Male circumcision is more accepted because it is a relatively trivial, non-life threatening mutilation compared to FGM.
I believe this is the first time I've ever seen all participants be on the same page, a historic moment. All have understood that it is wrong to subject a child to this procedure. No one has been forced to submit to an opinion or coerced to do so. If a young boy of Jewish or Muslem faith wants o do the procedure when they're old enough to make an informed decision then by all means go ahead. They have the right to do so. But children are to be protected and properly guided until that they can do it for themselves. Cutting in babies are not proper guidance, let alone OK.
We should have a an umbrella law (in the EU) stating: no body modification of any kind can be done before the country's legal age has been met. Some dentists might disagree. We're still gonna be considered twats for this but atleast the next generation gets to choose.[/SIZE]
I'm glad to see this, I've no problem with people wanting it done when their old enough to make their own decision, but to force it on a baby is wrong in my opinion.
I think it's barbaric to inflict something like that on a child, And certainly not safe. http://www.savingsons.org/2012/05/2-week-old-baby-dies-from-circumcision.html
I'm a bit torn on the issue. I understand the argument against the procedure, and I do not have any objection if someone chooses not to circumcise his or her child. I am circumcised myself, and I don't believe there have been any negative effects from the procedure. My wife and I talked about it while she was pregnant, and after considering the options we decided that if our child was male we would elect to have him circumcised. We considered the possible side effects. We ultimately decided that the routine nature of the surgery and the possible benefits were enough to sway us in favor. We also felt that it would have been easier for us to introduce and begin explaining human anatomy - children often see their parents nude at some point, and mine would have looked similar. I will also note that religion never played a role in our discussion. As far as I know religion was not a factor when my parents elected to have me circumcised, and it was never a factor in our decision.
A win for common decency. Everyone has already said most of the points that can be made but my thoughts anyway... IF there is a definite medical need for it to be done then by all accounts it must be done. There is no argument there. To not do so would be detrimental to the childs wellbeing and is a no brainer. Any other reason is unacceptable, especially religion. Anyone can believe what they want to believe, I have no problem with that. You can be atheist, Jewish, Christian, Shinto or a devout believer of the second coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon for all I care, have at it, go nuts, but don't use it as some BS excuse to mutilate your child.
I'd think that's preferable to an ME thresher maw though Gets coat..... Sent from my HTC Desire HD using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
America is different though, it seems to be a nationwide policy to do it which is quite weird. Ultimately you are making the decision to modify your child's body in a way that cannot be reversed, where do you draw the line? You could also cut their ear lobes off as that would be a very simple and routine operation. You could also assume that your child will be intelligent enough to understand that human anatomy can vastly differ between people, cutting part of their penis off to make education easier for you is not a valid reason for it in my opinion.
Relevant linkage I'm not saying that 100 per year is an unacceptable number for necessary surgery, but that's 100 kids per year that have absolutely no reason to be suffering. There's no need for it.
And that is quite apart from the unnecessary pain that is borne by the children without complications Sent from my MZ604 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
I agree. The first principle of health care is Primare non nocere: Foremost, do no harm. Any medical intervention involves risk of harm and/or actual harm; this has to be outweighed by its medical benefits to justify the intervention. In short: medical interventions should only happen if doing nothing would make things worse. There is generally no medical reason for circumcision. It may reduce risk of penile cancer or possibly some STD's, but there are less radical and more effective ways to avoid the latter and the former is an incredibly small, distant risk. Cultural or religious tradition is always a bad reason for doing anything because it is basicaly irrational.
I had it done. Not a religious thing, but a medical necessity - something to do with the foreskin not being able to withdraw properly.... I think. I was around 3 or 4 at the time. No drawbacks (pun intended) from it, and to be honest, I've always considered it cleaner and more hygienic. It should still be a choice though... although it hurts more, and is prone to more complications when done as an adult.
Well said Nexxo, It's great to see the forum being so united against this Hopefully this will become an EU wide verdict. It might force circumcision underground for a few years but in 5 years or so it will have so much stigma attached to it hopefully it will die out. Just like talking on your mobile whilst driving, I didn't feel bad about it before the ban. Now I never use my phone whilst driving.
A family friend had a similar operation and that is a perfect reason for it to be done. It should not be allowed just because it is the parents preference.
Completely agreed. I was just replying to Nexxo as his comment could be misunderstood as there being no medical need for this to be done, which is wrong... although he did say "generally" in his defence.
