The Student Room Group

Court stops circumcision.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 160
Avatar for QE2
QE2
OP
20
Original post by queen-bee
FGM is banned for a reason.
What is that reason?
If it was done as a safe, medical procedure, just to remove the labia for "practical health reasons", would you support it as you do with MGM?

Cleanliness? Low risk of catching STDs and doctors should warn parents if they find that it's likely to cause more harm than good to the little boy before the procedure is done
There is no "cleanliness" issue if you wash regularly. That applies the same to many parts of the body.
Being circumcised does not give a "low risk" of catching STDs. An American paper (criticised by the NHS) suggests a slightly lower risk.
However, in reality, what will happen is that circumcised men will use this as an excuse for not using condoms, thus leading to an increased risk. Because if they are using condoms, any benefit is statistically negligible.

The NHS and Medicaid refuse to carry out elective circumcision, so the health benefits are not meaningful - at least not in a system where the patient doesn't pay for everything through the nose!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by QE2
What is that reason?
If it was done as a safe, medical procedure, just to remove the labia for "practical health reasons", would you support it as you do with MGM?

There is no "cleanliness" issue if you wash regularly. That applies the same to many parts of the body.
Being circumcised does not give a "low risk" of catching STDs. An American paper (criticised by the NHS) suggests a slightly lower risk.
However, in reality, what will happen is that circumcised men will use this as an excuse for not using condoms, thus leading to an increased risk. Because if they are using condoms, any benefit is statistically negligible.


I still wouldn't support it
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Kindly note that it is far easier to engage in a discussion if your responses were paragraphed appropriately.

Your argument that babies, toddlers and children should only decide or give consent to any and all activity, when they come of age, is inherently flawed.

Where someone is unable to consent, the closest relatives are responsible for the welfare of the child, or adult. In the absence of any such relatives, the wardship passes to the state and I am disgusted by your attempts to further your agenda by wielding the great powers of the state to impose your opinions on how parents should raise their child/ren.


Apologies. :h:

Not all activities... Just ones that involve cutting off part of a child's body.

So you agree with all of the examples I gave then? Breast flattening? FGM?
Original post by Hydeman
Damn you, chemting! :mad: I came here to shout 'Alhamdulillah!'

y u ninja me like this :emo:


Hydeman getting constantly ninja'd :lol:
i got circumcised as a baby and despite being the least religious person ever im insanely grateful my parents did it because foreskins are gross and unhygienic :/
pornstar dick ftw
Original post by Axel Johann
Hydeman getting constantly ninja'd :lol:


This is only the second time in the last few months. :grumble:
People like me blessed with a large penis will tell you that foreskin only hides the beauty.
Original post by Hydeman
This is only the second time in the last few months. :grumble:


A worrying trend :eek:
Original post by TheArtofProtest
If a child cannot consent, then a responsible adult is empowered to consent on his behalf. So, if a child was in an accident or had congenital difficulties which involved an amputation of some kind, then the doctor and the parents will decide after consultation.

Saying only certain acts require consent, where the child does not have the capacity to consent, is drawing a line in the sand and completely arbitrary.

What gives you the right to tell a parent how they should raise their child?


While in some situations parents have the right to choose for the child having a foreskin is not "Life threatening" or even Dangerous. it is perfectly normal.
So therefore a child should have the right to choose for himself when he is old enough.
What gives you the right to tell a parent how they should raise their child?
Would you allow a parent raising a child to commit FGM or allow a parent to decide that they wanted their kid to undergo a sex change without the child being old enough to understand?
Original post by Youngmetro
People like me blessed with a large penis will tell you that foreskin only hides the beauty.


So that means that parents have the right to permanently choose to mutilate a child's genitals?
No parent should be allowed to have someone go anywhere near their child with a knife if it's for 'cultural' reasons. That child is an individual, with rights, and shouldn't have their body permanently altered without consent because of a religious superstition. Want part of your junk cut off to express your religious faith? That's a decision to be made by oneself as an adult.
Original post by AperfectBalance
So that means that parents have the right to permanently choose to mutilate a child's genitals?


The word 'mutilate' suggests disfigurement and some sort of damage, which it isn't.

A circumcised dick is more aesthetically pleasing.
I can't understand what people have against circumcision. It's one of those lovely things that have been passed down to us from ancient cultures. Our ancestors certainly knew what was best for us humans.
Besides, it isn't dangerous (in general) so that means we should do it.
I've been to many circumcisions in the past, and trust me there is nothing inhumane about it. There's usually some nice food. And babies sound so cute when they cry.
This is an important part of being human.
[video="youtube;1vvb16VyVEY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vvb16VyVEY[/video]
Original post by Youngmetro
The word 'mutilate' suggests disfigurement and some sort of damage, which it isn't.

A circumcised dick is more aesthetically pleasing.


Yes it does suggest Disfigurements as it does.

A circumcised dick is more aesthetically pleasing
This is your opinion, this is not fact, If a fully consenting person goes yeah I want to be circumcised go ahead your choice. but when a kid that cant choose is forced to have it happen that is wrong
Original post by AperfectBalance
So that means that parents have the right to permanently choose to mutilate a child's genitals?


Lmfao that's funny...

I don't plan on doing it to my children because I don't follow the beliefs/culture behind it. But damn lets not get all dramatic now. I'm pretty sure many men survive perfectly and function just as well with a circumcised penis... Not saying it's right, but for those who've already had it done I doubt all of them are living terribly.
Reply 175
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Quoting before it gets deleted by the Shariah brigade.

Original post by Plantagenet Crown
It baffles me why religious people sometimes cannot grasp the simplest logic. If Allah hates foreskins so much then he would simply have created man without them.

Also, for a god who claims to hate anything homosexual, he certainly seems to spend a lot of time thinking about not only how penises should look, but where they should be inserted...

Now that society is more accepting hopefully Allah feels confident enough to come out of the closet :sadnod:


Perhaps Allah is a girl. That would explain it. :perv:
Reply 176
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by chemting
The post has been deleted, and I got a reminder.

RIP: the pious have won again


Allah (pbuh) is so strong that he can give you reminders when you criticise him (pbuh). You can't fight Allah (pbuh).

(pbuh)
Reply 177
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by Youngmetro
The word 'mutilate' suggests disfigurement and some sort of damage, which it isn't.

A circumcised dick is more aesthetically pleasing.


Yeah, I think we should do the same to girls, because vaginas are more aesthetically pleasing when the inner labia don't stick outside.
Original post by Novascope
Lmfao that's funny...

I don't plan on doing it to my children because I don't follow the beliefs/culture behind it. But damn lets not get all dramatic now. I'm pretty sure many men survive perfectly and function just as well with a circumcised penis... Not saying it's right, but for those who've already had it done I doubt all of them are living terribly.


So true, my mate was raped once and he's fine. Doesn't mean I'm going to rape people. Respect.
Original post by AperfectBalance
Yes it does suggest Disfigurements as it does.

A circumcised dick is more aesthetically pleasing
This is your opinion, this is not fact, If a fully consenting person goes yeah I want to be circumcised go ahead your choice. but when a kid that cant choose is forced to have it happen that is wrong


lmaoo , most would agree a circumcised dick is better. Foreskin is something that we as humans dont need to function.

If you want 'facts' then an uncircumcised dick is more dirty and unhygienic and on that grounds it is better, incidentally it is one reason why many do have it.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you