Why it it legal to circumcise baby boys?

Question

It's reduces up to 75% sexual pleasure and it causes uncomfortness in females during sex. It's like removing the eyelid from the eye. It's not cleaner, just like it's not cleaner to circumcise females (which is illegal), you just have to clean just like any other part of your body, or risk some kind of sickness/infection. They use to do it to prevent masturbation, and you say it was in the bible so long ago, but in the old testament, their's all kinds of brutal things they did that wouldn't be acceptable these days, it was sacrifices. The skin's their for a reason so with all the research, why not let the individual decide on whether he's unhappy with his normal penis? How is that even legal?

Answer 1

It's legal because for too long people have been conditioned to think it's no big deal, that's it's beneficial. It's not even equated with female circumcision (and honestly can't be on most forms of female circumcison - most, but not all).

Many myths have been dispelled but too many endure, like "it's cleaner" or "it'll get less infections/STDs" and now "it reduces HIV." Most people don't know the risks and complications involved either, from excessive bleeding, to infection (which kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?), to too much/little removed, to extremely severe cases such as amputation, gangrene, and even death (while exceedingly rare, these possibilities have been downplayed). Most people just don't know, and too many think it's either a good thing or makes no difference.

Circumcision is a surgery (though not what I'd classify as a surgery - perhaps operation) and with all surgeries there are risks and complications. People simply fail to see that. If you told the parents that there's a 2-10% complication rate and say 0.0001% chance that their boy might die from this operation, while leaving it alone presents no such possibility, would people opt for the former? I don't know the answer to that.

Long story short, it's legal because too few people know. Too few people have enough voice or momentum to go against it. In this situation, it should be the doctors - who truly know the risks and complications - to do what's ethically right, and refuse to do the operation until the boy's old enough to say yes or no for himself (except, of course, under medically necessary situations).

Answer 2

Because no-one felt strongly enough to push for a law against it. Oddly enough, you would not be able to find a US doctor willing to perform female circumcision, but male circumcision has been part of the US culture for the last century.

Thankfully, with better education for parents, many are now realizing that this is an unnecessary operation. The American Medical Association, and the American Paediatric Association have both stated that this operation should not be routinely performed on infants - though there are some medical conditions where it is necessary, these are extremely rare and the circumcision is always performed after puberty.

In the 70s, about 85% of male children were circumcised; now only about 40% are being circumcised. The US is the only country where this is done routinely for anything other than religious reasons. Let's hope we'll see this ritualistic mutilation disappear completely over the next 20 years.

Answer 3

Religion

Answer 4

you will find some people do it for religious reasons and others will have it done because of their up bringing e.g granpa was; dad was etc....

sometimes it is purely done for aesthetic reasons.

Answer 5

Maybe if we outlawed circumcision, we wouldn't have to listen to all the whiners cry about how "their lives have been ruined."

Even though circumcision is not usually medically necessary, people who don't obsess over their penis rarely care one way or another.

Answer 6

ask his parents for permission.