Poll: Circumcision
Total Members Polled: 175
Discussion
fluffekins said:
Was done as a baby and likewise have 2 sons both done as babies, something I truly regret.
Should be illegal other than medical reasons and as a choice for adults.
Chopping off any part of a child cannot be acceptable. As for religious freedoms etc - do one.
Well said. Should be illegal other than medical reasons and as a choice for adults.
Chopping off any part of a child cannot be acceptable. As for religious freedoms etc - do one.
I went for option 2. If you feel having a foreskin in adult life is preventing you from reaching your full potential then by all means let some stranger at your tackle with a scalpel......
Need a 4th option please: in cases of true medical necessity OR for an adult giving informed consent.
Likewise the assorted f
king around of the genitals of babies born 'ambiguous' which until very recently was typified off by "lop it off and tell the parents to bring the kid up as a girl" - lot of very confused and distressed young people stunned to discover that someone saw fit to remove their dick because it didn't meet some arbitrary standard of dickness.
Likewise the assorted f
king around of the genitals of babies born 'ambiguous' which until very recently was typified off by "lop it off and tell the parents to bring the kid up as a girl" - lot of very confused and distressed young people stunned to discover that someone saw fit to remove their dick because it didn't meet some arbitrary standard of dickness. FlyingMeeces said:
Need a 4th option please: in cases of true medical necessity OR for an adult giving informed consent. .
That’s what I needed in order to vote. I have very strong feelings about genital mutilation of babies and kids, but of course if it’s needed and understood by an adult that’s completely ok.FlyingMeeces said:
Need a 4th option please: in cases of true medical necessity OR for an adult giving informed consent.
That may have made the poll results clearer.That there are 27% (at current reading) opting for 'Medical emergency only' i.e. therefore not an electable option for an adult, would otherwise seem a worryingly high percentage,
Edited for remarkably poor spelling
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Saturday 24th February 11:15
I have just voted for option 3
Despite being strongly opposed to mutilation of children if you drive it underground (fnarr, fnarr) the parents will ALWAYS find an unqualified person to do it on the kitchen table.
The complications of the above will always be more expensive for NHS to fix than a quick snip.
Hopefully that's got you talking.....
Despite being strongly opposed to mutilation of children if you drive it underground (fnarr, fnarr) the parents will ALWAYS find an unqualified person to do it on the kitchen table.
The complications of the above will always be more expensive for NHS to fix than a quick snip.
Hopefully that's got you talking.....
Option 2
Ban it universally, for those under 18 or not otherwise capable of making a balanced informed decision.
Circumcision for children / babies / learning difficulties is only acceptable for medical reasons.
Any parent or religious leader who would have a circumsision performed on a child should face severe consequences in law.
Over 18, and in sound mental health, go nuts (pardon the pun). Nobody would advocate banning all breast implants. Essentially it's a body modification, so long as it's done safely and to consenting adults (outside of medical necessity), I can't see a problem.
Ban it universally, for those under 18 or not otherwise capable of making a balanced informed decision.
Circumcision for children / babies / learning difficulties is only acceptable for medical reasons.
Any parent or religious leader who would have a circumsision performed on a child should face severe consequences in law.
Over 18, and in sound mental health, go nuts (pardon the pun). Nobody would advocate banning all breast implants. Essentially it's a body modification, so long as it's done safely and to consenting adults (outside of medical necessity), I can't see a problem.
RobM77 said:
Religious reasons: This is the same as FGM and done purely to limit pleasure or make it harder to achieve, especially during masturbation. Completely unacceptable
Agree with you on FGM but not on circumcision - unless they cocked mine up 
RobM77 said:
Hygiene: I think the hygiene argument is daft, because people should be taught to just wash under their foreskin and it removes the problem.
I think this makes more sense if you consider the climates and also the periods where the religious practice originated. Hard to relate to for us with temperatures over 15 degC being unusual, and soap and clean water readily available. But make it 25-30 degC year round with >90% humidity and soap and clean water in short supply and perhaps it's not so daft after all.Jambo85 said:
I think this makes more sense if you consider the climates and also the periods where the religious practice originated. Hard to relate to for us with temperatures over 15 degC being unusual, and soap and clean water readily available. But make it 25-30 degC year round with >90% humidity and soap and clean water in short supply and perhaps it's not so daft after all.
Foreskins were favoured by natural selection long before soap and water were invented. I would also hazard that any physiological adaptation then directly impacted the functioning of the genitals would be a prime candidate for natural selection to eradicate. We're shaped by our ancestors environment, i.e. the plains of Africa where it can get a bit warm 
The hygiene argument is made because the real reasons are, at best, spurious and at worst intentionally harmful.
clio007 said:
Yes thats right. Lets take away all rights from parents to make a decision for THEIR child.. As long as their is no law broken, whats the problem?
Next we wont be able to dress a baby in girls or boys clothes until they are consenting adults so they can chose their gender.
Your child isn't your property. You don't have rights as a parent you have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to do everything in your power to prevent harm to that child. Allowing an un-needed surgery being carried out for no good reason (religious beliefs and cultural practices are not good reasons) would probably fall under that responsibility. Next we wont be able to dress a baby in girls or boys clothes until they are consenting adults so they can chose their gender.
Parents can't choose to have their children tattooed either. Is that taking away their "right" to make decisions for THEIR child?
clio007 said:
Yes thats right. Lets take away all rights from parents to make a decision for THEIR child.. As long as their is no law broken, whats the problem?
Next we wont be able to dress a baby in girls or boys clothes until they are consenting adults so they can chose their gender.
Any other non-reversible, non-medical body modifications that you feel parents should have the authority to decide?Next we wont be able to dress a baby in girls or boys clothes until they are consenting adults so they can chose their gender.
amusingduck said:
clio007 said:
Yes thats right. Lets take away all rights from parents to make a decision for THEIR child.. As long as their is no law broken, whats the problem?
Next we wont be able to dress a baby in girls or boys clothes until they are consenting adults so they can chose their gender.
Any other non-reversible, non-medical body modifications that you feel parents should have the authority to decide?Next we wont be able to dress a baby in girls or boys clothes until they are consenting adults so they can chose their gender.
clio007 said:
Yes thats right. Lets take away all rights from parents to make a decision for THEIR child.. As long as their is no law broken, whats the problem?
Next we wont be able to dress a baby in girls or boys clothes until they are consenting adults so they can chose their gender.
Parents do not own their children, they are citizens with human rights like anyone else, and so laws apply to them like anyone else, including taking a knife to them and permanently removing part of their body! Next we wont be able to dress a baby in girls or boys clothes until they are consenting adults so they can chose their gender.
RTB said:
Your child isn't your property. You don't have rights as a parent you have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to do everything in your power to prevent harm to that child. Allowing an un-needed surgery being carried out for no good reason (religious beliefs and cultural practices are not good reasons) would probably fall under that responsibility.
Parents can't choose to have their children tattooed either. Is that taking away their "right" to make decisions for THEIR child?
Un-needed surgery, in your opinion. For the religious, its required as part of the religion. The responsibilities of the parents is to raise their children as per the teachings of their religion.Parents can't choose to have their children tattooed either. Is that taking away their "right" to make decisions for THEIR child?
You state the above are not good reasons - thats in your opinion. You cant understand the concept - because you dont have any religious beliefs and neither do you have any cultural practices (assumption made)
My opinion is that if there is no long term harm and there is no long term medical consequences, the parents can decide.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff