It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should circumcisions on children be banned?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I think we can all agree that children and babies are people too. So why is it that parents are allowed to make permanent and meaningful life long changes to their child's anatomy? Should this be left up for the child to decide, when he is old enough to make the decision for himself?

Should legislation be passed to ban circumcisions on minors?



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I was going to have my son circumcized when he was born but the dr didn't have the right size equipment and he suggested that we don't do it.

I am glad that we didn't have it done. If he decides that he wants it done when he is an adult, then it is up to him.

However, I don't think that there should be a law against it. Maybe an educational effort to inform parents and to let them decide if it is really needed.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
cleanliness is next to godliness aspect

religious aspect

how do woman prefer their men would be another aspect of this also

its not cut and dry

[edit on 4-8-2008 by solo1]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Very interesting topic of discussion, definitely. I have thought about the same thing, and know someone uncut for the same reason mentioned, wrong size equipment, etc...
I see that as a very good reason. Apparently kids before him who had been 'cut' were actually LOSING parts they should not have been !!!
About 36 years ago though, so don't know how likely that would be the case now..

As a woman who's been with both, cut and uncut... I think it really doesn't matter from my perspective, as it's not the most important thing in a relationship.

That said, it's interesting how the majority of men in the UK are uncut, and that is what women want.
While the majority of men in the US are cut, and that seems to be what the women want.
I think this is all it comes down to, what is socially the norm for the country a person is in.

Should the KID be able to make the choice over the parent though? No. To a newborn it's a simple and quick process that heals completely and causes no pain or problems in most cases. As an adult though, it can cause problems having it done so late in life, thus only being suggested in the case of health reasons.


I have no idea why I just ranted about this... Whether a man is cut, matters to me not at all. But not all women are the same, and perhaps whether the father is cut or not, has some play in it also.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
I'm cut and I thought it was the norm. That's the reason I was going to have it done to my son but apparently the babies do suffer pain. It's genital mutilation afterall. Hasn't there been an outrage because girls in Africa go thru the same thing?

My son was big...11 pounds, 8 ounces...the dr didn't have equipment big enough to circumsize my son. And I am glad, now, that he didn't.

It just seems to be the norm because it's tradition. That's the main reason. The health benefits probably aren't enough to make a difference.

But tradition isn't enough of a reason to put babies through that.

Or teenage girls, as in the case in Africa if I am not mistaken.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by Blueracer]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I think if i had kids, and the thought of circumcisions came into mind, i would rather leave his "Crown Jewels" alone. He would probably thank me later on, if not, its his choice to get it done, later on in life



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
In Europe, circumcision is only done be Jews and I prefer it that way. I don't really understand why so many gentile Americans allow such a barbaric practice to be done on their children.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
I have absolutely no memory of it being done and neither does anyone i know so it cant be that traumatic.Instead of listening to bleeding hearts saying how barbaric it is ask someone who had it done as a baby n i bet they dont remember a thing.My nephew on the otherhand had to have it done at 9 due to the skin becoming too tight n he walked around in agony for a week,same with mates of mine that had to have it done as a teen.
I really dont see how you can compare it to what is done to girls,guys only lose abit of skin after all.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConfusedOz
My nephew on the otherhand had to have it done at 9 due to the skin becoming too tight n he walked around in agony for a week,same with mates of mine that had to have it done as a teen.


Phimosis (tightening of the foreskin) can usually be fixed by an MD without removing the foreskin.

BXO is a much rarer condition where the foreskin doesn't only tighten but also turns white. This is the only case where circumcision seems necessary, although the symptoms can be fought be using corticosteroids (cortizone).


Originally posted by ConfusedOz
I really dont see how you can compare it to what is done to girls,guys only lose abit of skin after all.


You also lose some of the sensitivity of the upper part of your penis.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I have 5 sons and all of them were "cut" at birth.
It was a decision I made because as was said before, it is much easier to do when they are younger versus older, and it heals completely in about 5 days.
Here in Canada they use a small amount of local anaesthetic so that all that is felt is the needle prick.
I was told that it prevents infections and other problems later in life.
IMHO, it is far more barbaric when they do a "Heel Prick" blood test, which is a razor blade used to slice open the baby's heel then they squeeze out the blood.
THAT is nasty.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


I know what you mean about the heel prick. I knew they were going to do that but when it happened, I got really angry.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AccessDenied
I was told that it prevents infections and other problems later in life.


Sure... but it also thickens the skin below where used to be a foreskin, lowering sensitivity. The foreskin is there for a reason and shouldn't be cut if there is no medical reason.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Being cut has been proven medically that they are less prone to infections and STD's.

I'm cut and I had my son done as well. It was a choice that I made as I wanted him to be the same as me and didn't want to have the question asked why mine looked different to him when he gets older.

There are different ways the procedure is done these days, it can still be cut off or the new way that my son had done was like a rubber ring put around it and it falls off they fell nothing.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by cnm1976
Being cut has been proven medically that they are less prone to infections and STD's.


Cutting off a woman's breasts probably also decreases chances of breast cancer. That still doesn't make it a just thing to do.


Originally posted by cnm1976
I'm cut and I had my son done as well. It was a choice that I made as I wanted him to be the same as me and didn't want to have the question asked why mine looked different to him when he gets older.


So because they mutilated you, you wanted your son to be mutilated himself?!? What a lame reason....



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   
No,it should be a decision for when the child is older.If parents want to make a decision that involves cutting up their kids genitalia when the child has no say in the matter....



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
To cut or not to cut, THAT is the question, and topic...

Not our opinions on whether a member is a barbarian for having his/her child circumsized. Let's stay on the topic, ok?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join