Circumcision - yes or no?

[solarstorm2012]

Circumcision of boys has been declared illegal by the Cologne state court at the end of June. It should be viewed as illicit injury, ruled the court.
It goes on to say that the right of education was not unduly affected if the parents had to wait until the son decides upon a circumcision as a sign of affiliation at a future date.
Hence circumcisions have to be deemed unlawful, even if the parents have approved of the procedure.

In this case a doctor had circumcised a 4-year-old boy at his Muslim parents' request.
Two days later postoperative hemorrhage occurred, the child was taken to the emergency room. The Cologne public prosecutor's department gained knowledge of this incident and brought charges against the physician.
The Cologne district court acquitted him at first instance because an informed consent existed.
The Cologne state court approved the doctor's acquittal as he can claim mistake of law due to the unclear legal situation.

Do you personally endorse these judicial decisions?

[Senator Napoleon]

Circumcision should be legal for males.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

To say circumcision is a "genital mutilation" is at best debatable, as the foreskin removal doesn't affect one's ability to have sex or urinate, which are penis functions.

Of course such procedure must be conducted with all responsibility, but that can be said about every surgical procedure.

Also, we need to remember, religious and cultural reasons aside, that in some cases circumcision is required on purely medical grounds.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Should be mandatory for newborn babes, as it lessens the odds of receiving or transferring an STD.

[For Oklahoma]

I think it should be a legal practice, but I think if I had a son, I wouldn't get him circumsized. I think my son should have the choice whether to be circumsized or not and he won't really come to that conclusion until he's a teenager or an adult, in which case if he so desires, he may get circumsized. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I think I read somewhere that it is excruciatingly painful for male with an uncircumsized penis to penetrate a dry vagina, thus reducing the possibility that rape would occur. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. But just my two sense.

[Tender Branson]

I'm pro-prepuce, but frankly I don't give a sh*t about this issue.

[Free Palestine]

Unless it's medically an absolute necessity, circumcision should not be done until an individual is at least somewhat able to give consent on the matter -- at least like, thirteen or something.  You're talking about lobbing off a piece of someone's body here -- that kind of decision should be, when possible, up to the individual when they're able to make the decision.  I feel the same way about trashy parents getting their infant daughter's ears pierced.

I believe in religious freedom, yes, but I also believe in youth rights.

Should be mandatory for newborn babes, as it lessens the odds of receiving or transferring an STD.

No.  Keep the government's hands off of people's penises.  What you're proposing goes way way way beyond even making vaccinations mandatory, because it mandates the permanent lobbing off of part of one's body.  That's just focking paternalistic.

[Tender Branson]

Unless it's medically an absolute necessity, circumcision should not be done until an individual is at least somewhat able to give consent on the matter -- at least like, thirteen or something.  You're talking about lobbing off a piece of someone's body here -- that kind of decision should be, when possible, up to the individual when they're able to make the decision.  I feel the same way about trashy parents getting their infant daughter's ears pierced.

I believe in religious freedom, yes, but I also believe in youth rights.

Should be mandatory for newborn babes, as it lessens the odds of receiving or transferring an STD.

No.  Keep the government's hands off of people's penises.  What you're proposing goes way way way beyond even making vaccinations mandatory, because it mandates the permanent lobbing off of part of one's body.  That's just focking paternalistic.

The government does penis circumcisions ? That's new to me.

[For Oklahoma]

Unless it's medically an absolute necessity, circumcision should not be done until an individual is at least somewhat able to give consent on the matter -- at least like, thirteen or something.  You're talking about lobbing off a piece of someone's body here -- that kind of decision should be, when possible, up to the individual when they're able to make the decision.  I feel the same way about trashy parents getting their infant daughter's ears pierced.

I believe in religious freedom, yes, but I also believe in youth rights.

Should be mandatory for newborn babes, as it lessens the odds of receiving or transferring an STD.

No.  Keep the government's hands off of people's penises.  What you're proposing goes way way way beyond even making vaccinations mandatory, because it mandates the permanent lobbing off of part of one's body.  That's just focking paternalistic.

The government does penis circumcisions ? That's new to me.

If it were mandatory under federal law, they would be playing a role.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Neither option applies. It should be legal, but not because of "religious freedom".

[argentarius]

I personally find the idea disgusting, and would not let it happen to anyone under 12.

[Holmes]

Only for medical reasons. Removing it to lessen the risk to STDs in first world countries is silly, but I suppose in third world countries, it makes sense, like some organizations are trying to do in Africa. But no, not at birth. If someone wants their foreskin off when they're able to make a conscious and informed decision on it, then by all means.

[Free Palestine]

Unless it's medically an absolute necessity, circumcision should not be done until an individual is at least somewhat able to give consent on the matter -- at least like, thirteen or something.  You're talking about lobbing off a piece of someone's body here -- that kind of decision should be, when possible, up to the individual when they're able to make the decision.  I feel the same way about trashy parents getting their infant daughter's ears pierced.

I believe in religious freedom, yes, but I also believe in youth rights.

Should be mandatory for newborn babes, as it lessens the odds of receiving or transferring an STD.

No.  Keep the government's hands off of people's penises.  What you're proposing goes way way way beyond even making vaccinations mandatory, because it mandates the permanent lobbing off of part of one's body.  That's just focking paternalistic.

The government does penis circumcisions ? That's new to me.

No, but Rockingham here is proposing that the government mandates it.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

No.  Keep the government's hands off of people's penises.

Best quote of the day.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Mandatory circumcision would be just as idiotic and narrow-minded as banning it.

No.  Keep the government's hands off of people's penises.

Best quote of the day.

[Frodo]

Circumcision (for males) should remain legal and optional.  

[greenforest32]

If they're too young to consent such as infant circumcision and it's not 100% medically necessary (very rare in general) then it should be banned. If they're old enough to consent and decide they want to do it medical or not, go ahead.

As for circumcising babies 1.3-1.6 decades in advance of when they're going to have sex to lower the chances of getting STDs in unprotected sex, that's a bit much don't you think? Let the individual decide if they'd rather cut off their foreskin or use a condom (which is far more effective anyway) when they're going to do it.

Considering religion's dominance in society, I don't see the bans described above passing for a good 100 years. It's not an issue I would really give precedence to against other economic and social issues considering its likelihood of passing, but I would vote for such a ban even today because I think the justifications of the status quo (second-party ownership and deference to tradition/religion) are wrong and weak.

At the least, I think we should end government funding of infant circumcision (something that most the state Medicaid programs here pay for).

[opebo]

I'm not sure it is reasonable to blame (even partially) the rampant masculine psychosis in the USA on the prevailing foreskin-removal, but clearly it is detrimental to physical sensitivity (and thus, given the fairly debatable or marginal health benefits, inflicting it a form of abuse).

[afleitch]

I see infant circumcision as an unconsented mutilation of a sexual organ. An adult can do what they want.

[Redalgo]

The posts made by Morgan, Holmes, and Greenforest resonate strongly with me, so I will not ramble about this issue or repeat things that have already been written.

[Northeast Representative Goldwater]

The posts made by Morgan, Holmes, and Greenforest resonate strongly with me, so I will not ramble about this issue or repeat things that have already been written.

^^^
This.

[RogueBeaver]

Yes, it should be legal and optional.

[Hatman]

I support genital integrity. I couldn't imagine what life would be like without a foreskin. Would it even be worth living?

[The Mikado]

It's not often that I'm on the same side as FallenMorgan.

No to infant circumcision.  (Like most cosmetic elective surgery, it's fine for consenting adults)

[Holmes]

I support genital integrity. I couldn't imagine what life would be like without a foreskin. Would it even be worth living?

No.