To think that circumcism of under 18 year olds for non medical reason should be illegal

[Reallytired]

Cutting off a baby's boys foreskin is cruel and unless there are strong medical reasons it should be outlawed. Babies feel pain and sometimes circumcisms can go wrong.

There should be limits to what people do in the name of religion. Child abuse should not be allowed just becauase it is not PC to upset ethnic minorities. If an adult choses to be circumised for religious reasons with no pain relief then that is their decision.

The use of corporal punishment is heavily restricted in the UK. Infact there are many people think there should be a total ban on smacking. It is illogical not to campaign for a ban on the circumicising of little boys.

I completely agree

I agree its potentially cruel but I think it goes beyond simply not wanting to upset ethnic minorities - its more deep seated in the culture and religion of various sectors of society than just a simple preference, it has more significance than that.

On one had YANBU but on another YABU.

I totally, utterly agree with you.

But this will turn into a bunfight!

Er....its circumcision

At least spell it correctly before ranting about it

YANBU I totally agree, it should be banned o n both boys and girls unless for medical reasons, it's barbaric otherwise.

SloanyPony, female circumcision is deep-seated in the culture and religion of various sectors, as is 'honour' killing.

None of these things are acceptable.

YANBU

Also feel it's completely wrong. Wonder why Pussin is being so supercilious - do you feel circumcision is acceptable?

Oh lord, here we go again. This never takes us anywhere pretty.

Yes, it should. If it is non-essential and will not improve their lives in any way then why should it happen? Most body piercings or tattoos come with age restrictions so why should this be any different? I can't imagine that I'd be too pleased about other people mutilating my body for no reason other than that was what was in fashion or the kind of thing my parents liked when I was too young to make any sort of informed decision. I also think that people should not be given special thought because it has something to do with their culture or religion. What a load of rubbish. As though religion is something untouchable and, if mentioned in an argument, the other side must immediately be hushed and become respectful of that. Ugh.

Not related to circumcision, but something similar is a discussion I had with my sister. She had a transgender friend. Told me that she 'didn't agree' with this because of her religion. Didn't have a clue why a christian shouldn't agree with this and wasn't about to research it or form her own opinion, but expected me to accept that as a reasonable argument against a person doing what they, and medical professionals, consider to be the best thing available to them at that time.

I agree - you shouldn't be able to cut bits off people without their consent. Same goes for piercing small children's ears.

yabu and snore

Indeed, starsareshining, the case put by your sister is just one of blinkered acceptance of some set of 'rules' of what is and is not acceptable.

I query whether religion itself should be foisted on anyone too young to make their own mind up... without going too deeply into the pros and cons of circumcision (I'm against, as I know of no widely accepted 'advantage' in it being done - medical reasons understandable but no other seems reasonable to me), it strikes me that religion does a lot of harm in raising tension in countries, up to the level of persecution and killings.

No child has the 'choice' of being born of rich or poor, in an industrial country or on a hillside in the tropics, or their religion, because the first two aspects are pure chance, the religious (and traditional/ cultural) aspects are dictated by their parents, including (for some) marriage, circumcision, and other things.

While I am tolerant of others having [religious] beliefs, or none, I am less tolerant of any group trying to persuade others to follow their beliefs, whether as adults 'selling' their thinking to others, or as parents 'forcing' their children to accept some set of rules as the only (or 'best') option (sometimes to the exclusion or hatred of any others).

BootyMum, I think PussinJC was just wanting to correct spelling, without any 'hidden agenda' let alone being pro-circumcision, but if you try searching, best have the correct spelling, eh?

What about if there is a family history of problems there? It is much more dangerous and still very painful to perform the same operation on teenagers who have short foreskins. The operation isn't purely cosmetic, remember.

It's absolutely amazing people get away with it in a civilised society. If it had never been done before and some section of society decided to start doing it to babies now, there's no way it would be allowed, at least in this country. Funnily enough we have made some statutory progress in stopping the non-medical shortening of dogs' tails, but chopping off human foreskins- fat chance!

YANBU, but I can see this thread's not going to be pretty.

LittleRedDragon - that would be a medical reason.

I don't know how people get it done anyway, when my (ex)DP asked at the GP they acted completely useless, thankfully and said ask at the hospital when baby is born, and I didn't want to follow that one up anyway.

LittleRedDragon, millions of boys around the world have their foreskins intact. Surely medical problems should be treated when they arise?

"It is much more dangerous and still very painful to perform the same operation on teenagers who have short foreskins. The operation isn't purely cosmetic, remember. "

I think its non medical circumcision that should be banned. If a Consultant doctor thinks an operation is necessary then that is not child abuse. I am sure there are not many doctors who think that circumcision should be done routinely on newborn babies. Or the proceedure should be carried out by rabis or imans who have no medical training and possibly the sterility of the instruments used is questionable.

Surely it is easier to give a teenager GA than a newborn baby? There is more risk of a newborn bleeding to death than with a teenager. Ofcourse with a teenager you have compliance issues which you don't have with a small baby.

Just because a baby cannot say is in pain does not men it cannot feel pain. The law is failing to protect babies because of fear of being seen as racist. Its the fear of being seen as racist that led to the death of Victoria Climbe.

It is shocking that dogs have more protection from pointless ops than babies.

Traditionally it should be done on day 8 of a boy's life - the day when naturally antibodies and natural endorphins are at their highest.

I don't know about it being banned. I think it is a very different procedure from the female circumcision, which is more of a clitorectomy, iirc.

My DH had it done when he was a baby and is completely happy about that. His father was a staunch Catholic and it seemed to be related to that. He wanted to get DS done but we couldn't easily and I wasn't so keen that I felt like pushing for it. But I did get his tonguetie snipped at 2wo and that didn't hurt him in the slightest, not even a whimper, either then or later. So I don't know that it hurts all that much - you'd probably have to ask someone who does it regularly, like a Rabbi, how much it appears to hurt.

I also know that it was pretty much standard procedure in the USA for a while - and that some men over there formed a "Reclaim the Foreskin" group and developed ways of stretching the skin that was left to create a new "foreskin". One of them was a trumpet player and he realised that the mouthpiece of a trumpet was a very useful shape, so created a special set of weights with a similar end, that could be taped to the end of the circumcised penis - over time, the man would increase the weight to what he could tolerate, wear it all day, and eventually the skin would stretch. (Thanks to early Ch4 "interesting" late night shows for this one, can't remember which one though)

But whatever, the operation at an older age is far more uncomfortable than having it done young.

YANBU, but there will be lots of people who will come huffing in to say "yeh, well, I had my son circumcised for vague and nebulous reasons such as wanting his penis to resemble his father's medically altered penis (WTF??) and he's absolutely fine about it, and, plus, my uncle frank had a sore willy once, so yeh, right?" all the while being careful not to actually cut any of their own body parts off.

And while I'm at it, this reason of wanting your sons todger to look like his daddy's and grandaddy's penis. You do know that if you took a stand that could die out in two generations, right? Then they could all be in a special 'none of us have had our willies chopped' gang.

news article on men who reclaim their foreskins