I think parents are within their parental rights to choose circumcision or not.

I'm circumcised and even though I prefer it that way I believe(morally) people should be given the choice. I extend this moral position to intersex children whose parents choose what gender there child should be as well. That decision should be left up to the person when they are able to comprehend the outcome.

^ Well, that´s good! More information than I really needed, but thanks anyway!:thumb:

^ Yes, any surgery that can be done can also be botched. I think the banning, and my own misgivings, are because of the unessential nature of circumcision, the lack of medical concensus, the lack of consent from the baby and the controvertial long-term effects on sexuality and intimacy.

Legally, I guess parents are usually within their rights to make the decision, but if they choose circumcision there is no reprieve for the child, whereas if they chose NOT to circumcise, the options for the child remain open. Why commit a poor kid to living without a foreskin on so little firm medical evidence? Why not let the kid decide for himself later?

You didn't answer the question. Why should a child not be allowed to make a decision about a medical procedure, no matter how benign, when they're old enough to choose for themselves?

*enters thread*

http://replygif.net/i/482.gif

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-j...troll-face.gif

*exits thread*

Because once they are old enough to choose, and if they end up having to go through it, it hurts like f*cking hell.

Again, if you could have heard the noises my 21 YO ex-BIL was making in the bathroom after he had to get it done you'd have a very different opinion.

It was done to me as a newborn and I did the same to my kid. Zero problems.

What's the big deal?

I'm not against not circumcising. I'm against the call to make circumcision illegal. That's it.

I can't imagine it would hurt any less as a baby after being circumcised. The difference is you don't remember. Your brother in law might have had some problems but that's a minority. The fact is most uncircumcised people living first world countries are fine. We don't live in a world where you might not get to bathe for a month or two anymore.

You're denying a person the right to choose. If someone decides they want to become circumcised later in life or end up needing the procedure then they probably understand that it's going to be unpleasant for a little while. The amount of people who actually end up suffering and requiring surgery is more than likely substantially less than those spared incipient suffering. If uncircumcised people actually wound up having substantially more problems than circumcised people there wouldn't be as much controversy. Judging from Lisna's statistics it would actually seem that it's people who are circumcised who end up having more problems

I imagine you can opt for local anesthesia if you do it when your that old. Is it the aftercare that caused the pain? Also, I don't think it's any less painful for a baby, so I don't understand the logic behind that argument.