• Circumcision in America: Should it be the parents choice?
    186 replies, posted
I am a circumcised male, and honestly resent my parents for it. I believe that is should be the individuals choice, not the parents, while some Americans feel otherwise. People seem to justify the removal of the Foreskin via religion, saying it's healthy, and it prevents AIDS etc,. Do you think the parents should be allowed to make such a big decision for the baby, when the baby has no say in it? Or do you believe that the baby should be able to choose to be circumcised when he is ready if it is a religious matter?
Parents choice, just like your name.
It'll die out.
Should parents be able to force their young daughters to get breast implants or female circumcisions? Circumcision at birth is risky, medically necessary and permanent. There are a LOT of botched circumcisions which result in permanent damage to the penis, and the occasional death of the infant. And worst of all, we allow fucking holy men to do this to children, to boot. If someone wants a circumcision, they can make that decision for themselves. You can treat that decision the same way you treat tattoos or piercings or any other form of body modification for minors. The parents must give permission, but the minor must consent. There is no medical need for a circumcision to happen during infancy, and it is primarily a cosmetic surgery. (Also let's not pretend circumcision is a hygiene issue. Yeah, let's cut off one of the most sensitive parts of the male genitalia rather than going to the trouble of washing every day. That makes real fucking sense. It's not as though, historically, it had been done to prevent masturbation. Nope.)
No. It's the child's body, not theirs.
They should make their own choice when they become adults.
Where does this circumcision at birth tradition come from? Is it a religious requirement or what?
[QUOTE=MrTilepy;35842205]Where does this circumcision at birth tradition come from? Is it a religious requirement or what?[/QUOTE] It was a traditional jewish requirement, though many Americans have adopted it. I think it is a horrible example of accepted child genital mutilation and it should be banned everywhere
[QUOTE=MrTilepy;35842205]Where does this circumcision at birth tradition come from? Is it a religious requirement or what?[/QUOTE] Primarily from the earliest roots of Judaism. I think.
[QUOTE=MrTilepy;35842205]Where does this circumcision at birth tradition come from? Is it a religious requirement or what?[/QUOTE] It's a religious ritual stemming from early Judaism, perpetuated through the abrahamic religions. In some sects, girls are also circumcised by cutting off the clitoris. Here in the west, however, that is considered mutilation, while circumcision of boys remains the norm.
I was circumcised as a baby but to be honest, I don't really mind. I do agree though that it should be up to the child when he's older. It's just that it will hurt a lot more when they're 13 than when they're less than 1 (As in pain that will be remembered).
[QUOTE=titopei;35842298]I was circumcised as a baby but to be honest, I don't really mind. I do agree though that it should be up to the child when he's older. It's just that it will hurt a lot more when they're 13 than when they're less than 1 (As in pain that will be remembered).[/QUOTE] You realize you get put under anesthesia and you're given painkillers when you undergo an adult circumcision, right? With children, it's just snip-snip cry. Not even any local anesthesia, if I recall.
[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;35841872]Parents choice, just like your name.[/QUOTE] You can change your name, it's a bit harder to regrow your foreskin.
I'm circumcised and while I don't think about it much, but I do think about it enough to believe it should be the patient's choice.
I don't think there's much of a debate to be had here, then. It's just an illogical religious tradition. Child's choice. [editline]6th May 2012[/editline] It'd be interesting to see if anyone actually has any counter-arguments, though.
[QUOTE=Lazyboy0337;35842342]it should be the patient's choice.[/QUOTE] Why?
[QUOTE=MrTilepy;35842372]I don't think there's much of a debate to be had here, then. It's just an illogical religious tradition. Child's choice. [editline]6th May 2012[/editline] It'd be interesting to see if anyone actually has any counter-arguments, though.[/QUOTE] Most of them ignore the religious history like the plague and insist that it's medically necessary due to hygiene concerns (as if the dick isn't already the most frequently "washed" part of the man's body when he takes a shower) and cosmetic concerns, e.g. "girls will think he's a freak if he's not circumcised," which is tantamount to saying "everyone else is doing it." [editline]5th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bletotum;35842408]Why?[/QUOTE] Read the thread.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;35842408]Why?[/QUOTE] I would have thought that was fairly simple. It should be down to the person whether or not they want anything done to their body for non-medical purposes.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35842428]Most of them ignore the religious history like the plague and insist that it's medically necessary due to hygiene concerns (as if the dick isn't already the most frequently "washed" part of the man's body when he takes a shower) and cosmetic concerns, e.g. "girls will think he's a freak if he's not circumcised," which is tantamount to saying "everyone else is doing it."[/QUOTE] America is a strange place.
I was circumcised and I don't really give a shit, but I won't do it to my kid. It's, like, his penis. I shouldn't be able to dictate what it looks like.
A counter argument could be that a person circumcised from birth wouldn't know what it's like to have a foreskin thus wouldn't be deprived of something he never experienced (Same applies to foreskin holders). That is why you would usually have opinions favouring the experience that is true to yourself or find a reversal is unecessary. It's a useless piece of skin that may have protected you from thorny shrubs millenia ago so i find it difficult to believe there could be any other resentment apart from the authority over your choice. We can all agree upon this and rightly come to the decision that it would be better off not to cut it because some believe it denies your individual right to not have it done -even if if there is no other justification. Of course, i will then have to argue [b]is it ethical for your parents to have the choice in giving birth to you... silly as it seems but it is incredibly important to take on-board. People having resentment for their parents for doing so because they wished they hadn't been born thus needing to go through the anguish of killing oneself.[/b]
[QUOTE=Lazyboy0337;35842342]I'm circumcised and while I don't think about it much, but I do think about it enough to believe it should be the patient's choice.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;35842428] Read the thread.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=squids_eye;35842432]I would have thought that was fairly simple. It should be down to the person whether or not they want anything done to their body for non-medical purposes.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I misread lazyboy's post. I thought he had said that it should be the parent's choice.
If they can abort the baby, why can't they circumcise it? Not saying I necessarily agree with one or the other...
[QUOTE=Daemon;35843243]It's a useless piece of skin that may have protected you from thorny shrubs millenia ago so i find it difficult to believe there could be any other resentment apart from the authority over your choice.[/QUOTE] Actually the foreskin has an assload of nerve endings which allow the male to better determine how close he is to orgasm during intercourse. Additionally, the extra skin produces a sliding-motion around the phallus, reducing discomfort and chafing for the male. The foreskin is not a protective structure, it is a sensitive structure which magnifies the pleasurable effects of sexual intercourse for the male. It is cut off in religious rituals to discourage sex and masturbation in males. Removing it is akin to removing the female clitoris, in that it makes achieving orgasm more difficult and less pleasurable.
That is why i said you can't be deprived of something you could never experience.
[QUOTE=Daemon;35843357]That is why i said you can't be deprived of something you could never experience.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but that's dumbfuck logic. You could say that about any body part that serves a useful purpose. Those who are born blind don't know what it's like to see. That doesn't mean it's a great fucking idea to gouge a newborn's eyes out. It's mutilation, plain and simple. All you're doing is rationalizing. Poorly, I might add.
Well ok point made i replied too quick.
[QUOTE=Jookia;35842069]No. It's the child's body, not theirs.[/QUOTE] Does the child have a choice in being potentially aborted?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35843488]Does the child have a choice in being potentially aborted?[/QUOTE] No because the child doesn't exist at that point in time. If you are going to make arguments please ensure they do not violate causality.
I'm circumcised and i honestly i'm happy to be because when i was in middleschool me and my friends used to compare dick sizes one of them had his foreskin and shit looked NASTY he peeled it back and the whole dick was like purple it made my dick hurt
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.