Newborn male circumcision: Should it be illegal?

California just signed a bill prohibiting cities or counties from prohibiting newborn male circumcision (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-10-03/circumcision-ban-california/50647014/1). Should the religious rights of the parents be more important or should the rights of the child to choose be more important?

Discuss.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "should the rights of the child to choose", assuming that 'newborns' are the children we are discussing; they don't have the mental faculty to choose.

 

The right for the child to choose whether or not they want it later in life. By letting the parents choose early in life before they child is able to, you are denying them their right to choose what happens to their own body.

 

Well circumcision is healthier for the child in the long run. To my knowledge the parents would have the final say on any other potential health risks that could be avoided before the child were able to make a conscious decision.

Although the health risks may not be immediate, or serious, it's better to be safe.

I don't believe that the parents should be able to make this decision for reasons other than health. (e.g. Religion)

 

No it isn't. There are some benefits to it, but they are all minimal and do not offset the risk that the operation itself has.

 

I was under the understanding that it is cleaner and strongly reduces the risk of infection.

 

You can just wash it. If you are too lazy to, it's your own fault.

 

Yes, it should be illegal. It's physically removing part of your body without your consent. This is equivalent to mutilation. The child should have the choice to remove it later in his life. There is nothing wrong with a foreskin as long as you take care of it/wash it like you should.

I'm personally circumcised (tmi? ) and if I could I would still have my foreskin. Mainly because I feel like I was mutilated at birth, and plus I have no religious obligation like many people do.

 

Yeah it should be illegal, I agree that it should be considered an act of mutilation. It's not a necessary thing to do, and the child's life does not depend on it so therefore they should be able to decide to go through this un necessary procedure when they are old enough to make logical and life changing decisions. Plus being circumcised deprives people of sexual pleasure because so many nerves are located within the foreskin layer.

 

I think it should be allowed, since it's the parent's responsibility to take care of the baby. If they wish to circumcise their child for health reasons, or religious reasons then they should be allowed to do so.

 

Well everyone is going to be coming up with some intelligent argument for this involving extravagant words and a lot of nonsense. But this one of those things where you just have to say, how gives a flying fuck. Its just a circumcision nothing bad comes from doing it or not doing it. Its not even a big deal at all why does it have to be argued over wasting time and money.

 

Hey I got a circumcision when I was born and I'm fine! I say it should not be illegal.

 

What rights does a newborn have at let's say 1 day old.

For the record, I too was circumcised and I don't regret my parents decision to have the surgery on me at all.

 

It permanently alters the child's body without his or her consent with no benefits and only disadvantages. This should be illegal, except when medically necessary, for the same reason it is illegal to give your newborn a full body tattoo.

 

How does it have disadvantages? Its easier to clean and gives less chance of infections. I am circumcised and id rather be than uncircumcised, the only advantage I can see is the extra skin keeps you warm in the winter.

 

The child doesn't have the mental capacity to give consent, and the age of consent legally is usually 16.

There is also a preponderance of benefits as opposed to risks. There are risks to all surgeries, even removing bullets.

Take a look here if you'd like a seemingly comprehensive list - http://www.mbf.com.au/Wellness/Articles/male_circumcision.html

Regardless, this is more of a rights issue unless you want to dab into emotions. Hence, why do you assign rights to a newborn baby of approximately 1 day of age, and on what basis do you assign these rights?

 

How do you determine when a person has the mental capacity to give consent? Let's put it this way: you can't. The role of a parent is to provide and care for their child, not force their religious views upon (which is the main reason for circumcision). Would someone let you tattoo your child's face because you believe in it for religious reasons? No. It would be considered abuse and your child would be taken away. The same logic should apply to circumcision and it should be banned to stop parents from mutilating their child because some cult tells them to.

 

Legally, it's 16, however a child is incapable of consenting at the age of 1 day.

So, raising children Christian would yield the same results? I'd question that being the main reason for circumcision, if we tally up the total population of Muslims and Jews, you'd probably find a percentage far smaller than the actual circumcision percent. I could be wrong, however.

You call circumcision abuse? Mutilation is a bit of a hyperbole.

You still haven't answered my question, why do you give that child rights, and on what grounds?

 

Age is nearly irrelevant, over time the child will gain the ability to make his or her own decisions. Animals cant consent, and you don't see us chopping up their bodies at birth for religious purposes. Do you know why? That's inhumane.

Raising the child Christian means nothing, plenty of people are born into a family with X religious values, and change to Z because it is their personal belief. Religion is no grounds for Mutilating part of a child's body.

Not really.
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.

Why does the child have rights? For the same reason you have rights. Your a living human being, and should be treated like one, rather you aware of whats going on around you or not. On the grounds that the child will grow up eventually and if he wishes he can make the decision by himself. How do you think its fair that at birth, we make the choice to do something to a child's body that can never be reversed?

 

The procedure was widely used due to religion and without that connection, it would not be prevalent today.

Female circumcision is called female genital mutilation. You are removing part of the males body, which is, by definition, mutilation. FGM is also considered a violation of human rights. Why isn't male genital mutilation considered that as well?

On what grounds do you give anyone rights? Every single person on this planet deserves basic human rights and the right to not have their body mutilated unnecessarily is one of them.