Should underage male (non-medical) circumcision be banned?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'll admit I'm in two minds here, having seen the arguments. On the one hand it would be uncomfortably close to the anti-semetic laws used previously against our Jewish populations, which makes me uneasy; but on the other it is an invasive, unnecessary surgery performed by relatively unregulated mohels and which the infant has no choice to consent to. I lean that it should be banned.

[LLR]

No, it's a Jewish tradition. It's equivalent to banning baptism. Absurd, IMO.

[Intell]

Yes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No, it's a Jewish tradition. It's equivalent to banning baptism. Absurd, IMO.

but baptism is just water, it doesn't actually change the body permanently. If somebody who was baptised at birth decides they don't like the religion, they can move on or whatever. Traditions can change - why not jump the legal age of consent to be circumcised up to 14?

[LLR]

No, it's a Jewish tradition. It's equivalent to banning baptism. Absurd, IMO.

but baptism is just water, it doesn't actually change the body permanently. If somebody who was baptised at birth decides they don't like the religion, they can move on or whatever. Traditions can change - why not jump the legal age of consent to be circumcised up to 14?

But then it may actually hurt, and kids nowadays don't really have a sense of religious tradition. Nobody would choose it, even though it's a good tradition. Besides, what does it matter otherwise.

[LLR]

Yes.

Glad to see anti-Semitic arguments being agreed with, with no new reasoning being presented.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No, it's a Jewish tradition. It's equivalent to banning baptism. Absurd, IMO.

[tmthforu94]

No, of course not. There are health benefits to it as well.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm a parental maximalist.

Or in English, the state should mind their own business on this stuff.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, it's a Jewish tradition. It's equivalent to banning baptism. Absurd, IMO.

but baptism is just water, it doesn't actually change the body permanently. If somebody who was baptised at birth decides they don't like the religion, they can move on or whatever. Traditions can change - why not jump the legal age of consent to be circumcised up to 14?

But then it may actually hurt, and kids nowadays don't really have a sense of religious tradition. Nobody would choose it, even though it's a good tradition. Besides, what does it matter otherwise.

Erm, if nobody would choose it, wouldn't that be an argument in favor of the ban? If it turns out no one wants it?

[RI]

No.

[Goldwater]

Nah

[Green Line]

1.  All male circumcision is medical (hygine reasons obvi)

2.  It looks much better.  Non-circumcised it disgusting.  Are people on here actually not?

[Kingpoleon]

I'll admit I'm in two minds here, having seen the arguments. On the one hand it would be uncomfortably close to the anti-semetic laws used previously against our Jewish populations, which makes me uneasy; but on the other it is an invasive, unnecessary surgery performed by relatively unregulated mohels and which the infant has no choice to consent to. I lean that it should be banned.

That seems eerily similar to the "but eugenics by Margaret Sanger and the baby can't pick to die" anti-abortion argument.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There is no increased risk in having it performed by a religious professional instead of a medical professional, so there's no grounds for prohibiting that.

To believe that it should be banned altogether until the child is of age to decide is poor policy, but seeking to only ban circumcision performed by religious authorities (with the same result as the routine medical ones) is something else entirely.

[Wells]

No, it's a Jewish tradition. It's equivalent to banning baptism. Absurd, IMO.

[Horus]

Yes, a baby can't consent to having its foreskin removed. It serves no purpose and is utterly barbaric.

Who cares how it looks?

[Horus]

Yes.

Glad to see anti-Semitic arguments being agreed with, with no new reasoning being presented.

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/even-in-israel-more-and-more-parents-choose-not-to-circumcise-their-sons-1.436421

[Illiniwek]

Really torn. I really don't want to interfere with the Jewish tradition, but at what point do you say "tradition" is cruel? I know I won't do that to my sons.

[Lyin' Steve]

Are there any negatives to circumcision?  That's like banning braces, yes it's an invasive medical procedure but if it's one that parents think their children ought to have then they have that right.  This isn't FGM, there are mild health benefits and it's aesthetically normalizing.

[Mercenary]

Of course not.

[Phony Moderate]

Well this is certainly an American forum isn't it.....

2.  It looks much better.  Non-circumcised it disgusting.  Are people on here actually not?

Almost every male over here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Same as Burkini actually. It shouldn't exist ideally, but banning it would do more harm than good.

[Higgs]

Of course not.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I had to be circumcised as an adult. Trust me, it's a lot crueler (and more expensive) to make men wait until they are old enough to remember.