Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So religious freedom gives you the right to remove a portion of a male baby's genitalia at birth? That's funny considering my religion denounces circumcision.
1. First amendment ...or free exercise thereof...
2. Then don't have your male children circumcised.
I'll break it down for you. What is the purpose of male circumcision in the 21st century?
The purpose hasn't really changed all that much since humans started recording history; it's about "family symmetry" to some people, religious dogma to others, STD transmittal, prophylactic medical concerns or just plain aesthetic preferences to yet others...
You feel like you're missing out on a lot of living because you don't have a foreskin?
I was circumcised at 23 to correct phimosis. You missed out on that. This whole thing is, IMO, blown completely out of proportion and being angry about being circumcised as an infant is really no different than being angry about not being born with an 11" penis: It's really a waste of time and oxygen because "you get what you get and you don't throw a fit". I would also assert that there really isn't much difference between being circumcised and being uncircumcised at all. I'm not enjoying sex or masturbation any less than I did before.
The actual issue is what limits should be set on medical decision making by parents for children.
OP appears to believe that all elective medical decision be postponed until the child is able to make its own decision.
The difficulty though is that elective is not a fixed quantity. It may have significant costs.
So what criteria is it that OP would prescribe? Shall a parent be barred from vaccination until the child can make its own election?
That's a fair question...and one that will always be open for debate. Should parents have their children's tonsils and apendix removed at birth because they might be a source of disease/infection at a later date? Should a mother that has a history of breast cancer be able to have her daughter's breasts removed to "protect" her from that possibility? I'd argue that a physical alteration of the body should be the child's choice when they are old enough to make an informed decision, unless there is an immediate medical necessity to protect their life. Such decisions shouldn't be done to alter the body to conform to societal norms...which change.
Vaccinations? No...I think the anti-vaccine crowd is a bit wacky. At the same time...I'll admit it's not a consistent argument.
You can click on this link to become better informed regarding female circumcision, or you can choose to ignore it and remain ignorant. Female circumcision involes the ENTIRE REMOVAL of the female's outer genitals. Male circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin of the penis.
If you are against male circumcision, then do not allow it to be done on your son. But to equate it with female circumcision is stupid.
IMHO, unless it is for religious purposes, it should be left up to the individual when he is of the age of informed consent whether to be circumcised or not. It's unecessary surgery.
Last edited by carterstamp; 08-22-2014 at 11:29 AM..
You can click on this link to become better informed regarding female circumcision, or you can choose to ignore it and remain ignorant. Female circumcision involes the ENTIRE REMOVAL of the female's outer genitals. Male circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin of the penis.
If you are against male circumcision, then do not allow it to be done on your son. But to equate it with female circumcision is stupid.
IMHO, unless it is for religious purposes, it should be left up to the individual when he is of the age of informed consent whether to be circumcised or not. It's unecessary surgery.
So you think altering the human body of children before they can consent for "religious purposes", which really are societal norms, should be OK? Well...how about this:
Well this has to be one of the weirder threads in the political section that probably doesn't belong here....
True, but it has been entertaining. The OP does make a valid point. On one hand women should have 100% decision space in regards to their own bodies. In circumcision parents are allowed to make the decision. Why the double standard?
True, but it has been entertaining. The OP does make a valid point. On one hand women should have 100% decision space in regards to their own bodies. In circumcision parents are allowed to make the decision. Why the double standard?
Because it is apples and oranges. Parents are still in charge of the child and are the ones making decisions for the child.
Because it is apples and oranges. Parents are still in charge of the child and are the ones making decisions for the child.
Parents should have the choice to have their female children circumcised, because...they are the ones making decisions for the child? Ah...no.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
