Circumcision 'contravenes child's human rights'

[TapDancer]

This is an Australian article I found. This is currently occurring in Sweden. So, after reading this article, what is your opinion on the practice of male circumcision? I do not wish to hear in-depth personal stories please. :) Do you consider it 'mutilation' and a 'violation of the child's human rights'? Please be respectful of each other's points of view.

ARTICLE: http://www.news.com.au/world-news/childrens-ombudsman-calls-for-circumcision-ban-in-sweden/story-fndir2ev-1226729243733

Personally, I think the practice is unnecessary and I am not suggesting it become illegal, but, as it is an irreversible surgery, I believe that it should not be carried out on infants who can not choose for themselves. Obviously, if it is medically required, then let it be, but I know it gets complicated with certain religions, but let that be another debate.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

It isn't really mutilation, but I see where the violation of human rights comes into play.
Because the child didn't make the choice at all. (Of course it's the parents though)

[NeuroTiger]

Though it was my parents choice, I'm very comfortable with it.
You should maybe interview a large sample of circumcised male teenagers from around the world then see if they think it is a violation to their human rights.
Personally, i don't feel that my human rights were baffled due to my circumcision.

[TapDancer]

As the saying goes "You can't miss what you never had". But thanks for your input guys, I'm not sure if I would consider it mutilation either, but I am not the ombudsman for children in Sweden, so. . .

[ksdnfkfr]

I think it would probably be better if it was left up to the kid when he's old enough to decide.

[nopelol]

Though it was my parents choice, I'm very comfortable with it.
You should maybe interview a large sample of circumcised male teenagers from around the world then see if they think it is a violation to their human rights.
Personally, i don't feel that my human rights were baffled due to my circumcision.

That isn't what the debate is about, it's about keeping the choice of circumcision to the person that owns the appendage, not whether they were okay with it or not.

[NeuroTiger]

That isn't what the debate is about, it's about keeping the choice of circumcision to the person that owns the appendage, not whether they were okay with it or not.

I was just giving my opinion since I myself is circumcised.
I don't find myself off-topic. Maybe you misunderstood my point.
It happens.

[Luminous]

If I was a boy, I would be circumcised, as my parents are Jewish. And honestly I think I would be upset with them. That is a piece of a boy's body that you took away without his knowledge and consent! If there is a medical reason it needs to be removed so be it, but there are other infections and complications that can come from being cut, removed for medical reasons or not.

[teen.jpg]

"Making a decision for your kid is horrible" But isn't that what your supposed to do as a parent? :lol:

Losing your foreskin isn't the end of the world ....

[sqishy]

I see it as a violation of someone's free will, because the child has no choice in it. Same with Baptism in Christianity.

[Stronk Serb]

The child should decide if it wants to go around with a mutilated penis, not the parents.

[Sir Suomi]

"Making a decision for your kid is horrible" But isn't that what your supposed to do as a parent? :lol:

Losing your foreskin isn't the end of the world ....

Took the words right out of my mouth... or keyboard, in this situation :P

[Walter Powers]

That's ridiculous

I'm happy my parents circumcised me.

[SosbanFach]

I don't really agree with the practice. It is a decision the effects of which will remain with the person (or ought I to say without the person) for the entirety of their lives, and thus is a decision which ought to be made by the individual in question unless it becomes medically necessary. Besides which, the child may not grow up to hold the same religious beliefs as the parents (or indeed, any religious belief at all).

[Sandra Main]

If I was a boy, I would be circumcised, as my parents are Jewish. And honestly I think I would be upset with them. That is a piece of a boy's body that you took away without his knowledge and consent! If there is a medical reason it needs to be removed so be it, but there are other infections and complications that can come from being cut, removed for medical reasons or not.

I agree with you.A baby foreskin shouldn't be cut off unless for medical
reasons only.To me that no different than cutting a baby's finger off for
no reason at all. I said it earlier for MEDICAL REASONS ONLY.!!!!!!

[TapDancer]

If I was a boy, I would be circumcised, as my parents are Jewish. And honestly I think I would be upset with them. That is a piece of a boy's body that you took away without his knowledge and consent! If there is a medical reason it needs to be removed so be it, but there are other infections and complications that can come from being cut, removed for medical reasons or not.

That's quite interesting, I am not saying I agree, but I can understand someone's point of view because it has something to do with their religion. But your view is opposite to what is expected in your religion (or your parent's religion, of course your parents don't dictate what you believe :P). But, a ssuming you practice Judaism yourself, then can I ask why your views differ from that of your religion? I am just curious. . .

[britishboy]

while I agree cosmetic surgery for.those who can't give consent is terrible, will Jews ne ok with the operation over 18? because if not we must respect their religion, we pride our selves on that

[TheBigUnit]

Is there even such thing as infant human rights? Aren't patents entrusted for the welfare of their own kid?

[Emerald Dream]

Is there even such thing as infant human rights? Aren't patents entrusted for the welfare of their own kid?

This is the best point brought up in this entire thread.

The parents are supposed to make decisions for babies, and what they feel is best. It is the parents' "rights" in this case, and not the rights of someone who can not even make a decision for themselves yet.

Going by some of the logic in this thread, parents should not be doing the following:

- baptizing a baby
- putting clothes or diapers on a baby
- feeding a baby
- taking a baby to the doctor for a checkup
- protecting a baby
- making any decisions for a baby

...since evidently the baby should be asked and give approval for every decision regarding it's life.

I can understand where someone would say that it is best to wait until a boy is old enough to make that decision on his own. However, sometimes that goes along with religion (like my point about baptism above). Not only that, but why put a boy through more pain when he is older and more conscious to it? That is what seems unnecessary here to me.

Is circumcision absolutely essential? Probably not. But it's the parents' rights in this case, and not the infants'.

[Korashk]

This is the best point brought up in this entire thread.

The parents are supposed to make decisions for babies, and what they feel is best. It is the parents' "rights" in this case, and not the rights of someone who can not even make a decision for themselves yet.

Going by some of the logic in this thread, parents should not be doing the following:

- baptizing a baby
- putting clothes or diapers on a baby
- feeding a baby
- taking a baby to the doctor for a checkup
- protecting a baby
- making any decisions for a baby

...since evidently the baby should be asked and give approval for every decision regarding it's life.

I can understand where someone would say that it is best to wait until a boy is old enough to make that decision on his own. However, sometimes that goes along with religion (like my point about baptism above). Not only that, but why put a boy through more pain when he is older and more conscious to it? That is what seems unnecessary here to me.

Is circumcision absolutely essential? Probably not. But it's the parents' rights in this case, and not the infants'.
Because those things are totally the same as forcing your child to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery right? Yeah, that's totally what we're saying.

Parents should totally be allowed to give their kids tattoos too right?
Your baby a bit fat? Take him or her in to get a tummy tuck.
While we're at it maybe parents should be allowed to get their daughter some breast implants?

What's that? No? You don't think parents should be allowed to do these things do you? Circumcision is almost the exact same fucking thing as doing any of these things, the only difference is that the mortality rate for the surgery is lower (except maybe for tattoos, I don't know whether tattoos or circumcision kills more people).

[Emerald Dream]

Because those things are totally the same as forcing your child to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery right? Yeah, that's totally what we're saying.

Parents should totally be allowed to give their kids tattoos too right?
Your baby a bit fat? Take him or her in to get a tummy tuck.
While we're at it maybe parents should be allowed to get their daughter some breast implants?

What's that? No? You don't think parents should be allowed to do these things do you? Circumcision is almost the exact same fucking thing as doing any of these things, the only difference is that the mortality rate for the surgery is lower (except maybe for tattoos, I don't know whether tattoos or circumcision kills more people).

Evidently you missed the point about religion, which...while a lot of people don't agree with it (including myself, even), is "necessary" to their beliefs.

Of course I am not talking about tattoos or breast implants or anything of that nature. You're completely ridiculous to even equate that. Your analogy is terrible, and so is the attitude.

It's still the parents' decision no matter how you want to look at it. What I don't understand is why a lot if people are obviously butthurt about the while thing. You're taking something you claim to be unnecessary, and making it infinitely more "unnecessary" by arguing over it so much.

[Korashk]

Evidently you missed the point about religion, which...while a lot of people don't agree with it (including myself, even), is "necessary" to their beliefs.
I dunno, last time I checked babies weren't religious and in the first world it's illegal to force your religion on another person. Sure, you can take your kid to church, but you can't force them to be a Christian and Jews certainly shouldn't be allowed to cut some of their son's penis off for shits and giggles.

Of course I am not talking about tattoos or breast implants or anything of that nature. You're completely ridiculous to even equate that. Your analogy is terrible, and so is the attitude.
I'm equating them because they're exactly the same. If you think that parents should be able to circumcise their child, then logically you have to support parent's right to get their child breast implants. If you don't then there's no reason to even discuss the issue because your view on it is arbitrarily determined.

However, I'll humor your claim. Exactly how is circumcision different than any other form of (in)voluntary cosmetic surgery? Don't even claim cleanliness or STDs either. Cleanliness can be achieved by washing your dick when you shower and condoms are more effective and cost efficient at preventing STDs.

It's still the parents' decision no matter how you want to look at it.
It shouldn't be. Parents don't have unilateral control over their children's lives and that's a good thing. There's simply no logical or moral standpoint that allows routine infant circumcision.

What I don't understand is why a lot if people are obviously butthurt about the while thing. You're taking something you claim to be unnecessary, and making it infinitely more "unnecessary" by arguing over it so much.
What does this even mean? We are aware that it is unnecessary and are trying to get other people to see that fact and stop abusing their children.

[Emerald Dream]

I dunno, last time I checked babies weren't religious and in the first world it's illegal to force your religion on another person. Sure, you can take your kid to church, but you can't force them to be a Christian and Jews certainly shouldn't be allowed to cut some of their son's penis off for shits and giggles.

And your own opinion about religion and what is best for that child counts for more than the parents of that child, how? I understand that a lot of people do not believe in it. If the child has a problem with it when he gets older then he can take it up with his parents. Or maybe not - because you're going to come back with the young man "obviously being brainwashed by religion." It's the lifestyle of that family, for generations in most cases. Unless it pertains to yourself, this shouldn't effect you in any way. You are taking offense to a family's religion. Who cares? Not your business.


I'm equating them because they're exactly the same. If you think that parents should be able to circumcise their child, then logically you have to support parent's right to get their child breast implants. If you don't then there's no reason to even discuss the issue because your view on it is arbitrarily determined.

As is your view. Hello Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Your view on it is already determined. What I don't understand is why you are so personally invested in this argument. Seriously, it doesn't effect you.


It shouldn't be. Parents don't have unilateral control over their children's lives and that's a good thing. There's simply no logical or moral standpoint that allows routine infant circumcision.

You are wrong here. Parents DO have control over what happens to their infant, whether you like it or not. Also, there is no logical or moral standpoint which DOES NOT allow routine infant circumcision. Is there proof that this is hurtful in the long run, when these boys become adults? I don't see the difference in whether a man is circumcised or not - except, as you put it..."how they wash their dick."


What does this even mean? We are aware that it is unnecessary and are trying to get other people to see that fact and stop abusing their children.

It means that this argument is unnecessary. Not that circumcision is necessary or not. That's not my issue. My issue is why so many people care about what parents choose for their son. It does not effect you, and even if it did - I fail to see the long term consequences of it. If a young man has a problem with it emotionally (since I fail to see how it's a "problem" physically), then it's his and not yours.

[britishboy]

actually you can force a child into religion... and anyway this really isn't that big a deal and jews are circumcised in childhood, I think it has to be that way

[Luminous]

That's quite interesting, I am not saying I agree, but I can understand someone's point of view because it has something to do with their religion. But your view is opposite to what is expected in your religion (or your parent's religion, of course your parents don't dictate what you believe :P). But, a ssuming you practice Judaism yourself, then can I ask why your views differ from that of your religion? I am just curious. . .

I am 13 years old and still live in their house, so I guess I'm 'Jewish'. They force me to celebrate holidays and other things like that with them, but I do not have the same beliefs and do not consider myself to be the same religion, I don't really classify myself under any religion, I'm just me, I don't really believe anything.

[Korashk]

And your own opinion about religion and what is best for that child counts for more than the parents of that child, how? I understand that a lot of people do not believe in it. If the child has a problem with it when he gets older then he can take it up with his parents. Or maybe not - because you're going to come back with the young man "obviously being brainwashed by religion." It's the lifestyle of that family, for generations in most cases. Unless it pertains to yourself, this shouldn't effect you in any way. You are taking offense to a family's religion. Who cares? Not your business.




As is your view. Hello Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Your view on it is already determined. What I don't understand is why you are so personally invested in this argument. Seriously, it doesn't effect you.




You are wrong here. Parents DO have control over what happens to their infant, whether you like it or not. Also, there is no logical or moral standpoint which DOES NOT allow routine infant circumcision. Is there proof that this is hurtful in the long run, when these boys become adults? I don't see the difference in whether a man is circumcised or not - except, as you put it..."how they wash their dick."




It means that this argument is unnecessary. Not that circumcision is necessary or not. That's not my issue. My issue is why so many people care about what parents choose for their son. It does not effect you, and even if it did - I fail to see the long term consequences of it. If a young man has a problem with it emotionally (since I fail to see how it's a "problem" physically), then it's his and not yours.
If you're not going to discuss things rationally I see no reason to continue this exchange.

[Imbody]

I'm happy my parents circumcised me. I dislike surgery and even though i know it will likely be safe the risk of complication increase with age. When i was young it could have caused uti's or other infections due to not be circumcised. Also it is more costly the later you wait also im not Jewish or any other religion where it would have not been forced on me, but looking back this is one decision i am grateful for.

[deadpie]

If you're not going to discuss things rationally I see no reason to continue this exchange.

She's been quite nice, honest with what she's saying where you're much more antagonizing, enraged and obviously have an opinion you're not going to change at all. Pretty immature style of debating. Kind of like me a few years ago when I was always doing angry debates. She's made some good points as you have made, although I'm going to agree with her.

actually you can force a child into religion...

Also parents have the right to raise you to whatever religion they want. If that's the philosophy and mental guidance they want to raise you to then so be it. As long as it doesn't involve the child being harmed or raised into a cult, lol, that's the crossing line. If parents don't want to, then good for them. I like that better to be honest, let them decide later on what they want to believe or lack there of and when they do support them.

[britishboy]

Also parents have the right to raise you to whatever religion they want. If that's the philosophy and mental guidance they want to raise you to then so be it. As long as it doesn't involve the child being harmed or raised into a cult, lol, that's the crossing line. If parents don't want to, then good for them. I like that better to be honest, let them decide later on what they want to believe or lack there of and when they do support them.

but why is that the line? so my child can be Christian but not Jewish? the state should not interfere in stuff like that

[deadpie]

but why is that the line? so my child can be Christian but not Jewish? the state should not interfere in stuff like that

Wait what? When did I ever say children can be only Christian? I was talking about all beliefs in general. What are you even talking about in every single post you make on this entire site? Not to be rude, don't take this wrong, but please read more often into what people say.. You are one of the most confusing members I've met in my five years on this site.

[britishboy]

Wait what? When did I ever say children can be only Christian? I was talking about all beliefs in general. What are you even talking about in every single post you make on this entire site? Not to be rude, don't take this wrong, but please read more often into what people say.. You are one of the most confusing members I've met in my five years on this site.

you said you can push beliefs and opinions on your child but not alter their bodies, (Jews)

[Korashk]

She's been quite nice, honest with what she's saying where you're much more antagonizing, enraged and obviously have an opinion you're not going to change at all. Pretty immature style of debating. Kind of like me a few years ago when I was always doing angry debates. She's made some good points as you have made, although I'm going to agree with her.
You can be nice and irrational. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I don't care what your demeanor is as long as you have a rational discussion. She has not made any good points and has resorted to claiming that all my assertions are opinions without responding to them.

It is a fact that most doctors today don't recommend routine infant circumcision in the first world because with cleanliness standards here. These cleanliness standards also make it a fact that there is no practical difference between circumcision and other cosmetic and plastic surgeries.

It is also a fact that in America you aren't allowed to force your invasive religious practices upon those that don't consent to them. I would go so far as to apply the same standard used to give blood transfusions to the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to say that Jews shouldn't be able to chop off part of their son's penis.

I sound emotional, yes. It's because I don't think you should be allowed to hurt people for no reason. I believe that's a perfectly valid reason to be emotional about especially when dealing with those people who think that your parents should be able to unnecessarily force you to have cosmetic surgery.

I also get emotional because virtually nobody on this forum knows how to have a rational discussion and it kinda pisses me off.

[deadpie]

you said you can push beliefs and opinions on your child but not alter their bodies, (Jews)

I never said that? When I meant by parents doing harm to a child through religion I meant abuse, whether it's physical or emotional. Like telling your kid they're going to burn in hell for random stuff, disowning your kid for having different beliefs then the parents, or coming out and being abused as examples... I said raising a child to a certain belief, philosophy or choosing not to. I view circumcision as medically beneficial whether others agree with it or not. Whether someone is against it, fine by me, but I'm against people saying it should be banned and such.. Also, I'm a Jewish convert.. Not all Jews get a Bris. The huge majority do, but some go with just the simple needle prick or a brit shalom (But that's Reconstructionists and a small amount of Reforms).

[britishboy]

I never said that? When I meant by parents doing harm to a child through religion I meant abuse, whether it's physical or emotional. Like telling your kid they're going to burn in hell for random stuff, disowning your kid for having different beliefs then the parents, or coming out and being abused as examples... I said raising a child to a certain belief, philosophy or choosing not to. I view circumcision as medically beneficial whether others agree with it or not. Whether someone is against it, fine by me, but I'm against people saying it should be banned and such.. Also, I'm a Jewish convert.. Not all Jews get a Bris. The huge majority do, but some go with just the simple needle prick or a brit shalom (But that's Reconstructionists and a small amount of Reforms).

oh sorry I thought by harm you was referring to the circumcision, of course I agree, no religion can hid from the law

[Kameraden]

I'm happy my parents circumcised me. I dislike surgery and even though i know it will likely be safe the risk of complication increase with age. When i was young it could have caused uti's or other infections due to not be circumcised. Also it is more costly the later you wait also im not Jewish or any other religion where it would have not been forced on me, but looking back this is one decision i am grateful for.

Might as well remove your tonsils because they have a chance of becoming infected.

[LouBerry]

If you don't approve, don't do it, if you do, then do. Should you be able to make that decision for you kids, maybe not, but then again, it's something that's been around forever, it's not likely to ever change.

[Kameraden]

If you don't approve, don't do it, if you do, then do. Should you be able to make that decision for you kids, maybe not, but then again, it's something that's been around forever, it's not likely to ever change.

Slaves have been around since before circumcision. Why don't we have them still?

[Emerald Dream]

Slaves have been around since before circumcision. Why don't we have them still?

This is not only off-topic, but you aren't even playing in the same ballpark with this comment. Please stop, or I will consider it trolling.

[Kameraden]

This is not only off-topic, but you aren't even playing in the same ballpark with this comment. Please stop, or I will consider it trolling.

If the user is going to support circumcision because its "been around forever" I following that logic can support slavery because its been around forever.

[Emerald Dream]

If the user is going to support circumcision because its "been around forever" I following that logic can support slavery because its been around forever.

No.

No matter what you think your logic is here, slavery is a very touchy subject and doesn't even belong in the same discussion as circumcision. It's very much off-topic, and the sole reason for introducing it into a debate (which has nothing to do with slavery) is to provoke a racial or ethnic confrontation with other members.

[Imbody]

Might as well remove your tonsils because they have a chance of becoming infected.

I did have my tonsil's removed as a child, but i do dislike any surgery which is why i am happy that this happened when i was younger also infected tonsil's happen more often than you think roughly 380,000 tonsillectomies are performed each year. I had to because when i was younger i kept developing horrible cough over the course of two years and my parents were worried about my health, at least i was told that.

[LouBerry]

If the user is going to support circumcision because its "been around forever" I following that logic can support slavery because its been around forever.

No where did I say that I "support" circumcision. Again, if you're against it, don't do it, if not, then do, it's that simple.

[Korashk]

No where did I say that I "support" circumcision. Again, if you're against it, don't do it, if not, then do, it's that simple.
By not being against it you, at least passively, support it. That's kinda how discussions of morality work.

[LouBerry]

By not being against it you, at least passively, support it. That's kinda how discussions of morality work.

Nothing is only black and white. There are always shades of grey. I could argue that by not being for it, I'm passively fighting it also, but that sounds stupid because I'm not fighting it or supporting it, and I'm certainly not doing both at the same time. I'm just not giving a fuck and letting people do what they want to do, because that's their right.

[Get Outta Compton]

Circumcision should be banned.

[TimCox]

I think there should be the option, but it shouldn't be forced upon someone. I like it myself but many others don't

[TheVideoGamer]

The funniest thing is when people try to use the excuse "you get more infections when uncirced". No, you don't; I hate to break it to you, but you have more of a chance of infection with circ than without, as the process is not cleanly at all. I am uncirced and I am 14 and have never had any type of problems or infection. I don't see the logic in getting it done. You are putting a permanent effect on your son, without their consent. My mom wanted me to have a say and that's why I wasn't. Of course, I didn't, as I'd rather be natural, I mean it's there for a reason. The process is disgusting: it is done without any anesthesia or any painkillers. I presume that if someone branded their child they would probably be looked down upon and most likely arrested for child abuse, when in reality it is pretty much the same thing. The only difference? One is highly practiced, the other is not. That's just my two cents.

[Syvelocin]

I would be on the side of banning circumcision, but then we have a whole other list of issues like piercing babies (which I also think should be banned) and where the line is drawn between when child body mod is legal and illegal. I would say signature but a minor's signature doesn't mean a whole lot. It would probably have to be eye witness, if the parents were forcing the kid or if the kid was doing it willingly but it's such a grey area.

[tovaris]

Every person should be able to decide for themselves whather toget cosmetic surgery.

[nklarke]

I consider that circumcision contravenes child's human rights as much as piercing babies do and nobody says nothing against that.
Also, the brainwashing some parents do could be more critical and deep than a physical act.

[Sleepwalking]

Unless it is for a medical reason, there should be no need to circumcise a child.

Comparing it to other decisions a parent needs to make is silly, those decisions are minor compared to removing something someone can never get back.
This is a debate that could go on forever, as people will always make the same arguments about it being cleaner/safer etc, but when in reality it isn't.

[skittles_was_here]

i don't think it's fair to do to a child that doesn't know what it is and doesn'y have a choice...

[chezhans]

Be careful of what you read in Australian journalism, is my first point. There's not a lot of truth at all in Australia.

Secondly, it DOES contravene human rights but this should be up to the families themselves. Religiously, not all religions say that they require their males to be circumcised at all. In my personal opinion, the process is unnecessary but in the same way, parents should do the correct thing and wait for their child's opinion before proceeding further.

[TapDancer]

Be careful of what you read in Australian journalism, is my first point. There's not a lot of truth at all in Australia.

Secondly, it DOES contravene human rights but this should be up to the families themselves. Religiously, not all religions say that they require their males to be circumcised at all. In my personal opinion, the process is unnecessary but in the same way, parents should do the correct thing and wait for their child's opinion before proceeding further.

Sorry, it is a little off topic, but when you say "There is not a lot of truth at all in Australia", could you elaborate in what you mean, please?

[chezhans]

Sorry maybe I should clarify…I think it is only fair to point out that there is no such thing as fair journalism. When you hear of statements from journalists, I am simply warning you all that you have to be very careful of what you read- it may be just an opinion or just an aphorism (statement taken generally as a fact, although really an opinion).

I know this is very off topic (anyone wanna start a thread on the truth of journalism? haha!) but I think John is right in allowing me to clear this up.

My advice for following current affairs- look who controls the news and what THEIR views are on the news! You will be surprised!

[AlexOnToast]

At the end of the day, the parents are choosing to make a needless cosmetic alteration to a person who cannot say no. This is also a decision that will effect the person for the rest of their life, maybe not in the hugest of ways, but it is still against basic human rights. It is fundamentally the same thing as having a child tattooed or having ear lobes stretched. I disagree with it on every ground.

[the_dude69]

I strongly believe that I am an animal. I also support evolution. There is no need for it in the first place. It was there to protect from germs. Now this whole thing about abusing their rights is b/s. Police stop and frisk pedestrians walking down the road. If you want to discuss rights being abused lets tackle a bigger issue.

EDIT: whats next five year olds should be able to vote. Thwts against their rights.

[Emerald Dream]

Please do not post in threads with more than two months of inactivity. :locked: