The Circumcision of Infants is Morally Abhorrent and Should Be Illegal

I dont understand how anyone could feel justified in labeling those who make this decision for their infants as something comparible to rapists and murderers (which I believe scum of the earth and like names entail). I personally am circumsized and it was at a later date in my life....I believe I was about 14, and it came about because of some complications I had, which in turn caused the doctor to schedule a surgical operation to remove the foreskin. Now I still remember this quite well even though I am in my 30's now because my mother bought me tickets to Hulk Hogan vs Earthquake WWF event here in Calgary.....yes quite a fond memory. Anyways, I had chosen to have my sons foreskin removed for fear of any such complication surfacing throughout his life, regardless of how rare this might be. It is not religious or anything of the sort, I dont believe I am a monster for such a thing.....and I do agree that this is just another niche where there is such a large grey area that people can mount a self righteous crusade without there being any real difinitive answer to knock them off their high horse. Pretty much like the argument for Christianity and ones God. There is no right or wrong, it just is....find something more relevant to stick your nose up at......perhaps pedophilia or something of that nature, and if you feel so inclined and empowered to literally verbally assault another human because of such a decision....get off your key board and do something about it.

I don't think it should be banned outright, but it shouldn't automatically be assumed that an infant will recieve a circumcision at birth. I had to make it known as sonn as I was admitted for labor that there would be no circumcision performed on my newborn. I think a parent should have to request one instead of opting out of one. Too many people think that it is something that happend like getting footprinted or cutting the umbilical cord. The medical practice should make it a conscious decision for parents, not something that is just expected.

Yes, and perhaps a course detailing the pros and cons and watching a video of the operation should be included in that. My step-brother said that after watching his first son get it done he was horrified and did not get his 2nd son done and advised anyone considering it against it. Most people just do it b/c 'that's what you do', and are entirely uninformed about the facts of it.

reply to post by Elvis Hendrix


1. I've never had issues with "abraisions and chafing during intercourse", or stimulating my partner.
2. I enjoy sex just fine...
3. I was snipped at birth and having nothing bad to say about it. Most women also seem to prefer the look of someone that's been snipped.
4. Never had any complications, side effects or negative effects because of it.

Sorry but the whole circumcision is morally wrong argument is NEVER going to be resolved because what you're doing is saying "I have a certain set of personal morals/beliefs, and I demand that everyone else to adopt them"...it ain't gonna happen and all you're going to do is cause unnecessary tension between people as they defend their own personal morals against yours.

The arguments for/against circumcision are also for the most part qualitative. It's one persons opinion against anothers. For every study that shows it causes health problems, there's another that shows it causes health benefits. There's never going to be a clear "winner", so we're all better off moving on to more important societal issues and leaving the decision of circumcising a child upto the parent(s).

funny someone trying to make circumcision morally and ethically wrong lol its been done for millenia dude...its not wrong to circumcise your kid if you want to. personally i do it because of my religous background, even though it has no current religous application for a new testament christian but it is deep within my religous beliefs to honor it. The reason it was instituted in the old testament was for a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and a symbol of seperation from the world. Hebrews also didn't get tattoos, men didn't wear ear rings or piercings etc...in recognition of this covenant and seperation from this world. The new testament Christian does not need circumcision of the flesh but, he is circumcised in the heart. for 4,000 years man has been practicing circumcision who are you to argue that this is wrong?

The same persons that complain circumcision is wrong, could care less if the parents chose to abort the child in the womb. If you really care about the kids, lobby to get abortion made illegal. Otherwise quit trolling

Ignore the oppostion on this issue, They are denying the science and we would still be living in caves if people like that made all the decisions. I have seen a little boy, who lived in a very clean home, who got an infection. It was miserable for him and he was so young.

Originally posted by kingofmd
The same persons that complain circumcision is wrong, could care less if the parents chose to abort the child in the womb. If you really care about the kids, lobby to get abortion made illegal. Otherwise quit trolling

Children who exist and will grow up versus a fleshy growth with zero cognitive function.

Completely unrelated.

Grind your axe elsewhere.

reply to post by LightOrange


Less bladder or urinary tract infections. I'd take being circumcised as a baby over having the tip of my penis burning whenever i pee when older. Easier to keep the penis clean, and from what i have heard from women, much more easier to deal with when having sex and more attractive.

My little brother didn;t get snipped when he was a baby, his mother couldn't afford it, he ended up regretting it later when he kept getting infections and the doctors snipped him at age 10 and he can remember it. Least as a baby you won't remember it. Beats feeling like you're pissing razorblades everytime you get infections.

reply to post by LightOrange


I thought hygiene was the reason for it in modern times. I can't remember the last time I heard it being a religious deal. BUT if you really want to find a fresh way to grind your anti religion axe... enjoy


I am not snipped... never had infections and hygiene is only a problem if you are a dirty person.. that goes for anyone.

The only plus is that the head remains sensitive unlike snipped ones. If you have a snipped one and think its sensitive... multiply that by 100. its pretty nice

i agree with teh title of your thread. male or female circumcision is horrific and cruel.

You have to really worry about the people who trott out the "it's done for hygiene" mantra - I'm kind of worried for their hygiene if they think getting circumcised helps keep their privates clean, how little are they washing between their legs that they would need major surgery to clean it!

Thank you for posting this! The "cleanliness" bit is pure lies! It is cosmetic. Period! My son is intact and I couldn't be more happy. Wake up people...it's mutilation!

reply to post by MamaSleepsNoMore


www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by TechronSadosa


I don't think anyone compared it to murder.

What I find funny about your post is that you outline your bias and then roll with it:

"I am among the small percentage that had to have their foreskin removed later in life"

and so...

"I payed to have my baby strapped down and removed a part of his body permanently that he will never be able to get back later in his life should he not agree with my decision. Good thing I own him and he has zero choice in the matter."

But... the surgery itself can present infections and complication equated with what you went through... and it has a much greater chance of happening than what happened to you. Where's the logic?

Either way, it really doesn't matter what means you use to try and justify it, you're altering a human being's body without their consent; I'd argue that it is equal to or even worse than rape in some cases.