Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Circumcision illegal in Ireland?
Options
Comments
-
Probably because it was seen as normal within their home life and social circles.0
-
Sierra 117 wrote: »Probably because it was seen as normal within their home life and social circles.
Just as it might be seen as abnormal in youir home life and social circles?0 -
Yeah. So?0
-
Sierra 117 wrote: »Yeah. So?
So many of the men who were circumcised as infants can't understand why you think they should have a problem with it, you can't understand why they think you should not have a problem with it.
It seems unusual that so many in this thread think that they should outlaw a practice, and that those who have been the subjects of that practice disagree and don't want it outlawed!0 -
You are incorrect as it was not my meta analysis.
Is this not your post where you quote the entire paper list at someone? I hope that wasn't your attempt to dodge the issue being put to you.Again, they are not my problems. i merely highlighted some of the difficulties which are likely to arise should a government try to legislate againt male infant or child circumcision. It's fine if you don't see them as problems, although it's interesting you don't address the problems themselves.
I have addressed the problems, by pointing out that no-one gives a sh*t about them in relation to female circumcision and therefore no-one will give a sh*t about them in relation to male circumcision. The problems you suggest are moot.Perhaps you missed where I said
Em, no, I was responding to it. I know some people inevitably repeat what they say when presented with a counter argument that they cant deal with, but at least most people will alter the wording to hide the fact.For me, that there is not a groundswell of protest from these men suggests that it is not an issue for them. It's all very well for you to tell them they should be, but the fact is they aren't.
I have already explained why this might be the case and why there still is a problem. You are not engaging in this debate and its getting irritating. Respond to the points put to, discuss the points made, dont just repeat yourself.As a libertarian, I am able to feel I don't have to impose my decisions on others. While I am personally not in favour of infant or childhood circumcisions, I am also not in favour of imposing my decion on others who have strong views about it, and whose sons, when they get to the age of majority, largely don't seem to think it a problem.
Where we differ is that you seem to want to impose your views on others, which is a respectable view, but not one I share on this issue.
This is just repeating yourself, nothing here actually counters what I'm saying (to be expected, I suppose, as I was responding to when you made these same points before). My last post still stands:Me wrote:Firstly, those that had it done at such a young age that they dont remember the pain have been indoctrinated from birth that it was necessary and that they are dirty if they didn't do it. Therefore they are not likely to campaign against it.
Secondly, given that a good number of number of men have it done as per their own free will as adults, then why shouldn't we have it that all men wait until they reach adulthood before doing it? Surely, as a libertarian, you would want the person being circumcised be willing to have it done?0 -
Advertisement
-
So many of the men who were circumcised as infants can't understand why you think they should have a problem with it, you can't understand why they think you should not have a problem with it.
It seems unusual that so many in this thread think that they should outlaw a practice, and that those who have been the subjects of that practice disagree and don't want it outlawed!
I have explained why those who had it done as kids are unlikely to campaign against it:
Its indoctrination, pure and simple.Me wrote:Those that had it done at such a young age that they dont remember the pain have been indoctrinated from birth that it was necessary and that they are dirty if they didn't do it. Therefore they are not likely to campaign against it.0 -
Many of the women who've had their feet bound, or their necks elongated would also defend those barbaric practices.So many of the men who were circumcised as infants can't understand why you think they should have a problem with it, you can't understand why they think you should not have a problem with it.
It seems unusual that so many in this thread think that they should outlaw a practice, and that those who have been the subjects of that practice disagree and don't want it outlawed!0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »
You are not engaging in this debate and its getting irritating. Respond to the points put to, discuss the points made, dont just repeat yourself.
This is just repeating yourself, nothing here actually counters what I'm saying (to be expected, I suppose, as I was responding to when you made these same points before). My last post still stands:
I think any examination of the lenghty discussion I have already engaged in for pages and pages here seems to contradict your claim that I have not engaged in the debate.
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but your post seems to me to attempt to raise the tempo of the discussion, which for me is something I don't enjoy.
I have made my poisition more than clear over many pages in this thread.
Can't we just agree to differ, and move on?0 -
Many of the women who've had their feet bound, or their necks elongated would also defend those barbaric practices.
And many people who pierce their children's ears might have below average IQ's.
It's a matter of degree, and if you think feet binding or neck elongating is the same degree as infant circumcision, then we disagree.
I disagree with many things other people do, which include ear piercing, circumcision, dressing little children up like little brides and grooms having them confirmed before the age of majority, beauty pageants for young children where they are dressed by their parents as if they were over 20 and made up like tarts, and many many other things.
However, I don't think as a society it is either right or good that we should ban everyone from doing things with which I personally disagree. I am able to distinguish between something which is serious (neck elongating and foot binding, for exampe) and things which are less serious (ear piercing, circumcision, dressing little children up like little brides and grooms and having them confirmed before the age of majority), and agree only to proscribe those things which are more serious, and realise I live in a free society, and not a totalatarian regieme where every activity is controlled by the state.
I put male infant and childhood circumcision into the latter category. You may not, in which case we disagree.0 -
Circumcision of minors for non medical reasons should be outlawed. It's an act of barbarity and is physical assault.
You get apologists coming on with various excuses to try and rationalize it but they are deluded. You are exposing a child in your care and under your guardianship to avoidable risk of harm. Many children end up with a botched operation and no genitals. Don't dare come on here saying you were doing them a favor by exposing them to an unnecessary risk. And no- the fact people are piercing ears does not give you a free pass no more than wars in Iraq give you a free pass to start touching someones genitals with a blade without their consent. Also pierced ears are nothing in terms of risk and reversibility compared to circumcision. Pierced ears heal , close up and disappear when left alone. Reversing a circumcision can involve years of painful cosmetic surgery and procedures and the end result is never the same.0 -
Advertisement
-
The truth is that the evidence of either benefit or detriment from male circumcision is actually pretty marginal. There is some evidence of medical or psychosexual complications, but there is also evidence of medical and psychosexual advantage. In the long run, it’s probably a pretty finely balanced thing and, for a boy, whether your parents teach you to brush your teeth properly is likely to have a much greater impact on your long-term welfare than whether they have you circumcised.
The prevalence of male infant circumcision seems to be largely a matter of fashion. Certainly in the western world, the great majority of circumcised men are not circumcised for religious reasons. We note that the popularity of circumcision changes dramatically over relatively short periods. For example, two-thirds of Australian men who are now aged over 60 are circumcised (very few of them for religious reasons). But well under 10% of the grandsons of these men are circumcised. In the UK, the prevalence of circumcision varies not only over time but also over socioeconomic class; the higher your socioeconomic status, the more likely it is that you are circumcised (if male). In the US, male infant circumcision has been very popular since the mid-twentieth century and remains so today. This is not for religious reasons. Most parents who choose to circumcise their sons and who are asked why say that they don’t want their sons to look different, and all the other male babies are being circumcised. In other words, in the US this is largely a cosmetic procedure, to conform to expectations about how a boy should appear.
You can certainly argue that cosmetic surgery on infants is a bad thing, but I don’t see that this is an atheist/theist issue. There are a couple of religions which see circumcision as a religious obligation, or at least a religious ritual, but in the western world they are very much minority religions, and the great bulk of circumcisions have nothing to do with religion. A more informed and enlightening discussion might be found on the Health Sciences board, or on a board dealing with general philosophical or ethical issues.
Disclosure: I am circumcised. I did not have my own son circumcised.0 -
Circumcision of minors for non medical reasons should be outlawed. It's an act of barbarity and is physical assault.
We have to recognise opinion from fact, and your opinion is quite valid that it is an act or barbarity. It's a mystery why so many of the over one billion men who were circumcised as infants or children seem to disagree with you.You get apologists ...but they are deluded.
Thats quite a few apologists, over a billion of them who were themselves circumcised as infants.
What is a mystery to so many of those men who were circumcised as infants and children is why some should be so outraged on their behalf, when they themselves are quite happy and relaxed about it, and many are quite thankful for it.0 -
It's a mystery why so many of the over one billion men who were circumcised as infants or children seem to disagree with you.
Thats quite a few apologists, over a billion of them who were themselves circumcised as infants.
What is a mystery to so many of those men who were circumcised as infants and children is why some should be so outraged on their behalf, when they themselves are quite happy and relaxed about it, and many are quite thankful for it.
Many sick groupings, e.g NAMBLA take comfort in numbers too but it does nothing for their argument.
If your only argument is numbers then you have no argument. Furthermore you grasp at straws in trotting out the brainwashed propaganda victim red herring of ''the happy lobotomy patient.''
One unhappy child whose genitalia have been permanently destroyed by an adult is one too many . One adult who endures years of pain attaching weights to his penis to try and regain the foreskin which was taken away without consent in childhood is one too many. What they have in common is you support those who deliberately injured them physically and psychologically. Also they number in their thousands.0 -
Many sick groupings, e.g NAMBLA take comfort in numbers too but it does nothing for their argument.
If your only argument is numbers then you have no argument. Furthermore you grasp at straws in trotting out the brainwashed propaganda victim red herring of ''the happy lobotomy patient.''
One unhappy child whose genitalia have been permanently destroyed by an adult is one too many . One adult who endures years of pain attaching weights to his penis to try and regain the foreskin which was taken away without consent in childhood is one too many. What they have in common is you support those who deliberately injured them physically and psychologically. Also they number in their thousands.
Merely calling those who disagree with you names doesn't seem like a very good argument to me, so we'll have to agree to disagree.0 -
Merely calling those who disagree with you names doesn't seem like a very good argument to me, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
I seriously have no idea what name you were called. I assumed you are a circumcision supporter. A viewpoint rather than a name. Not sure about yourself but I know which issue is a million times more important.0 -
To be fair, it would be oversimplifying his views if you were to call easychair a circumcision supporter.
One doesn't have to have either a pro or against circumcision stance. From what I gather, easychair is against it in principle, but not at the expense of parental/cultural liberties.0 -
I think any examination of the lenghty discussion I have already engaged in for pages and pages here seems to contradict your claim that I have not engaged in the debate.
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but your post seems to me to attempt to raise the tempo of the discussion, which for me is something I don't enjoy.
I have made my poisition more than clear over many pages in this thread.
Can't we just agree to differ, and move on?
No, this is a discussion forum, so we will discuss what the points we each make. If you just want to make points without defending them, then start a blog. In this thread, you have made spurious points and when they are questioned, either divulge all interest in them (when your reference wall was questioned, it was all of a sudden nothing to do with you, and when your claim that circumcised penises were better sexually was questioned, all of a sudden that was off topic) or just repeat your previous point, ignoring any questions put to you.0 -
To be fair, it would be oversimplifying his views if you were to call easychair a circumcision supporter.
One doesn't have to have either a pro or against circumcision stance. From what I gather, easychair is against it in principle, but not at the expense of parental/cultural liberties.
That seems to be the problem. I have stated my position so many times now even I am bored with it (imagine what the rest of you feel like), but still there are those who choose to ignore that.
I am happy to discuss with those who are really looking to develop the discussion, but not with those who are just looking to accuse me of things, or raise the emotional tempo, or merely call others names.0 -
That seems to be the problem. I have stated my position so many times now even I am bored with it (imagine what the rest of you feel like), but still there are those who choose to ignore that.
I am happy to discuss with those who are really looking to develop the discussion, but not with those who are just looking to accuse me of things, or raise the emotional tempo, or merely call others names.
Well I probably just joined the conversation a little bit late. In fact about 3 seconds before I posted first. I didn't think I needed to read 18 pages of ''stated positions'' to jump in. However I think it's one of those things you can't exactly wash your hands of once you give a number of people the ''permission'' to do it.0 -
Well I probably just joined the conversation a little bit late. In fact about 3 seconds before I posted first. I didn't think I needed to read 18 pages of ''stated positions'' to jump in. However I think it's one of those things you can't exactly wash your hands of once you give a number of people the ''permission'' to do it.
Sure, I understand that not many people want to read preliminaries when joining what has been a largely interesting and well tempered discussion.
Many seem to find it strange that I can be against male infant and childhood circumcision, and yet also not think we should prevent those who do feel strongly about it to continue with the practice.
Thats mainly because I think it a reasonably minor thing in comparative terms, also because the great majority of men who were circumcised as infants or children seem to be at easy about it, and also because I think to ban it is likely to be difficult, and also likely to cause difficulties for some, mainly Jews and Muslims, who see it as a religious obligation.
I suppose the question has to be asked, why do so many seem to be unable to dislike something themselves, yet still be unwiling to have the practice banned by statute?0 -
Advertisement
-
partyguinness wrote: »While I am personally against circumcising infants for no good reason I think the comparison with FGM is a little unfair...FGM leaves women/girls with long term physical and traumatic effects and I think it is fair to say they same damage is not caused to males. But yes, IMO it should not be carried out when infants have no choice in the matter.
This is a great point and I think comparing male circumcision to FGM actually weakens arguments against it....
It's a matter of degree, and if you think feet binding or neck elongating is the same degree as infant circumcision, then we disagree.
...
However, I don't think as a society it is either right or good that we should ban everyone from doing things with which I personally disagree. I am able to distinguish between something which is serious (neck elongating and foot binding, for exampe) and things which are less serious (ear piercing, circumcision, dressing little children up like little brides and grooms and having them confirmed before the age of majority), and agree only to proscribe those things which are more serious, and realise I live in a free society, and not a totalatarian regieme where every activity is controlled by the state.
I put male infant and childhood circumcision into the latter category. You may not, in which case we disagree.
My post, ages ago now, about hygiene, was to try to suggest a more suitable and less emotive body part analogy. The fingernails, not the fingers. I probably was't clear enough on that.
If it was the done thing, cosmetically, culturally, whatever, to remove a child's fingernails they would probably never miss them. The might wax lyrical about there being no need to cut them and not getting them caught on things and having the discomfort of bending them back in that painful way. Defenders of fingernail removal might say, they never had the pain of a thorn stuck under their nail.
I would still strongly disagree that parents should have the right to remove their child's fingernails without consent. Minor or not, this is surgery, with non negligible risk, and without need. I would happily make it illegal for parents or anyone to do this to a child without a medical reason, strangely I don't have to though. Mind you, I'm also not a libertarian.
Also given that HIV and Cancer are not Hygiene related they are a different element of the discussion. I am merely seeking to remove the Hygiene argument from the equation and point out that this is a somewhat brutal and violent solution to a problem that can be solved with soap and water and education.0 -
There does exist some protest though. Surely it should only take one man being deeply unhappy with a completely unnecessary procedure performed upon him at birth, without him having a say in the matter, to deem it unethical for a parent to allow it be done to him.For me, that there is not a groundswell of protest from these men suggests that it is not an issue for them. It's all very well for you to tell them they should be, but the fact is they aren't.
I have noticed an attitude from circumcised men in online discussions being very defensive of their circumcision. I could see myself being the same if I was tbh. One's penis is something one tends to be pretty sensitive about. If you're circumcised and against circumcision, it's somewhat of an admission to yourself that your penis is suboptimal, which is a hugely difficult thing for a man to do.
For me, the reason why oppose letting parents have the right to choose to have their sons circumcised for non-medical reasons are pretty clear cut. It's a permanent alteration of a man's body. One's own bodily integrity is something that I feel is incredibly important to protect, and I think this overrides any rights a parent has in relation to the upbringing of their child.
The only exception to this is for clear, unambiguous, scientifically supported and agreed upon health reasons. Vaccinations and necessary surgeries fall into this category. Routine infant circumcision is not currently endorsed by any major medical association in a developed country, and for me, that is enough to make me oppose parents being allowed to choose it for their children.0 -
sonicthebadger* wrote: »Also given that HIV and Cancer are not Hygiene related they are a different element of the discussion. I am merely seeking to remove the Hygiene argument from the equation and point out that this is a somewhat brutal and violent solution to a problem that can be solved with soap and water and education.
The studies on HIV were done, as far as I am aware, in Africa where access to soap and clean water and education is less easy than in Europe or the USA.
Also, as far as I am aware cancer of the penis, a rare condition, is virtually unknown in circumcised males.
While both of these might be interesting, you don’t have the ability to just remove them from any conversation, and your opinion that it is brutal and violent is an opinion which seems not to be shared by many if not most of those who have been circumcised.There does exist some protest though. Surely it should only take one man being deeply unhappy with a completely unnecessary procedure performed upon him at birth, without him having a say in the matter, to deem it unethical for a parent to allow it be done to him.
I agree, and I just don't think it's up to me to prevent other who may not agree.I have noticed an attitude from circumcised men in online discussions being very defensive of their circumcision. I could see myself being the same if I was tbh. One's penis is something one tends to be pretty sensitive about. If you're circumcised and against circumcision, it's somewhat of an admission to yourself that your penis is suboptimal, which is a hugely difficult thing for a man to do.
For me, I can only speak for myself and don’t try to ascribe motives to others or assume others will also react the same way as I might.
I’ve never met anyone who thinks their penis is “suboptimal” and why you should imply that men who have been circumcised have “suboptimal” penises seems an extraordinary claim.For me, the reason why oppose letting parents have the right to choose to have their sons circumcised for non-medical reasons are pretty clear cut. It's a permanent alteration of a man's body. One's own bodily integrity is something that I feel is incredibly important to protect, and I think this overrides any rights a parent has in relation to the upbringing of their child.
The only exception to this is for clear, unambiguous, scientifically supported and agreed upon health reasons. Vaccinations and necessary surgeries fall into this category. Routine infant circumcision is not currently endorsed by any major medical association in a developed country, and for me, that is enough to make me oppose parents being allowed to choose it for their children.
I love the pun about your reasons being clear cut! J
You say it’s a permanent alteration of a man’s body as if this is something terrible. If those who have had this permanent alteration were outraged by it I’d agree we should think again, but they just aren’t. You, or I, can’t decide what others should be outraged about or object to.
You have to accept that there are many parents around the world who don’t agree with you, and who feel, for example, they have an obligation to circumcise their boys. Then boys themselves, when they grow up, are almost universally in favour and thankful their parents made that decision for them.
I happen to disagree and agree with you, but I am not prepared to impose my view on others in light of the fact that those who are circumcised do not, themselves, object.0 -
The studies on HIV were done, as far as I am aware, in Africa where access to soap and clean water and education is less easy than in Europe or the USA.
Also, as far as I am aware cancer of the penis, a rare condition, is virtually unknown in circumcised males.
While both of these might be interesting, you don’t have the ability to just remove them from any conversation, and your opinion that it is brutal and violent is an opinion which seems not to be shared by many if not most of those who have been circumcised.
You made these points before, and both have been debunked already (HIV and hygeine have no connection, the African studies are invlaid because they stopped early, how do they have no soap and water to clean their penesis but can perform surgery on them, cancer is virtually unknown except in uncircumcised males with pre-existing disorders of the foreskin). Its a common dishonest tactic of trolls to wait for their debunked nonsense to be hidden by a few pages of posts and then bring them up again to someone new to the discussion as if they hadn't been addressed before. Don't bring them up again unless you have something new to add.I agree, and I just don't think it's up to me to prevent other who may not agree.
If people were only doing it to themselves, then I would agree with you, its not up to people to stop other people doing what they want to themselves. But people do it to their kids, before a time at which their kids can object or agree of their own free will. This contradicts libertarianism, as it ignores the free will of the kids (saying that most dont object once they reach adulthood is irrelevant, as they have been indoctrinated their wholes lives that it was necessary and that they would be dirty if they didn't have it done), so why doesn't this bother you? I have asked this before, but you wont engage in the debate and just keep wheeling out the same debunked nonsense.For me, I can only speak for myself and don’t try to ascribe motives to others or assume others will also react the same way as I might.
So you are circumcised, explains why you are so defensive about it.I’ve never met anyone who thinks their penis is “suboptimal” and why you should imply that men who have been circumcised have “suboptimal” penises seems an extraordinary claim.
Thats not what yawha said. Yawha said that if a man was circumcised and against circumcision, this would be like them admitting that their penis is subobtimal.I love the pun about your reasons being clear cut! J
You say it’s a permanent alteration of a man’s body as if this is something terrible. If those who have had this permanent alteration were outraged by it I’d agree we should think again, but they just aren’t. You, or I, can’t decide what others should be outraged about or object to.
You have to accept that there are many parents around the world who don’t agree with you, and who feel, for example, they have an obligation to circumcise their boys. Then boys themselves, when they grow up, are almost universally in favour and thankful their parents made that decision for them.
I happen to disagree and agree with you, but I am not prepared to impose my view on others in light of the fact that those who are circumcised do not, themselves, object.
All these points have been address in previous posts (such as this one). Its amazing that you have the nerve to say that I'm not engaging in this debate, when its clearly you who wont discuss their points (repeating your point as if nothing has been said to you is not discussion).0 -
For me, I can only speak for myself and don’t try to ascribe motives to others or assume others will also react the same way as I might.Mark Hamill wrote: »So you are circumcised, explains why you are so defensive about it.
It is an unusual assumption to conclude that anyone who is able to speak for themselves must have been circumcised as an infant it in childhood.
I am not, myself, circumcised and even if I were I would have the same views.0 -
It is an unusual assumption to conclude that anyone who is able to speak for themselves must have been circumcised as an infant it in childhood.
I am not, myself, circumcised and even if I were I would have the same views.
Given the context of the sentence (ie in response to yawha's observation that circumcised men are very defensive of their circumcision, and followed by how you have never heard other circumcised men disparage about their penises) it seemed to indicate that you were circumcised and not bothered about it and had not encountered other circumcised men who were bothered by it. If this is not the case, then apologies, I was mistaken. NOW RESPOND TO THE REST OF THE POST AND ENGAGE IN THE DISCUSSION.0 -
Quiet I'm trying to take a nap0
-
Um, source?Then boys themselves, when they grow up, are almost universally in favour and thankful their parents made that decision for them.
Plenty of women who've undergone FGM are in favour of it btw, and argue for it for cultural reasons. At what point do you say that parents shouldn't be allowed to do something to their children for cultural reasons? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's simple. As I said above, you don't alter a child's body physically, except for clear, unambiguous, scientifically supported and agreed upon health reasons.0 -
Um, source?
Plenty of women who've undergone FGM are in favour of it btw, and argue for it for cultural reasons. At what point do you say that parents shouldn't be allowed to do something to their children for cultural reasons? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's simple. As I said above, you don't alter a child's body physically, except for clear, unambiguous, scientifically supported and agreed upon health reasons.
I am not aware of any good sources which indicate either way, but there is evidence that many if not most of those who were circumcised as infants or children are not unduly unhappy about it, and I am not aware, out of the over one billion men, that there are many who seem to protest.
For example, Wiki estimates there are about 1.5 billion Mulsims in the world, and about 13 million Jews. If half of those are men, thats roughly about 750 million men who don't seem to think its a problem.
I don't equate male circumcision with Female Genital Mutilation, so I am not sure why the two should be confused. Why do you think many countries have outlawed FGM, and not male circumcision?
I agree with you that I am not in favour of male circumcision. I'm not sure if you are in favour of outlawing the practice, and if you are then thats where we disagree.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think that a lack of visible protests against something is in any way a credible metric for determining that people aren't against or upset about something.I am not aware of any good sources which indicate either way, but there is evidence that many if not most of those who were circumcised as infants or children are not unduly unhappy about it, and I am not aware, out of the over one billion men, that there are many who seem to protest.
If you do a quick google you'll find a lot of circumcised men against circumcision. There are even sites and support groups out there dedicated to foreskin restoration for these men.
You don't really know that, it's a bit of a big extrapolation from "classed as a Muslim or a Jew" to "is circumcised", and a huge extrapolation from that to "is ok with routine infant circumcision".For example, Wiki estimates there are about 1.5 billion Mulsims in the world, and about 13 million Jews. If half of those are men, thats roughly about 750 million men who don't seem to think its a problem.
And what about men raised as Muslims or Jews who decide to convert out of them at adulthood? You can't predetermine a child's life long beliefs like that. You can't say it's ok to circumcise a boy at birth because he'll be raised a Muslim or Jew and thus be ok with circumcision based on the strength of his faith.
Let them get it done to them at 18 if their beliefs are strong enough at that age.
I don't equate them at all. My point was that the fact that people who've had an unnecessary surgical procedure performed on them support the practice does not mean anything and should have no bearing on anything when we consider what the legality and ethics surrounding these surgeries are.I don't equate male circumcision with Female Genital Mutilation, so I am not sure why the two should be confused. Why do you think many countries have outlawed FGM, and not male circumcision?
I'm simply not in favour of parents having the right to consent to the permanent modification of their child's body, except when absolutely medically necessary.I agree with you that I am not in favour of male circumcision. I'm not sure if you are in favour of outlawing the practice, and if you are then thats where we disagree.0
Advertisement