Should parents be able to get their child circumcised without consent from the child?

Posted by: 132sque

  • No

  • Yes

44% 12 votes
56% 15 votes
  • Honestly it's simply genital mutilation. A parent should have no right to do it upon any grounds, it should be completely up to the child to decide. Why anyone would want to is bizarre anyway. There are no health improvements from it, as long as you wash you are fine. We all fine as long as we wash our bodies, health risks will be prevalent all over the body if you do not wash, that is no reason to start dissecting pieces off. On religious grounds, again it should be up to the child, it is down to them what they want to believe or not believe .

  • I would say no, because it is wrong to do anything violent to anyone, but i don't really care

  • Unless there is a serious medical condition that requires circumcision, but the vast majority of babies don't have that problem. Any other reason is BS. The diseases circumcision advocates claim it prevents are either easily treatable without hacking off a baby boy's sensitive bits or make the individual more likely to get the disease. Religion is not a reason because any non-medical alteration of the female genitals on an infant is illegal in many placers that still allow circumcision, yet there are many tribal religions that involve some sort of mutilation of the female genitals as some sort of ritual. The real reason circumcision became common among non-jews and non-muslims is because it was said to deter masturbation because of the removal of the penis's most sensitive part and the pain of the operation that would make whatever poor boy was having the circumcision associate masturbation with the pain of having his foreskin cut off without anesthesia. As you can tell, I feel quite strongly about this.

  • Male circumcision is nothing like the horrible torture they do to women. Still both should be illegal unless there is a medical need.

    Posted by: MrFox
  • There is a religious significance and is commanded by God. I am circumcised.

  • Honestly it depends on what is more healthy now-a-days because few people do this for religious reason. I've heard that being circumsised is healthier and it is also religious so I would choose this.

  • If the kid is like a teen or something, than no. But if it is for religious purpose than yeah.

  • it doesn't hurt the kid. people have done it for a long time and the kids are fine female genital mutilation is the one that actually causes long lasting physical pain and problems.

    Posted by: Stefy
  • Yes. A parent should be allowed to make health decisions for their child. Male Circumcision goes both ways. The WHO recognizes it as a medically okay thing to do. It is easier to clean, makes the penis less susceptible to infection, and has no side affects. If it is wrong to perform what some call "genital mutilation", then by the same logic, parents shouldn't be allowed to ask a doctor to give their kids a vaccine. You're poking a hole in the child's body with out their permission.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
132sque says2015-05-19T13:38:42.1222616-05:00 Here we have a court case which is VERY relevant and should be read. Disgusting
132sque says2015-05-19T14:12:20.7854813-05:00
@Squirrelnuts57 exactly you can make an informed decision upon research i decide to do what you want with your life. Am infant cannot
PinValentine says2015-05-19T18:12:39.8931665-05:00
A parent should be allowed to make health decisions for their child. It is like vaccines, medication, even what foods are healthy. If, after proper research and information is obtained, like the WHO current stance on male circumcision, then the parent should be allowed to have the operation performed.
PinValentine says2015-05-19T18:15:03.9775373-05:00
Nothing should be performed medically on religions grounds. Yes there are health risks all over the body, but if it can be stemmed at one part of the body, then it isn't necessarily a bad idea. By your logic, parents shouldn't be able to give their kids vaccines against measles because that only aids in prevention of a health risk for one part of the body, not all of it, and you are poking holes in the child's body without their permission.
132sque says2015-05-19T18:49:23.5291433-05:00
Circumcision is non reversible, limits sexual pleasure and has risks... "poking a hole" in someone's body has no effect whatsoever...It heals over. Body modification is completely different.
PinValentine says2015-05-19T19:10:39.1061492-05:00
You are correct on only two statement there. It is non-reversible, and it does have risks. Every medical procedure has its risks. All of them. Even vaccinations. The hole that was punctured in the child's body could become infected, or the child could have an adverse affect to the medication its self such as allergic reactions that neither the doctor, nor the parent would have been aware of yet. These risks are small for a vaccination, but they are still present risks. However, vaccinations are medically necessary. Circumcision is not 100% medically necessary, but it does have it's medical benefits, some of which are out lined above. You can find more information about the WHO stance here: http://www.Who.Int/reproductivehealth/publications/rtis/9789241596169/en/ As far as sexual pleasure goes, that is an inconclusive statement. Sexual pleasure is different from person to person, and is near impossible to accurately measure the sexual pleasure experienced by some one because of the contributing factors out side of weather or not the penis is circumcised. It is like attempting to measure pain. Everything from the persons mentality, their personal health and hygiene, Brain functionality, a persons comfort level, the penises shape, size, length, person's mood, and so many more factors come into play. It is near impossible to determine based on just circumcision alone, weather or not the lack of a foreskin causes a decrease in sexual pleasure. Unless you some how know of a way to measure pleasure that modern doctors and scientists are unaware of, in which case I would be glad to hear it. I also happen to personally know people who fit on both sides of the spectrum. I know circumcised men who experience fantastic sexual pleasure, and I know uncircumcised men who do not. I also know men who are at the opposite ends of that spectrum. Bottom line, is your statement on the decrease of sexual pleasure is inconclusive.
WNdebater says2015-05-19T20:51:01.4340599-05:00
It may not be harmful, but it serves no purpose. It isn't like a vaccine that prevents disease. Also, it hurts the boy in the moment when they do it, even if they can't remember it as an adult. Your religion could tell you to sacrifice your son, but that wouldn't make it okay. Also, if god didn't want your penis the way it is naturally, why wouldn't he make you how he wanted? Why make the body in a way that is wrong so that little boys have to be tortured? He is either sadistic or, far more likely, nonexistent. Please stop hurting your children in the name of your imaginary friend. On a side note, the fact that male genital mutilation is legal when female is illegal (for good reason) is a horrible double-standard. Where are the feminists who say "Feminism is about equality of both genders." protesting this?
PinValentine says2015-05-19T21:36:22.9375018-05:00
You obviously did not visit the reference I have provided. It does serve a medical purpose. I have already stated it, and the reference outlines it in detail. Honestly, if you are not even going to try to read what is provided, you might as well give up. If you refuse to learn both sides with as much information as you can grasp, then your opinion on the subject is dishonest. You also accuse me of condoning circumcision in the name of my religious beliefs. I have stated here that no medical procedure should be made on any religious grounds. I hold no religious beliefs, and I am fairly against any that use religion in any way. Female circumcision serves no medical purpose and is inherently detrimental to the young ladies health. We do not accept female circumcision because it is an unnecessary with no medical benefits what so ever. Again. I have explained and provided information on why male circumcision is okay. I have stated and provided references to what health benefits the circumcision provides. If you are refusing to do proper research to understand both sides of the topic, and to learn all the medical jargon that comes along with it, then your opinion is not only dishonest, but disrespectful. If you plan on ignoring information when it is presented to you, then you waste your own time. The fact that you refuse to even glance at the reference provided is disrespectful.
132sque says2015-05-20T12:19:39.6769544-05:00
Your reference was an interesting read. But from what i can see circumcision is in no way necessary in countries like usa or uk where water is easily available for hygiene, and condoms freely available and a much better prevention of HIV being transmitted. In africa certain african countries however where those are not available, then fair enough. But our own countries, modifying someone else's body is simply ridiculous. It is not necessary in the slightest. And yes it does decrease sexual sensitivity, therefore pleasure. I've been with many guys sexualy both cut and uncut. All those cut have near to no sensitivity on the head of the penis. Therefore with the risk, the fact that it is not your body, and the reduction (or chance even) that it will reduce sexual pleasure ...There is no plausible reason for it whatsoever. There is a complete difference between an injection and removing part of the body with a scalpel. However much you want to suggest risks are present with both. They are still totally different.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.