circumcision

The child cannot consent to many things that would have a permanent effect upon him/her. Thus, it would need to be PROVEN to be harmful for moral concern to be neccessary.

 

alot of people didn't have a choice, their parents got to choose for them.

 

What permanent things are generally done to a child with no major positive or negative effects?

 

I agree. Not because I am gay, but because uncircumcised penises look like earth worms.

 

What about female circumcision? Personally, I find it disgusting... I wouldn't want any body messing about with my genitalia in that way. I guess if it was more widely practised it'd be more generally approved by the masses etc. like male circumcision.If you're not sure how the process of female circumcision is carried out, I strongly recommend you read up on Wikipedia. Vile.

 

i think its rong but it also helps prevent infection as some kids dont clean properly if they arnt circumsized

 

Great, at least somebody brought up the subject. That's why I posted 2 quotes
Mostly female circumcisions are preformed to let a girl not have sexual pleasure, which is worse than male circumcision.

 

Well, pretty much everything. The environment THEY decide to put you in will ultimately have a permanent affect upon your personality and livlihood.

If a hermaphrodite is born, the parents have all the right to decide what sex the child should be, because the child is unable to speak for itself.

 

Im circumsized, its no big deal + if you were to be circumsized later in life you would be in a LOT of pain, as a baby you dont remember it =p.

EDIT: I also found this on wikipedia.
The sexual effects of circumcision are the subject of much debate. The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated "A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males." They continued, "Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."[15] In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer, but circumcision at a later age does not seem to confer the same level of protection. Further, because penile cancer is a rare disease, the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, remains low.[15]

The age-adjusted annual incidence of penile cancer is 0.82 per 100,000 in Denmark, 2.9-6.8 per 100,000 in Brazil, 0.9 to 1 per 100,000 in the USA, and 2.0-10.5 per 100,000 in India.[15] Researchers have reported that the risk of penile cancer is greater in never-circumcised men than in men who had been circumcised at birth; estimates of the relative risk include 3[159] and 22[

Circumsized men have a lower risk of getting nut cancer =o

 

It's difficult to avoid raising a child in some sort of environment.

Yes, because being raised as a hermaphrodite can have a negative impact on the child. Being raised uncircumcised will not.

 

guise, the majority of you are probably circumcised. Go on google images and type in circumcised penis, and uncircumcised penis. Its considered acceptable so normal in today's society.

 

Shredderbeam,
It still confuses me why you have such an agenda against circumcision.

The facts than can be established
- Circumcision is unlikely to drastically improve one's health nor decrease one's sexual stamina or function.
- While circumcision may have started within religious groups, it is now standard procedure in most hospitals in the United States.
- The possible complications involved with the procedure greatly increase with age. Waiting till the child is old enough would outweigh any possible benefits that it has to offer.
- The child does not feel (or remember) pain, nor is there any likely possibility that it will suffer in the future because of the procedure.

This leaves me with the conclusion that it should not be a mandatory procedure, but restricting parents from doing it would be a violation of their rights in relation to their children.

 

I am against it because it is an unnecessary procedure in which the child has no say.

 

... What?

No... just... no.

 

No.

If you would cut off some skin on a baby's penis, why wouldn't you cut skin from anywhere else? There is essentially no scientific proof(?) of any positives from circumcision, male or female, that could have been implemented from taking care of you're genitals.

 

Agreed. It may be accepted, but there's no proof that it actually helps.

 

Actually yes there is, go search it up.

 

No there isn't. The advantages you get from circumcision are minimal.

 

The child doesn't have any say to be begin with, regardless of what occurs.

Fundamentally, I believe it's the parents right to follow procedures that they believe are in the best interest of their children.

If these interests clash with the overall welfare of the child, then their are ground to stop the parents. Because such evidence has yet to be established, circumcision is both legally accepted by the law and morally justifiable to me.