To protect the rights of the child who cannot speak for themselves, especially as a baby, to not have a mainly cosmetic surgery. Medical necessity is a thing, though, so there should always be that exception.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Are you American? Are you circumcized? Then you NEED to watch this
- Thread starter alexg1989
- Start date
- Views 18,106
- Replies 245
- Likes 7
I would love to discuss that topic with you, but it's a bit of a red herring and has zero to do with this discussion X'D. Are you saying you favour banning non-necessary circumcision, but only after the banning of abortion?
Who told you such a thing? The foreskin has NOTHING to do with erection... The penis has what you can think of as a balloon inside that fills up with blood and that is how erections work, the foreskin is something completely irrelevant and doesn't affect erections (unless in EXTREMELY serious cases of phimosis), so what you said basically makes no sense.
Ho I didnt know about the Irish ,, gonna google it :-)
Anyways Americans that live in Argentina are not circumsized unless that you are from the Jewish religion .
You said it's about the right of the child. If it's not the right of the child to choose life, then no one can vouch that it's their right for a small cosmetic change.
Honetly I think this whole controversy is ridiculous. We're sitting around talking about penises
so your belief is that if we don't ban abortions (from moment of conception?), then we don't really care about babies (fully born) and no laws about autonomy are real regarding babies unless abortion is banned? That seems like an...odd position.
And yes, genital mutilation is a serious conversation that needs to be had
Last edited by osaka35,
Alright, it's not even worth arguing. I have the minor opinion and I should probably shut up before things get out of handso your belief is that if we don't ban abortions (from moment of conception?), then we don't really care about babies (fully born) and no laws are real regarding babies unless abortion is banned? That seems like an...odd position.
And yes, genital mutilation is a serious conversation that needs to be had
D
Deleted User
Guest
Guys, let's not turn this into an abortian debate. This is about the original topic of circumsicion.
Fetus does not equal child, but that's unrelated. It isn't just a "small cosmetic change". You lose sensitivity.
Yeah no thanks. If I had a son, i'd get him circumcised. People who don't get circumcised tend to be fuckin nasty and don't even wash their penis right. I don't care if he becomes gay or whatever sexuality becomes by 2040, ain't no boy of mine gonna be a nasty-ass.
Might as well cut the whole penis off, maybe the balls too. Easier to clean right? Can't trust a kid to clean their balls right. Having sex or pleasure doesn't matter.
Last edited by YamiZee,
D
Deleted-401606
Guest
To be fair my response is directed to just anyone that shares those beliefs which there is at least one in this thread.
this all got real political real quick lmao
im cool with being cut, like i dont gotta use my hands when i pee
im cool with being cut, like i dont gotta use my hands when i pee
Look at the weight of erect penises circumcised vs uncircumcised. Fun stuff.
What makes circumcision "funny" to me is less that it happens a surprisingly high rate in the US but that it was re-adopted. Honestly, as others point out it's heavily a cosmetic thing for many parents--they want their son to look like their father--and could be said to heavily originate from WWI where "clean your penis" was pretty much bottom of the list of things that were considered and for which any STD reduction was a positive--as even with the strong push for condoms in WWI. Funny how circumcision was such a deal breaker in the early church for conversion of gentiles to Christian that things like that (and dietary laws) were deemed unnecessary.
In short, virtually* all the medical benefits of circumcision are tied to things you do as an adult, it makes little sense to force it on infants. Add to this the whole American idea of choosing your religion and it's exceptionally odd. Of course in countries where they perform circumcision as a rite of passage, there's sufficient amounts of peer pressure to make most children fall in line. I imagine that if we outlawed the practice on infants and allowed it at 13** then we'd still see a massive amount of people still doing it without really much consenting.
* As rare as penile cancer is and as about the only thing that circumcision seems to have a substantial effect on, AFAIK it can still happen at a young age. Of course, one could preemptively remove all sorts of parts of the body based on the potential for cancer, so that's a really horrible justification.
** As young as they could argue to make the boy as malleable as possible. The irony of course is the other stated benefit is some STD protection which implies encouraging the practice so your son can have sex safer at an early age. This is of course the exact opposite to the behavior of parents to the cervical cancer vaccine where somehow removing a cancer risk would promote early promiscuity. Point is, if you raised it to 16 or 18, circumcision would probably most die out in a generation.
In short, virtually* all the medical benefits of circumcision are tied to things you do as an adult, it makes little sense to force it on infants. Add to this the whole American idea of choosing your religion and it's exceptionally odd. Of course in countries where they perform circumcision as a rite of passage, there's sufficient amounts of peer pressure to make most children fall in line. I imagine that if we outlawed the practice on infants and allowed it at 13** then we'd still see a massive amount of people still doing it without really much consenting.
* As rare as penile cancer is and as about the only thing that circumcision seems to have a substantial effect on, AFAIK it can still happen at a young age. Of course, one could preemptively remove all sorts of parts of the body based on the potential for cancer, so that's a really horrible justification.
** As young as they could argue to make the boy as malleable as possible. The irony of course is the other stated benefit is some STD protection which implies encouraging the practice so your son can have sex safer at an early age. This is of course the exact opposite to the behavior of parents to the cervical cancer vaccine where somehow removing a cancer risk would promote early promiscuity. Point is, if you raised it to 16 or 18, circumcision would probably most die out in a generation.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
- Locked
