Parental rights are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED here,and in most other nations. They can also have their child vaccinated against ailments, as well; take the child to the DENTIST and DOCTOR, ALL WITHOUT ASKING THE CHILD!!!!!!! GASP!!!!! And even CHOOSE THE SCHOOLS THEIR CHILDREN ATTEND...EVEN IF IT'S A RELIGIOUS ONE !!!!! EVEN DETERMINE THE VERY FOOD THAT THEIR CHILDREN EAT !!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!! OMFG!!! How can you HANDLE IT???!!!!! Deal with it. Sorry about your need to pretend ADULTHOOD onto children. Your claims about the rights of children are what is 100% artificial.
Well, then if parents own their children and have sovereign control over their child's body and religious beliefs, then why did you come out against the people whose religious beliefs called on them to pray while their child was dying? Don't they have control over their child and the right to treat them as they wish regardless of the child's rights (which according to you are non-existant)?
Nope. That is NEGLECT. Logic really has never been your strong suit, has it? Once again: Parental rights are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED here,and in most other nations. They can also have their child vaccinated against ailments, as well; take the child to the DENTIST and DOCTOR, ALL WITHOUT ASKING THE CHILD!!!!!!! GASP!!!!! And even CHOOSE THE SCHOOLS THEIR CHILDREN ATTEND...EVEN IF IT'S A RELIGIOUS ONE !!!!! EVEN DETERMINE THE VERY FOOD THAT THEIR CHILDREN EAT !!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!! OMFG!!! How can you HANDLE IT???!!!!! Deal with it. Sorry about your need to pretend ADULTHOOD onto children. Your claims about the rights of children are what is 100% artificial.
Those parents didn't believe that they were neglecting or harming their child. Why it is okay for you to impose on their religious and parental rights? After all, they own their children right? What makes that harm bad and the harm from circumcision good? How about we take the correct and moral position that all harm against someone's will is bad and that no one has the right to inflict such harm?
I'm sure this is TMI.... but it's easier to masturbate for guys that have been uncut.... no need for lubricants like vasoline, etc
As you may, or may not, know, a child's "will" is a nebulous, legally null and void point. Can you show me any medical procedure that depends on a child's approval for it's implementation? Of course not!
The problem with waiting until 18 years of age, is that at that point circumcision's a major operation.
Waiting until the third trimester for abortion IMO would be against a child's approval if they were able to speak.
This is a case of a non-medical necessity. If parents can force their child to be circumstances, then you have to admit that forcing their child to have plastic surgery or have their finger and toe nails removed is their right as well.
So you can't find any medical procedures that depend on a child's approval. What I have to admit is that these recycled arguments are as tiresome as they are wrong. Circumcisions have a health value that result in lower incidences of cancer and std's. I'm not aware that having your finger nails removed (why?) is good for you the way circumcision is.
Removing a child's testicles eliminates the risk of testicular cancer, so you're fine with that too right? There is absolutely no excuse for this barbaric act to still exist. If it wasn't legal already a bill to legalize it would never so much as be proposed. Disgusting that it still happens.
And removing the lungs and bones would eliminate the risk of lung and bone cancer too. Stop being an ass! There are many health benifits to circumcision that I'm sure you know all about but pretend they do not exist. If you don't like circumcision don't have one.
It's sad that so many in support of circumcision just refuse to adhere to logic. Followed by... An incredible leap in ignorance. I'm sorry but those getting circumcisions aren't grown adults who have every legal and social right to get the cosmetic, or even on the rare occassion medical, procedure that is male circumcision. They are children. More importantly they are infants. YOU don't get to FORCE genital mutilation on a small baby just because you feel like you should be allowed. There are countless medical reasons for it to remain, the vast, vast majority of the Pro-Mutilation sides have been thoroughly discredited and refuted, leaving what? Oh, "it doesn't hurt anyone"? Just those few hundreds that have lost large sections of their penis or had to have their sex changed because of a botched cosmetic procedure on an infant child? Not to mention the fact that it physically does seriously harm them, since it usually needs to be done without anesthetic. Since, you know, it's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing baby. YOUR right to get a cosmetic procedure that mutilates your penis ENDS when your forcing in on a non-consenting infant "just because I wanna".
I moved this to this forum because it isn't a current event. Jiyuu-Freedom Site Moderator In response to the OP, generally we are responsible for our children in the U.S. until they are 18. I had 2 boys and had them circumcised because of cleanliness. I believed it would be embarrassing to them if they didn't clean themselves well. I told the doctors, yes please do the circumcision. Why would they want to wait until they are of age to make it their decision? I also believe it is less painful as an infant. Some of it stemmed from my own belief that it is not appealing if it isn't done to spare some embarassment later.
Maybe in England the men are cleaner, but in America guys are more likely not to wash the private area and also with the high rates of STD's in America, they are at higher risk for mating with an HIV infected lady which circumcisions protect against. So the CDC scientists in America encourage circumcisions, as it has a good risk to reward benefit even if said risk is less sexual pleasures from the loss of sensitive foreskin appendages..
If you're gonna cut off a piece of your dick just to please retarded chicks you might wanna remove your balls too cause you won't be needing them
http://www.amazon.com/No-Maam/dp/B001QDWYXQ My favorite episode of Married with CHildren. Al has to get a "circular incision" after getting hurt, but the doctors misread the chart and give him a circumcision. lol (al starts to get a boner) *Twoink* Peg - what was that, Al? Al - a stitch Peg!!! bwahahahah
Would have been nice to have had the decision. Pretty much sums up the entire point behind banning circumcision for children; we were never given a choice. I could give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you do when you're 18, you want to flay your neck to look like gills or get ball bearings shoved under you skin, tattoos, male or female circumcision, I don't care. However you cannot make that choice for your child.
Because it's their bodies! I can't believe this logic! Why do you feel you have the right to remove a part of your childs body, and that you need to do so before they can decide on their own?
Everyone has a right to make their own decisions about their own autonomy and since an infant is not yet capable of giving consent to this sort of procedure it simply should not be done. It is not a life or death situation for parents to be making and there is nothing wrong with having foreskin. There is a reason it exists and it's main purpose is to protect the glans when flaccid. I don't know why any parent would subject their child to this type of mutilation and torture.
Your child, frankly, couldn't care less that he has a circumcision and when packs of children start demanding, of their own free will, an end to circumcision then you may have a point but even then health considerations would probably trump their demands. You think kids are clamoring to be the only guy in gym class with a skin turtle neck around his penis? You live on another planet, for sure and I can't even guess what traumatized you at some point to constantly push this nonsense issue (which you are consistently on the wrong side of).
Penises matter. I'm pretty sure that doing any of those things to babies, against their will, without anaesthetic, is already illegal. False. The babies are being harmed. False. Preferences vary by culture. Yes, but they're not good ones. Certainly not good enough to justify violating another person's rights. Indeed; this is the only thing that matters. You are not fit to be a parent, and people with your mindset should be sterilized and prohibited from interacting with children. This is not an insult, but a statement of fact, no different from saying "child-molesters, terrorists, and the Westboro Baptist Church are not fit to be parents, and should be sterilized and prohibited from interacting with children." The harm that you did was NOT minor, and he will NEVER benefit from it, and if he is ever grateful for it, it will be for stupid, invalid reasons. You are not fit to be a parent, and people with your mindset should be sterilized and prohibited from interacting with children. This isn't true. Anaesthetic is not used.
