http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/03...e-circumcision/

I don't think this bill will pass. If it does, it will spark a nation-wide outcry from Jews and Muslims alike. From what I've gathered from the Boston Herald, a ranking supporter underwent restoration to have increased sexual pleasure. No joke. And if THAT is the underlying reason why, (doubtful, but would not be surprised if this was a motivator) then this is the stupidest bill I've ever read.

Even if it was, it wouldn't be enforced. My opinion.

Thoughts?

What a randomly strange topic.....

Here's my two cents.... regardless of whether a baby 'can or cannot give concent' for the removal of the foreskin, it doesn't mean its wrong to do this procedure. I know there are some religions that are against it, so therefore they don't do it. It has been proven to be more hygienic if it is done which is why its recommended by doctors.

I think that its a rediculous bill to even think about due to the fact that, yes it can be risky as far as a slip up and damaging male extremities, but that's also a rare incident.

I think the people opposed to this procedure are hiding behind the fact that a baby can't give concent on whether or not to have excess skin removed.

I don't support that at all and according to the small article, neither do the massachusetts government.

I don't think it'll pass. This is like saying it's illegal to cut the umbilical cord after birth because the baby doesn't have consent.

This is my tax dollars at work.

I didn't know that anyone wanted to ban it.

Anyway, I am against it though....I would personally never do it to any male babies that I have. I don't believe in it and I think you're actually harming the child.

It being cleaner isn't a good argument anymore because we have the ability to keep our bodies a lot cleaner than we used to.

I'm glad no one ever messed with my b/f's one when he was a baby.

Regardless of whether the argument of 'circumcision being cleaner' its still valid but I do agree with you on the fact that hygienic habits are drastically improved.

In all honesty its a matter of opinion, a lot of times its mostly religious. If I have a son in the future I would opt for it just because I feel it would be easier on him in the long run. That's just my opinion. Maybe its a cultural thing as well. Who knows.

Just curious on why you think it would be easier for him?

@ Envy's Lady

Well IMO I feel it would be easier just for the upkeep with hygiene... now I know if someone grows up with a foreskin doesn't find it any more time consuming with cleanliness, but my when my sisters son was born, she opted for no circumcision and when he was little it was nothing but infection, and maybe that was on her part of keeping it clean. I myself feel that it would be so much easier for me when the child is young for hygiene. That's all.

Well I'm pretty sure that when the baby boy is little the parents are suppose to make sure they roll back the skin to clean it and roll it back often enough too so that the skin doesn't end up being too tight since there is a problem that can occur otherwise(I forget what it is called). My b/f had a bit of that problem but it's fine now.