Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

What about male circumcision?

I would like to hear the reasoning from people who say yes to one and no to the other.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

Female circumcision destroys the sex life, and very often the ability to orgasm.

Male circumcision most likely has positive (physical) side-effects.


They are not comparable. Obviously no to female circumcision and it wouldn't bug me personally if male circumcision is either legal or illegal.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

no to both

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

sure, if adult females or adult males want to mutilate their genitals, of course they should be allowed to.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
sure, if adult females or adult males want to mutilate their genitals, of course they should be allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
sure, if adult females or adult males want to mutilate their genitals, of course they should be allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that parent's shouldn't be able to have their children circumcised? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sure, if adult females or adult males want to mutilate their genitals, of course they should be allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that parent's shouldn't be able to have their children circumcised? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they should be able to, but I don't understand how people take my stance on this but are then pro-choice.

FWIW, I don't think male circumcision is a big deal and my view that parents shouldn't be able to take frivolous actions like that is mostly principle based.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

Obviously female circumcision is a lot worse than male circumcision, but I don't think either should be allowed.

The idea that slicing off some penis skin is a covenant with god is also one of the most ridiculous propositions of organized religion. i think once we perfected soap and indoor plumbing, the need to be circumsized went right out the window.


Someone who circumcised their kid and wants to feel good about it now going to come along and cite a few studies about increased STD risk or something, but I don't buy it.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sure, if adult females or adult males want to mutilate their genitals, of course they should be allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that parent's shouldn't be able to have their children circumcised? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they should be able to, but I don't understand how people take my stance on this but are then pro-choice.

FWIW, I don't think male circumcision is a big deal and my view that parents shouldn't be able to take frivolous actions like that is mostly principle based.

[/ QUOTE ].

This is my viewpoint (I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, but I support abortion rights). In fact, I think that infanticide should be acceptable, although there is little to no call for it with today's medical technology. I think that parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to raise their child; if they choose not to raise the child, they can abort the fetus. If they choose to raise the child, then they have no right to make irreparable decisions about that child's body.

The crux of my view is that I don't regard a newborn child or fetus as a person -- it can't talk, communicate, fend for itself, etc. That infant or fetus has no rights, unless its parents choose to give it rights by taking on the obligation to care for it. Once the parents make that decision, then the child or fetus has all the rights of a person, and no one -- not even the parents that gave him those rights -- can make irreparable decisions like circumcision for him.

For what it's worth, I don't think that male circumcision is a trivial matter. I think my foreskin is worth well over 50k to me.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see his views on these two things as obviously biased? I mean clearly, female circumcision to some is an ancient practice and generally one that offers some salutary health benefits.

And to some, like me, male circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

EDIT: story says the results have not been published, but they were published in The Lancet earlier this year. Another summary from WebMD here.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Can't people make decisions like circumcision when they become sexually active? Why does it have to be done at birth when the infant has no choice in the matter?

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see his views on these two things as obviously biased? I mean clearly, female circumcision to some is an ancient practice and generally one that offers some salutary health benefits.

And to some, like me, male circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but this a matter of the degree of the mutilation taking place, with the female mutilation by any rational investigation, much, much worse. And, what 'salutary health benefits' are there in the female mutilation, not 'claimed' benefits, real clinically proven benefits?

Further, how is his argument in any way related to the Catholic Church?

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

Well, female circumcision and male circumcision are not directly comparable. There are however different types of female circumcision.

The ones most widely referred too when debating it is excision and infibulation - removing the foreskin is not analogous to these procedures, cutting of the forehead would be.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Can't people make decisions like circumcision when they become sexually active? Why does it have to be done at birth when the infant has no choice in the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad it was done before I could remember it.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Can't people make decisions like circumcision when they become sexually active? Why does it have to be done at birth when the infant has no choice in the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad it was done before I could remember it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it was necessary?

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Male circumcision most likely has positive (physical) side-effects.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is practically impossible to ever determine, I'm interested to hear what you mean by this. I assume you mean the decreased HIV/cancer risks or something?

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Can't people make decisions like circumcision when they become sexually active? Why does it have to be done at birth when the infant has no choice in the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just countering the view of some that this procedure "serves no purpose whatsoever".

I'm not sure I see how this is radically different from thousands of other decisions that parents make for their children before they are old enough to decide for themselves. Seems comparable in kind (if not in degree) to vaccination - small unmemorable discomfort and small risk in exchange for health benefits. Also consider that with the HIV connection, there are public health considerations in addition to individual health.

Finally, do you really expect this conversation to take place? "Mom, Dad, I'll be 14 next month, and I'm thinking about fooling around with Suzy Johnson. Can we talk about circumcision?"

Note: I am obviously biased. This was done to me and I do not consider myself mutilated.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

EDIT: story says the results have not been published, but they were published in The Lancet earlier this year. Another summary from WebMD here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that it is impossible to quantify the REAL cost of the procedure, and even attempts just to quantify the MONETARY cost of the procedure cast very serious doubts to its efficacy. IOW, your chance of getting HIV as a white male in the US is so low that the couple hundred dollars and the associated direct medical side effects/risks make it a really, really borderline decision. As far as I know, most of the major medical associations have as their official position that it is not necessary but that the decision, since it is influenced by aesthetics and cultural norms, should be left up to the parents. Besides being a little cowardly (IMO) I think this position betrays the fact that we have absolutely NO WAY to accurately measure the costs and risks of this procedure when done on infants. A circumcised man cannot tell you how much pleasure he is missing out on, if any. What if its significant? Then how does the cost/benefit analysis change?

FWIW I was circumcised as a child and I don't really care that much about it. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, but then again its impossible to know. I'm not angry with my parents about it or anything. I just think, in general, its an unnecessary and wasteful procedure that could have very serious potential risks that we cannot ever measure.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Finally, do you really expect this conversation to take place? "Mom, Dad, I'll be 14 next month, and I'm thinking about fooling around with Suzy Johnson. Can we talk about circumcision?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, if that is the parents primary reason for wanting the kid to get circumcised. But the kid is going to say "Are you [censored] crazy?!? Get that knife away from my dick!" more or less 100% of the time. What does that say about the practice of circumcision?

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Male circumcision most likely has positive (physical) side-effects.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is practically impossible to ever determine, I'm interested to hear what you mean by this. I assume you mean the decreased HIV/cancer risks or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that if it has any physical effects, then they seem to most likely to be positive. I meant to include some 'uncertainty' into the sentence regarding the possible things you mentioned and to illustrate how the procedures are not really comparable at all.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see his views on these two things as obviously biased? I mean clearly, female circumcision to some is an ancient practice and generally one that offers some salutary health benefits.

And to some, like me, male circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but this a matter of the degree of the mutilation taking place, with the female mutilation by any rational investigation, much, much worse. And, what 'salutary health benefits' are there in the female mutilation, not 'claimed' benefits, real clinically proven benefits?

Further, how is his argument in any way related to the Catholic Church?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference between claimed and real benefits? Obviously the elders or whatever in Africa says it will prevent the girls from having sex for fun or such. It's clearly still a violation of their rights.

The Catholic remark had to do with his title and avatar.

Vaccinations don't mutilate you. I don't consider circumcision at birth a health treatment. Obviously, a parent can choose that option if there is a health reason for it. Sort of like, obviously a woman can abort if there is a health reason for it.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Finally, do you really expect this conversation to take place? "Mom, Dad, I'll be 14 next month, and I'm thinking about fooling around with Suzy Johnson. Can we talk about circumcision?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, if that is the parents primary reason for wanting the kid to get circumcised. But the kid is going to say "Are you [censored] crazy?!? Get that knife away from my dick!" more or less 100% of the time. What does that say about the practice of circumcision?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it says that, if done, it should be done early. I think it's a tough call, I would ban mutilation and be alright with male circumcision (obviously drawing the line is difficult but I think there are certainly clear cut cases).

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Male circumcision most likely has positive (physical) side-effects.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is practically impossible to ever determine, I'm interested to hear what you mean by this. I assume you mean the decreased HIV/cancer risks or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that if it has any physical effects, then they seem to most likely to be positive. I meant to include some 'uncertainty' into the sentence regarding the possible things you mentioned and to illustrate how the procedures are not really comparable at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexual side effects are most certainly physical. They are also impossible to measure. And just because most circumcised guys would say "Hey I got no complaints" right now isn't any sort of argument for these possible effects being ignored.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Sexual side effects are most certainly physical. They are also impossible to measure. And just because most circumcised guys would say "Hey I got no complaints" right now isn't any sort of argument for these possible effects being ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that not an argument exactly?

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see his views on these two things as obviously biased? I mean clearly, female circumcision to some is an ancient practice and generally one that offers some salutary health benefits.

And to some, like me, male circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but this a matter of the degree of the mutilation taking place, with the female mutilation by any rational investigation, much, much worse. And, what 'salutary health benefits' are there in the female mutilation, not 'claimed' benefits, real clinically proven benefits?

Further, how is his argument in any way related to the Catholic Church?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference between claimed and real benefits? Obviously the elders or whatever in Africa says it will prevent the girls from having sex for fun or such. It's clearly still a violation of their rights.

The Catholic remark had to do with his title and avatar.

Vaccinations don't mutilate you. I don't consider circumcision at birth a health treatment. Obviously, a parent can choose that option if there is a health reason for it. Sort of like, obviously a woman can abort if there is a health reason for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yea, I guess I agree with you, my only point was that it does not matter to me what the 'elders' of some stone age village think, the two 'procedures' are leagues apart in the amount of mutilating going on. One 'procedure' is objectively cruel and inhuman, the other may be also, but to a lesser degree. One is not just the opposite gender equivalent of the other.

Also, in the avatar he may be using the term catholic in the small 'c' definition of the word, meaning "universal", you know 'universal all star.'

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Male circumcision most likely has positive (physical) side-effects.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is practically impossible to ever determine, I'm interested to hear what you mean by this. I assume you mean the decreased HIV/cancer risks or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that if it has any physical effects, then they seem to most likely to be positive. I meant to include some 'uncertainty' into the sentence regarding the possible things you mentioned and to illustrate how the procedures are not really comparable at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexual side effects are most certainly physical. They are also impossible to measure. And just because most circumcised guys would say "Hey I got no complaints" right now isn't any sort of argument for these possible effects being ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I stated it does not bother me if male circumcision is legal or illegal, I can see the views of both sides. My point was that it is not comparable to female circumcision (atleast not excision and infibulation).

You might hold up some intellectual arbitrary that says they are the same since they both involve children that have no say in the matter - and to some extent I'd agree in principle.

What I'm saying is that excision and infibulation is more similar to cutting the penis in half than removing the foreskin.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sure, if adult females or adult males want to mutilate their genitals, of course they should be allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that parent's shouldn't be able to have their children circumcised? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they should be able to, but I don't understand how people take my stance on this but are then pro-choice.

FWIW, I don't think male circumcision is a big deal and my view that parents shouldn't be able to take frivolous actions like that is mostly principle based.

[/ QUOTE ].

This is my viewpoint (I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, but I support abortion rights). In fact, I think that infanticide should be acceptable, although there is little to no call for it with today's medical technology. I think that parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to raise their child; if they choose not to raise the child, they can abort the fetus. If they choose to raise the child, then they have no right to make irreparable decisions about that child's body.

The crux of my view is that I don't regard a newborn child or fetus as a person -- it can't talk, communicate, fend for itself, etc. That infant or fetus has no rights, unless its parents choose to give it rights by taking on the obligation to care for it. Once the parents make that decision, then the child or fetus has all the rights of a person, and no one -- not even the parents that gave him those rights -- can make irreparable decisions like circumcision for him.

For what it's worth, I don't think that male circumcision is a trivial matter. I think my foreskin is worth well over 50k to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your mother did a real job on you pal.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sure, if adult females or adult males want to mutilate their genitals, of course they should be allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that parent's shouldn't be able to have their children circumcised? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they should be able to, but I don't understand how people take my stance on this but are then pro-choice.

FWIW, I don't think male circumcision is a big deal and my view that parents shouldn't be able to take frivolous actions like that is mostly principle based.

[/ QUOTE ].

This is my viewpoint (I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, but I support abortion rights). In fact, I think that infanticide should be acceptable, although there is little to no call for it with today's medical technology. I think that parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to raise their child; if they choose not to raise the child, they can abort the fetus. If they choose to raise the child, then they have no right to make irreparable decisions about that child's body.

The crux of my view is that I don't regard a newborn child or fetus as a person -- it can't talk, communicate, fend for itself, etc. That infant or fetus has no rights, unless its parents choose to give it rights by taking on the obligation to care for it. Once the parents make that decision, then the child or fetus has all the rights of a person, and no one -- not even the parents that gave him those rights -- can make irreparable decisions like circumcision for him.

For what it's worth, I don't think that male circumcision is a trivial matter. I think my foreskin is worth well over 50k to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your mother did a real job on you pal.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is my viewpoint (I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, but I support abortion rights). In fact, I think that infanticide should be acceptable, although there is little to no call for it with today's medical technology. I think that parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to raise their child; if they choose not to raise the child, they can abort the fetus. If they choose to raise the child, then they have no right to make irreparable decisions about that child's body.

The crux of my view is that I don't regard a newborn child or fetus as a person -- it can't talk, communicate, fend for itself, etc. That infant or fetus has no rights, unless its parents choose to give it rights by taking on the obligation to care for it. Once the parents make that decision, then the child or fetus has all the rights of a person, and no one -- not even the parents that gave him those rights -- can make irreparable decisions like circumcision for him.

[/ QUOTE ]


"How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't!"

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

I'm more interested in knowing why people presume it's the role of the federal government to be legislating such minutia.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm more interested in knowing why people presume it's the role of the federal government to be legislating such minutia.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I clearly don't think this should be handled by the federal government as it's clearly a state by state issue. But I would like my state to ban female circumcision and would support a state ban on male circumcisions that aren't a medical treatment.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is my viewpoint (I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, but I support abortion rights). In fact, I think that infanticide should be acceptable, although there is little to no call for it with today's medical technology. I think that parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to raise their child; if they choose not to raise the child, they can abort the fetus. If they choose to raise the child, then they have no right to make irreparable decisions about that child's body.

The crux of my view is that I don't regard a newborn child or fetus as a person -- it can't talk, communicate, fend for itself, etc. That infant or fetus has no rights, unless its parents choose to give it rights by taking on the obligation to care for it. Once the parents make that decision, then the child or fetus has all the rights of a person, and no one -- not even the parents that gave him those rights -- can make irreparable decisions like circumcision for him.

[/ QUOTE ]


"How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't!"

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is my viewpoint (I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, but I support abortion rights). In fact, I think that infanticide should be acceptable, although there is little to no call for it with today's medical technology. I think that parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to raise their child; if they choose not to raise the child, they can abort the fetus. If they choose to raise the child, then they have no right to make irreparable decisions about that child's body.

The crux of my view is that I don't regard a newborn child or fetus as a person -- it can't talk, communicate, fend for itself, etc. That infant or fetus has no rights, unless its parents choose to give it rights by taking on the obligation to care for it. Once the parents make that decision, then the child or fetus has all the rights of a person, and no one -- not even the parents that gave him those rights -- can make irreparable decisions like circumcision for him.

[/ QUOTE ]


"How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't!"

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someday you might understand, until then, have a nice life.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

Its a cultural thing.

Reading the responses here, one thing comes across very strongly:

We can accept weird Western cultural things, but we reject weird third world cultural things.

This forum is full of a heavy Western bias.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is my viewpoint (I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, but I support abortion rights). In fact, I think that infanticide should be acceptable, although there is little to no call for it with today's medical technology. I think that parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to raise their child; if they choose not to raise the child, they can abort the fetus. If they choose to raise the child, then they have no right to make irreparable decisions about that child's body.

The crux of my view is that I don't regard a newborn child or fetus as a person -- it can't talk, communicate, fend for itself, etc. That infant or fetus has no rights, unless its parents choose to give it rights by taking on the obligation to care for it. Once the parents make that decision, then the child or fetus has all the rights of a person, and no one -- not even the parents that gave him those rights -- can make irreparable decisions like circumcision for him.

[/ QUOTE ]


"How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't!"

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someday you might understand, until then, have a nice life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be a prick.

Re: Should female circumcision be legal in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its a cultural thing.

Reading the responses here, one thing comes across very strongly:

We can accept weird Western cultural things, but we reject weird third world cultural things.

This forum is full of a heavy Western bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. East, West, North, South, children should not be permanently mutilated by anyone without a legitimate medically necessary reason to do so, like a gangrenous arm or something. I have little concern about what consenting adults do to themselves, however.