Poll: Circumcision
Total Members Polled: 175
Discussion
clio007 said:
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.
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.
There are hundreds of deaths a year and thousands of complications that lead to long term harm (and that's just in the Western world, I dread to think what happens in developing countries), plus the impact on the individual of having something permanent done to them without their consent. 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.
Why not let the boy decide when he's 16 or 18? What harm would be done to anyone by allowing individuals to decide for themselves? Religion does seem to have an unhealthy fascination with children's genitals.
clio007 said:
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.
Two points I'm trying to make with that analogy:
1) Parents do not own their children and do not have special powers over the child's human and legal rights. It doesn't matter how old the child is - it's a human being and a citizen of its country just like you and I are.
2) Circumcision and FGM involve mutilation of genitalia - how is that different to mutilation of fingers? Both are GBH.
Zoon said:
Religion causes more problems than it solves, I think most people would agree.
I would agree, yes. However I think more people would agree that religion should not put anyone above the law and above commonly shared moral standards. Disfiguring helpless babies with knives without medical need is never ok!RobM77 said:
That's strange logic. So if I break into your house late at night with a sword and cut off your fingers because my religion told me to, that's ok is it? How about if I ask your parents first?...
Two points I'm trying to make with that analogy:
1) Parents do not own their children and do not have special powers over the child's human and legal rights. It doesn't matter how old the child is - it's a human being and a citizen of its country just like you and I are.
2) Circumcision and FGM involve mutilation of genitalia - how is that different to mutilation of fingers? Both are GBH.
Ok so what your pointing out is that you are breaking human rights and a legal law by carrying out male circumcision? Please show me these laws? Two points I'm trying to make with that analogy:
1) Parents do not own their children and do not have special powers over the child's human and legal rights. It doesn't matter how old the child is - it's a human being and a citizen of its country just like you and I are.
2) Circumcision and FGM involve mutilation of genitalia - how is that different to mutilation of fingers? Both are GBH.
For point 2, you are going way off track here. I am discussing male circumcision not FGM which is completely unacceptable and has long term physical and physiological impact along with being against the law.
So not only are you comparing Male circumcision to FGM, you are now comparing it to cutting of somebodies fingers?
Please show me a law which states that male circumcision is GBH.
Edited by clio007 on Monday 26th February 12:09
clio007 said:
Zoon said:
Wound
For this purpose, a wound is an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin
Better not give them any injections too I guess. Let them grow up and make their own choices. Maybe the child may not want injections at all when they are older. They can decide when they are 16 to have them or notFor this purpose, a wound is an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin
Or are you an anti-vaxxer?
clio007 said:
Better not give them any injections too I guess. Let them grow up and make their own choices. Maybe the child may not want injections at all when they are older. We need their consent
When they are older they can decide for themselves, we are referring to babies and children. Also wouldn't an injection actually be useful, unlike chopping something off when not a medical necessity?
Zoon said:
When they are older they can decide for themselves, we are referring to babies and children.
Also wouldn't an injection actually be useful, unlike chopping something off when not a medical necessity?
There are health benefits with male circumcision.Also wouldn't an injection actually be useful, unlike chopping something off when not a medical necessity?
WinstonWolf said:
Do you have a point to make that doesn't make you look stupid?
Or are you an anti-vaxxer?
Damn. How will I sleep at night knowing that the Wolf thinks my opinions are stupid Or are you an anti-vaxxer?
I have no issues with those who disagree with vaccines. Thats their parents choice.
Ultimately, my opinion is that parents should have the choice.
clio007 said:
Zoon said:
When they are older they can decide for themselves, we are referring to babies and children.
Also wouldn't an injection actually be useful, unlike chopping something off when not a medical necessity?
There are health benefits with male circumcision.Also wouldn't an injection actually be useful, unlike chopping something off when not a medical necessity?
WinstonWolf said:
Do you have a point to make that doesn't make you look stupid?
Or are you an anti-vaxxer?
Damn. How will I sleep at night knowing that the Wolf thinks my opinions are stupid Or are you an anti-vaxxer?
I have no issues with those who disagree with vaccines. Thats their parents choice.
Ultimately, my opinion is that parents should have the choice.
clio007 said:
There are health benefits with male circumcision.
Health benefits to babies? Are you sure? Or do you mean some potential tiny benefits to a small subset of adult males in very specific circumstances? If the "benefits" won't be felt until adulthood then why not wait until the boy can decide? I suspect that the answer is that given the choice most men would prefer not to let some stranger loose on his todger with a scalpel....
clio007 said:
RobM77 said:
That's strange logic. So if I break into your house late at night with a sword and cut off your fingers because my religion told me to, that's ok is it? How about if I ask your parents first?...
Two points I'm trying to make with that analogy:
1) Parents do not own their children and do not have special powers over the child's human and legal rights. It doesn't matter how old the child is - it's a human being and a citizen of its country just like you and I are.
2) Circumcision and FGM involve mutilation of genitalia - how is that different to mutilation of fingers? Both are GBH.
Ok so what your pointing out is that you are breaking human rights and a legal law by carrying out male circumcision? Please show me these laws? Two points I'm trying to make with that analogy:
1) Parents do not own their children and do not have special powers over the child's human and legal rights. It doesn't matter how old the child is - it's a human being and a citizen of its country just like you and I are.
2) Circumcision and FGM involve mutilation of genitalia - how is that different to mutilation of fingers? Both are GBH.
For point 2, you are going way off track here. I am discussing male circumcision not FGM which is completely unacceptable and has long term physical and physiological impact along with being against the law.
So not only are you comparing Male circumcision to FGM, you are now comparing it to cutting of somebodies fingers?
Please show me a law which states that male circumcision is GBH.
Edited by clio007 on Monday 26th February 12:09
There are very specific and rare circumstances were circumcision benefits people, and the same goes for a myriad of unusual operations; routine circumcision of new born babies has nothing whatsoever to do with these potential benefits for a tiny proportion of people.
RTB said:
Not in this country thankfully. Mainly because people stood up to behaviour that was once deemed moral (by religious standards) but thanks to enlightened movements of thought have been done away with.
Really? That's the worst thing done in this country in the name of religion?At the end of the day it's a small piece of skin - not having it doesn't stop you doing anything. So like I said, I don't see why people get so worked up about it.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff