Amazon.com Widgets

Should it be legal to circumcise infants or small children without medical necessity?

Asked by: genecroix
  • Circumcision is beneficial!

    Although the anti-circ crowd wont admit it, the tide of scientific opinion is sweeping them away. The American Academy of Pediatrics changed its position in 2012 to reflect the fact that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. The World Health Organization believes similarly. It is up to the parent to make the best decision for the child at a time when circumcision can most easily be performed.

  • Guess I'm unfit

    I was circumsised at birth and wouldn't have it any other way . My step brother was not . Growing up I never had a issue and he constantly had uti and other issues . He finally got himself "cut" at 18 n all the issues stopped . Both of my boys are cut n the next one my wife is having if a boy will be cut aswell . I think other parents need to butt out of other parents business . Also if you make it illegal ever think it'll be like back in the day with coat hanger abortions n more children will be having issues ? If you choice not to circumsise your child I support that choice you made
    For your family but you should not judge or say I'm unfit to be a parent because in my personal life I experienced the bad and the good from circumcision

  • It's a preventative measure.

    Circumcision may carry risks, but so does immunizing your child. Only, immunizing your child could potentially kill them (even though it's rare). It's also been linked to the development of things like autism in some rare cases. The CDC recently released a study stating that the benefits far outweighed the risks. Don't take my word for it though, educate yourselves. http://www.circinfo.net/

  • Should require consent from the one undergoing the procedure.

    Because new data suggests that there are no significant benefits to performing the procedure in countries with access to clean water, and because the procedure comes with risks and permanent implications involving their private parts and future intimacy, I believe it should be solely the individual male's decision whether or not to undergo the procedure.

  • Well said, well said.

    I think it's explained well enough above. There is no scientific data to suggest any necessity to this barbaric and potentially dangerous act. If you would risk your child's safety, and even life, no matter how small the risk, for no reason at all, you should rethink your fitness as a parent.

  • No proof of its usefulness.

    It's often done by parents who think it is medically beneficial, but are ignorant of the fact that there has been no scholarly consensus as to the benefits of such a procedure. Those parents could potentially harm the child unknowingly because of the risks associated with circumcision, so such a procedure should be banned to prevent this from happening.

  • Life, liberty (this includes freedom from mutilation without consent) and the pursuit of happiness.....

    It's all a matter of choice and since the infant has no say in having a part of his/her body permanently removed/mutilated the practice should be banned on infants unless medically necessary (in cases where a baby is born with a deformed penis, such as hypospadias the foreskin can be used for re constructive surgery). If an adult decides that they want the procedure performed then that should be fine (just like getting a tattoo).

    Another problem is the double standard with male and female circumcision. It's a human rights violation for both boys and girls unless medically necessary. Then again, I guess there is a greater demand for baby foreskins than labia and clitorises in the world of medical research and by products. Tax payers money should certainly not be used to pay for circumcisions that are not medically indicated.

  • Two words: It's Medieval.

    I don't know if anyone else knows this, but there is actually a federal law on the books that says it is illegal to mutilate or alter the genitals of any female regardless of age without her consent. It would be improper to not invoke the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and ban it for both sexes altogether. And think about it: If your baby happens to be born with a prepuce (foreskin) every time it comes out of the womb, I'd reckon maybe the foreskin is SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.

    And don't believe all the lies that the pro-circ people say. It's all just dogma and Progressive-Era thinking. Remember John Harvey Kellogg, the guy who invented Corn Flakes as a means of curbing masturbation? He actually advocated for circumcision for boys and applying phenol (read: CORROSIVE ACID) to girls' clitorises. So many physicians back then believed that eating bland tasteless food was conducive to improving "moral health" because it was widely considered the "right" thing to eat. What a load of quackery.

    Here's what I propose: No more chopping the dicks off of young boys, unless the foreskin is damaged beyond repair and chopping it off is the only way to save the baby's life. Other than that, the foreskin is the no-zone for any alteration without informed consent of the person actually undergoing the surgery.

    Oh yeah, and combine the current regime of circumcision with the fact that anything that can go wrong WILL go wrong, and the fact that they strap you to a goddamn board the whole time, and it turns from "preventative medicine" to outright brutal torture not unlike something out of Hostel.

  • Well said, well said.

    I think it's explained well enough above. There is no scientific data to suggest any necessity to this barbaric and potentially dangerous act. If you would risk your child's safety, and even life, no matter how small the risk, for no reason at all, you should rethink your fitness as a parent.


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