• 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

SPC

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
215
Reaction score
46
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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.
 
It's a barbaric and unnecessary ritual and the world would be a better place if it were abolished. But, frankly, as long as my own sons are safe I don't care what other people do to theirs.
 
It's a barbaric and unnecessary ritual and the world would be a better place if it were abolished. But, frankly, as long as my own sons are safe I don't care what other people do to theirs.

The ones who are against it usually try to make the point that it's painful. It may be, but the ones it was done to don't remember it. I don't.
 
Choice of the parents in my opinion.
 
I never understood why female circumcision is not okay but male is. I'm against both and I consider both to be genital mutilation.
 
I never understood why female circumcision is not okay but male is. I'm against both and I consider both to be genital mutilation.

Female circumcision is done predominantly by Muslims and it is done to eliminate the sex drive so women will not be unfaithful to their husbands. With males it is done for sanitary reasons. It also enhances the male sex drive as they get older. It is done for two totally different reasons concerning the sexes.
 
The ones who are against it usually try to make the point that it's painful. It may be, but the ones it was done to don't remember it. I don't.

Pain goes away, and builds character. Disfigurement is permanent. That's why I don't mind piercing childrens' ears; if they don't like it, they can just let them heal over.
 
Pain goes away, and builds character. Disfigurement is permanent. That's why I don't mind piercing childrens' ears; if they don't like it, they can just let them heal over.

The main issue seems to be the pain, but it has also been discovered that women with husbands who are not circumcised have a greater chance of getting vaginal and kidney infections, particularly by the males who don't clean underneath the foreskin.
 
Last edited:
Everything else being equal, if there is a problem you can solve by either paying attention to your personal hygiene or cutting off parts of your body that serve important functions, which do you think is the more sensible option?
 
Everything else being equal, if there is a problem you can solve by either paying attention to your personal hygiene or cutting off parts of your body that serve important functions, which do you think is the more sensible option?

I don't see how a foreskin serves an important function. It's like an appendix or tonsils. It's there, but we can live with or without it.
 
Once again, the government has no place here, at all.
 
Female circumcision is done predominantly by Muslims and it is done to eliminate the sex drive so women will not be unfaithful to their husbands. With males it is done for sanitary reasons. It also enhances the male sex drive as they get older. It is done for two totally different reasons concerning the sexes.

The modern excuse is that it's for sanitary reasons. Circumcision originates with religion... it's the covenant with God. It's to hinder masturbation, which is to hinder sexual function outside of intercourse. If it were about sanitation then it would be a relatively universal practice. Most of the world's men are not circumcised.

They're not apples and oranges. Both practices originated from the same reasoning. The male version has just received the convenience of modern backing.

The bit about enhancing male sex drive is totally unverifiable. Sounds like one of the many myths perpetuated by people who support circumcision but have no real basis for their practice.
 
It is my(possibly mistaken) understanding that it is done, at least in part, for religious reasons. Unless it is actually harmful for the child, I think it should therefore be allowed.
 
The modern excuse is that it's for sanitary reasons. Circumcision originates with religion... it's the covenant with God. It's to hinder masturbation, which is to hinder sexual function outside of intercourse. If it were about sanitation then it would be a relatively universal practice. Most of the world's men are not circumcised.

They're not apples and oranges. Both practices originated from the same reasoning. The male version has just received the convenience of modern backing.

The bit about enhancing male sex drive is totally unverifiable. Sounds like one of the many myths perpetuated by people who support circumcision but have no real basis for their practice.

Who cares what the reasoning is. The government has no right to tell people that they can't have a circumcision. It's not harmful and the government has no reasoning to ban it. California is just full of ignorance.
 
Who cares what the reasoning is. The government has no right to tell people that they can't have a circumcision. It's not harmful and the government has no reasoning to ban it. California is just full of ignorance.

I'm talking about circumcision in general and why my son was not cut at birth. What CA does is its own business. My interpretation of the CA law is that it violates freedom of religion. But then, why should religion get to do what it wants just because it's religion? If my religion demanded that I sacrifice my first born to my god, should I be allowed to do it? Obviously not. A rabbi cutting a baby and then orally sucking the blood out is "okay" but in any other context that could be considered child molestation. Sorry, but tradition doesn't always get veto power over modern common sense.

Whether or not it's harmful is up for debate. I have read in various places that it impacts the child's disposition and pain response for the rest of their life. You may not remember having the procedure done because your concept of "you" did not exist yet; but your body and your neurology remembers. The notion that cutting off one of the most sensitive pieces of tissue in the body of a newborn without anaesthetic could not impact a newborn is beyond me. DO SOME RESEARCH PLEASE.
 
I'm talking about circumcision in general and why my son was not cut at birth. What CA does is its own business. My interpretation of the CA law is that it violates freedom of religion. But then, why should religion get to do what it wants just because it's religion? If my religion demanded that I sacrifice my first born to my god, should I be allowed to do it? Obviously not. A rabbi cutting a baby and then orally sucking the blood out is "okay" but in any other context that could be considered child molestation. Sorry, but tradition doesn't always get veto power over modern common sense.

Whether or not it's harmful is up for debate. I have read in various places that it impacts the child's disposition and pain response for the rest of their life. You may not remember having the procedure done because your concept of "you" did not exist yet; but your body and your neurology remembers. The notion that cutting off one of the most sensitive pieces of tissue in the body of a newborn without anaesthetic could not impact a newborn is beyond me. DO SOME RESEARCH PLEASE.

I actually never had it done, I just, as I've said and as you just said, that it would be a constraint on freedom of religion.
 
I actually never had it done, I just, as I've said and as you just said, that it would be a constraint on freedom of religion.

I don't believe that legislating a ban will really change people's minds about it. Circumcision is already on a downturn in the western world, especially because most public health services won't cover it. It will take time but it will happen.

What CA is doing is just going to make people angry and resentful, and stick to their guns about it.
 
Who cares what the reasoning is. The government has no right to tell people that they can't have a circumcision. It's not harmful and the government has no reasoning to ban it. California is just full of ignorance.

Not every religious act should be protected. Second, it is harmful, as it causes nerve damage over time.
 
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.

No - but it should be required to use anethesia
 
Why do people think its barbaric? Look man I like the fact that its easier to keep my pecker cleaner, I think about the only drawback to being circumsized is in the winter I could use a little chapstick....barbaric lol.

Also about this nerve damage **** what are you talking about? I'm 25 and I still pop a random chub like a 12 year old boy. **** I wish I had some nerve damage maybe it would counter balance some of the boner flexing.
 
Last edited:
Both of my brothers are circumcised. Neither has any remembrance of it. My sister is a doctor and says that there is no viable medical/physical/psychological reason to ban male circumcision.
 
Back
Top Bottom