2007-11-10 09:00:30 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Yes, I would.
Nobody has the right to do sexual damage to an other person not even a parent. Yes "circumcision" does sexual damage.
Moma mia: Nobody is saying you can't get "circumcised" if you want to, but boys should have their rights protected too. A boy's penis belongs to him, not to his parents. It must be his decision if he wants his penis mutilated. How would you like if somebody decided to trim your labia without your consent?
Did you know that non-circumcised females are twice as likely to develop cancer of the labia than uncircumcised males are to develop cancer of the penis? In fact more females die of cancer of the labia than uncircumcised men get cancer of the penis.
2007-11-10 15:35:14 · answer #1 · answered by cut50yearsago 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Circumcision is NOT comparable to immunizations, as it has NO beneficial effect on the child. Immunizations save lives, while circumcisions sometimes end lives -- yes, boys DO die from this needless procedure.
Ear piercing is less wrong because it is not irreversible -- if you take the earring out, the piercing will close quite quickly, so although I don't think a child's ears should be pierced until the child is old enough to request it, it's not as big an issue. I wouldn't pierce my daughter's ears, but if she eventually wants them pierced and later changes her mind, no permanent damage is done.
Parents have certain rights over their child's body, but those rights are limited. We do not allow females to be circumcised, even by their parents. We do not allow parents to bind their children's feet. These practices are both part of ancient traditions, but we do not allow them to be practiced today in the USA.
Religion is an individual decision. The days of nations being required to change religion if a new king had a different faith from the old king are long past. Children do not always follow the religion practiced by their parents. If a man wants to be circumcised after age 18 to express his personal convenant with God, I would not try to stop him. But permanent bodily mutilation of infants and children in the name of religion (or any other reason other than serious health problems) should be banned absolutely. If an infant has a cancerous growth on his foreskin, it should be removed, like any other cancer. But the removal of HEALTHY tissue to satisfy the preference of the parent should not be allowed.
2007-11-11 02:41:39 · answer #2 · answered by Maple 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe anyone should alter anothers body without their consent unless it's life threatening.
People get their babies ears pierced when they are young.....from a medical standpoint some of these things are better done while young and safer.....but I couldn't. My father wasn't circumcised and ended up having the procedure done when he was in his 80's for other physical reasons. I can only answer for myself. Just like others have to. It used to be common medical practice and no-one was asked. I'm glad they are atleast asking somebody.
2007-11-10 09:25:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Many motives, which one you have chose? i will supply you a medical one: while the toddler is youthful it would not harm. attempt it at 32!!! you're conversing with regards to the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures. you do no longer could circumcise now, yet once you have chose you could. you may desire to be circumcised on your heart - internally - now.
2016-10-16 01:14:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, definitely. There is no reason for body modification on somebody without their consent.
Even in religious reasons, I think that's bizarre - it's the parents' religion, not the child. When they join the church they can get their body modified. I don't think anybody's religious beliefs should extend to body modification OF ANOTHER PERSON.
2007-11-10 15:31:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. In Judaism, circumcision is making a covenant with God. It has to be done on males before they are 8 days old. You can't wait for informed consent.
What about inoculations? Do we wait until they are 18 for that, too?
2007-11-10 09:23:28 · answer #6 · answered by merrybodner 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
hell no. any law such as this should NEVER be passed. for many it is a religious requirment as a baby or child. if a law were passed to ban this it is no different to being racist or sexist
2007-11-11 16:39:53 · answer #7 · answered by Matt 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, I would not. Every parent has the right to decided for their child, for religious reasons or not.
We don't need any more Laws against our rights, thank you very much.
2007-11-10 09:42:13 · answer #8 · answered by Mama Mia 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋