Circumcision of small boys banned

[Anneki]

The government in my country have been forced by a citizen proposals to discuss about circumcision of boys under 18 should be prohibited in the entire country. Circumcision of girls is prohibited, but not boys.
What do you think?

I think it's totally crazy to cut healthy childrens parts. What it was the right earlobe they cut off. How can ancient culture be such a big issue. It's 2018 for xxxx.

[german_boy]

The government in my country have been forced by a citizen proposals to discuss about circumcision of boys under 18 should be prohibited in the entire country. Circumcision of girls is prohibited, but not boys.
What do you think?

I think it's totally crazy to cut healthy childrens parts. What it was the right earlobe they cut off. How can ancient culture be such a big issue. It's 2018 for xxxx.


Circumcision of boys is way different from female genital mutilation. It's nothing that can be compared.

There are different ways of fgm, all involve the (partial) removal of the clit. It's done for cultural reasons for taking away girls' pleasure. If you compare the anatomy of a boy and a girl on the embryo, the anatomy of the primary sexual organs is identical until a certain stage. If you would perform the same on boys, you would have to cut off their glans.

What is done during male circumcisions is the removal of a part of the foreskin which is identical to a removal of the clit hood for girls. Some girls do it for aesthetic reasons, it doesn't interfere with the ability to have sexual pleasure.

However, I get your point. What if a boy doesn't like it when he's older. That's why there has been a discussion in my country as well, eventually ending up in a new law that generally allows circumcisions for religious reasons, if being performed by a professional (not any religious circumciser).

Our constitution guarantees some fundamental rights such as the religious freedom, the freedom to educate and the right of the physical integrity. Our government has decided that the first rights outweigh the last one. Sadly, our constitutional court hasn't decided on this law, this would clarify whether it conforms with our constitution or not.

The main reason for the liberal law was the complaint of Jewish organizations and the fear of the politicians to be antisemitic. I don't think it's antisemitic to decide a law that protects the integrity of childrens' bodies. Nevertheless, I think it's been a good idea to allow it to parents.

If you would prohibit it, some parents would do it anyway. If no doctor performed it, they would let non-professionals do it, with high risks for the boys. Or they would simply do "holiday circumcisions" (that's a critical thing for girls from cultures that still perform fgm).

[mattsmith48]

The government in my country have been forced by a citizen proposals to discuss about circumcision of boys under 18 should be prohibited in the entire country. Circumcision of girls is prohibited, but not boys.
What do you think?

I think it's totally crazy to cut healthy childrens parts. What it was the right earlobe they cut off. How can ancient culture be such a big issue. It's 2018 for xxxx.

Great to see a government that actually listen to the population.

[Spooky_Eli]

Denmark is doomed.

[mattsmith48]

Denmark is doomed.

No its not

[Spooky_Eli]

No its notyes. yes it is.

[mattsmith48]

yes. yes it is.

Would be nice to have an explanation there

[Spooky_Eli]

Would be nice to have an explanation theredenmark is doomed. thay are going down the path of authoritarian-liberalism, a path that leads to mutually assured destruction.

[mattsmith48]

denmark is doomed. thay are going down the path of authoritarian-liberalism, a path that leads to mutually assured destruction.

Because they want to ban circumcision? Don't you think you are exaggerating a little there

[Spooky_Eli]

Because they want to ban circumcision? Don't you think you are exaggerating a little therebanning circumcision is an authoritarian act so.. no.

[mattsmith48]

banning circumcision is an authoritarian act so.. no.

No its common sense, the only person who as the right to make the decision permanent, life changing procedure to your body is you.

[Spooky_Eli]

No its common sense, the only person who as the right to make the decision permanent, life changing procedure to your body is you.BULL. it's a symbol of a civilized society.

[mattsmith48]

BULL. it's a symbol of a civilized society.

Its a symbol of a civilized society to not cut off the part of a baby's dick? sure its another way say it

[mick01]

I was circumcised as a baby and today I am fine with being cut. But there are few good reasons for circumcising a new born baby which is almost automatic here in the US. Circumcisions should be the exception and not the rule.

[NewLeafsFan]

While I agree that it is great to see the government listening to its people, I don't believe that the religion, social, and medical rights of parents should be subject to government restrictions. Just to give you some background information as to where my opinions have been formed, I was circumcised as an adult and believe strongly that it is better to be circumcised.

Religious ceremonies should be treated with the respect and dignity that comes with age and tradition. As a Catholic, I would have my children baptized. To a Jewish or Islamic person, it would be no different to them as it would be to me to be told that baptism is banned. The argument that is often used is that circumcision leaves a permanent mark. While that is true, how many people change there religion? I'm sure that 99% of people that are circumcised for religious reasons are happy that it was done in the infant stage as it is a much more serious procedure as an adult.

Social reasons are also dismissed prematurely. Everyone pretends that these reasons are irrelevant, but they are. Growing up with family that is mostly circumcised, as a child, I believed that I was different, weird, and possibly inferior. I developed a complex at a young age. Seeing other people that seemed more shapely ans smooth made me think that theres was much better looking.

Let me also point out one last thing. There is a huge difference between female and male circumcision. There are no religions that require female circumcision. It is primarily performed for cultural reasons with the intentions of limiting or eliminating female sexual pleasure. It is also a much more dangerous procedure. Overall, it is very wrong to compare the male and female circumcision.

[Snowfox]

While I agree that it is great to see the government listening to its people, I don't believe that the religion, social, and medical rights of parents should be subject to government restrictions. Just to give you some background information as to where my opinions have been formed, I was circumcised as an adult and believe strongly that it is better to be circumcised.

Religious ceremonies should be treated with the respect and dignity that comes with age and tradition. As a Catholic, I would have my children baptized. To a Jewish or Islamic person, it would be no different to them as it would be to me to be told that baptism is banned. The argument that is often used is that circumcision leaves a permanent mark. While that is true, how many people change there religion? I'm sure that 99% of people that are circumcised for religious reasons are happy that it was done in the infant stage as it is a much more serious procedure as an adult.

Social reasons are also dismissed prematurely. Everyone pretends that these reasons are irrelevant, but they are. Growing up with family that is mostly circumcised, as a child, I believed that I was different, weird, and possibly inferior. I developed a complex at a young age. Seeing other people that seemed more shapely ans smooth made me think that theres was much better looking.

Let me also point out one last thing. There is a huge difference between female and male circumcision. There are no religions that require female circumcision. It is primarily performed for cultural reasons with the intentions of limiting or eliminating female sexual pleasure. It is also a much more dangerous procedure. Overall, it is very wrong to compare the male and female circumcision.

I am amazed that we agree on something.

[lliam]

I think it's totally crazy to cut healthy childrens parts. What it was the right earlobe they cut off. How can ancient culture be such a big issue. It's 2018 for xxxx.

It is also the year 5778 (Hebrew calendar) and circumcision has been taking place for nearly 6 millennia. So it's much older then ancient.

[Turbofan explosion]

I think it should be banned. Why ban it for girls but not boys? It should be his choice.

[NewLeafsFan]

I think it should be banned. Why ban it for girls but not girls? It should be his choice.

Because the circumcision of girls is done only for pain and to limit sexual pleasure. It is much more dangerous, painful, and challenging to recover from. Also, it has no religious backing.

(It is not a Muslim tradition, but an Arabic and African cultural practice). Had to mention that as I know someone's gonna challenge me on it.

[Jinglebottom]

It is just fascinating to see how some people try to justify unnecessary and permanent modification of a little baby's body. Guess we should start tattooing newborns now since it's all good, but even tattoos are more reversible than circumcision.

[Spooky_Eli]

It is just fascinating to see how some people try to justify unnecessary and permanent modification of a little baby's body. Guess we should start tattooing newborns now since it's all good, but even tattoos are more reversible than circumcision.do you have any argument that isn't based on emotion?

[Jinglebottom]

do you have any argument that isn't based on emotion?
I need to give you arguments to convince you not to chop parts of babies off?

[Spooky_Eli]

I need to give you arguments to convince you not to chop parts of babies off?yes. yes you do. so go ahead.

[Jinglebottom]

yes. yes you do. so go ahead.
You would think something like that would have an obvious answer. Have a nice day!

[CoryW]

I personally do think VT should allow posts like this one or posts about religion and politics .
They start drama and hatred towards other.
Your beliefs are simply your beliefs.
But here some people on here can stand it if you believe different from them.

[Spooky_Eli]

But here some people on here can stand it if you believe different from them.
not just on here but irl also,if you don't like the ROTW or Some of the threds in TWPR then you are free not to take part in them, however hating each other when debating in these threads is (perhaps unfortunately) nature of the game.

[EvaNL]

How anyone can think it's even remotely okay to chop off a body part of someone else without their consent is completely beyond me.
Apart from acute medical issues there is no valid reason whatsoever to circumcize boys who have no clue what is happening to them or have a say in it.
No. Valid. Reason.

[Pultost]

It definitely should be banned or at least age restricted, so the person can choose. In my opinion, blades and genitals don't mix.

[ShiveringScientist]

I keep hearing about the religious freedom of the parents. every person has religious freedom, not just adults. a babys religious freedom should stop you from carving your religion into it. what about a persons right to bodily autonomy? are we forgetting whose body it is were talking about? mutilation isnt determined from the severity of damage, mutilation is mutilation and its wrong. im sorry, but if your religion requires you to cut off parts of your kids then you should he rethinking your choice. the right to mutilate infants is not the mark of a civilized society its the mark of a barbaric society. good on the danes.

[Anneki]

It is just fascinating to see how some people try to justify unnecessary and permanent modification of a little baby's body. Guess we should start tattooing newborns now since it's all good, but even tattoos are more reversible than circumcision.

Yes or find some more things to cut off their bodies. Like toes or earlobes :metal:
I am choked how eager many religious types who are ready to defend their right to mistreat a child who can't say no.

[Just JT]

I’ve just read pretty much every post in this thread. And I’m shocked......to think that....
1). Someone feels a need to have a law about cutting off infants body parts
2). Some people actually think this is ok
3). This is actually not tossed into debates
4). I cant believe I’m actualy posting inhere
5). I want my forskin back, nobody had the right to take it from me

[JQL---]

I'm not bumping. It's not 2 months yet.

Personally, I think that Jewish circumcision is an important part of religion. Must keep religious freedom.

[EvaNL]

I'm not bumping. It's not 2 months yet.

Personally, I think that Jewish circumcision is an important part of religion. Must keep religious freedom.
What about the religious freedom of the baby? It cannot yet express which religion it follows, if any at all.

[Shamal]

I think guys shouldn't be circumcised at birth because, quite frankly, your parents or doctors decide to cut a bit of you off for no real good reason. However, I also think that some people may prefer to be circumcied, and this should be fine too but when the person who's having their dick cut up can choose. So yes, I think this is a good thing

[kryptonite]

It is just fascinating to see how some people try to justify unnecessary and permanent modification of a little baby's body. Guess we should start tattooing newborns now since it's all good, but even tattoos are more reversible than circumcision.


Shouldn't he be tattoed to match his dad? We don't remove daughters breasts just because mom had breast cancer.

If we all stopped and thought about every reason to circumcise:
He'll be made fun of if he isn't circumcised.
--People actually tease those with foreskin? In my locker room, if you see, you certainly don't admit to looking. People also tease each other for anything under the sun.

He could have health issues.
--He could have health issues for any number of things, but we don't remove the appendix, the spleen or any other body part "just because." Typically, we make a health decision regarding removal of a body part when the decision becomes necessary.

My religion requires it.
--What if he decides not to be part of that religion? What if the parents decide not to be part of that religion when he is still a baby?

Dirt can be trapped under there.
--Have we not heard of cleaning? Also, when it's in the diaper, the foreskin acts as protection from the gross stuff inside the dirty diaper. Plus, the thought of a raw wound up inside a dirty diaper?

AIDS in Africa:
--Let's go along with this... If circumcision prevented AIDS, then can we explain how Europe and South America (and all that foreskin) don't have a huge AIDS epidemic?

I think we in the USA circumcise for really two reasons:
1) A lack of education...we go along with what our doctors tell us...they get paid and the hospitals sell the foreskins.

2) Parental reasons. The dads think that they grew up without their whole penis and they don't want their sons growing up with their whole penis. It seems that if you're circumcised, you may want your son to be circumcised, but it's rare to be intact AND want your kid to be circumcised.

[Stronk Serb]

Keep that knife the fuck away from my peepee and keep it the fuck away from my son's and grandson's in case I go mad and decide it's a fucking great idea. When they grow up and they want to, let them, but do not let me, or anyone else cause either boys or girls permanent tissue removal unless it is neccessary (like phimosis for boys)

Also for you guys who say it is cleaner, you justify getting a part of your dick cut off just because you don't want to spend another second peeling off the foreskin and rubbing it with soap?

[kryptonite]

Keep that knife the fuck away from my peepee and keep it the fuck away from my son's and grandson's in case I go mad and decide it's a fucking great idea. When they grow up and they want to, let them, but do not let me, or anyone else cause either boys or girls permanent tissue removal unless it is neccessary (like phimosis for boys)

Also for you guys who say it is cleaner, you justify getting a part of your dick cut off just because you don't want to spend another second peeling off the foreskin and rubbing it with soap?


You mentioned phimosis. This brings up a good point. A lot of times, "phimosis" is misdiagnosed by US doctors who are overly eager to circumcise.

Many times, the foreskin doesn't naturally separate until puberty. Even then, there are creams and other non-invasive methods. Even the best doctors cannot diagnise phimosis on a child or young teen.


And as far as a knife? Anyone who thinks "it's just a little snip" needs to find a YouTube of one right now. It is honestly one of the most barbaric things we can do to a newborn child.

[Stronk Serb]

You mentioned phimosis. This brings up a good point. A lot of times, "phimosis" is misdiagnosed by US doctors who are overly eager to circumcise.

Many times, the foreskin doesn't naturally separate until puberty. Even then, there are creams and other non-invasive methods. Even the best doctors cannot diagnise phimosis on a child or young teen.


And as far as a knife? Anyone who thinks "it's just a little snip" needs to find a YouTube of one right now. It is honestly one of the most barbaric things we can do to a newborn child.

Even to a grown-ass man that shit is brutal.

[kryptonite]

Even to a grown-ass man that shit is brutal.

IMO, the difference is:
That someone of solid mind can knowingly make the decision for themselves
They can be sleeping during the procedure (unlike babies when the doctors lie and the kid is really screaming or in shock)
Proper pain medicine can be used, unlike EMLA cream which has warnings not to use on genitals of children or near open wounds

[Max the Disenchanter]

A bit borderline anti-Semitic. Also, you can't begin to compare female and male circumcision.

[Ben99]

I was cut as a baby. To be honest, i dont see any downside to it. Like, i dont know what its like to not be cut so i cant compare but being cut, i dont have to like wash under the foreskin and be scared about possible getting infections there.

[kryptonite]

I was cut as a baby. To be honest, i dont see any downside to it. Like, i dont know what its like to not be cut so i cant compare but being cut, i dont have to like wash under the foreskin and be scared about possible getting infections there.


To be honest, it would be like having any other body part removed at birth...you don't see any downside because you simply cannot compare as you put it.

The whole "washing under the foreskin" is honestly a ridiculous argument. People think it's some huge deal, when in reality, it takes 10 seconds tops. No one seems to worry about girls getting dirt or gunk in their folds, but we're not in some huge hurry to surgically alter them...

[InternetTeen]

I agree. People should choose whether they want it removed or not.

[NoLimitGuy]

Yes! Ban circumcision, allow gender-fluidism, transgenderism and feminism to ALL! We can do whatever we want! It's 2018, goddammit!

[Connordude]

It’s no different ethically
FGM is more horrific and more likely to fatal or mess things up
But MGM can too
All should be banned
Creepy that people would mutilate an infants sexual organs

Circumcision of boys is way different from female genital mutilation. It's nothing that can be compared.

There are different ways of fgm, all involve the (partial) removal of the clit. It's done for cultural reasons for taking away girls' pleasure. If you compare the anatomy of a boy and a girl on the embryo, the anatomy of the primary sexual organs is identical until a certain stage. If you would perform the same on boys, you would have to cut off their glans.

What is done during male circumcisions is the removal of a part of the foreskin which is identical to a removal of the clit hood for girls. Some girls do it for aesthetic reasons, it doesn't interfere with the ability to have sexual pleasure.

However, I get your point. What if a boy doesn't like it when he's older. That's why there has been a discussion in my country as well, eventually ending up in a new law that generally allows circumcisions for religious reasons, if being performed by a professional (not any religious circumciser).

Our constitution guarantees some fundamental rights such as the religious freedom, the freedom to educate and the right of the physical integrity. Our government has decided that the first rights outweigh the last one. Sadly, our constitutional court hasn't decided on this law, this would clarify whether it conforms with our constitution or not.

The main reason for the liberal law was the complaint of Jewish organizations and the fear of the politicians to be antisemitic. I don't think it's antisemitic to decide a law that protects the integrity of childrens' bodies. Nevertheless, I think it's been a good idea to allow it to parents.

If you would prohibit it, some parents would do it anyway. If no doctor performed it, they would let non-professionals do it, with high risks for the boys. Or they would simply do "holiday circumcisions" (that's a critical thing for girls from cultures that still perform fgm).

[german_boy]

It’s no different ethically
FGM is more horrific and more likely to fatal or mess things up
But MGM can too
All should be banned
Creepy that people would mutilate an infants sexual organs

Sorry, that's medical nonsense. More likely to mess things up? It is messing up, without any likeliness.

MGM will never remove the glans, which would be the equivalent. I've been to a country in Africa that has a high FGM rate and discussed the topic with some experts. They would never ever compare it.

[Connordude]

Sorry, that's medical nonsense. More likely to mess things up? It is messing up, without any likeliness.

MGM will never remove the glans, which would be the equivalent. I've been to a country in Africa that has a high FGM rate and discussed the topic with some experts. They would never ever compare it.

Incorrect sir
There are deaths and further tissue loss every year because of infection etc

Ethically it’s the same you are violating a body without the persons consent for an unnecessary reason. If it’s religious or cultural you are also forcing that on the person as well as the violation

[Connordude]

I was cut as a baby. To be honest, i dont see any downside to it. Like, i dont know what its like to not be cut so i cant compare but being cut, i dont have to like wash under the foreskin and be scared about possible getting infections there.

Because hopefully you’re one of the lucky ones who didn’t have sensitivity loss by adulthood
Imagine not being able to cum during sex because it takes a lot of jerking off only to get that to happen?

Sex feels better for uncut

[german_boy]

Incorrect sir
There are deaths and further tissue loss every year because of infection etc

Ethically it’s the same you are violating a body without the persons consent for an unnecessary reason. If it’s religious or cultural you are also forcing that on the person as well as the violation

Okay, removing the clit of a girl in order to make it unable for her to enjoy any sexual pleasure is the same as removing a part of the skin. For sure.

I understand your point. Comparing fgm to circumcision is still wrong.

[Connordude]

I said FGM and the reasons for it was worse but ethically it’s the same
You aren’t giving a person a choice

It is said many who had FGM can still enjoy sex, still feels good inside but obviously not as good as they could

That could be taqiyya though, just Muslim women telling lies to make it not sound as bad as it is

[ChrisA1998]

Sex feels better for uncut
unless you have experienced it both ways you cant know for sure

I was cut after I started to wank and I can tell you that orgasm feel just as good. feelings are slightly different, but pretty good, thanks

[Connordude]

unless you have experienced it both ways you cant know for sure

I was cut after I started to wank and I can tell you that orgasm feel just as good. feelings are slightly different, but pretty good, thanks

That doesn’t count - too soon.
Come back in 10+ years of no foreskin protecting your head.
Look how shiny the head of an uncut guy is compared to how dry looking a cut all his life guy is
You will lose sensitivity over time
It’s there for a reason

[ChrisA1998]

That doesn’t count - too soon.
Come back in 10+ years of no foreskin protecting your head.
Look how shiny the head of an uncut guy is compared to how dry looking a cut all his life guy is
You will lose sensitivity over time
It’s there for a reason
I've been on this site for like nearly 6 years. I've been cut for nearly 9
You sure aint the first one to tell me that

Some "other people's foreskin obsessed" told me, in just a few months you will no longer feel anything. When I told them my sensitivity was doing fine, they told me, wait 2-3 years. Then they said wait for 5-6 years. Now it's 10 years. My sensitivity is still doing fine, thanks

I'm not saying I'm for automatic circumcision, but maybe you should get a clue of what you're talking about

[Adamant]

Kind of spoof commenmt but maybe some truth too. Looking through new posts and saw a bit of a weird one. Girls - have you ever got sand in your cllit.
Here's ome advantage of circumcision. I don't reckon sand under the foreskin would be much fun.
Sorry if this offends.

[EvaNL]

Kind of spoof commenmt but maybe some truth too. Looking through new posts and saw a bit of a weird one. Girls - have you ever got sand in your cllit.
Here's ome advantage of circumcision. I don't reckon sand under the foreskin would be much fun.
Sorry if this offends.

If a simple rinse solves the problem, then it's ridiculous to cut it all off.
Same as cutting off your fingers because you have dirt under your fingernails. Or pulling all your teeth because they're dirty.
Seriously...

[Adamant]

If a simple rinse solves the problem, then it's ridiculous to cut it all off.
Same as cutting off your fingers because you have dirt under your fingernails. Or pulling all your teeth because they're dirty.
Seriously...

Ok but I did say it was partly a spoof one. Never said it was a great argument but if if an uncut penis is so much more sensitive like everybody says I don't think it would be a great experience.
Wasn't trying to start an argument.:whoops:

[EvaNL]

Ok but I did say it was partly a spoof one. Never said it was a great argument but if if an uncut penis is so much more sensitive like everybody says I don't think it would be a great experience.
Wasn't trying to start an argument.:whoops:

I understand that, and I'm just saying that sensitivity that may or may not be a problem later on is never an argument (or even part argument) to circumcise a baby boy.
Let's leave that problem for when it actually occurs (and even when it occurs and there is a simple non-invasive way to correct the issue (rinse), then circumcision should not be an option). Again, this is for minors.
Adults can do whatever they want with their bodies.

[Maxbreak]

I'm uncut and like it that way. I think boys should have it for themselves as a choice (or medical reasons) rather than been done as a baby.
Is it true that the female version is quite extreme?

[ChrisA1998]

Is it true that the female version is quite extreme?
it depends, I've read there are several forms. The slimplest form consists in removing the skin over the clitoris, that would be the equivalent of boys circumcision. In some other countries they also cut the lips and/or the clitoris, that would be like a piece of a boy's penis...

[Maxbreak]

it depends, I've read there are several forms. The slimplest form consists in removing the skin over the clitoris, that would be the equivalent of boys circumcision. In some other countries they also cut the lips and/or the clitoris, that would be like a piece of a boy's penis...

Some of that sounds awful. At least for a boy there can be medical reasons. I've no idea why a girl would need that done

[EvaNL]

Some of that sounds awful. At least for a boy there can be medical reasons. I've no idea why a girl would need that done

Preventative medical reasons for either boys or girls are unnecessary.
Urgent, immediate medical issues have to be dealt with immediately, of course, and both girls and boys can develop those.

If circumcision is performed on any minor for anything other than urgent medical reasons, I prefer to speak about "genital mutilation". It covers what is being done more accurate.

[xSashax]

I don’t think it should be banned. I’ve been with Jewish and Muslim boys and it’s their tradition. It’s not harmful or anything and circumcized cocks maybe cleaner. For girls it’s really harmful and cruel and that’s why they ban it.....

[lliam]

Traditions can be changed. Even those who have been practiced for millennia. And even if circumcision is more cruel and harmful for girls, the same right applies to everyone. In this respect, circumcision for boys must be prohibited, unless there is a medical indication. It's simple as that.

[EvaNL]

I don’t think it should be banned. I’ve been with Jewish and Muslim boys and it’s their tradition. It’s not harmful or anything and circumcized cocks maybe cleaner. For girls it’s really harmful and cruel and that’s why they ban it.....

I've heard of plenty of Jewish and Muslim guys that they wish they hadn't been circumcised. So it IS harmful for their mental wellbeing.

The fact that they have no choice in the matter is simply unacceptable to me.

If circumcised cocks are cleaner, there must be a significantly higher number of infections in areas/countries/continents where boys are not circumcised. And that's simply not true. Washing is a simple solution to dirt, be it under the foreskin, behind your ears or between your toes. And no-one is even thinking about cutting off toes and ears at birth.

[xSashax]

I've heard of plenty of Jewish and Muslim guys that they wish they hadn't been circumcised. So it IS harmful for their mental wellbeing.

The fact that they have no choice in the matter is simply unacceptable to me.

If circumcised cocks are cleaner, there must be a significantly higher number of infections in areas/countries/continents where boys are not circumcised. And that's simply not true. Washing is a simple solution to dirt, be it under the foreskin, behind your ears or between your toes. And no-one is even thinking about cutting off toes and ears at birth.

I don’t see it as a big problem. My brother isn’t circumcised and same as my cousins, but lots of boys are and it seems alright. Parents decide lots of things for us, like taking a shot etc.

I remember hearing something like this and now I just found a link....https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Obviously there’s a good side. And some boys do smell a bit under their foreskin...just saying, not that I have a preference.

[EvaNL]

I don’t see it as a big problem. My brother isn’t circumcised and same as my cousins, but lots of boys are and it seems alright. Parents decide lots of things for us, like taking a shot etc.

I remember hearing something like this and now I just found a link....https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Obviously there’s a good side. And some boys do smell a bit under their foreskin...just saying, not that I have a preference.

I do think it's a big problem. If a boy is not okay with it, he has to live with his body being mutilated for the rest of his life. By his parents.
Sure, parents decide a lot for their kids, but none of them are mutilations.

Regarding the WHO-link: I didn't know baby boys have sex...
And it clearly states too that it is only a partial protection.
Of course it has advantages, but I haven't heard any that can't be achieved by other means that do not infringe on the integrity of the human body. Like washing. Which boys have to do anyway, no matter if they are circumcised or not. Or they're gonna smell.

Unless there is a clear medical reason, nobody should be forced to get a part of their body cut off.

[TessTheGreat]

I don't see why you would want to cut anything off. And I don't think that religion or tradition should be an excuse.

[Natacha]

Im happy it's banned. If they want somebody to cut them, they can get it done by their own wish at 18.
However I think they just make a journey to their own culture and have it done there and come back. If it's a religious belief, you can't just say no and think they will accept it.
It's not like they are going "Oh right, Maybe you are on to something there. We just wait then"

[Dav1d]

this is pretty anti-semitic

[EvaNL]

this is pretty anti-semitic

A ban is not anti-semitic, because that law applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion, or whatever.

[Dav1d]

A ban is not anti-semitic, because that law applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion, or whatever.

great logic

[EvaNL]

great logic

Thank you.

[Natacha]

this is pretty anti-semitic

No it's not directly anti-semitic, it's anti-childmolesting. I don't think we actually care what kind of people or which religion, dictates the cutting. We are just against it.

[Dav1d]

No it's not directly anti-semitic, it's anti-childmolesting. I don't think we actually care what kind of people or which religion, dictates the cutting. We are just against it.

Yeah, but by prohibiting Jews from practicing male circumcision you're basically banning Judaism since it's a core element of that religion. Also, equating male circumcision with molestation is pretty extreme and suggests that Jews are a bunch of child molesters, which is also antisemitic.

[Natacha]

Yeah, but by prohibiting Jews from practicing male circumcision you're basically banning Judaism since it's a core element of that religion. Also, equating male circumcision with molestation is pretty extreme and suggests that Jews are a bunch of child molesters, which is also antisemitic.

Jews, islamic or people who just think it looks nicer. I just don't care who it is. And I didn't make that new rule, the politicians did. And I support them

[Dav1d]

Jews, islamic or people who just think it looks nicer. I just don't care who it is. And I didn't make that new rule, the politicians did. And I support them

It doesn't matter if the law targets everyone when we all knows that it's clearly designed to target Jews and Muslims, which Europe has an ugly history doing. Denmark is effectively banning Judaism and Islam with this law.

[Natacha]

It doesn't matter if the law targets everyone when we all knows that it's clearly designed to target Jews and Muslims, which Europe has an ugly history doing. Denmark is effectively banning Judaism and Islam with this law.

If you want me to say: "Ohh cutting boys, thats a great idea cause it's based on a religion" We don't have to take this discussion further.

[Jinglebottom]

If you want me to say: "Ohh cutting boys, thats a great idea cause it's based on a religion" We don't have to take this discussion further.
There is no use, there will always be people who will continue to advocate for the permanent modification of a helpless baby's body on the grounds that since certain religions practice it, therefore it is somehow acceptable.

[Natacha]

There is no use, there will always be people who will continue to advocate for the permanent modification of a helpless baby's body on the grounds that since certain religions practice it, therefore it is somehow acceptable.

Yes. I also decided I wouldn't do anymore about this :-)

[Dav1d]

If you want me to say: "Ohh cutting boys, thats a great idea cause it's based on a religion" We don't have to take this discussion further.

The law basically tells Muslim and Jewish Danes that they must leave the country. It's a racIst law.

[Jinglebottom]

The law basically tells Muslim and Jewish Danes that they must leave the country. It's a racIst law.
No it does not, it simply tells them that they have no right to permanently mess with a little kid's body just because their religion tells them so. That is a choice the little kid can do when he's an adult and responsible for himself.

[Tim the Enchanter]

No it does not, it simply tells them that they have no right to permanently mess with a little kid's body just because their religion tells them so. That is a choice the little kid can do when he's an adult and responsible for himself.

So it is telling their religions to fuck off? The Nazis did similar things, using this logic they weren’t racist, just looking out for the younger generations.

[Dav1d]

No it does not, it simply tells them that they have no right to permanently mess with a little kid's body just because their religion tells them so. That is a choice the little kid can do when he's an adult and responsible for himself.

But male circumcision is a central tenant to Judaism and is required a few days after birth. A law that bans that practice indirectly bans the practice of Judaism, which would mean in order for Jews to continue practicing their religion, they are required to leave Denmark. It's a light form of ethnic cleansing and will likely be followed by even more extreme measures by Denmark's right leaning population, which is against Muslim immigrants.

There is no use, there will always be people who will continue to advocate for the permanent modification of a helpless baby's body on the grounds that since certain religions practice it, therefore it is somehow acceptable.

Male circumcision has been around forever. I'm not circumcised and I think it's better that the child can make the decision about his own body, but this law is too extreme and is entirely designed as a way to target Muslim immigration, which indirectly targets Denmark's Jewish citizens. Denmark wants to be white again, basically. It's no different than Trump's Muslim-ban. It's just more subtle.

Double posts merged.

[Jinglebottom]

So it is telling their religions to fuck off? The Nazis did similar things, using this logic they weren’t racist, just looking out for the younger generations.
But male circumcision is a central tenant to Judaism and is required a few days after birth. A law that bans that practice indirectly bans the practice of Judaism, which would mean in order for Jews to continue practicing their religion, they are required to leave Denmark. It's a light form of ethnic cleansing and will likely be followed by even more extreme measures by Denmark's right leaning population, which is against Muslim immigrants.
Their freedom to exercise their religion stops when they are infringing the rights and body integrity of another human being, and in this case, that human being is a tiny little baby who has no idea what religion is. If you truly believe that we should allow thousands of innocent babies to be put through an irreversible, medically unnecessary and often painful procedure in the name of a religion that they may not even choose to follow when they are older, then this tells us everything we need to know. And the Nazi comparison? That was very classy, thank you.
The barbaric and outdated practice of cutting babies' healthy and natural genitals may seem normal to Americans, Muslims and Jews, but believe me, don't expect the rest of the world to view this practice as normal.

Male circumcision has been around forever. I'm not circumcised and I think it's better that the child can make the decision about his own body, but this law is too extreme and is entirely designed as a way to target Muslim immigration, which indirectly targets Denmark's Jewish citizens. Denmark wants to be white again, basically. It's no different than Trump's Muslim-ban. It's just more subtle.
You see this as an attack against Islam. The Danes see it as the act of protecting the babies in their country against barbaric practices brought on by religion that are happening on their land. If you can't agree with that, then we will agree to disagree. Have a great day.

[Tim the Enchanter]

And the Nazi comparison? That was very classy, thank you.

You’re very welcome. :)

[Dav1d]

Their freedom to exercise their religion stops when they are infringing the rights and body integrity of another human being, and in this case, that human being is a tiny little baby who has no idea what religion is. If you truly believe that we should allow thousands of innocent babies to be put through an irreversible, medically unnecessary and often painful procedure in the name of a religion that they may not even choose to follow when they are older, then this tells us everything we need to know. And the Nazi comparison? That was very classy, thank you.
The barbaric and outdated practice of cutting babies' healthy and natural genitals may seem normal to Americans, Muslims and Jews, but believe me, don't expect the rest of the world to view this practice as normal.


You see this as an attack against Islam. The Danes see it as the act of protecting the babies in their country against barbaric practices brought on by religion that are happening on their land. If you can't agree with that, then we will agree to disagree. Have a great day.

I get what you're saying, but the law tells Jews and Muslims to gtfo of Denmark. How is that a good thing? How can you not see that this exactly what anti-Muslim supporters want.

[Oscar-V3.0]

If circumcision is performed on any minor for anything other than urgent medical reasons, I prefer to speak about "genital mutilation". It covers what is being done more accurate.
The word mutilation is really exagerated. Mutilation is more about cutting a hand or a leg. Or the penis itself. Anything that renders life more difficult.
Most people live pretty well being circumsized

[lliam]

The Nazis were certainly racists. But this law has nothing to do with race, racism .. it touches a purely ethnic theme.

In a state that guarantees religious and cultural freedom, the good of all takes precedence. And when this state comes to the conclusion that certain religious practices are violating the equally well-vested right to the physical integrity of individuals, and, eg, therefore prohibits the circumcision of underage citizens, now religious matters have to hold back.

Even guaranteed freedoms have somehow their limits.

But it's left to those who are affected to doing lobby work, eg, thus to obtain an extension of the law in the form of exemptions. But until then, no religious related circumcission may be made.

[EvaNL]

The word mutilation is really exagerated. Mutilation is more about cutting a hand or a leg. Or the penis itself. Anything that renders life more difficult.
Most people live pretty well being circumsized

"Male genital mutilation (MGM), often referred to as 'male circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external male genitalia or other injury to the male genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons."

It is what it is. Mutilation.

[Oscar-V3.0]

It is what it is. Mutilation.

I dont feel mutilated at all. Willy works just fine, even without his hat.
I would probably say otherwise if one of arms or legs was missing :rolleyes:

[EvaNL]

I think it's strange that when you cut off someone's earlobe without their permission, you go to jail, but when you cut off someone's foreskin without their permission you're free to go.

I dont feel mutilated at all. Willy works just fine, even without his hat.
I would probably say otherwise if one of arms or legs was missing :rolleyes:

It's great that you don't feel mutilated. Many others do however. Physically and mentally.

Double posts merged. ~Jinglebottom

[Dav1d]

I think it's strange that when you cut off someone's earlobe without their permission, you go to jail, but when you cut off someone's foreskin without their permission you're free to go.



It's great that you don't feel mutilated. Many others do however. Physically and mentally.

Double posts merged. ~Jinglebottom

i assume you're also against abortion.

[EvaNL]

i assume you're also against abortion.

Feel free to post ontopic.

[Jrunner]

Feel free to post ontopic.

I'm pretty sure he's trying to make a comparison between the two things, and yes there is a relation

[Dav1d]

Male circumcision, which is a procedure primarily conducted by Jews and Muslims, is a central tenant of both faiths and the procedure itself is older than European history, including Denmark's. Denmark is home to 8,000 Jews and 300,000 Muslims. Together, this represents 5.4% of Denmark's total population. Additionally, over 70% of Muslims in Denmark are Danish citizens.

You may feel very passionate about a boy's foreskin (lol), but this law would effectively criminalize a deeply religious practice and result in the self-deportation of thousands of Danish citizens.

This law is a clever way to get left leaning Danish citizens to support a Muslim ban, which is exactly what the right wants.

There are better ways to address male circumcision that doesn't undermine an entire group of people.

[EvaNL]

There are better ways to address male circumcision that doesn't undermine an entire group of people.

Which are?

[Dav1d]

Which are?

I don't know. I'm not a sociologist. But banning two religions is not the solution. It's not clear why this is such a big issue for something that's been in practice for literally thousands of years and that only impacts the male offspring of less than 6% of Denmark's population. Since, you're completely avoiding my central argument, it's becoming increasingly obvious that this is all about banning Muslims, which Denmark's authoritative leaning right would love. This is an anti-Muslim bill. There's no way around it. This bill will result in the criminalization of Judaism and Islam and subsequent self-deportation of tens of thousands of Danish citizens. Stop pretending that this has anything to do with foreskin.

[EvaNL]

I don't know.

If you claim there are better ways, I'd at least expect you to name them...

Stop pretending that this has anything to do with foreskin.
It doesn't have anything to do with foreskin. It has to do with mutilation of infants.

[Dav1d]

If you claim there are better ways, I'd at least expect you to name them...


It doesn't have anything to do with foreskin. It has to do with mutilation of infants.

I prefer not to pretend that I'm expert like a lot of people on here. I think that german_boy provided some examples from where he lived.

You know for a lesbian, you seem strangely concerned with penises. :P

I still stand by my theory that this has nothing to do with circumcisions and everything to do with banning muslims.

[EvaNL]

You know for a lesbian, you seem strangely concerned with penises. :P
I'm rightly concerned about human wellbeing. And the gender does not matter to me.

I still stand by my theory that this has nothing to do with circumcisions and everything to do with banning muslims.
Then we will continue to disagree.

[Oscar-V3.0]

It's great that you don't feel mutilated. Many others do however. Physically and mentally.
Many others? How many?
Circumcision has existed forever. If so many people felt mutilated, they wouldn't do it to their kids. So it would be less and less frequent. But actually people still do it...

[EvaNL]

Many others? How many?
https://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/114/
In this studies 51% of circumcised boys qualify for PTSD.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1085.x
"Emotional distress, manifesting as intrusive thoughts about one’s circumcision, included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to intact men (50%),genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal(30%)."

And those are just the first 2 studies that I found online.

And how many people who have issues because of having been circumcised is acceptable? Isn't just 1 person already too many who suffer due to an unnecessary procedure?
Why not just stop the entire practice and let all boys decide for themselves when they become adults. That way they will not feel the psychological effects as stated above, because they choose themselves.
Circumcision has existed forever. If so many people felt mutilated, they wouldn't do it to their kids. So it would be less and less frequent. But actually people still do it...
Many people drive too fast too. Doesn't mean it should be (or is) allowed...

[Dav1d]

I'm rightly concerned about human wellbeing. And the gender does not matter to me.

doesn't sound like you care about the well being of 300,000+ danish citizens.

[Dav1d]

https://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/114/
In this studies 51% of circumcised boys qualify for PTSD.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1085.x
"Emotional distress, manifesting as intrusive thoughts about one’s circumcision, included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to intact men (50%),genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal(30%)."

And those are just the first 2 studies that I found online.

you're comparing apples to oranges here. you do realize that circumcision in the phillippines is conducted around the time of puberty, which deviates from most western nations where it occurs a few days after birth. but hey, you're clearly not concerned with the truth.

[EvaNL]

you're comparing apples to oranges here. you do realize that circumcision in the phillippines is conducted around the time of puberty, which deviates from most western nations where it occurs a few days after birth. but hey, you're clearly not concerned with the truth.

Puberty is still underage.

And feel free to ignore the second studies I posted. Or all of the other studies that can be easily found online.

But hey, you're clearly not concerned with the truth.

[Adamant]

"Male genital mutilation (MGM), often referred to as 'male circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external male genitalia or other injury to the male genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons."

It is what it is. Mutilation.

An extreme quote. Not sure why that person compares circumcision with the removal of the whole penis and calls the lot mutilation. I have by that definition been mutilated. The doctor thought he was doiing a good thing for me as I was cut for medical reasons and I think he was too. Am I being mutilated if I have a painful tooth pulled out?

I wouldn't circumcise a son unless it was for medical reasons but not sure its a good idea to ban it just like that and make jews and Muslims criminals if they want to folow their religion.

[EvaNL]

An extreme quote. Not sure why that person compares circumcision with the removal of the whole penis and calls the lot mutilation. I have by that definition been mutilated. The doctor thought he was doiing a good thing for me as I was cut for medical reasons and I think he was too.
The quote clearly states "whether for ... other non-therapeutic reasons". If your circumcision was for medical reasons, it was therefor therapeutic and not mutilation. Also, you agreed to the procedure.
I've said this entire thread that necessary medical procedures are fine.

Am I being mutilated if I have a painful tooth pulled out?
Depends. If it happens for medical reasons and you agree to the treatment not. If you are being held against your will and it is pulled without your consent, it is.

[Uniquemind]

Okay I gots to ask this cuz it makes no sense about violating Judaism because the OT has tons of animal sacrifices on a per sin basis, and not only that but the Jewish faith is not unified.

For instance there’s Orthodox Jews that consider even touching a woman makes you unclean and even marital couples who have sex have to go through a cleansing period before reentering their village.


So like aren’t the tenants of Judaism already violated just based on the way the modern world developed with science and technology?


The same goes for other abrahamic religions too; and I didn’t even get into a christianity which is Judaism but they just accept the NT as well as the OT, and then you have the mystic versions of those faiths.


Why is circumcision being allowed or not the crux of the argument about religious right’s being respected or not?

[Gay Paul]

I prefer not to pretend that I'm expert like a lot of people on here. I think that german_boy provided some examples from where he lived.

You know for a lesbian, you seem strangely concerned with penises. :P

I still stand by my theory that this has nothing to do with circumcisions and everything to do with banning muslims.

But Muslim extremist do really bad things, pouring acid on women face who dared to not wear hijab, doing bombing on Christmas feast killing LGBT within their own ranks :( should I continue my boy?

Such things only fuel far-right agenda, and saddest things that those assholes might be right on that particular thing :(

And boy penis should by boy choice and what they like to do with it! as long it's not risk of acciedntial pragnency because only it this case IS VERY PARENT BUSINESS! :D

[Adamant]

Getting back on topic and hating to argue against myself but i saw i the news a few days ago that a baby in Italy died from loss of blood after a messed up circumcision. I dont want to ban them all but that is scary.

[Dav1d]

But Muslim extremist do really bad things, pouring acid on women face who dared to not wear hijab, doing bombing on Christmas feast killing LGBT within their own ranks :( should I continue my boy?

Such things only fuel far-right agenda, and saddest things that those assholes might be right on that particular thing :(

And boy penis should by boy choice and what they like to do with it! as long it's not risk of acciedntial pragnency because only it this case IS VERY PARENT BUSINESS! :D

lol @ "my boy"

extremists can be found in every culture. your answer is to ban an entire relgion. because that will end well.

[ChrisA1998]

https://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/114/
In this studies 51% of circumcised boys qualify for PTSD.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1085.x
"Emotional distress, manifesting as intrusive thoughts about one’s circumcision, included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to intact men (50%),genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal(30%)."
Sorry luv, but your studies are giant pile of nothing...

for the first : what is the so called ptsd exactly ? nobody knows.
what are the syndroms ? They dont say. That's words and that's all. no concrete explaination whatsoever

and for the second, the study itself states : "Respondents may not currently represent the average male circumcised in childhood"
So how much is that study representative ? we dont know either
How were the responders chosen ? we dont know either. I wouldn't be surprised if they were chosen from some "intactivist" organization
if 60% of circumcised men really felt mutilated or inferior, I dont think circumcision would have been lasting for milleniums...

[Diable rouge]

I think your government is right and all should do the same. I don't see how inflicting this to babies and children can be allowed - unless medical reason - whereas no significant benefit has been proven, if at all - and that there can also be disadvantages.

If guys want to be circumcised, they could still be when being an adult, and they should not impose their opinion to children.

[BrutallyHonest]

Circumcision of boys is way different from female genital mutilation. It's nothing that can be compared.

There are different ways of fgm, all involve the (partial) removal of the clit. It's done for cultural reasons for taking away girls' pleasure. If you compare the anatomy of a boy and a girl on the embryo, the anatomy of the primary sexual organs is identical until a certain stage. If you would perform the same on boys, you would have to cut off their glans.

What is done during male circumcisions is the removal of a part of the foreskin which is identical to a removal of the clit hood for girls. Some girls do it for aesthetic reasons, it doesn't interfere with the ability to have sexual pleasure.

However, I get your point. What if a boy doesn't like it when he's older. That's why there has been a discussion in my country as well, eventually ending up in a new law that generally allows circumcisions for religious reasons, if being performed by a professional (not any religious circumciser).

Our constitution guarantees some fundamental rights such as the religious freedom, the freedom to educate and the right of the physical integrity. Our government has decided that the first rights outweigh the last one. Sadly, our constitutional court hasn't decided on this law, this would clarify whether it conforms with our constitution or not.

The main reason for the liberal law was the complaint of Jewish organizations and the fear of the politicians to be antisemitic. I don't think it's antisemitic to decide a law that protects the integrity of childrens' bodies. Nevertheless, I think it's been a good idea to allow it to parents.

If you would prohibit it, some parents would do it anyway. If no doctor performed it, they would let non-professionals do it, with high risks for the boys. Or they would simply do "holiday circumcisions" (that's a critical thing for girls from cultures that still perform fgm).

The truth is, boys are circumcised due to anti-masturbation, same with girls. The boys form is the only one that really took off.

[Adamant]

The truth is, boys are circumcised due to anti-masturbation, same with girls. The boys form is the only one that really took off.
That doesnt make sense.
Circumcision doesnt stop masturbation. Plenty of evidence in the puberty forums.
Circumcision just removes the skin not the penis!

[Max the Disenchanter]

All this fake outrage disgusts me.

[Pultost]

Getting back on topic and hating to argue against myself but i saw i the news a few days ago that a baby in Italy died from loss of blood after a messed up circumcision. I dont want to ban them all but that is scary.

That is awful. Just one more reason why people shouldn't mess around with body parts that's supposed to be there. :(

[jamie_n5]

Sorry to bump this one but I can't believe I have never commented before now.

I wish that the USA would ban all circumcisions too except for medical or religious reasons. There is no sense or reason to circumcise boys. We were born with it and should be able to decide ourselves whether or not we want to keep our foreskins.

[Pultost]

Sorry to bump this one but I can't believe I have never commented before now.

I wish that the USA would ban all circumcisions too except for medical or religious reasons. There is no sense or reason to circumcise boys. We were born with it and should be able to decide ourselves whether or not we want to keep our foreskins.

That shit should be banned anywhere, medical reasons should be the only excuse.

[delete this]

A correctly done circumcision has nothing but benefits.

[TessTheGreat]

A correctly done circumcision has nothing but benefits.

If it had nothing but benefits then boys would be born circumcised as a result of evolution and natural selection. The fact that baby boys are born with foreskins would suggest that you are wrong. If I ever have a baby boy he isn't going to get this done.

[Pultost]

If it had nothing but benefits then boys would be born circumcised as a result of evolution and natural selection. The fact that baby boys are born with foreskins would suggest that you are wrong. If I ever have a baby boy he isn't going to get this done.

Exactly. There are no good reasons whatsoever to remove the foreskin. I'll never do that to my son if I have one either.

[sidric8]

There are no good reasons whatsoever to remove the foreskin.
Oh come on. There are good reasons both for and reasons against. You may value the reasons on one side more than the other—that's fine, not everyone has to agree on their conclusions—but to say there are *no* reasons on the side you don't agree with just shows that you haven't seriously considered the issue; you just have an unexamined opinion.

[Pultost]

Oh come on. There are good reasons both for and reasons against. You may value the reasons on one side more than the other—that's fine, not everyone has to agree on their conclusions—but to say there are *no* reasons on the side you don't agree with just shows that you haven't seriously considered the issue; you just have an unexamined opinion.

It's just my opinion. The whole concept seems crazy to me.

[TheBlueDragon]

Personally, I believe that circumcision of small boys should be banned because they aren't able to actually consent to what is basically mutilation of a part of their body. I understand that there are certain religious contexts wherein this becomes an issue, but in general, to me it's a violation of the basic human right to our own body.

Even your parents don't have the right to consent to something like that for you.

[Connordude]

It should be illegal in under 18s

[HFrint]

I think circumcision is ok for those who do it. I am cut and I’ve suffered no ill effects . I know of a boy who chose to get cut when he was 11. He said he likes it better that he way.

If people choose to not circumcise then who’s to argue.

[delete this]

It's just my opinion. The whole concept seems crazy to me.

What if the child has an infection?

[Pultost]

What if the child has an infection?

Medical reasons is something else of course. It's the "religious" BS reasons that are wrong.