Religious and or Non Religious circumcision, is it wrong?

If you truly believe that parents must get permission from their child everytime before doing something to/for it, I seriously suggest you get your head examined.

When you was a little baby, did you want your mum to get your consent before feeding you ?

 

Still trolling around? You know what we mean...
You disagree is one thing (and we can debate), trolling is another one...

 

To be honest, I don't know what you mean.

Do parents have a right to give their child a vaccination ? Yes or No.

 

Can a man have sex with children below 10 years old ? (SICK)

 

Off topic(really ewwww) and completely out of line with the discussion at hand.
and the same for others get back on topic.

The foreSKIN is the only thing that is removed from the male genitals. Male circumcision is not the same as female circumcision in regards to forms of mutilation. Men still have the function of their genitals purpose vs females once circumcised.

There are 4 types of female circumcision which all include removing the clitoris, whereas the male's penis is still intact (Remember the foreSKIN is the only thing removed). The female circumcision often includes a fusion of the womb and is only opened for intercourse and childbirth. By comparison, the male genitals are still fully operational at any given time of their life. Female circumcision puts the woman at risk of which includes fatal hemorrhaging, epidermoid cysts, recurrent urinary and vaginal infections, chronic pain, and obstetrical complications. For male's, if the Doctor does not botch the procedure is left fully functional.

By all means one can not fully compare a male and female circumcision. Male's is primarily for religious/health reason's and the female circumcision is considered mutilation by religious means(and yes, male control of the female).

I know some parents base their decision for male circumcision on religion, to preventing future health issues, to having the male child match the father. When it is done to the female it is not done to prevent future health issues, to make her match her mother but primarily for control. ForeSKIN removal vs control.

Mutilation also states that it will cause injury or lose of limb. If someone can point in an educational article that a penis is a LIMB then please let me know. And for a male circumcision if the procedure is done correctly can be considered an injury if the foreskin is removed? I guess if I have a wart removed, a tooth removed, cutting my hair, clipping my fingernails, removing my nosehair is considered an injury. Remember it is just removing the foreSKIN, not a limb, the penis is still fully functional if the procedure is done correctly regardless if it is done for religious or non religious reasons....

 

I agree that female circumcision is way more bizarre, but I still stick to my point that both are bad if they are
carried out without the selected persons consent or understanding. It might just be skin, but it's still a part of the body of another person.

 

So is a wart, tooth, nail and hair.

 

I guess your parents removed a part of your brain when you were a kid, that's why you keep making stupid posts here.

 

You are the one that suggested nothing should be cut from the body, what kind of mental midget are you ?

 

I don't know about the others but the Philippines culture is children gets circumcised at birth till age 12. (As much as I don't like siding with a lunatic that seems to be the case)

 

No, you're twisting my words.

I can twist yours as well and say: So you will remove your childs teeths and nails because you feel like it?
I'm pretty sure that would classify as torture and you'd have your child taken away from you.

 

You said "It might just be skin, but it's still a part of the body of another person." ... what did you mean by this ? That skin is part of someone's body and therefore should not be cut without consent ?

You also believe that skin cancer should be left alone ?

 

Healthy skin =/= skin CANCER.

As people before me have already stated, you can't distinguish one thing from another.
I'm done trying to explain it to you since you can't comprehend it, I'm unsubscribing to this thread...

 

NEXT.

 

Forget it. When someone believes that cutting off a healthy body part from someone without his/her consent, nazi's style, is OK, you'd rather forget it...

 

Are you suggesting that if a part of the body is healthy then it should not be cut without consent from the child ? Don't run away this time, just answer the question.

 

How about leave it be unless it's for a medical reason? If when the kid grows up and HE decides which religion to follow or not follow then he can decide if he whaps the end of his penis off or not?

 

Correct. If the quality of life is not in jeopardy, a healthy body part shouldn't be cut. But I'm sure you'll find THE exception for me.
You are strongly defending this that it has to have a religious context behind it, and as a believer, chances are you are a radical with whom all debate is futile.
One can not debate with closed-minded unfortunately...Oh well...

 

Right, what about nails ? Can they be cut without consent ? Or is this child abuse ?

 

cf. #12 ...