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.
however, it is a parents choice to do so if it is their Religious belief since we do have Religious freedom.
This is an incredibly poor argument, considering that if one's religion would hypothetically state that parents need to cut off a finger or a toe from their children's bodies, then doing this would still be illegal.
2. but I see no reason to make it illegal and make people criminals either.
1. I think that you are correct in this regard.
2. See what you wrote for #1; this in itself might be sufficient reason to make it illegal, especially considering that there is a risk (a very small risk, but still) that one will die as a result of getting circumcised.
I was just curious how long it would take for Americans to support a man's right to control his own body, including the right to keep his foreskin. I support the right for men to decide if THEY want their foreskin but nowadays, why do women (particularly) get to determine if their son's genitals get partially removed or not? I believe in a man's right to choose. If a man wants his foreskin removed, then by all means, he should get it removed, but why has this decision been placed in the hands of legislators, some of whom are female?
I mean, you don't see male American politicians advocating for female circumcision. I'd really like to see a shift in our outlook as it pertains to male genital mutilation (i.e. circumcision).
If this ever occurs, then it might take a while simply because many/most people don't consider it to be a prominent issue.
I would probably agree with you that circumcising children without their consent in non-emergency cases should be illegal, though.
Grown ups have and make choices.
Babies do not, so your "my body my choice" thing is an utter failure of logic.
Actually, the anti-circumcision argument is (supposed to be) the fact that since an infant is unable to make this decision himself/herself right now, then this decision should not be made at all in non-emergency cases until this infant grows up and becomes sufficiently old and knowledgeable to make this decision himself/herself.
Again I ask, what benefits to not circumcising boys make the risk of increased spread of STD's and increased risk of penile and cervical cancer worth it?
In regards to STDs, you are aware that individuals choose who they have sex with and that there are other ways to receive protection from STDs (such as condoms), correct?
In addition, here is what I am curious about--how much greater (if at all) are the rates of STDs, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in European countries where the overwhelming majority of the males are not circumcised in comparison to the rates of these things in the U.S.?
Apparently men do have a choice here. I wonder if restored men would have the same issues with STD transmission and increased risks of penile and cervical cancers.
I am unsure as to how accurate this information is, but I have heard that a restored foreskin is not completely the same as a foreskin which has never been removed (for instance, in regards to the nerve endings in the foreskin).
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.
This is your experience; I am unsure that all males would feel the same way in regards to this.
There is nothing wrong with circumcision. It has numerous health benefits among which is reducing the risks of contracting HIV and other STDs, it also has hygienic purposes and most women prefer the cut look. It would be harmful to NOT have your son circumcised.
And yet in spite of all of these benefits (for the same of argument, I will fully accept your claim here), as far as I know, the overwhelming majority of males in Europe are not circumcised.
1. 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.
2. 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.
1. You make a very valid point here.
2. Vaccines don't result in the removal of people's body parts, though.
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.
