skin on the end of his penis. Lets cut it off.

I do find it quite strange that some religions feel the need to "correct" God's work. If God didn't want men to have foreskin, wouldn't they be born without it in the first place? That would make more sense than giving males foreskin then expecting their parents to cut it off.

Yes it should.

I'd go further. Bringing a child up in a religion should be banned.

It is mutilation.

Hacking off body parts is mutilation, and that's what circumcision is.

YOU may prefer the look, but not all girls do, and not all boys do either. So shouldn't your brother have been allowed to decide?

Suppose your parents had decided that they preferred the look of vaginas without clitorises. Would you still be so laid back and relaxed if you had sat typing that sentence with no clitoris to speak of?

Also, your brother lost a LOT of sensitive cells that day which are particularly fun during sex. He may not know it, and he may never know what he's missing... but that doesn't mean that the decision to remove that from him is justified.

So now, a quick roundup of your arguments:

1) It looks better.
2) They won't remember the pain.

1) Maybe so, but still not your decision.
2) Oh, so it's alright to batter kids about when they're young then?

Not really. It used to be cemented in Christian beliefs, but since then we've gotten rid of all the abhorrent ones and are left with the ones that we should agree with whether we're Christian or not. I'd say they were mostly humanist (barr a few).

Don't see why it's not possible to enforce. It's illegal abuse children in other ways and we do a pretty good job of policing and counselling against it, so why not?



If fail to see the downsides of such a consequence...

It doesn't matter. The point is that NOBODY should decide to lob off ANY portion of a person's body because they think it 'looks better without it'.

Morally, they do not have the right.

There is a vastly increased incidence of infection, and some few hundred people die as a result every year.

Might not sound like a lot of people, but for even just one person to die because of something completely unnecessary and frankly, archaic, is a disgrace.

Naturally, medically necessary circumcision should continue.

I was circumcised as a very young kid for medical reasons, and I didn't and don't feel violated in any way, even though I didn't really have any other options. I don't remember any pain, nor do I have any recollection that I was ever in any pain from the circumcision itself; all I remember was being put to sleep by an anaesthetist before the op. Unlike FGM there are no associated health risks, and equally no health advantages as proposed by some nutters out there, and it doesn't restrict the functionality of the male genitals in any way.

However I will freely admit that there is a personal choice element to all of this and whilst I'm not opposed to non-ritual (if you're going to circumcise your kids, do it for a reason other than your dumb faith compels you to do so) circumcision of kids I wouldn't object to all non-medical infant circumcision being made illegal.

If we were talking about clitoral mutilation I sense people would care a hell of a lot more.

There is a vastly increased incidence of infection, and some few hundred people die as a result every year.

Might not sound like a lot of people, but for even just one person to die because of something completely unnecessary and frankly, archaic, is a disgrace.

Naturally, medically necessary circumcision should continue.

But that is the issue! The majority of circumcisions are carried out for religous reasons. The british gov can't ban such a practice on theological grounds nor on medical grounds (the argument isn't there or strong enough)...

so what to do?

No, it depends on whether the moral stance is justified. If it is a religious based stance, then it's not justified, and should be ignored.



No, they shouldn't. The same way they have no right to decide whether their child is gay or straight, socialist or capitalist, tory or labour, heavy metal or poprock, etc, etc.



No, it starts when the individual is capable. However, efforts should be made to make sure that important life choices are postponed until the child is autonomous. That is, wait until they have the tools to listen to, dissect, analyse and make decisions about arguments before they are given religions to choose from. That is, wait until they have sex lives and so on before you go about lopping bits of their genitalia off.



GOOD.



I repeat myself from above. We already enforce similar laws against similar child abuses with no problem whatsoever, and anybody whose mind isn't clouded by fairytales and nonsense can see that non-medical infant circumcision is an abuse.