i'm pretty sure that groups & individuals who don't circumcise already understand that cutting a perfectly good working body part from an infant is wrong & that is why they don't do it. the issue is educating those that do to understand that basic human rights of the child take precedent.

As for the religious aspect, there are alot of things religions used to support they no longer do, this is because times change & people become more educated.

That is obviously way off the mark. Latinos for example don't do it because it is not the custom or in the culture. Do you seriously think most of them even THINK about it? Do you think AFRICANS thought about it before the WHO came in said, you better do this, it will save many lives. My point is that it goes BOTH ways. You want to spread propaganda and doubts about how bad the thing is (and go so far as to have to utter nerve to support making it illegal even for Jews and Muslims) but your weakness is that there are actually some very good things about doing it, and why shouldn't areas of the world where it is NOT in the culture be exposed to positive propaganda as well? People of all cultures can then make informed decisions. Is it impossible that early tribal cultures were on to something good? The body isn't perfect actually. We don't need appendixes and they kill so many every year.

lol veyr funny to see Jingthings original post before he went & changed it.

Just wondering what other OPTIONAL medical proecudes parents make for their kids? I have a child & have yet to be gievn a choice of unnessecary medical procedures for him so just wondering in case I was missing out on something. lol

There are many things in the world, dear, that are happening that you personally did not experience. Perhaps you think your personal experience with your children can be applied to the entire world but that is a flaw in your imagination and knowledge. In other words, as you would put it, your problem, your issue. It's funny when I make strong points you just get all personal and call me hysterical. Again, that's a shamelessly cheap power tripping tactic.

I used my son as an example in reply to your claim that you ran around the dentist chair for a simple visit tt he dentist. If you don't want anecdotal examples then don't introduce them. m'kay. and you are being hysterical, your posts are the equivelant of a victorian harpy waving a hankie at a woman shamelessly showing her ankles. If you don't want to be referred to as hysterical then try to express yourself in a less hysterical way. And back on the power tripping thing huh? You really have a weak argument if you are trying to throw this one up again. I'll say it simply.,,,Grow up.

Anyway, yes I have a good example.

Relatives of mine had a MIDGET child.

They made the decision for him to go through YEARS of horribly painful medical procedures in order to gain 2 or 3 inches of height. This involved BREAKING HIS LEGS multiple times and pain in recovery that it is hard to imagine.

Many friends and relatives questioned the parents about this. Why are you torturing your child this way. But ultimately the decision of the parents had to be respected and of course there were legitimate doctors to support their decision. Right or wrong, they were clearly doing this in the best interest of their child.

The boy is now a young man. He is still a midget. But he did get the few extra inches.

To this day I don't know if they made the right decision or not. But it WAS their decision to make.

oh no a MIDGET. what was the point of the capitalisation btw, was it intended to shock or was it just more hysteria?

I have an opinion on the people who did this to their child, you wont like it so I wont give it but it is hardly a voluntary procedure, they were attemtping to give someting to their child that they presumably thought might improve his quality of life. an extra inch or two of height so not really a good comparison to removing a perfectly functioning body part.

That's just a bunch of personal attacks so I acknowledge your comments but there is nothing to reply to there.

That was an unfair shot but I believe your playing of the race/religion card was also wrong. I am also Gay, but also an atheist, that is my view and I would not impose it on any infant so why should you??

I referred, fairly in my view, to the issues of Muslims and Jews (which I know much more about) because this is a huge issue in history. The truth is these hysterical zealots who want to make infant circumcision ILLEGAL for everybody also want to step on Muslims and Jews. While for others it is more of a health issue, an aesthetics issue (Daddy wants the same for baby), sometimes a conformity issue as in America of the past, for Muslims and Jews it is at the very core of their IDENTITY, religious, ethnic, or both. These zealots are asking for a big big fight if they think they can get away with that.

I am not imposing anything on any infant. I am suggesting free informed choice for the parents is the civilized way because the procedure is not all bad or all good. So it is a reasonable choice for any parent to make.

These zealots are asking for a big big fight if they think they can get away with that.

Indeed. As I am sure you know, it took a civil war in the US to stop slavery which the southern Christians (rightly so) believed to be a direct mandate from their god. In the end the distaste for ownership of another human won through.

using words like zealots proves your own ignorance & lack of understanding of other peoples position. Jews used to make animal sacrifice, it was part of their ancient tradition & yet, it is no longer done. Many muslim countries imprison women who are raped, as adulterers or stone them to death & yet that position is being challenged even today, should those women just accept the practice because it is religiously held?

Homosexuals in uganda are being murdered today as being gay is considered an abonination against their christian beliefs & culture, should it be blindly accepted?

If a fight is worth having then have at it.

I will fight for anyone's personal rights. Be that women against right wing nut jobs trying to control her uterus with disgusting anti birth control laws, women & children being forced to marry against their will, the rights of adult men & women being able to marry whomever they chose & the right of a child to grow up with a fully intact penis.

If that makes me a zealot then I would rather that, than an oppressor of rights. I don't pick & chose.

Homosexuals in uganda are being murdered today as being gay is considered an abonination against their christian beliefs & culture, should it be blindly accepted?

What does that have to do with a custom that medical authorities acknowledge is beneficial to men's health?

I am responding to the suggestion that it's ok because it's religiously approved & cultural. so in Uganda is the persecution of gays based on their religious objection. pretty much the same principle.

and just to point out, that it is a custom that "some" medical authorities (not all & not globally) acknowledge is "possibly" beneficial to "some" mens health.

We are talking about male circumcision here.

We have been over this MANY TIMES already so don't even try it anymore.

Different things are different things.

Male circumcision isn't stoning.

Male circumcision isn't clitoris removal.

Male circumcision isn't murdering homosexuals.

We are all against those things OBVIOUSLY.

Again, the topic is male circumcision which is something guess what has some merit!

Yes indeed people want to make infant male circumcision globally illegal are indeed zealots on a destructive crusade of irrational intolerance. In fact, they are ANTI-SCIENCE as modern science is showing there are definite health benefits to the practice.

I am arguing TOLERANCE for freedom of information for both sides, and freedom for parents to make this medical decision for their children just like any other medical decision they might make. Within reason of course and male circumcision is within reason.

freedom for parents to make this medical decision for their children just like any other medical decision they might make.

Just like injections, or filling cavities or other medical procedures that are a slightly painful, but beneficial in the long run.

This makes 252 posts that have accomplished absolutely nothing. Only opinions have been exchanged and nobody has changed one iota from their original stance.

Is this a classic circle jerk or what???

This makes 252 posts that have accomplished absolutely nothing. Only opinions have been exchanged and nobody has changed one iota from their original stance.

Is this a classic circle jerk or what???

Totally agree and I said as much before. As its a social issue people's minds are basically set. That's why it needs to be legal and parents deserve the freedom of a CHOICE.

We are all against those things OBVIOUSLY.

why is this so obvious to you but cutting off a part of a babies penis isn't? That's my problem, you are either for individual rights or you are not. the baby is the individual having it's right to choose taken away, the parents are not the individual it is being done to. As pointed out by another poster, to back up the argument for by using dentistry etc you would have to prove the foreskin of every baby is defective in some way.

A parent performs their duty of care to their child when the child is in danger, pain or distress. They should not be causing these in their child. The talk about medical benefits is all very well & good but what about the well known & proven risks to the baby associated with the process.

If someone said to me, "hey we think you should agree to have a part of your child's penis removed, it has no immidiate health benefits for him but might possibly prevent the transmission of an std when he is sexually active, he would be at risk of cardiac arrest, infection & excessive blood loss if you agree to it but you know, it has a small percentage reduction in his chance of getting penis cancer so we think it is a good thing." I'd probably laugh in their face then call the men in white coats.

I am a male, 49 years old, never been circumcised, not got HIV and never had a STD. Therefore, like many, many millions of other males, the removal of my foreskin would have been a painful waste of time.

I am a male, 49 years old, never been circumcised, not got HIV and never had a STD. Therefore, like many, many millions of other males, the removal of my foreskin would have been a painful waste of time.

Good for you. Basically one irrelevant anecdotal report which is MEANINGLESS for public health and legal policies. From that, you would conclude you want to make infant circumcision ILLEGAL for all of humanity? I certainly hope not.

We are all against those things OBVIOUSLY.

why is this so obvious to you but cutting off a part of a babies penis isn't? That's my problem, you are either for individual rights or you are not. the baby is the individual having it's right to choose taken away, the parents are not the individual it is being done to. As pointed out by another poster, to back up the argument for by using dentistry etc you would have to prove the foreskin of every baby is defective in some way.

A parent performs their duty of care to their child when the child is in danger, pain or distress. They should not be causing these in their child. The talk about medical benefits is all very well & good but what about the well known & proven risks to the baby associated with the process.

If someone said to me, "hey we think you should agree to have a part of your child's penis removed, it has no immidiate health benefits for him but might possibly prevent the transmission of an std when he is sexually active, he would be at risk of cardiac arrest, infection & excessive blood loss if you agree to it but you know, it has a small percentage reduction in his chance of getting penis cancer so we think it is a good thing." I'd probably laugh in their face then call the men in white coats.

No problem. So YOU don't do authorize this for YOUR babies. Doesn't mean it should be illegal for all of humanity. BTW, you grossly twist the reality of the benefits of the procedure. If it was so horrible it wouldn't be nearly fully endorsed by the American pediatrician organization.

Again, one thing is not the same as another thing. Stoning adulterers not the same as infant male circumcision. Black and white non-thinking such as the shamelessly loaded:

That's my problem, you are either for individual rights or you are not.

has no place in the modern world of science and rationality. Each case must be considered for what it actually is.

If you guys want to argue that parents should think twice before ordering this procedure, you have my full support. Funny you don't support my desire that people not ordering the procedure should ALSO think twice, but whatever. My issue is the LEGALITY issue. Talk about not fair. It is clearly not fair to make illegal this procedure which has strong evidence that there are good benefits.

Homosexuals in uganda are being murdered today as being gay is considered an abonination against their christian beliefs & culture, should it be blindly accepted?

What does that have to do with a custom that medical authorities acknowledge is beneficial to men's health?

What are the benefits for babies' health?

Perhaps parents shoudl force their children to be circumcised when they ae old enough to get soe benefit from it.

SC

That's my problem, you are either for individual rights or you are not.

has no place in the modern world. Each case must be considered for what it is actually is.

so you aren't for individual rights then. thought so, glad you have confirmed it finally.

That's my problem, you are either for individual rights or you are not.

has no place in the modern world. Each case must be considered for what it is actually is.

so you aren't for individual rights then. thought so, glad you have confirmed it finally.

Cheap. Very cheap. Of course I am for individual rights. In the context of this issue, I am for the rights of the PARENTS to make this choice for their infants, like any other REASONABLE medical choice they might make for their children. The issue here again is that I consider the procedure reasonable (as do the WHO and many doctors and almost all nations) and radical fringe extremist anti-circumcision activists do not. I respect the right of fringe activists to have their opinions and promote them, but I don't respect the right of them to shove their agenda down all of humanity under the rule of national laws. Of course, it goes without saying that every parent should have the right to NOT order a circumcision. Please don't try to tell me you can't process grey areas and nuances in social issues. The real world as adults should know is not all black and white.

the LEGALITY is all to do with the individual rights. you can't see it cause it goes against everything you have been indoctrined to in your whole entire life. those of us with no vested interest can see the morality & legality issue regarding those individual rights very clearly.

I will explain this again after seeing your edit;

The individual is the child. The parents are not the idividual it is being done to without knowledge or consent. The parents right should not superceed the right of the child when it is the childs body an uneccesay medical procedure is being performed on.

A parents duty of care with regards to medical procedures comes into effect when the child is at risk. There has been no proof that cutting them at birth has any benefit for them through childhood, any possible benefits are in adulthood. Ipso facto, let the child decide to have it done or not at maturity.

I am a male, 49 years old, never been circumcised, not got HIV and never had a STD. Therefore, like many, many millions of other males, the removal of my foreskin would have been a painful waste of time.

Good for you. Basically one irrelevant anecdotal report which is MEANINGLESS for public health and legal policies. From that, you would conclude you want to make infant circumcision ILLEGAL for all of humanity? I certainly hope not.

No. My point being that my parents didn't need to unnecessarily mutilate me without my consent. I just find it absolutely amazing that you feel you have the right to make that decision for someone else.

Homosexuals in uganda are being murdered today as being gay is considered an abonination against their christian beliefs & culture, should it be blindly accepted?

What does that have to do with a custom that medical authorities acknowledge is beneficial to men's health?

What are the benefits for babies' health?

Perhaps parents shoudl force their children to be circumcised when they ae old enough to get soe benefit from it.

SC

This has been covered already. Also as said before, infancy is the most logical and humane time to get the thing over with.

I am a male, 49 years old, never been circumcised, not got HIV and never had a STD. Therefore, like many, many millions of other males, the removal of my foreskin would have been a painful waste of time.

Good for you. Basically one irrelevant anecdotal report which is MEANINGLESS for public health and legal policies. From that, you would conclude you want to make infant circumcision ILLEGAL for all of humanity? I certainly hope not.

No. My point being that my parents didn't need to unnecessarily mutilate me without my consent. I just find it absolutely amazing that you feel you have the right to make that decision for someone else.

If I was a parent, yes, I would feel the responsibility to do the best for the child and personally I think circumcision is beneficial you don't need to agree. Not so amazing really. Other than that, it's up to actual parents (which I am not) on an INDIVIDUAL basis. Mutilation is a loaded flame word. It is a simple medical procedure called circumcision.

all the while disregarding the INDIVIDUAL right of their child whom it is actually being done to.

all the while disregarding the INDIVIDUAL right of their child whom it is actually being done to.

If that's the simplistic melodramatic way you insist on spinning a complex social issue, I can't stop you. Not worth the energy to argue with a mind like that. Just hoping this kind of thinking doesn't take over legal systems. Parents deserve this CHOICE. Parents wanting to make this choice FOR their children can handle the absurdly overblown moral indignation from fanatics over this VERY MINOR surgical option. They can't handle it being ILLEGAL.

Homosexuals in uganda are being murdered today as being gay is considered an abonination against their christian beliefs & culture, should it be blindly accepted?

What does that have to do with a custom that medical authorities acknowledge is beneficial to men's health?

What are the benefits for babies' health?

Perhaps parents shoudl force their children to be circumcised when they ae old enough to get soe benefit from it.

SC

This has been covered already. Also as said before, infancy is the most logical and humane time to get the thing over with.

Unfortunately, most infants aren't in a position to make that decision. I am sure most males who decide against circumcision are glad that they were not those chopped earler in their lives. Let's look at it from the perspective of which is the easier decision to reverse, if the parents turn out to have not gone in accordance with their son's wishes...

SC

SC

What's your objection to it being done when the kid's older? Why is it so crucial to do it at this very young age?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect App

I am a male, 49 years old, never been circumcised, not got HIV and never had a STD. Therefore, like many, many millions of other males, the removal of my foreskin would have been a painful waste of time.

Good for you. Basically one irrelevant anecdotal report which is MEANINGLESS for public health and legal policies. From that, you would conclude you want to make infant circumcision ILLEGAL for all of humanity? I certainly hope not.

No. My point being that my parents didn't need to unnecessarily mutilate me without my consent. I just find it absolutely amazing that you feel you have the right to make that decision for someone else.

If I was a parent, yes, I would feel the responsibility to do the best for the child and personally I think circumcision is beneficial you don't need to agree. Not so amazing really. Other than that, it's up to actual parents (which I am not) on an INDIVIDUAL basis. Mutilation is a loaded flame word. It is a simple medical procedure called circumcision.

Sadly, the child doesn't need to agree either

SC

Again, we've been over this.

If it is not done in infancy, even if beneficial, it generally doesn't get done.

So if parents agree it is a beneficial procedure for LIFETIME it is indeed their responsibility to do the right thing in their minds for their child.

Children are under the age of consent for any and all medical procedures. The parents decide.