{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/18/2013 1:50:30 AM
30
The baby cannot consent, thus the parents have the right to consent to circumcision, so yes.
English
-
Can the parent consent to the removal or earlobes too? that's even more cosmetic than circumcision, of-course if you're going to allow the removal of highly sensitive erogenous zone, then lets just reinstate female circumcision... Oh, and mutilating a baby's dick because you think it looks better IS morally questionable, and roughly 117 boys die every year from circumcision in the states alone, tell me again how DYING isn't a negative lasting side effect?
-
So should parents also be able to 'consent' their kids for sex with child molesters?
-
That is morally questionable and has negative lasting effects.
-
Which is exactly his point.
-
Circumcision fits neither of those.
-
Depends on who you ask, really.
-
A person can make an argument that if someone is circumcised, they don't have to push back the foreskin to wash down there, thus eliminating a possibility of getting an infection for not having it clean enough.
-
I don't know how to reply without being very explicit except... "Alone time" in the shower should take care of that if one is uncut. It just works that way, unless something's wrong with it.
-
Or they should do the right thing and allow the child to grow of legal age and let him decide if he wants to take a knife to his foreskin.
-
By then it would actually hurt.
-
Maybe that's why they wouldn't want to get it cut off then.
-
It's much less painful and isn't remembered as a baby.
-
How do you know it's less painful? Is it ok to abuse a child as an infant because they won't remember it?
-
Because they don't remember it. Do you remember all your injuries as a child? Probably not. Do you care about them now? Probably not. [quote]Is it ok to abuse a child as an infant because they won't remember it?[/quote]Loaded question. Anyway, it isn't abuse. The pain isn't remembered, and the result isn't negative, so it's therefore not abusive.
-
I have a scar on my face that I sort of care about, but I don't remember getting it, so it's no big deal? I mean, I don't really care because it's on the corner of my eye and nobody really mentions it.
-
Everyone can see your scar. Most usually can't see your... umm... yeah.
-
But I don't remember the pain, so it can't affect my life today, can it?
-
That wasn't my argument.
-
No I don't remember any pain I received as an infant. That does not mean that pain is less intense at that age and it does not make it ok to inflict unnecessary pain on someone at that stage. I'll refine the question then. Is it ok to hurt an infant as long as you leave no lasting damage because they won't remember it?
-
Where do you get the idea that circumcision is even "damage" at all?
-
It's removing a functional body part, I fail to see how it isn't.
-
Clothes already fulfill that function. People wear underwear for a reason.
-
Wearing underwear over a circumcised crotch means that the glans is in constant contact with comparably rough surfaces compared to the interior of the foreskin. This causes the glans to become desensitised and take on a coarser, drier appearance over time. Clothes exaggerate the problem if anything.
-
Source?
-
That's just what skin does. Ever played guitar? Your fingertips get rougher as you play more. Ever lifted weights? You get callouses below your inside knuckles because of the rough handles.
