Should RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision) be illegal?

Posted by: DebateMomma

Please comment and tell me the reasoning for your answer.

  • Yes RIC SHOULD be illegal

  • No RIC should NOT be illegal

75% 18 votes
25% 6 votes
  • You don't mutilate a baby. You just don't.

  • it is completely unnecessary doctors have shown that it doesn't help with cleanliness and actually damages nerves causing diminished sexual pleasure

  • It's sickening to think that something like this goes through people's minds. "What a beautiful bundle of joy! he/she is perfect! Now it's time to cut up your genitals because...reasons."

    Posted by: roun12
  • The body belongs to the newborn baby not to you. It should be the baby's choice and they can't choose until they are an adult, so circumcision should only be done on consenting adults.

  • People should have a say about their bodies, and mutilating your child's genitalia before he even knows what it's for is at the top of the cruelty list. This is permanent, and the child had no say, so this is child abuse.

  • It isn't religious freedom to violate human rights of a child, all people are born with human rights. It's stupid to take away liberty in the name of fundamental religion. That's exactly what they do in Islamist countries, western countries like the USA are too civilized for this.

  • I know this is my poll, but I'm still going to vote on it. " It's cleaner, less infection" The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis, just like your fingernail is to your nail bed until it naturally retracts as the child grows (usually around puberty- teenage year) It seals out bacteria that causes infections. There's no bacteria that can make its way in there, it is completely fused to the head. Doctors in the US are not intact friendly for the most part so many give out poor intact care advice. The most common thing they say is to retract the foreskin when cleaning it, but because it is fused to the glans, retracting the foreskin is ripping the glans. This is extremely painful. (Imagine ripping your fingernail straight off, but a more pain sensitive area.) This is the reason you have heard of intact men having an infection, because they are being forcefully retracted, causing an open wound which does attract bacteria and goes untreated. It is a lot lot ripping your fingernail off. The foreskin is self cleaning, just like your eyelids. Females have more folds then men and we have no problem cleaning ourselves. All you have to do is wipe the penis clean (get ready for the same analogy) just like your finger tip. "It prevents cancer" Penile cancer doesn't happen until very late in life if it does happen at all. Usually around the late 80s. With this logic, we should also remove female breast buds from our newborn daughters to prevent breast cancer, which is far more common. There is also no proof that intact men are at a higher chance of getting penile cancer. "It prevents STDs" Circumcised men get STDs also. STDs are prevented by practicing safe sex and using condoms. Cutting off functioning skin will not prevent that. "Most men are circumcised so he will get made fun of." Only 30% of the United States is circumcised. A majority of men are intact now and circumcised men are a minority. Why would his peers be looking and talking about his penis anyways? Teach him to be proud that he has his WHOLE penis. In countries around the world, circumcision is unheard of. They have no issues. Our kids will be made fun of for anything. We shouldn't cosmetically alter them so that they don't get made fun of on the slight chance that they might. That's like pinning your kids ears back or giving your 11 year old a boob job. All ridiculous ideas. "The baby should match it's father" Why would a father and son need to have matching penises? Baby girls do not compare vulvae with their mothers. All genitals are different. No penis is exactly the same, so this is completely invalid. Females have foreskin also. Female circumcision became illegal in the United States in 1997. It was done for the same reason male circumcision is done today. Baby boys deserve the same protection as baby girls. Another fun fact: No medical institution in the world recommends RIC. It is the only time we treat an issue before the issue has aroused. Infections are treated with antibiotics, just like in women. Not with the amputation of tissue. It is considered a cosmetic procedure. The AAP even states the circumcision benefits DO NOT out weigh the risks enough to recommend circumcision routinely among newborn boys. Statistics prove that your child is more likely to die from circumcision complications than he is likely to ever need to be circumcised in life. 117 babies DIE on average from circumcision complications per year. That's around the same number of babies that die due to SIDS and we all know how much (as a parent) we are warned about that. Most insurances have stopped covering circumcision and if they do, they file it under the same codes as breast augmentations and other cosmetic procedures. Only 1 out of 16,667 men ever need to be circumcised (again back to most needing to be because of forced retraction.) , but 1 out of 11,000 infant boys die directly from blood loss or shock during circumcision and many more complications and infections afterwards. The glans of the penis are meant to be an internal organ. After circumcision it's forced to adapt as an external one, and because of that, keratinizes, or develops a layer of rough skin on the head in turn desensitizing it. Now for the surgery: (Plastibell- Most common) A circumstraint is used which holds down the infants arms and legs. A baby cannot get anesthesia like an adult can, so a numbing cream is applied. This cream only effects one layer of skin and takes at least 15 minutes to take effect. Doctors almost never wait 15 minutes before beginning the procedure after this cream is applied. The first thing they do is use a tool to separate the membranes from the glans or head of the penis. This literally rips the membranes apart. This is similar to sticking a metal tool under your fingernail and prying it away from the skin. The bell is placed between the foreskin and the glans and the foreskin is stretched out. A ligature is tied where there is a groove on the bell. They make a slit on the dorsal side and cut as much foreskin as they can. A ring remains on the penis and falls of with the rest of the dead foreskin after about 5 days. Infection risk is very high because it is an open wound that is kept in a warm environment with urine and feces. Here are some links: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/hot-to-care-for-intact-penis-protect.html?m=1 http://m.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preveiw/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?

  • It's all about freedom of choice. An infant should not have part of his or her body permanently modified/mutilated unless medically necessary. For a consenting adult the procedure should be fine. Tax payers money should not be used for circumcisions that are medically unnecessary. Fortunately many states have stopped wasting money on this procedure.

  • Religious freedom. Parents should be able to impose religion upon their kids and this is not severe enough for the state to rightfully tell the parents no. Several treatments have been developed which allow for the regeneration of lost foreskin; upon reaching the adult age a circumcised person may choose to undergo this option if he dislikes what has been done to him.

  • By the logic presented by the other side, you might as well ban chemotherapy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-11-19T22:34:13.3153636Z
@Vox_Veritas "Religious freedom" alright. The child has human rights whether it be aware of them or not, and these treatments are experimental and there's some irreversible damage of circumcision. Religious freedom isn't mutilating people without their consent.
SamStevens says2015-11-19T22:58:59.3763646Z
Vox, what if a person's religion said to tattoo a child with a religious symbol? Do you find that acceptable?
MasturDbtor says2015-11-20T02:11:18.2022702Z
@ Forthelulz The difference is that chemotherapy is only used in the case of a medical emergency. If a medical emergency requires circumcision of a child then I'd allow it.
SamStevens says2015-11-20T04:03:09.2856436Z
Religious freedom should not give someone the right to carve up or change *other* people's body.
DebateMomma says2015-11-20T19:47:21.4540197Z
Religious freedom is no reason for a unnecessary cosmetic procedure on an non-consenting child. Some religions believe in human sacrifice. Do you support that too? Just for the sake of religion?
Wylted says2015-11-22T01:51:14.1498159Z
It seems like more than a cosmetic procedure. It's easier to keep an uncircumcised penis clean and from infecting.
dietorangesoda says2015-11-22T02:49:58.8756095Z
Actually that is a myth wylted
DebateMomma says2015-11-23T18:01:35.8729471Z
Circumcision is a cosmetic procedure. It is easier to keep an intact penis clean because all you have to do is wipe it. NO retraction, this is where infection stems from. It is harder to keep a baby who is circumcised from infection because the open wound is in a warm environment ridden with bacteria from urine and feces.
GeminiRising says2016-07-16T17:32:17.1245551Z
Freedom of religion is a poor excuse for having a medically unnecessary infant circumcision performed on males or females. Some religions require female circumcision on infants yet it is banned in most countries. What if your religion required the removal of the left testicle? I'm sure some people would justify it by saying "having one instead of two offers health benefits (you'll have a 50% less chance of getting testicular cancer)." I guess some parents might even want to have routine removal of the appendix and tonsils performed to avoid potential problems with these organs in the future.

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.