• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should male circumcision be banned?

Should male circumcision be banned?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 21.2%
  • No

    Votes: 41 78.8%
  • Yes, but allow a clause for religious beliefs.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    52
Especially when it affects them in absolutely no form.
 
Of course, any difference between the susceptibility of a circumcised or non circumcised penis no longer matters at all if you simply wear a condom. Wearing a condom is a much more reliable method of STD infection than chopping off part of your body. Relying on anything less effective is just plain stupid.

Let's drop the whole 2% chance of contracting an STD thing. If you're not 100% sure your partner is safe, wear a condom. That's all there is to it.
 
well i could cut off my boobs and reduce the risk of breast cancer. why would i do that. i like my boobs.

Well that would be dumb we need boobies you could reduce the size if they were to big. I get my dick caught in my zipper from time to time so I could only imagine having a skin sock would make the chances increase.
 
I get involved in topics like this once in awhile and then I ask myself why. We are never going to ban the procedure so it's really a waste of time to bother.
 
I get involved in topics like this once in awhile and then I ask myself why. We are never going to ban the procedure so it's really a waste of time to bother.

Best thing to come out of this thread.
 
Ban it. And no, it's not all about the pain. It's also about...
1. The trauma that it may cause.
2. Relatively high risk of complications when done in infants, some of which may require corrective surgery.
3. High risk of changes or even dysfunction in sexual function (in fact, this is why we started doing it in the West - to try to stop boys from masturbating by make them less sensitive - it was NOT for hygiene reasons).
4. No significant advantages (the hygiene thing is total bogus, most boys' foreskins work just fine or can be made to with minor stretching, the STD claims are wildly exaggerated).
5. Removes as much as 80% of the nerve endings in the penis and finally...
6. It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.

Temporal is right; it's genital mutilation as much as FGM is. Why we still tolerate performing it on infants in this country is so beyond me.

Wholeheartledly agree. Let the boy become an adult where he can decide for himself. Of course, then you'll find almost no male would have it done.

Case rested.
 
@shanners
I concur, but, allowing an adult male to make up his own mind when it comes to surgically removing a part of his penis…it’s anarchy!
I still do not think we need a law, but, maybe black market circumcision is what the economy needs, eh?
I say, parents (not forced by law) should allow their son to grow into adulthood so he can make his own educated decision on circumcision.
If I was given a choice I would not have gone with circumcision but, some may find whatever was good for the ancient Egyptians is good for them.
 
@shanners
I concur, but, allowing an adult male to make up his own mind when it comes to surgically removing a part of his penis…it’s anarchy!
I still do not think we need a law, but, maybe black market circumcision is what the economy needs, eh?
I say, parents (not forced by law) should allow their son to grow into adulthood so he can make his own educated decision on circumcision.
If I was given a choice I would not have gone with circumcision but, some may find whatever was good for the ancient Egyptians is good for them.

They could do it for religion too. Let an adult choose, and not have it forced upon them before they can resist.
 
OK, let me see how much controversy I can cause. With a measure on the ballot in San Francisco to ban male circumcision, let see what everybody's opinion is.

1) I am shocked that anyone could have possibly voted "Yes" in this poll.
2) This is both a medical procedure and a religious rite. How can such a thing be banned?
3) I live near San Francisco and am forced to go there on occasion. The place is a cesspool of filth and my stomach turns every time I go. Any ballot measure coming out of SF is almost guaranteed to be alien to human thinking.
 
I never understood why female circumcision is not okay but male is. I'm against both and I consider both to be genital mutilation.

Because circumcision has mainly utilitarian function. Every uncircumcised man that has spent a couple of days at temperatures 40 C and above can tell you what happens with his dick (not a pretty picture, not a pleasant smell too). And with water supply hardly enough for drinking, you can imagine how men in that part of the world (Middle East, desert) could maintain hygiene.
The Lord of the Jews knew that, so he order circumcision for his flock to save it from trouble. It's that simple. :)

Sorry if I repeat somebody else, no time to read the whole thread. :)
 
Because circumcision has mainly utilitarian function. Every uncircumcised man that has spent a couple of days at temperatures 40 C and above can tell you what happens with his dick (not a pretty picture, not a pleasant smell too). And with water supply hardly enough for drinking, you can imagine how men in that part of the world (Middle East, desert) could maintain hygiene.
The Lord of the Jews knew that, so he order circumcision for his flock to save it from trouble. It's that simple. :)

Sorry if I repeat somebody else, no time to read the whole thread. :)

You know, I've met some men who believe that crap to the extent that they think they are exempt. I have news for you. Being circ'ed doesn't make it any more pleasant.

We have a cure for it, though. It's called a shower.
 
If all males were just aborted, it would take this issue off the table and solve many other problems. ;)

.
 
Can we stop with the stupid tangents here? What we're talking about is the permanent disfigurement of an infant. Without his knowledge or consent. Even a parent should not have that kind of control over their child. Bodily sovereignty, remember? It's my body, my penis, and I don't want anyone messing with it without my permission. If circumcision is such a good idea, let consenting and informed adults choose to do it to their own bodies. Anything less is child abuse.

Again, the point is this. Do not do it to children. Let consenting adults choose for themselves.
 
This is exactly what scares me about libs they want to take freedom of choice away.

You know what's so funny? In August of 2009, their President, Barack Obama, wanted to make male circumcision mandatory.
 
Wow. I question and check your sources. But this one is too fun. What is the one for this? Thanks!

Let's put it this way, it was done to me when I was a baby, and my wife and I have no problems sexually whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we both wear each other out.
 
You know what's so funny? In August of 2009, their President, Barack Obama, wanted to make male circumcision mandatory.

he did? i've never heard that. can you provide a link?
 
he did? i've never heard that. can you provide a link?


This came out August 25, 2009.

Will Obama Appoint a Circumcision Czar?


The Centers for Disease Control Are Preparing to Recommend Mandatory Circumcision for American Boys as an AIDS Prevention Measure.

Patterico explains why this is stupid:


He and other experts acknowledged that although the clinical trials of circumcision in Africa had dramatic results, the effects of circumcision in the United States were likely to be more muted because the disease is less prevalent here, spreads through different routes, and the health systems are so disparate as to be incomparable.

Clinical trials in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda found that heterosexual men who were circumcised were up to 60 percent less likely to become infected with HIV over the course of the trials than those who were not circumcised. There is little to no evidence that circumcision protects men who have sex with men from infection. Another reason circumcision would have less effect in the United States is that some 79 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, public health officials say.”
 
Back
Top Bottom