The Student Room Group

Court stops circumcision.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by QE2
But routine mastectomy would minimise the risk of breast cancer in all women. A clear health benefit, and one with far greater social implications than any benefits provided by male circumcision.


Breasts develop at or around 11yrs+. They continue to grow, change and develop over a few years. So, to force your teenage child to have her breasts removed is somewhat cruel, given that the healing process would take 4-6 weeks, which would obviously severely disrupt her education and social life, whereas the healing process in circumcised baby boys would take around 5-10days. Foreskin is present from birth, and is a much more simpler procedure when carried out on a newborn.
In addition, breast cancer is almost non existent in young girls, and is most common in older woman over 50. As mentioned previously, UTIs and other foreskin related conditions are pretty common in younger boys.
Breasts are noticeable and allow women to breastfeed, it wouldn't be fair to remove that opportunity. Foreskin doesn't play as much a role as a breast. Some women don't even notice if their partner is cut or not.
Original post by cherryred90s
Breasts develop at or around 11yrs+. They continue to grow, change and develop over a few years. So, to force your teenage child to have her breasts removed is somewhat cruel, given that the healing process would take 4-6 weeks, which would obviously severely disrupt her education and social life, whereas the healing process in circumcised baby boys would take around 5-10days. Foreskin is present from birth, and is a much more simpler procedure when carried out on a newborn.
In addition, breast cancer is almost non existent in young girls, and is most common in older woman over 50. As mentioned previously, UTIs and other foreskin related conditions are pretty common in younger boys.
Breasts are noticeable and allow women to breastfeed, it wouldn't be fair to remove that opportunity. Foreskin doesn't play as much a role as a breast. Some women don't even notice if their partner is cut or not.


you don't seem to be arguing from any kind of coherent or unifying ethical principle but merely spineless subjectivity, e.g. "x isn't as bad as y, therefore allow x" - if you had a coherent concept of "bad" then surely you'd apply it to male genital mutilation just as you would for FGM seeing as they're both "bad"?
Yes I agree the woman's argument was correct and it is worrying that Circumcision is allowed if both parents agree its no different to Female Circumcision which is illegal that is practiced for religious reasons.The father's argument was very poor the child shouldn't be circumcised in accordance with his "Muslim practice and religious beliefs" not only is he wrong here because of the fact that he said his it is not known yet whether his children will follow his religious beliefs parents shouldn't get to choose the religion of their children they should have free will but also for the fact he mentioned Muslim practice without any justification for why God would want such circumcision religious texts/documents are not evidence(like the Sunnah).

Most people get religion the wrong way round you need to decide what you believe and why and then choose your religion based on your religious beliefs and arguments the other way round is caused by indoctrination by society, faith schools and parents.
Original post by cherryred90s
All I have said is that there are health benefits to male circumcision, so it is incorrect to say that there aren't.


So there are health benefits because you've said that there are health benefits? Makes sense. :lol:
Original post by alkaline.
why would you do that?! now I can't talk to you properly cause I can only see your eyes and eyes aren't really the windows to the souls so I don't know how you're feeling.


Well, I prefer to be a wrapped sweet so I don't get covered in flies. :rolleyes:


Why are you sticking your out tongue at me?


The latter. :wink:


don't feel forced, but it's for your own good.


If you say so. :h:


:biggrin:you only sound serious because you didn't recognise my "misplaced humour"...


Haha, true. xD I'm not very good at picking up on that kind of humour. :K:

Spoiler

Original post by Hydeman
So there are health benefits because you've said that there are health benefits? Makes sense. :lol:


No, there are health benefits because there are health benefits :s-smilie:
Original post by BubbleBoobies
you don't seem to be arguing from any kind of coherent or unifying ethical principle but merely spineless subjectivity, e.g. "x isn't as bad as y, therefore allow x" - if you had a coherent concept of "bad" then surely you'd apply it to male genital mutilation just as you would for FGM seeing as they're both "bad"?


Its not subjective that breasts form from puberty and continue to develop. It's not subjective that a teenage girl undergoing a double masectomy would take around 4-6weeks to heal. It's not subjective that male circumcision in newborns would take around 5-10days to heal.
It is subjective that I don't view circumcision to be some kind of horrific procedure. That's my opinion. Just like you have your opinion..

I've clearly explained why I don't view FGM as equivalent to circumcision. I'm not repeating myself.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Why do you believe that your opinion on something should trump the parent's right to determine what is best for their child?


Woahhhh you are back! !

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by cherryred90s
No, there are health benefits because there are health benefits :s-smilie:


That's no less circular. :erm:
Original post by Hydeman
That's no less circular. :erm:


Ok :h:
Original post by cherryred90s
Ok :h:


You've no idea what 'circular' means in relation to an argument, do you? :colonhash:
Original post by Hydeman
You've no idea what 'circular' means in relation to an argument, do you? :colonhash:


I don't know why you're trying to belittle me or infer that I'm a dunce.
You're implying that what I've said is ineffective and is sort of like 'going around in circles' because I used the same point to define what I meant? I know I did that, and it wasn't by accident. I've spoken to you about this before and I know that I previously provided several links that explained the benefits. I have no interest in doing that again, which is why I gave you a very short answer. :smile:
Original post by cherryred90s
You're implying that what I've said is ineffective and is sort of like 'going around in circles' because I used the same point to define what I meant? I know I did that, and it wasn't by accident.


I'm not implying that -- that's exactly what I've said. 'It has health benefits because I said it has health benefits' is no better an argument than 'Santa exists because I said he exists.' If that wasn't an accident, then I do worry that much of your time in D&CA is wasted by definition.


I've spoken to you about this before and I know that I previously provided several links that explained the benefits. I have no interest in doing that again, which is why I gave you a very short answer. :smile:


But I wasn't the person you originally said that to. :tongue: It was QE2 (I think), who hasn't been subjected to what passes for 'evidence' in your mind, so the point stands. You gave him the short, circular argument, and then repeated it to me. Are you going to correct yourself for the former instance, if not the latter? :holmes:
Original post by Hydeman
I'm not implying that -- that's exactly what I've said. 'It has health benefits because I said it has health benefits' is no better an argument than 'Santa exists because I said he exists.' If that wasn't an accident, then I do worry that much of your time in D&CA is wasted by definition.


I have just explained to you why I said it in that way...


But I wasn't the person you originally said that to. :tongue: It was QE2 (I think), who hasn't been subjected to what passes for 'evidence' in your mind, so the point stands. You gave him the short, circular argument, and then repeated it to me. Are you going to correct yourself for the former instance, if not the latter? :holmes:

Someone said there were no health benefits at all. I then stated a few of the benefits to that person, and that's when QE2 pretty much acknowledged that health benefits exist but that they are negligible. I have never disputed that, so I responded by saying that although the benefits are small, they exist nonetheless which is why the initial person was wrong in saying that there weren't any benefits at all. You should have followed the conversation instead of picking apart one single part of it.

Now here you are, attacking me as per usual. You previously said that I bother you and you dislike me, so why are you taking time out to respond to me about something that wasn't even directed to you?
Original post by cherryred90s

Someone said there were no health benefits at all. I then stated a few of the benefits to that person, and that's when QE2 pretty much acknowledged that health benefits exist but that they are negligible. I have never disputed that, so I responded by saying that although the benefits are small, they exist nonetheless which is why the initial person was wrong in saying that there weren't any benefits at all.

Are there none at all for fgm? I'd have thought it could make it easier to keep clean too.
Original post by TSRUsername99
Are there none at all for fgm? I'd have thought it could make it easier to keep clean too.


No, there are no known health benefits to fgm. The vagina is self cleaning, all we need to do is use water. There aren't any conditions that directly affect the clitoris either. There will never be a need to have your clitoris removed, whereas there are instances where foreskin removal is recommended or needed.
Original post by cherryred90s
No, there are no known health benefits to fgm. The vagina is self cleaning, all we need to do is use water. There aren't any conditions that directly affect the clitoris either. There will never be a need to have your clitoris removed, whereas there are instances where foreskin removal is recommended or needed.

Has it been studied? Is the penis not self cleaning? I've seen/smelt some pretty disgusting vaginas.
Original post by TSRUsername99
Has it been studied? Is the penis not self cleaning? I've seen/smelt some pretty disgusting vaginas.


Has what been studied? The penis might be self cleaning but I'm sure it's necessary to pull back the foreskin to clean it, which can be painful for some men/boys so they may avoid it, which may lead to a rather painful infection whereas vaginas don't have anything that needs to be pulled back.
How can you see a disgusting vagina?
In terms of smell, that's down to many factors such as hygiene and diet. It could be that the girl is not regularly cleaning her vagina with water, or is using fragranced soap which ironically, will cause the girl to smell bad rather than good - none of which would be resolved with removing the clitoris.
Original post by cherryred90s
Has what been studied?
Potential health benefits of fgm.

Original post by cherryred90s

The penis might be self cleaning but I'm sure it's necessary to pull back the foreskin to clean it, which can be painful for some men/boys so they may avoid it, which may lead to a rather painful infection whereas vaginas don't have anything that needs to be pulled back.

It shouldn't be painful, if it is then it's time to visit the GP.

Original post by cherryred90s

How can you see a disgusting vagina?
With my eyes?

Original post by cherryred90s

In terms of smell, that's down to many factors such as hygiene and diet. It could be that the girl is not regularly cleaning her vagina with water, or is using fragranced soap which ironically, will cause the girl to smell bad rather than good -

A dirty vagina is a hygiene issue but a dirty penis is a foreskin issue?

Original post by cherryred90s

none of which would be resolved with removing the clitoris.

Is removing the clitoris the only type of fgm that's illegal? What about labia removal?
Reply 299
Original post by cherryred90s
I
Someone said there were no health benefits at all. I then stated a few of the benefits to that person, and that's when QE2 pretty much acknowledged that health benefits exist but that they are negligible. I have never disputed that, so I responded by saying that although the benefits are small, they exist nonetheless which is why the initial person was wrong in saying that there weren't any benefits at all. You should have followed the conversation instead of picking apart one single part of it.

Now here you are, attacking me as per usual. You previously said that I bother you and you dislike me, so why are you taking time out to respond to me about something that wasn't even directed to you?
So, to clarify, do you think that the negligable (and contested) health benefits justify non-essential circumcision - especially considering the risks; death, infection, disfigurement, reduced sensitivity, post-op discomfort and psychological issues. And the ethical issue - mutilating the genitals of an infant!

Moreover, the STI argument is a red herring, because people engaging in sex with partners with unknown sexual history must use condoms - thus rendering any marginal risk reduction of circumcision meaningless. In fact, the commonly used claim that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting STIs could well lead to circumcised men not using a condom - which would far outweigh any negligable risk reduction.

Quick Reply

Latest