and zero problems after 70+ years! hehe

It's harmless. Let them do it. I can make the same argument about piercing little girl's ears.

should wait until the person with the ears is old enough to consent.

Ear piercing is easily reversed, remove earrings and the holes will close up. Penis's however do not grow back.

removing penises.

Foreskins, to be sure. They don't grow back. But in spite of folk tales about reduced sensitivity, I don't think there's much research to show that it does much but reduce disease transmission.

To each his own. So to speak.

actual owner of the penis being circumcised. Don't you think?

...or it is not to each his own.

I've never had a problem. It was automatic in the states when I was a kid.

I used to think circ's were no big deal and fortunately my attitudes have changed.

On edit: That poor little girl was screaming. It was frightening to watch.

Forcing body modification of any kind is against someone's will or without their consent is wrong. No matter the age. Period.

not the penis. If that's your best argument, you don't have one.

I could cut your finger tip off and your hand would still work but I'd doubt you'd be'd too happy about it.

they were in their 40s. It didn't affect their sex life and they didn't miss the extra skin. I don't know why you insist that removing the foreskin is the same as removing the tip of a finger. There is no comparison. Maybe "nobody asked", but I am offering my own experience to let you know you are vastly exaggerating the utility and importance of the foreskin.

You have nothing to compare with.

You position seems like rationalization after the fact.

But I assure you, reports of the horrors of male circumcision are greatly exaggerated. Millions of satisfied customers can attest to that fact.

Are you saying we need a little skin in the game?

Which is a very good thing.

I could make a religious argument that if God wanted children's bodies to be that way, He would have made them so. But I am not religious and do not believe in imaginary sky beings.

It is not okay to lob part of a baby's anatomy off because some made up, magical, sky-daddy told you to.

It is painful, for one thing, and carries a risk of complications which range from excessive blood loss to serious infection. There is no evidence that the "benefits" outweigh the risks.

BTW, I also think piercing young children's ears (or anything else) is child abuse. All people should have the right to make their own decisions about body modification.

for termination as well?

I've seen circumcision threads devolve into a lot of things, but an anti-choice abortion argument is a new one for me.....

That's where it came from.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy and holes in your logic for you.

Children are under the care and the responsibility of their parents and it should be up to parents. Sticking regulations and government edicts in where they are not needed will not end well.

... with the burden of not getting to fulfill a religious ritual that's done to another human being?

Really?

They should be old enough to ask to have it done and responsible enough to keep it clean so it doesn't get infected.

I was asked by my doc when I gave birth to a son if I would like it done and I said yes.

So what?

I had no sons, but daughters married Catholics, and THEIR sons were circumcised; sons-in-laws' decisions.

Same thing.

There are two different "things" here.

One has no detriment as a consequence.

One does.

Strictly speaking, the absolutist position is that anything that alters a child's body shouldn't be done without his consent. Do we make allowance for health issues that the state has blessed? Why? Or why not? Because it's the state and majority opinion? (It's not like majority opinion is wonderful. At one point majority opinion said to burn witches. Or to enslave or sell other people, sometimes black, sometimes not black. There was a nice slave trade in white Europeans in the Muslim world at one point.)

I say this because every injection, every surgery is some kind of emendation of a child's body, typically without his consent but with the approval of some agent acting on behalf of the community. It's just a question of which community gets to define what right and wrong are. For other communities.

I have lived in east Asia for over two decades and I met people who had relatives who had suffered foot binding.
They will all tell you it is not the same thing -- or even close.
Foot binding shatters the bones in the feet to keep the feet small. The binding prevents the woman or girl from being able to run well, and in many cases, walk more than several yards without being in great pain.

Foot-binding results in major impairment throughout life, to the point that most women who had their feet bound were unable to work outside the home. It also causes tremendous pain, and can result in life-threatening infections as a result of gangrene.

I see where you're coming from in that it's a modification to a human being who cannot consent to it being done, and which can't later be reversed if they decide it's not for them. I definitely agree that FGM shouldn't be practiced anywhere to any degree, but like foot-binding, I don't think it's really comparable to circumcision except in the abstract.

ETA: As a male who was circumcised at birth, I don't resent my parents for making that decision, nor do I feel that I've missed out or been deprived of something. That's just me speaking for myself, of course. Your mileage may vary.

inhibited a woman's ability to walk. You have no idea what you're talking about.

removal of a useless flap of skin that requires constant attention because it collects bacteria and secretions. Believe me, I'm better off without it.

...for religious reasons with out your consent?
I am guessing you wouldn't be to happy.

he has a lovely wife and a beautiful little son (also circumcised) and they are the happiest of families.

I truly don't know what the huge issue is here. Is there some Jewish and Muslim bias at work?

I just don't know...

and I said yes.

What is the big deal?

...performed on you without your consent?

including the absurd "You want him to look the same as the other boys at school, right?" jive.

If, as a fully informed adult, he chooses to undergo the procedure then have at it. For those who love to bring up ear piercings, same applies: When they can make an informed decision about it then can have it done.

where she also received a list of good reasons to have him circumcised (none of them being to "look like the other boys&quot . She and her wife decided to have it done.

BTW my friend's son fell into the small group that has to be circumcised because the foreskin won't retract (this is 30 or so years ago - maybe there's a better way now). He had it done at 12 which is much harder on a boy both physically and psychologically. Of course it doesn't help when your little sister announces to the neighborhood what's going on.

You can worship whoever you like. Just don't make the decision for your kid. Let them make up their own mind when they are old enough to weigh the options.

This isn't at all like the decisions parents make for their kids that they must make. Like getting vaccinations, or even which kindergarten.

This is not a medically necessary procedure.

The results were men who were circumsized were glad they were. Men who weren't were glad they weren't.

Nothing more than that.

But I am surprised their is any push back here on outlawing religious body mods being performed on babies.

Olive Garden is a culinary travesty and a result of the McDonaldization of cuisine

As for pitbulls, I stick with the adage bad owners, not bad dogs. Have owned several pitties in my lifetime and NONE have attacked another human. Screw Denver and it's knee jerk breed ban.

Pecan Pie vs Pumpkin Pie
I was/am surprised by how many people get worked up about that (and I am being serious)
You can probably keep that going for days

Pumpkin pie is clearly superior, and pecan pie is a tragic waste of a good pie crust. This ends the discussion. Any who advocate for the consumption of pecan pie are heretics and must be destroyed by any means necessary.

Since the Moral Majority got rolling in the early 80s.

....what they force on others without consent is a different matter.

or pit bulls, cornflake breaded chicken, broccoli stems, grocery carts in parking lots, olive garden, pit bulls, children in restaurants, children on planes, fat people on planes, miniskirts on planes, smoking, etc etc etc.

I hope all civilized countries have banned female circumcision by now. I think we can all agree to that.

Observant Jews and Muslims, at least those of child bearing years, would need to leave the country.

If the bill passes, Iceland will be in violation of the religious liberty provisions of the EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection
of freedom of religion or belief and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The sponsor of the bill is reported as being a member of the Progressive Party. I hope that means that he is not, at least overtly, antisemitic and will reconsider.

Second what a load of melodramatic claptrap.

Not melodramatic claptrap if it's your religion being discriminated against.

Like not falling for silly man in the sky rituals.....

Many barbaric religious practices have been put aside in modern times. This is one that should also be put aside.

NOTICE, I SAID HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE. By doing so I acknowledge the difference between removing some of a baby's skin and killing it. So don't tell me I'm making a false comparison here. I'm not.

The principle behind each of these is the same. People want to do something violent to a baby to please a God. We outgrew the need to sacrifice babies. Now it's time to outgrow the need to mutilate them.

for two of the major religions in the world - albeit two religions that have been most often discriminated against.

Male circumcision is neither violence or mutilation. Religious requirements aside, there are sound medical reasons for circumcising infants. While the incidence of elective circumcision has been declining for some years, a scant majority of male infants born in the United States are circumcised. (Circumcisions Performed in U.S. Community Hospitals, 2005". Statistical Brief #45. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). January 2008.) The declining circumcision rate is raising health concerns. [link:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/|

I appreciate that there is a significant dislike for religion on DU. However, that does not justify supporting religious discrimination.

The summary from those articles could easily be "Moist body areas harbor and grow diseases more easily."

The findings from those all could just as easily point toward better use of other preventative methods like condoms, vaccinations and PrEP type prophylactics.

The conclusions sound a lot like what I would expect a bunch of old white guys to come up with.

A neonatal circumcision is a valid form of preventive medicine. To argue otherwise is to ignore medical science - rather like deciding that vaccination is dangerous.

The science for circumcision is not compelling enough to require circumcision. It is obvious that some are opposed to neonatal circumcision for their own philosophical reasons. They ought not be required to circumcise their children.

There is no significant reputable science to show any harm from neonatal circumcision. Folks who, for religious or health reasons, decide to circumcise their children ought to be left alone. This kind of argument is why conservatives think that progressives want to control all aspect of their lives.

There are few medical procedures to which doctors resort as a first choice which destroy part or parts of the body. When those treatments are advised it is usually because it is the last, best way to preserve the overall human life.

There are other preventative measures that work as well as circumcision and do not require destroying a part of the body. Comparing circumcision to vaccination is a false equivalency. There are not better, less intrusive alternatives to vaccinations. There are to circumcision. I support vaccinating kids because it is the best way to protect them and has the least side effects.

I find it very interesting that you would mention this issue as one of the problems conservatives have with liberals trying to control their lives at the same you chose to use vaccinations for comparison. You can't be for one or the other without a desire to control the behavior of other people.

I readily admit I fully intend to control a part of other people's lives though. I intend to control their right to choose for themselves and to opt out if they wish. That is, I intend to give them control back.

If we were discussing female genital mutilation I doubt you'd be supportive of it.

Ask any adult male if he thinks it would not cause harm to circumcise him.

There are medical conditions for which adult circumcision is indicated. [link:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27085824|

If it's important to an adult male that be circumcised, the procedure is performed under local anesthesia with a low rate of complications.

From WebMD
https://www.webmd.com/men/phimosis-paraphimosis#3-8

Prevention

In most cases, these penis disorders are easy to prevent. The head and the foreskin need to be washed and dried regularly. Be gentle with the skin if you pull it back, and don’t forget to put it back in place when you finish.

I take some comfort from the fact the the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit a circumcision ban. It will not soon be the law in the U.S. that practicing Jews and Muslims would be prohibited from complying with a religious requirement that does no harm. I also find it hard to imagine that some legislature would decide that new parents may not make a medical/social/religious decision currently made by a majority in the U.S.

There is ample precedent for legislatures making what are termed medical/social/religious decisions for the majority of the country. The Congress and the courts have historically made decisions not popular with the majority of the US.

In fact, all of those reasons (medical/social/religious) were also used to support the continuation of slavery, prohibition, reasons why women shouldn't vote, miscegenation and other customs and traditions that had outlived any usefulness and could no longer hide behind those very unfounded, inaccurate reasons. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were very unpopular. The Congress actually led us to a better place on those back then.

Basically.

One involves the death of a child while the other involves the painless removal of a useless piece of skin that often leads to complications and has been associated with a higher rate of transmission of STDs. I consider it an elective medical procedure, not a religious one.

If you consider it an elective medical procedure then it's even less defensible. It is a procedure that is not medically necessary and one in which the person having the procedure has not agreed to have the procedure.

It is not one that the parents HAVE to make on behalf of the child. It isn't like a vaccine that will save their lives. So now you are saying you approve of parents mutilating their children just because so many other people do it.

You are the one who sounds like a religious zealot with your little crusade. There are far more important issues than whether one has a foreskin or not.

If you think it's such a mole hill then perhaps you shouldn't have replied to my post and tried to make a counter argument. Then I wouldn't have felt any need to respond to your argument which I find rather fallacious.

I didn't even take time to scold you for ignoring the line in my post that clearly states I know there is a difference between killing a baby and maiming it when you called my argument a false comparison. You had no grounds for that statement because I had already admitted that the two were not equal but that the underlying principle behind both is the same for most adherents to the practice. Hyperbole is an effective tool when trying to help others see just how ridiculous an argument based on things like tradition, custom and religion can be. Too bad it gets lost on people.

ON EDIT:
Just because you may not feel passionate about a subject does not mean others are not passionate about it. I am not one to just give up and this is, by the way, a discussion site. Not a surrender site.

...

but out of ‘tradition’. I am usually not in favor of outright banning something but rather heavily regulating it. Circumcision should be allowed for religous reasons to practicing muslims and jews. Of course, no medical insurance should ever cover the procesure, it’s a cosmetic surgery unelss medically necessary (in very rare cases). I know in the US we have just recently started seeing insurance companies finally dropping coverage for this elective cosmetic procedure. Outright ban is not necessary because for the most part it is a very safe procedure when performed by a trained surgeon, never by non-board certified medical personell (criminal offense). Banning circumsion is like banning abortion - not effective, will only lead to unsafe practices by ‘home nurses’. Do we really want botched penises around?
Iceland is lucky, they have solved all of their countries problems so they have to invent new ones to show that they are working on somethin.

....especially to babies who have no say in the matter.
I also think ear piercing done to babies is wrong.

and the procedure is safe only within first few weeks of birth. No child who is able to give consent would submit themselves to a much higher risk and a painful cosmetic surgery with significant post op healing time. Again, if consent is required by law, get ready for botched penises. Circumcision is too important for jews and muslims to wait for consent. What’s really puzzling is the number of non-jews and non-muslims in the US who are circumsized.

Just assuming they want it done because their parents say so is wrong, they could grow up to be atheists for all the parents know.

We should ban guns and make infant circumcision illegal.

We will really clean up at the polls with those positions! Majority here we come!!

I love DU and spend way too much time here, but am glad the members are not responsible for writing the Democratic Party Platform.

Y’all have a nice evening.

And FYI. Kids did not happen for us. But had I had a son he would have been left intact, unlike me.

If you want to live in Iceland, don't mutilate your son's genitals. Seems pretty simple, really. I'm a woman...I don't have a dog in the hunt but I do know my partner wishes his parents' hadn't had him circumcised as a baby. Circumcising an infant takes away his right to choose.

I had a 24 hour ban from posting a couple of years ago on this issue.

Here are a few things

1) According to the 14th Amendment, to some, male genital mutilation has been illegal since 1997. You cannot make a law that favours one group (protecting girls from GM) over others (protecting boys from GM). As a result, any circumcised male, born after 1997, has the right to sue either the hospital or his parents over his circumcision. Some men have done this successfully.

2) In Europe, we have the lowest rate of STDs and children are very rarely circumcised. Why is it that the US has the highest rate of STDs in the western world and also the highest rate of circumcision?

3) Psychologists and neurologists really believe circumcision causes so much pain in babies that it alters their brain development. There was a serious question on whether autism, which affects mainly boys in the US, was a result of circumcision. People actually poo-poohed the research by saying there are no nerves in the foreskin that connect to the brain (not true). Psychologist/neurologists are likely the group of doctors and professionals who would be passionately against circumcision of baby boys.

4) When you request a circumcision for your baby boy, you’re literally asking the doctor to put aside the oath he swore on. First oath be damned.

I have mellowed somewhat on this issue, as I do understand that the child MAY, a very minuscule percentage likely, need it (much more likely to get medicine to clear up any problems). I also realise that adults would like to have the operation as well, well that’s up to them because they’re adults and therefore can themselves consent to the circumcision.

I do know this, circumcision rates in the US has fallen from a peak of 80% in the 1980s to a rate of 35% now (in California, for example, only 5% of baby boys are circumcised). It’s dying out.

Look, I don't feel it should be banned. If the Jewish and Muslim parents want to do it, that's their choice.

But it certainly should not be pressured into as the normal default way as it is here in US hospitals. Many people here are shamed for being uncircumcised and that's wrong. There are a lot of incorrect assumptions that an uncut person must be "dirty" under there or "more prone to STDs" and other nonsense that just isn't true.

They just work for tips.

is just a rip off.

They should be sacked

that are 20% off.

Religion is like circumcision. If you wait until the child is an adult, they'll probably not be interested.