Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[John Dule]

Unequivocally yes, and any parent caught doing this to their child should face the same punishment as they would if they'd amputated one of his fingers or toes. If female genital mutilation is illegal, male genital mutilation should be as well.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Unequivocally yes, and any parent caught doing this to their child should face the same punishment as they would if they'd amputated one of his fingers or toes. If female genital mutilation is illegal, male genital mutilation should be as well.

It's kind of hard to compare it to a female genital mutilation, which is a complete butchery, but I'm leaning towards a "yes", in a sense children/minors should not have this performed on themselves because their parents decided so. If you're an adult and still want to have your foreskin removed, the hell, be my guest.

[Former President tack50]

All circumcisons? Absolutely not, it is a legitimate medical procedure with plenty of legitimate uses.

It should be banned in the cases of minors though (except with said medical prescription)

[politicallefty]

Unequivocally yes, and any parent caught doing this to their child should face the same punishment as they would if they'd amputated one of his fingers or toes. If female genital mutilation is illegal, male genital mutilation should be as well.

Yeah, I agree with you 100%. Unless there's an actual legitimate and urgent medical need, I don't see how anyone can think it's okay to cut off part of a child's gentitals. Adults should be free to alter their bodies (genitals included) as they see fit, not their parents.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Yes (sane, abnormal, believes bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right)

[Antonio the Sixth]

In an ideal world, yes, absolutely.

In the world we actually live in, though, such a ban would sadly do more harm than good.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Yes.

[°Leprechaun]

Absolutely no question about it. Anything less is insanity. Dogma is horrible.

When was the last time you heard of anyone choosing this for themselves?

[John Dule]

I see that the ever-powerful infant genital mutilation and torture coalition has strong numbers on Atlas as well.

[afleitch]

I see that the ever-powerful infant genital mutilation and torture coalition has strong numbers on Atlas as well.

I mean I think infant circumcision for any aesthetic (including religious) reason is barbaric and in the US is a holdover from the anti-masturbatory moral panic of the early 20th century but I'm going to vote 'no' in this poll because there are perfectly valid reasons for adult circumcision.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I view it as similar to the niqab: a rather gross thing that I wish didn't exist, but the implications of a ban goes way more than the damage done by its continued practice amongst a small minority (I'm talking about a non USA context). Like, if we want a ban we are saying that the practice of Judaism - and as far as I know infant circumcision is a consistent tenet amongst even the most liberal interpretations of Jewish law - would be banned. This is really not an avenue I want to remotely venture down.

[Kingpoleon]

I view it as similar to the niqab: a rather gross thing that I wish didn't exist, but the implications of a ban goes way more than the damage done by its continued practice amongst a small minority (I'm talking about a non USA context). Like, if we want a ban we are saying that the practice of Judaism - and as far as I know infant circumcision is a consistent tenet amongst even the most liberal interpretations of Jewish law - would be banned. This is really not an avenue I want to remotely venture down.

As a society, we must ask ourselves several questions on this issue:

1. Is free religious practice able to override the moral necessity of consent?
2. Just how seriously altering is circumcision? Should the lack of a noticeable difference to most people make the lack of consent a non-issue?

For me, as much as I respect all religions, it is very difficult for me to say that they are allowed to do *that* to a baby. However, while it is fully appropriate for the medical community to discourage intent circumcision - something they discourage in most other Western countries - a ban based on medical advice would result in dangerous, unlicensed individuals attempting a very risky surgery on the highest risk age group in the country. So while I may be morally opposed, I cannot morally or reasonably support a legal ban on it.

[afleitch]

a ban based on medical advice would result in dangerous, unlicensed individuals attempting a very risky surgery on the highest risk age group in the country. So while I may be morally opposed, I cannot morally or reasonably support a legal ban on it.

Though that same argument, it'll go underground etc has been used to excuse legal inaction on FGM. It's not a robust argument in itself.

[John Dule]

I see that the ever-powerful infant genital mutilation and torture coalition has strong numbers on Atlas as well.

I mean I think infant circumcision for any aesthetic (including religious) reason is barbaric and in the US is a holdover from the anti-masturbatory moral panic of the early 20th century but I'm going to vote 'no' in this poll because there are perfectly valid reasons for adult circumcision.

Please read the full poll question.

[afleitch]

I see that the ever-powerful infant genital mutilation and torture coalition has strong numbers on Atlas as well.

I mean I think infant circumcision for any aesthetic (including religious) reason is barbaric and in the US is a holdover from the anti-masturbatory moral panic of the early 20th century but I'm going to vote 'no' in this poll because there are perfectly valid reasons for adult circumcision.

Please read the full poll question.

No one has time to read the question. Merely the thread title. Easy mistake to make I first noticed this back in 1998 when I first joined a geocities forum and I posted a question on why anyone would quote this to read the small font

[Kingpoleon]

a ban based on medical advice would result in dangerous, unlicensed individuals attempting a very risky surgery on the highest risk age group in the country. So while I may be morally opposed, I cannot morally or reasonably support a legal ban on it.

Though that same argument, it'll go underground etc has been used to excuse legal inaction on FGM. It's not a robust argument in itself.

We must take into account the fact that a medical community which discourages it and has awareness campaigns against it can do far more to lower the rate of infant genital surgery/mutilation than a government ban on the practice.

[John Dule]

I see that the ever-powerful infant genital mutilation and torture coalition has strong numbers on Atlas as well.

I mean I think infant circumcision for any aesthetic (including religious) reason is barbaric and in the US is a holdover from the anti-masturbatory moral panic of the early 20th century but I'm going to vote 'no' in this poll because there are perfectly valid reasons for adult circumcision.

Please read the full poll question.

No one has time to read the question. Merely the thread title. Easy mistake to make I first noticed this back in 1998 when I first joined a geocities forum and I posted a question on why anyone would quote this to read the small font

Not too late to change your vote!

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

You're about four thousand years too late for me to even entertain any argument that society should outlaw the practice of Judaism for the greater good.

[John Dule]

You're about four thousand years too late for me to even entertain any argument that society should outlaw the practice of Judaism for the greater good.

Who said anything about Judaism? Individuals are free to practice whatever religion they want; what they aren't free to do is mutilate the most vulnerable members of our society just because "we've always done it that way." This goes for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and everyone else who wants to take a knife to a newborn.

Also, if you really think I care about the greater good then we definitely haven't met.

[dead0man]

This is one of the few (only?) positions I have that I acknowledge is indefensible and I hold onto for reasons other than logic/reason.  Sorry John.  I'm cut and both my sons are cut and I don't hate my parents for it and my boys don't hate their parents for it.  I only think about it once every three years when it comes up <teehee> in a thread here or when an uncut one occasionally shows up in porn.

[John Dule]

This is one of the few (only?) positions I have that I acknowledge is indefensible and I hold onto for reasons other than logic/reason.  Sorry John.  I'm cut and both my sons are cut and I don't hate my parents for it and my boys don't hate their parents for it.  I only think about it once every three years when it comes up <teehee> in a thread here or when an uncut one occasionally shows up in porn.

Interesting...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I am still intact and glad of it, I'll have to vote no.  The physical impact is minimal, if done competently, so even if done solely for religious reasons, I don't see a clear dividing line between this and any other form of religious indoctrination of minors by parents.  Beyond basic regulations to ensure the hygiene and skill of the practitioner that should be in place, just as it should be for any surgical procedure, the only special regulation concerning circumcision that I'd care to enact is requiring local anesthesia. Moreover, this literally is a procedure that is easier on the recipient at the neonatal stage than later.  Now if we ever develop a method of temporal communication so that we could have an adult decide if he wanted it done when he was a newborn, that would be ideal, but I doubt that's ever goy-nna happen.

[John Dule]

While I am still intact and glad of it, I'll have to vote no.  The physical impact is minimal, if done competently, so even if done solely for religious reasons, I don't see a clear dividing line between this and any other form of religious indoctrination of minors by parents.  Beyond basic regulations to ensure the hygiene and skill of the practitioner that should be in place, just as it should be for any surgical procedure, the only special regulation concerning circumcision that I'd care to enact is requiring local anesthesia. Moreover, this literally is a procedure that is easier on the recipient at the neonatal stage than later.  Now if we ever develop a method of temporal communication so that we could have an adult decide if he wanted it done when he was a newborn, that would be ideal, but I doubt that's ever goy-nna happen.

It's different because this can never be undone.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I am still intact and glad of it, I'll have to vote no.  The physical impact is minimal, if done competently, so even if done solely for religious reasons, I don't see a clear dividing line between this and any other form of religious indoctrination of minors by parents.  Beyond basic regulations to ensure the hygiene and skill of the practitioner that should be in place, just as it should be for any surgical procedure, the only special regulation concerning circumcision that I'd care to enact is requiring local anesthesia. Moreover, this literally is a procedure that is easier on the recipient at the neonatal stage than later.  Now if we ever develop a method of temporal communication so that we could have an adult decide if he wanted it done when he was a newborn, that would be ideal, but I doubt that's ever goy-nna happen.

It's different because this can never be undone.

Never say never.

[John Dule]

While I am still intact and glad of it, I'll have to vote no.  The physical impact is minimal, if done competently, so even if done solely for religious reasons, I don't see a clear dividing line between this and any other form of religious indoctrination of minors by parents.  Beyond basic regulations to ensure the hygiene and skill of the practitioner that should be in place, just as it should be for any surgical procedure, the only special regulation concerning circumcision that I'd care to enact is requiring local anesthesia. Moreover, this literally is a procedure that is easier on the recipient at the neonatal stage than later.  Now if we ever develop a method of temporal communication so that we could have an adult decide if he wanted it done when he was a newborn, that would be ideal, but I doubt that's ever goy-nna happen.

It's different because this can never be undone.

Never say never.

Don't give false hope to the millions of mutilated guys out there. They are living cursed half-lives.