The Student Room Group

Court stops circumcision.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by admonit
No, I'm apologist of truth and logic.


Lol you sound even more like one now :beard:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by chemting
Lol you sound even more like one now :beard:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Adjust your voice filter. :cool:
Reply 62
Avatar for slaven
slaven
1
Original post by QE2
But it is tradition.
Muslims and jews traditionally circumcise their male children, because their gods demand it. Although it has always puzzled me why they didn't design us without one in the first place, and save babies and children all that pain and discomfort (not to mention deaths).

InB4 "Life is a Test"

This is a one more won battle over muslim faschism.

InB4 "This is racism"
Reply 63
Avatar for QE2
QE2
OP
20
Original post by admonit
That's your problem. You also failed to understand that the decision of the court was made only because of the objection of the mother.
It's also the problem of the poor, mutilated babies.
Erm, the article was quite clear on the reasons for the ruling. The point was that the court made the decision to side with the women and children, rather than with the father and the religion.

How do you think that the case would have gone in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Indonesia, etc...? Or more importantly, how would it have gone in a UK court operating under sharia?

So you don't know the difference between religion and traditions? Very sad. :cool:
Thare is often no difference. Religion is a tradition, by definition.
The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way: (OED)

But traditions don't have to be religious.

Knowing the meanings of the words you are using often helps in this kind of discussion.
Reply 64
Avatar for QE2
QE2
OP
20
Original post by Tootles
/me gives a ****.

As long as they don't prevent me from having whatever sons I eventually have from being done; foreskin problems have run in my family for at least six generations.
There will never be prohibition on circumcision on medical grounds.
Just because sharia amputations are illegal in the UK, doesn't suggest that medical amputations will ever be stopped.

I would suggest taking medical advice rather than demanding that you be able to "get your sons done".
(BTW, Your "six generations of dripping foreskins" sounds somewhat dubious, TBH)

Anyone who wants to mutilate their child's genitals for any other reason than medical necessity should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Original post by admonit
Adjust your voice filter. :cool:


I would. But you're messing up my calibration by sounding exactly the same :h:
Reply 66
Avatar for QE2
QE2
OP
20
Original post by admonit
No, I'm apologist of truth and logic.
Truth and logic don't need defending - except possibly from mangling by religious apologists.
Original post by QE2
Fundamentally, it is no different.
They both involve the needless removal of part of a child's genitals without their consent.

Neither can be justified in any way whatsoever.


yes yes that is true.

But without the foreskin it actually keeps your genitals cleaner so its not totally unjustified. There is a benefit to it.
Original post by QE2
There will never be prohibition on circumcision on medical grounds.
Just because sharia amputations are illegal in the UK, doesn't suggest that medical amputations will ever be stopped
Of course I understand that, I wasn't saying that religious grounds were good enough cause for it.

I would suggest taking medical advice rather than demanding that you be able to "get your sons done".
(BTW, Your "six generations of dripping foreskins" sounds somewhat dubious, TBH)
I never said anything about dripping; kindly refrain from misquoting me. I said 'problems' - if you want to be precise, every male in my father's family has had to be circumsised. In my own case it was left so long as to become an emergency, because my parents hadn't realized how severe it was.

Anyone who wants to mutilate their child's genitals for any other reason than medical necessity should be prosecuted for child abuse.
While I agree - as I said before - that if it's not necessary then it shouldn't be done, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's mutilation; the foreskin is a usless piece of skin whose only function is to impede hygiene. When a circumsision is performed properly, the erogenous flesh - namely the frenulum - remains undamaged, mooting any arguments people might make concerning a patient's future ability to experience pleasure (remembering an article I read once which claimed that cut men can't orgasm, which I can personally guarantee is incorrect). There is no advantage to be had from retaining one's foreskin, and removing it is, as far as I am concerned, akin to removing an appendix.
Reply 69
Avatar for QE2
QE2
OP
20
Original post by HucktheForde
yes yes that is true.

But without the foreskin it actually keeps your genitals cleaner so its not totally unjustified. There is a benefit to it.
And without your eyelids, you would never get grit under them.

The hygeine thing is a myth. Unless you never wash your cock, that is. And if that is an argument for removing the foreskin, then it is also an argument for removing the labia. So I guess that you support the benefits of FGM then, yes?
Original post by QE2
And without your eyelids, you would never get grit under them.

The hygeine thing is a myth. Unless you never wash your cock, that is. And if that is an argument for removing the foreskin, then it is also an argument for removing the labia. So I guess that you support the benefits of FGM then, yes?


errrrrr no it isnt. And in modern life we wear trousers/ pants /boxer/underwear unlike the most primitive human society where people run around naked so protection for the most sensitive part of the genitals is needed. Similarly one can argue that in modern life we wash our genitals with soap removing the need to cut off the foreskin. Both are also true. Removing the foreskin, isnt as bad as what most people make it to be.
I don't see why people are against circumcision the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. And if your saying that its against the baby's will then the reason why its done when the baby is young is because the surgery is much less risky.
Original post by chemting
I would. But you're messing up my calibration by sounding exactly the same :h:

If adjustment doesn't help then change audio system. :cool:
Original post by QE2
Glad to see the courts exercising some common sense and thinking of the welfare of children rather than religious privilege.
This should always be the case, even if both parents agree.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/19/muslim-man-loses-high-court-bid-to-have-sons-circumcised


I completely agree with the decision, but I think the fact it was opposed by one parent was mostly the deciding factor (along with the fact it's irreversible in the practical sense). It will probably be a while before we see the courts decide to stop this backward practice

I can't wait for the judgment to go up on Westlaw, I'd really like to read it
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by QE2
It's also the problem of the poor, mutilated babies.

Who told you that they are poor and mutilated? It's just an opinion.
How do you think that the case would have gone in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Indonesia, etc...? Or more importantly, how would it have gone in a UK court operating under sharia?

Irrelevant. In this case the judge as usually took the side of divorced mother. It's almost automatic decision exactly because Britain is not "Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Indonesia, etc".
Religion is a tradition, by definition.

Yes, but tradition is not religion. And there is specific freedom of religion in democratic countries.
Original post by IGCSEKid
I don't see why people are against circumcision the benefits greatly outweigh the risks


The claimed benefits may have some weight in African countries with a high HIV rate, but in the West I believe it's somewhat speculative.

There are also botched circumcisions. Being gay I've seen a few penises and that includes a couple of guys who obviously had quite poorly executed circumcisions (was it done with a blunt instrument? I don't know, but it was obviously a mutilation).

The foreskin evolved for a reason, and the HIV-related justifications really are an after-the-fact excuse. That wasn't the reason they were originally done, and even if that justification didn't exist various religious people would still do it.

It is wrong to hack at a child's genitals based on the fact that a bronze age text purports it is required by some sky deity whose existence is unproven
Original post by admonit
If adjustment doesn't help then change audio system. :cool:


My system is brand new :colondollar:. Try the feed from your end, maybe its connected to the wrong place. :h:
Original post by admonit
Who told you that they are poor and mutilated? It's just an opinion.


Err, it's an opinion that there are boys whose circumcisions are botched? No, it's not an opinion; it's fact. I've seen it with my own eyes,

Irrelevant. In this case the judge as usually took the side of divorced mother. It's almost automatic decision exactly because Britain is not "Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Indonesia, etc".


The judge didn't "take the side of the divorced mother" automatically. The judge made the decision likely based on the fact that given one parent opposes it, and given it's a substantial medical operation which is not medically necessary and that it can't be reversed, it is better to err on the side of caution and allow these boys to decide when they are able to have an opinion on it.

Yes, but tradition is not religion. And there is specific freedom of religion in democratic countries.


Freedom of religion is the freedom to worship yourself; it doesn't include the freedom to mutilate your children
Original post by QE2
And without your eyelids, you would never get grit under them.

The hygeine thing is a myth. Unless you never wash your cock, that is. And if that is an argument for removing the foreskin, then it is also an argument for removing the labia. So I guess that you support the benefits of FGM then, yes?


Indeed. Strictly speaking I don't think we require earlobes, and slicing them off would prevent earwax from accumulating in them.
Original post by HucktheForde
errrrrr no it isnt. And in modern life we wear trousers/ pants /boxer/underwear unlike the most primitive human society where people run around naked so protection for the most sensitive part of the genitals is needed. Similarly one can argue that in modern life we wash our genitals with soap removing the need to cut off the foreskin. Both are also true. Removing the foreskin, isnt as bad as what most people make it to be.


It's not the worst thing ever, but the benefits really are quite marginal. Not enough in my opinion to justify cutting off a part of the child.

For those guys who've had it, it's really not a huge issue (though it does dull some sensation). But my own feeling is that it should be generally phased out

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you