Circumcision (without consent)

[elmicker]

They're so significantly different that this tiny disclaimer should probably be very big and actually factored into your points, which imo are totally nullified by how bad this comparison is.

stop being so fucking retarded. the magnitude of the mutilation has no bearing on this discussion, nor does the resultant quality of life.

indisputable facts.

male circumcision is:
1) Permanent
2) Painful
3) Medically unnecessary in all but a handful of children

Therefore, any doctor doing it should be struck off. Any parent allowing an unqualified cultist to suck the spirits out of their child's penis should be imprisoned.

That is the only logical conclusion.

Why people are prattling on about nonsense like "oh well i don't mind it" is perplexing me. I wouldn't particularly mind a tattoo of CUNT on my foreheard, but if my parents had forced such a tattoo upon me at birth based on either some spurious cosmetic choice subject to changing fashions or the voice of an imaginary floating teapot in the sky, they'd be fucking imprisoned. Yet, for some reason so many people who are otherwise rational (you do not fall into otherwise rational, frug, you're irrational all of the time) jump to defend the practice of routine genital mutilation seemingly because it was done to them and they don't want to come to the conclusion that what their parents had done to them was in fact one of the most reprehensible things you can do to another human in a liberal society.

[Frug]

They're so significantly different that this tiny disclaimer should probably be very big and actually factored into your points, which imo are totally nullified by how bad this comparison is.

stop being so fucking retarded. the magnitude of the mutilation has no bearing on this discussion, nor does the resultant quality of life.

Thank you Elmicker, for responding with exactly what I added to the end of my post. If you think the magnitude of it has no bearing, stop beating around the bush and compare it to cutting the penis right off. Admit that your position relies on this comparison to stop making it look as though it's more subtle than that.

Therefore, any doctor doing it should be struck off. Any parent allowing an unqualified cultist to suck the spirits out of their child's penis should be imprisoned.

That is the only logical conclusion.

If the magnitude of it doesn't matter, it should be equally illegal to pierce a girl's ears before she can decide for herself. Those doctors, too, should be "struck off".

[elmicker]

itt: why this subforum was a fucking retarded idea

(by that i mean frug)

[Dark Flare]

Frug you still seem to be missing the point that there's no good reason that it SHOULD be the parents decision. If it's not to correct a medical problem, and therefore is for the purpose of cosmetics/"because we want to" then it should be entirely up to the person, not their relatives.

[Aramendel]

Not convinced on the last one, the second one...

I do not really see what the issue about these points are, they seem rather logical to me.

- reduction of the sensitivity of the penis
For me, when not in "siege mode", the rim of the corona of my penis is covered by my foreskin. It is by far the most sensitive area of it, to the extend that it would distract me if it wouldn't be covered because there would be regularly some friction between it and my underpants.
*Of course* will an area loose some sensitivity if it is touched more often. Denying that is like saying you won't get rougher hands if you do a lot of hard physical work with them.

- regionally varying preferences of women
In the EU it is rather rare to be circumcised unless a) you are Jewish/Muslim or b) you had a medical condition. In other words, circumcised equals here unfamiliar/weird. Nor is here any image about being circumcised = clean or moral or whatever. So basically, a circumcised penis looks for most women here strange. Which is a total turn-on I have heard. So, yes, of course the "sexiness" of it varies regionally.

My response is that there are both religious reasons that don't exist with a boob job

By fridge groups. You cannot use that as justification for the mainstream.

and that there are no perceived health benefits for it either

Like what? Please do not say "cleanliness" because that as has been already mentioned is utter pull. It is hard to wipe your ass than to keep an uncircumcised penis clean.

And noone here says you shouldn't be able to circumcise if there is a real medical reason for this, like a too narrow opening in the foreskin.

So now I ask you if you think all cosmetic surgeries, regardless of whether they are relatively risk free, should be outlawed to be performed on children? Ear piercing included?

Ear piercings grow closed if you do not use them. Does foreskin grow back?

What other "cosmetic surgeries" would you list? Would you compare a foreskin to hare lips or vestigial tails?

Trying to insist that they're even sufficiently similar to make these points is going to get shot down repeatedly.

Except I don't. Which is why I keep adding these disclaimers. It should be rather obvious that they do not have the same effect - or, better, that their effect has not the same strength - but I know how FHC loves quoting out of context.

My point is that it does not matter how strong an effect is, if you find an argument like "You can't miss what you never had." valid with a small effect it is also valid for a large effect. Or is some magical cutoff somewhere where it stops being valid? At a 5% reduction? 10%? 25%? Why?

[Frug]

Frug you still seem to be missing the point that there's no good reason that it SHOULD be the parents decision.

I thought the reason we ought to be giving parents the benefit of the doubt on all decisions of this sort, unless it's absolutely necessary to intervene, was obvious enough not to need to be stated explicitly.

Do you think we ought to outlaw having girls' ears pierced before they can consent to it? There is no good reason to do it at all. Otherwise, if it's ok, we need to talk about when it's right to intervene and when we should stay the fuck out of people's lives.

At what point we step in and tell parents that we know better than they do is a matter of opinion that is and should always be flexible and open to debate. Unless and until it reaches a certain point that it will sufficiently impact the person's life, I think we ought to keep out. Making blanket rules to apply to all people and all things is always going to accidentally catch the wrong people for doing things they are doing for a justified reason. Parents who want to do something that isn't definitely so bad that we've got to stop it to make sure their kid isn't fucked up should be allowed to do it on the off chance that maybe they know something you don't. I'm not enticed by the idea of getting in the way of that.

Your attitude toward people's religion is a good allusion to your position on this. Instead of realizing that a jewish guy is probably happy and proud to do weird jewish things (like be circumcised) that you don't like, you back your position on banning them by judging the rationality of his religion. What should be relevant is his happiness, not your derision of why he is happy. When you start using that position to step on people's toes because you know better than them, it's going to cause harm.

[Cue1*]

Why? You couldn't walk into a hospital and say "Hey, lop my kid's ear off please" and they would. You only need to legislate circumcision, nothing else.

You can, however, walk into a hospital and say "Hey my kid has gang green and we don't care to treat it, lop his arm off instead." or "Hey my kid has this weird looking mark on him, can you take it off?" And they will do both. Circumcision is most akin to braces than anything else. Parents force kids to have braces all the time, why is circumcision any different?

[Dark Flare]

I may as well reply to the both of you at the same time:

Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?

Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different. If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?

Why is the happiness of the parents even a point in this? If it made me super happy as a parent to tattoo "I'm the best" on my kid's forehead I wouldn't be allowed would I?


If circumcision happened as the parents decision at 18 years old, there'd be a public outcry. Imagine waking up on your 18th birthday and you mum saying "Oh whilst you were drunk last night I chopped a bit of your penis off". That would be entirely not okay, right?
So why is it okay if you do it 18 years earlier?

[zergl]

I may as well reply to the both of you at the same time:

Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?

Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different. If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?

Why is the happiness of the parents even a point in this? If it made me super happy as a parent to tattoo "I'm the best" on my kid's forehead I wouldn't be allowed would I?


If circumcision happened as the parents decision at 18 years old, there'd be a public outcry. Imagine waking up on your 18th birthday and you mum saying "Oh whilst you were drunk last night I chopped a bit of your penis off". That would be entirely not okay, right?
So why is it okay if you do it 18 years earlier?

The earring and braces analogies are really utterly ridiculous. On the religious side, I'd like to point out Sacul's post again:

As a Jew who is considered pure by Orthodox standards (both parents families are jews) i still thank my parents for NOT circumziging me and letting the decision up to me aswell as not indoctrinating me with religious bullshit.
If Joshua likes it fine, he was old enough, making the decision for a baby is just evil and retarded in my opinion (lol at the people who say no to female circumziging and its ok to do it to a male) and the Penn and Teller ep Roam posted says why.

Freedom of religion can also mean the freedom of the child to choose his own religion (or lack thereof) when reaching maturity.

[Frug]

Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?

Actually you're wrong on both counts. If you pierce a girl's ears early enough, that's how they stay. Surprise! My girlfriend is like that. She hates earrings but forever has horrible little holes in her ears.
The braces aren't the point. The change in a person's teeth are the point. That stays as well. Braces are like the scalpel used in circumcision - they're a tool. The effect is permanent and, in most cases, cosmetic. Try again.

Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different.

Circumcision and stoning children are not overly different ITT. My god, man. My god. What have we done.

Think of the children.

If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?

Indeed. And what if you refer back to my original example: What if he follows the religious beliefs of his parents and is forced to endure something later in his life, under more difficult circumstances, because you're forcing your opinions on them?

I think both cases are undesirable. However one is left in the hands of his parents and the other in the hands of a legal system.

Why is the happiness of the parents even a point in this?

It's not. Please refer to my previous point here, or the post where I said this the first time.

If circumcision happened as the parents decision at 18 years old, there'd be a public outcry. Imagine waking up on your 18th birthday and you mum saying "Oh whilst you were drunk last night I chopped a bit of your penis off". That would be entirely not okay, right?
So why is it okay if you do it 18 years earlier?

You tell me why I think these two things are different. I can come up with some reasons but I'm wondering if you can.

[Frug]

Sorry Ara, I didn't notice your post. I think you have the best argument so far, any way.

I do not really see what the issue about these points are, they seem rather logical to me.

Not illogical, just not sure I believe they're true.

- reduction of the sensitivity of the penis
For me, when not in "siege mode", the rim of the corona of my penis is covered by my foreskin. It is by far the most sensitive area of it, to the extend that it would distract me if it wouldn't be covered because there would be regularly some friction between it and my underpants.
*Of course* will an area loose some sensitivity if it is touched more often. Denying that is like saying you won't get rougher hands if you do a lot of hard physical work with them.

That sensitive rim is still relatively covered. I get the impression you think this procedure is more severe than it is. I would show you and let you touch it, but... no I wouldn't do that. You'll have to trust me when i say it's fine. Perhaps it's worse for other men but I doubt it. Perhaps I'm willfully ignorant and perhaps I will spend some time examining pictures, but at least for me, your claim isn't holding. Only the front is exposed, it looks nice imo, the gf agrees, and when erect at least they're the same. I'd also present the concern that more sensitivity would reduce my stamina? Some days I use a condom to last longer. Anyway I still don't envy you or desire to be different, or believe that's the case for other men in my position. I think you're just guessing.

- regionally varying preferences of women
In the EU it is rather rare to be circumcised unless a) you are Jewish/Muslim or b) you had a medical condition. In other words, circumcised equals here unfamiliar/weird. Nor is here any image about being circumcised = clean or moral or whatever. So basically, a circumcised penis looks for most women here strange. Which is a total turn-on I have heard. So, yes, of course the "sexiness" of it varies regionally.

Yeah but I live here. Also my gf may just be being nice to me but I think it's a purely aesthetic thing.

My response is that there are both religious reasons that don't exist with a boob job

By fridge groups. You cannot use that as justification for the mainstream.

You were being so reasonable up until you suggested outlawing people's religious practices because you've declared them a fringe group. At least I think you meant fringe and not fridge. Anyway that's retarded, you're losing points from what would be a reasonable position every time you say something this dumb. Not touching it. Clearly we don't see eye to eye on people's religious freedoms here or how to respect people's weird beliefs.

and that there are no perceived health benefits for it either

Like what? Please do not say "cleanliness" because that as has been already mentioned is utter pull. It is hard to wipe your ass than to keep an uncircumcised penis clean.

Google it. Come back after you have done so. It's all there. Not going to copy pasta for you.

Ear piercings grow closed if you do not use them. Does foreskin grow back?

Cute attempt to skirt the issue without answering. No piercings do not always grow back. Please try again.

[zergl]

Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?

Actually you're wrong on both counts. If you pierce a girl's ears early enough, that's how they stay. Surprise! My girlfriend is like that. She hates earrings but forever has horrible little holes in her ears.
The braces aren't the point. The change in a person's teeth are the point. That stays as well. Braces are like the scalpel used in circumcision - they're a tool. The effect is permanent and, in most cases, cosmetic. Try again.

The thing with braces is that they are corrective and they are not necessarily purely cosmetic and I can see literally no upside to having crooked teeth while I'm very much attached to my foreskin.
And even if it was done for purely cosmetic reasons, kids are assholes and may or may not bully/mock the hell out of you which is arguably worse for a kid than having the decision being made for them. (This argument goes for any type of corrective/reconstructive procedure.)
Which admittedly can also apply to circumcisions (shower room at school or sports clubs in a high circumcision environment) which is conveniently is solved by a blanket ban on doing it on kids because then nobody has them. \o/

And piercing ears at such an early age should be illegal.

Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different.

Circumcision and stoning children are not overly different ITT. My god, man. My god. What have we done.

Think of the children.

The point is not comparing it with circumcision, it's that religious laws can change/adapt to modern society.

If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?

Indeed. And what if you refer back to my original example: What if he follows the religious beliefs of his parents and is forced to endure something later in his life, under more difficult circumstances, because you're forcing your opinions on them?

I think both cases are undesirable. However one is left in the hands of his parents and the other in the hands of a legal system.

I would argue that it's a bloody good test of faith. Instead of the pussy approach of having it done to you before you can consciously remember (which only applies to Jews anyway with their 8 days rule; Muslims can do it a lot later and actually may remember getting their junk paraded and snipped in front of a huge audience which some party poopers may consider to be traumatic) you now can prove your faith by taking it like a man.

[Dark Flare]

Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?

Actually you're wrong on both counts. If you pierce a girl's ears early enough, that's how they stay. Surprise! My girlfriend is like that. She hates earrings but forever has horrible little holes in her ears.
The braces aren't the point. The change in a person's teeth are the point. That stays as well. Braces are like the scalpel used in circumcision - they're a tool. The effect is permanent and, in most cases, cosmetic. Try again.

Except the effect of braces is entirely beneficial. The effect of circumcision is not. Also you don't tend to have braces before you can talk, and express an opinion, what with milk teeth being non-permanent.

I would like to take a moment to point out here that you're saying:
A non-circumcised penis is analogous to crooked, wonky teeth.
A circumcised penis is analogous to straight, nice teeth.
Really? You're either trolling, don't understand what foreskin is, or are too set in the mentality that "however my body is is obviously correct!" to think logically.

Re: Earrings, my view is there should be a minimum age for those too as it happens, probably somewhere between 12 and 16. But that's not for this thread.

Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different.

Circumcision and stoning children are not overly different ITT. My god, man. My god. What have we done.

Think of the children.

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse. I was making a point that religions have to change their behavior to what's socially acceptable.

If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?

Indeed. And what if you refer back to my original example: What if he follows the religious beliefs of his parents and is forced to endure something later in his life, under more difficult circumstances, because you're forcing your opinions on them?

I think both cases are undesirable. However one is left in the hands of his parents and the other in the hands of a legal system.

A legal system is somewhat more rational and fair than the whim of your average person.

Why is the happiness of the parents even a point in this?

It's not. Please refer to my previous point here, or the post where I said this the first time.

If circumcision happened as the parents decision at 18 years old, there'd be a public outcry. Imagine waking up on your 18th birthday and you mum saying "Oh whilst you were drunk last night I chopped a bit of your penis off". That would be entirely not okay, right?
So why is it okay if you do it 18 years earlier?

You tell me why I think these two things are different. I can come up with some reasons but I'm wondering if you can.

Presumably because at 18 a person is capable of making that decision themself. Which, frankly, is when any non-medically-important work like that should be done.


I think it would be beneficial to steer this thread away from religion at this point. It has been demonstrated many, many times on FHC/SHC/Every forum ever/Real life that religion topics are a conversational dead-end because neither side will accept the other side's opinion.

For the continued discussion I would suggest we say there are two special cases:
1. Religion
2. Medical necessity (I don't think anyone was arguing against this anyway)

So the type of circumcision we're debating is where the parent gets it done just because they want to/prefer it/it was done to them/whatever other non-medical non-religious reason.

[Aramendel]

That sensitive rim is still relatively covered. I get the impression you think this procedure is more severe than it is. I would show you and let you touch it, but... no I wouldn't do that. You'll have to trust me when i say it's fine. Perhaps it's worse for other men but I doubt it. Perhaps I'm willfully ignorant and perhaps I will spend some time examining pictures, but at least for me, your claim isn't holding. Only the front is exposed, it looks nice imo, the gf agrees, and when erect at least they're the same. I'd also present the concern that more sensitivity would reduce my stamina? Some days I use a condom to last longer. Anyway I still don't envy you or desire to be different, or believe that's the case for other men in my position. I think you're just guessing.

*sigh* "Relatively covered" is not "covered". Could you clarify that a bit more? Dark Flare posted a chart on page 2. All photos of circumcised penises I found looked like CI-1 or CI-2 and there it is very much not "relatively covered".
You are accusing me of skirting the issue when you keep doing exactly that. Answer me two simple questions:

a) Does an area of your skin which experiences regular friction become less sensitive to said friction? Yes/no?
b) Is a circumcised penis more exposed to friction? Yes/no?

That is not guessing, that is a pretty clear logical chain. Or could you explain by which magic a penis is exempt to this sensitivity loss which applies to every other body part? That you "feel fine" is utterly useless. Do you know the before/after? No? The only persons who can classify this are those who had a circumcision after they became sexually active and behold, a loss of sensitivity is mentioned.

You might argue that it is not significant, but claiming there is none is just putting your head in the sand.

Actually, since you told me to look for sources myself I found also other nice things. Like this:

...There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision...

And this:

...Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men...

So, yeah, I think we can assume some degree of sensitivity loss as given. Next!

Yeah but I live here.

Do I really need to explain to you why that is no counter to "regionally varying preferences of women"? You know the meaning of "regionally "?

You were being so reasonable up until you suggested outlawing people's religious practices because you've declared them a fringe group.

Please quote me where I suggest that. The person who is "losing points" is you because either you are not reading my posts carefully or are trying to put words in my mouth to strengthen your side. Either way it is a poor argumentation style.

Google it. Come back after you have done so. It's all there. Not going to copy pasta for you.

Like this one?

Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.

Or this one?

...The circumcised penis requires more care than the intact penis during the first 3 years of life. Parents should be instructed to retract and clean any skin covering the glans in circumcised boys, to prevent adhesions forming and debris from accumulating. Penile inflammation (balanitis) may be more common in circumcised boys; preputial stenosis (phimosis) affects circumcised and intact boys with equal frequency. The revision of circumcision for purely cosmetic reasons should be discouraged on both medical and ethical grounds.

Or maybe this one?

...While evaluating the impact of circumcision technique, we found that UTI occurred in six of the 24 infants circumcised by a physician (25%), and in 42 of the 87 infants (48%) circumcised by a religious authority...

Combined with this:

About 8 percent of girls and 2 percent of boys will have at least one urinary tract infection (UTI) during childhood.

Note: It is generally assumed that circumcision PROTECTS from UTI.
(Also even if it were true - totally worth to circumcise to protect you from a 1 in 50 chance* to get a certain disease which can be cured by antibiotics.
* Assuming it would totally protect you from it, which it doesn't and that doing it has no chance in creating complications, which it also doesn't.)

Cute attempt to skirt the issue without answering. No piercings do not always grow back. Please try again.

So now we go from "ear piercings" to just "piercings"? Backpedal more please?

Also, which piercings do not grow back? Ear piercings grow back. Lip piercings grow back. Nose piercings grow back. Even genital piercings grow back.
That might not grow back. Heard it is very popular for parents to get for their 5 year old nowadays.

And if that isn't clear enough for you - piercings do not apply here because they are not permanent. So let me ask you again - which other permanent "cosmetic surgeries" are you talking about? Because I for sure cannot think of any besides fixing things like hare lips or vestigal tails. But if you want to argue those are the same as a foreskin you can already assume my response being a

[elmicker]

i really dont see why the religion and aesthetic arguments should be separated. they're fundamentally equivalent.

[ctrlchris]

Can we make it a rule to not bring up the point "my gf likes it loooool" because that's not a justification for it.

long poast to come later~

So I went to make my long post and I realized I dont have a long post to make.

Medical reasons while babby.
When your grown up and actually know what your dick is for then you can choose to cut bits off it you want.

Religion should not play a part but we all know it will forever so there is no point arguing about that.

[indi]

My face.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that most braces are not, in fact, for cosmetic reasons. For instance: your teeth will wear with age. If they aren't straight (in relation to each other, mostly), that wear and tear will go at an angle.

Other than that, what chris said.

[Diicc Tater]

it takes a thread about cocks....

The issues with male circumcision is far less acute than with those of female genital mutilation. However both are quite unnecessary.

For males, there's not enough data to support any affect when it comes to penile sensation, sexual satisfaction or infections.
The reasons for circumcision, male or female, seems to be religious, aesthetic and/or traditional. On the male side, It's Jewish law and a Muslim, American, African (northern parts) and Asian (southeast parts, likely Muslim traditional) tradition.
As to what your preferences are, well, it's more about how you relate to free will, informed decisions and peer pressure than anything else.

For females the adverse effects are huge. The 'least' severe seems to be the removal of the clitoral hood and partial removal of the clitoris. Holy hell.
It is for no other reason than to reduce sexuality. If it didn't sound so awfully ultra feminist I'd say it's for no other reason than to oppress women in a traditional male dominated society. Fuck it, that seems to be the reason anyway. It's retarded on all levels.

[kzig]

Posting on behalf of Cogs, who found this and PM'd it to me:

Can't be arsed to apply to the Serious Business group, so i'll PM you this instead.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/...chdog-1.456443

700 Norwegian Jews vs The Ombudsman for Children in Norway with a ban already proposed by one of the Parliamentary parties.

It seems that this is becoming a more widespread political issue than I had initially realised.

[Hel OWeen]

1. Bullshit or not, having no foreskin makes for easy cleaning.

Not like it's hard to wash with foreskin is it.

It is, as I'm the living example for it. You're only thinking of healthy/normal conditions. As I (tried to) explain above, there's that thing called phimosis. At best it makes cleaning (not even talking about sex here) hard. But it can eventualy be really painful. Poke a needle in your foreskin. That's basically it feels every fucking (sic!) time you get a boner.

That's why it's done when you're a kid. Given the time when and where this rite was developed, it does make sense to just do it to any boy. Unlike today, where doctors are able to predict medical problems later on, at that time it wasn't possible. So "better be safe than sorry" was the idea behind it, I guess. Don't know (and don't want to imagine) if and how they would've treated adults back then ...

tl;dr Right decision for the time, completely obsolete today. You're free to decide on your own, but don't harm others, especially kids. Don't mistake "being responsible" for your kids as "owing them".