Amazon.com Widgets

Should circumcision require an age of consent rule?

  • What kind of dumbasses vote no

    ''it's a religious freedom'' how about the human rights huh? The human right to not have a deformed penis? Religion should not stand above basic human rights.

    ''it's healthier'' fact of the matter is circumsising someone reduces their chance of cancer by about 0.5-1% and the cons for doing so greatly outweigh this small reduced chance of cancer

    ''they don't remember'' neither do people who get raped by th date rape drug but it's still wrong because in both of these situations no consent is given and pain is caused

    ''it's more hygienical'' what are you retarded? All you need t odo is to have an iq above 40 so you know how to your penis and that way hygiene will never be a problem

    ''we should respect cultures and religion'' I agree, HOWEVER if they purposely harm someone then screw respect we need to stop it, the cons of curcumsion outweigh the pro's

    circumsision reduced the sexual pleasure someone can have from sex which will greatly affect them throughout life, you should have no right to have someone endure that.

    Crazy people who want to mutilate their son or daughters genitals need help

  • This shouldn't need to be a question today

    This discussion should've happened decades ago. If it's legal for someone's parents to remove part of their genitals, at a time when they arent able to contemplate the choice, or even tell anyone their choice, let alone make a well informed decision, then it should be legal to have sex with them at the same age. If you believe the circumcision doesnt cause pain, then a penis inside them wouldn't either. Of course a penis would damage their body, but so does circumcision. It's entirely immoral for this to be done without any necessity. Let people choose wether or not to chop part of their own dick off, not other peoples dicks.

  • It's the child's right.

    Why should a kid have their body altered for a completely cosmetic reason? It's the child's body. If circumcision is allowed, then why can't I peel off my child's nails, or do any other type of procedure to my baby? And religious reasons? Why should you impose your religion on your child?

  • Should only be done on minors when it's a medical necessity.

    Circumcision should only be done on minors in cases of medical necessity. Otherwise it is cosmetic. Parents should not have the power to permanently alter their children's bodies for cosmetic reasons. The use of safe sex and proper hygiene provide better protection medically than circumcision provides. Males can also be inoculated against HPV. I am baffled by the arguments for circumcision as a potential disease preventative when we have so many more effective ways of prevention.

  • Yes, it should

    Though there are medical benefits to circumcision, particularly in reducing the transmission of the HIV virus, it should only be done at the age of consent--whatever that age is in each specific country. Circumcision is a potentially dangerous procedure and it is a removal of a body part. Not just "loose skin."

  • Not at all

    As a parent I have the right to ask that my son be circumcised. It is a simple medical procedure when the child is young enough and does not offer trauma. Parents have the right to do this and it is not against the child or their rights. It should be allowed without an age of consent.

  • No, doing so treads into too many gray areas.

    I begin this by saying that I'm in favor of intact. However, I respect the traditions of cultures and religions where circumcision is important and even though problems are fairly rare, everyone has heard of some story where the kid ought to have been circumcised. I suppose we could make an age of consent with exceptions, but when you start dragging in exceptions what's the point of the mandate in the first place? Parents should be well-informed, by all means, but as parents they still should have some say in helping their children.

  • No, it's better to get it over with

    Since babies can't remember anything that happens to them in the long run, it's better to get circumcision over with when they're babies. If men had to wait until they were grown to be circumcised, nobody would do it for fear of the pain. Plus, circumcision is an important religious practice for some, and it would be violating religious freedom to take it away from them.

  • No, it shouldn't

    The procedure is one that just makes things more complicated the later in life it happens. It's a decision that's good for hygiene (I would say aesthetics also but that's more personal opinion) and should be done early, dealt with, and moved on from, there is no need for it to be a consensual procedure later in life.

  • No, there are enough health concerns that parents should be able to make the choice

    I certainly understand the argument that circumcision is done to babies who have no say in the matter, at the same time I feel that parents should have the right to circumcise their children. There have been studies that suggest health benefits in reference to circumcising such as a reduced likelihood of contracting certain STDs.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.