The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Court stops circumcision.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by alkaline.
pain is subjective bc pain tolerance.


pain is an objective concept. pain = bad. pain = undeserved. these are matters of objectivity. all you can claim is that the DEGREES of these objectively bad things vary. that's not to say that pain is either "good" or "bad" based on their DEGREE. if you're say that undeserved pain is bad, then WHY allow something that falls under that category, like male circumcision?!
Original post by QE2
So if the statistical incidence of an outcome is negligible, you would not consider it as a good reason for influencing your decision.

Like the health benifits then?

Yes, which is why I said I don't mind either way..

I find it somewhat disturbing that you wouldn't care if your child was subjected to an unnecessary surgical procedure, or not. Are there any other unnecessary injuries that you wouldn't bother to attempt to stop your child from suffering?

I don't see circumcision as an 'injury' at all nor do I view it as suffering.
On the odd occasion where my helmet has popped out in my pants, the discomfort has been almost unbearable. To be able to function normally, the sensitivity must be reduced. Hardly rocket science.

You are just one person. You cannot possibly account for an entire population, and in your last comment, you did not say that the sensitivity is definitely reduced, you've just assumed so due to your own circumstance, hence, subjective.

Sorry, that was someone else. You mentioned UTIs. To quote a paper in the BMJ...
"the most frequently cited benefit of circumcision is a reduced incidence of UTI"
"Assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, net clinical benefit is likely only in boys at high risk of UTI."

boys are statistically more at risk of UTIs in their first few years of life
Original post by cherryred90s


You are just one person. You cannot possibly account for an entire population


No, just half of it. :wink:

For someone that doesn't care much either way you spend a lot of time arguing about it. What arent you telling us?
Original post by Legendary Quest
And then there are the risks associated with circumcision. For instance, increased risk of injury to the penis, irritation of the glans, risk of bleeding and infection, etc... As several people have mentioned numerous times, the 'benefits' are minimal and does not justify a young child being mutilated.


The risks associated with circumcision are also minimal..
The risks you refer to are not even associated with circumcision, they are associated with every single surgical procedure.
Original post by BubbleBoobies
...are you kidding? are you actually not aware of the stupidity of your message?
you're saying that it's not subjective that it's a certain time that it takes to heal but the TIME ITSELF IS THE SUBJECTIVE PART ALTOGETHER -_- the objective part is the PAIN. and the lack of consent! jesus christ.


If what we are discussing is based on subjectivity, why am I not allowed to have an opinion?
Original post by TSRUsername99
No, just half of it. :wink:

What?

For someone that doesn't care much either way you spend a lot of time arguing about it. What arent you telling us?

Why aren't I telling you what?
I argue about it because I'm being penalised for having an opinion, it's absolutely ridiculous.
Original post by cherryred90s
If what we are discussing is based on subjectivity, why am I not allowed to have an opinion?


except it's not subjective that pain is bad :|
Original post by BubbleBoobies
except it's not subjective that pain is bad :|


Who said otherwise?
Original post by cherryred90s
Who said otherwise?


you said what we were discussing was subjective - it's not - pain can either be happening to little boys or little girls. yet you *seem* to be implying that the pain towards little boys is okay.
Original post by cherryred90s
I'm being penalised for having an opinion, it's absolutely ridiculous.


How?
Original post by cherryred90s
The risks associated with circumcision are also minimal..
The risks you refer to are not even associated with circumcision, they are associated with every single surgical procedure.


Which brings me back to my previous question - why force your child to undergo an unneccessary procedure? We've said this over and over: the benefits are no where near substantial. Fact is, for the most part, little boys do not need to have their penis mutilated. So long as they clean it probably, chances are, they will be perfectly fine.

Also, if these risks are associated with every single surgical procedure then they are also, by default, associated with circumcision.
Original post by BubbleBoobies
you said what we were discussing was subjective - it's not - pain can either be happening to little boys or little girls. yet you *seem* to be implying that the pain towards little boys is okay.


I didn't say that pain itself was subjective though :s-smilie: Tolerance and duration is subjective.

The topic of circumsion being right or wrong is subjective. Seeing as the pain may result in potential benefits, I believe that it should be the decision of the parents.
Original post by Legendary Quest
Which brings me back to my previous question - why force your child to undergo an unneccessary procedure? We've said this over and over: the benefits are no where near substantial. Fact is, for the most part, little boys do not need to have their penis mutilated. So long as they clean it probably, chances are, they will be perfectly fine.

The risks are nowhere near substantial either! Some people may not see it as unnecessary since there are potential benefits, particularly if there's an increased chance of their child developing a condition or illness that circumcision will eliminate.

Also, if these risks are associated with every single surgical procedure then they are also, by default, associated with circumcision.

My point is that there are risks associated with everything that we do, so I wouldn't use this argument as a deciding factor.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by cherryred90s
I didn't say that pain itself was subjective though :s-smilie: Tolerance and duration is subjective.

The topic of circumsion being right or wrong is subjective. Seeing as the pain may result in potential benefits, I believe that it should be the decision of the parents.


let's run through this again:
1) undeserved pain = bad
2) a lack of consent over the occurrences to one's body = bad

benefits:
1) supposed less likelihood of STDs (in africa where there is no hygiene or condoms. also CHILDREN DON'T GET STDS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HAVING SEX YET.)
2) ...that's it. unless there is something like phemonsis which is incredibly rare

cons:
1) PAIN. (and possible botched circumcision ending in death. rare but possible.)
2) degradation/lose of integrity
3) forcing a religion onto a child (usually.)
4) the child loses penile sensitivity/pleasure

why should parents have *this* right when they wouldn't, say, have the right to change the appearance of a child's ears or their nose for superficial "benefits" when it will harm the child and conflict against their actual choice when they're an adult? what about tattoos? should parents have the right to force a kid to get a tattoo on their body which they wouldn't want when they turned 18? "that's different"? justify how it is objectively different via principle. can't you see that circumcision isn't justified on grounds of science but rather culture or religion?!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by BubbleBoobies
let's run through this again:
1) undeserved pain = bad
2) a lack of consent over the occurrences to one's body = bad

It's bad because you think it's bad = subjective.

benefits:
1) supposed less likelihood of STDs (in africa where there is no hygiene or condoms.

Massive generalisation here along with an incredibly ignorant comment to go along with it.
also CHILDREN DON'T GET STDS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HAVING SEX YET.)
2) ...that's it. unless there is something like phemonsis which is incredibly rare

You didn't mention the reduced risk of things like penile cancer/balantis/UTIs (which are fairly common in infant boys)

cons:
1) PAIN. (and possible botched circumcision ending in death. rare but possible.)
2) degradation/lose of integrity
3) forcing a religion onto a child (usually.)
4) the child loses penile sensitivity/pleasure

I've addressed this whole death issue. It's a little hypocritical that you say that the benefits are rare but then you use the argument of death (which you acknowledge is also rare) as a reason to be against it. Surely this should just boil down to the parents individual choice? Why can't they deduce whether the cost of pain and complication will outweigh the benefits if both are rare?

Circumcised or not, if the parent is religious, they are very likely to will raise their child in a religious environment. This will affect the discipline they receive/the shows they watch on /the clothes they wear/the friends they have/social activities they take part in/their future partner. We are all a product of socialisation from our primary care givers and this influence will be present whether they are circumcised or not.

The argument of reduced sensitivity is also subjective. Nobody knows for certain whether circumcision will directly result in reduced sensitivity. Sensitivity itself is subjective, some people are naturally more or less sensitive than others, regardless of whether they have been circumcised or not.

why should parents have *this* right when they wouldn't, say, have the right to change the appearance of a child's ears or their nose for superficial "benefits" when it will harm the child and conflict against their actual choice when they're an adult? what about tattoos? should parents have the right to force a kid to get a tattoo on their body which they wouldn't want when they turned 18? "that's different"? justify how it is objectively different via principle. can't you see that circumcision isn't justified on grounds of science but rather culture or religion?!

Yes Tattoos are different because they pose no health benefits and will do more harm than good.
I have acknowledged that circumsion is largely the result of culture and religion, yes. It doesn't mean that I can't mention health benefits though.
Reply 335
Avatar for QE2
QE2
OP
20
Original post by alkaline.
earlier on this thread.

Spoiler

That just shows that they can sense the stimuli. It does not say anything about the degree of sensitivity. It is clear that a circumcised man with the same sensitivity of the glans as an uncircumcised man would be in constant discomfort.
If you are uncircumcised, just try it. Fully withdraw your foreskin and spend the day like that. I guarantee that you won't last the day.

The argument is not that circumcised men have no sensitivity, just that their sensitivity is reduced.

Another study not only found contradictory results, but called into question the methodology of the report claiming no reduction.
http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html
Original post by QE2
That just shows that they can sense the stimuli. It does not say anything about the degree of sensitivity. It is clear that a circumcised man with the same sensitivity of the glans as an uncircumcised man would be in constant discomfort.
If you are uncircumcised, just try it. Fully withdraw your foreskin and spend the day like that. I guarantee that you won't last the day.

The argument is not that circumcised men have no sensitivity, just that their sensitivity is reduced.

Another study not only found contradictory results, but called into question the methodology of the report claiming no reduction.
http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html


This will surely be never ending. She'll link a study that claims that sensitivity is not reduced and you'll link a study that concludes the opposite. There is no definite answer. There are other extraneous variables that are not taken into account. Some people are naturally more or less sensitive than others, what you would view as sensitive may differ to what I view as sensitive. Personal/childhood experience can also impact upon an individual's perception of sensitivity. Because of these factors that cannot be controlled, findings of any study can never truly be reliable.
Reply 337
Avatar for QE2
QE2
OP
20
Original post by cherryred90s
Yes, which is why I said I don't mind either way..
No. If there is no good reason to subject your child to a painful, irreversible surgical procedure, you don't do it. You don't shrug and say "whatever".

I don't see circumcision as an 'injury' at all nor do I view it as suffering.
then you are in denial of the reality of the procedure.
Injury is defined as "damage to the body"
Suffering is defined as "undergoing pain or distress".

It is clear that, despite your protestations, you have an agenda to defend unnecessary circumcision. One would surmise that this is due to religious, cultural or family reasons.

boys are statistically more at risk of UTIs in their first few years of life
Very possibly, but the BMJ study states that there are no net benifits in the context of UTIs.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by QE2
That just shows that they can sense the stimuli. It does not say anything about the degree of sensitivity. It is clear that a circumcised man with the same sensitivity of the glans as an uncircumcised man would be in constant discomfort.
If you are uncircumcised, just try it. Fully withdraw your foreskin and spend the day like that. I guarantee that you won't last the day.

The argument is not that circumcised men have no sensitivity, just that their sensitivity is reduced.

Another study not only found contradictory results, but called into question the methodology of the report claiming no reduction.
http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html


This will surely be never ending. The person you're debating with will link a study that claims that sensitivity is not reduced and you'll link a study that concludes the opposite. There is no definite answer. There are other extraneous variables that are not taken into account. Some people are naturally more or less sensitive than others, what you would view as sensitive may differ to what I view as sensitive. Personal/childhood experience can also impact upon an individual's perception of sensitivity. Because of these factors that cannot be controlled, findings of any study can never truly be reliable.
Original post by cherryred90s
It's bad because you think it's bad = subjective.


no. undeserved pain towards another individual = objectively bad. even if there are benefits, the pain itself is bad.

Massive generalisation here along with an incredibly ignorant comment to go along with it.


no, the one test for this supposed benefit was in africa.

You didn't mention the reduced risk of things like penile cancer/balantis/UTIs (which are fairly common in infant boys)


lol you think little boys are going to get penile cancer

I've addressed this whole death issue. It's a little hypocritical that you say that the benefits are rare but then you use the argument of death (which you acknowledge is also rare) as a reason to be against it. Surely this should just boil down to the parents individual choice? Why can't they deduce whether the cost of pain and complication will outweigh the benefits if both are rare?


um. because it's not their body. if we're talking about ANOTHER person, only that person can choose. unless there is a risk so linked to scientific evidence and community consensus that it would be unreasonable to not do it (e.g. immunity injections)
are you really going to give parents absolute rights over the body of their child? because this really does enter "absolutist" territory when it's their ****ing dick skin.

Circumcised or not, if the parent is religious, they are very likely to will raise their child in a religious environment. This will affect the discipline they receive/the shows they watch on /the clothes they wear/the friends they have/social activities they take part in/their future partner. We are all a product of socialisation from our primary care givers and this influence will be present whether they are circumcised or not.


I don't care. circumcision is permanent. beliefs are not. even baptisms are meaningless in this sense in comparison.

The argument of reduced sensitivity is also subjective. Nobody knows for certain whether circumcision will directly result in reduced sensitivity. Sensitivity itself is subjective, some people are naturally more or less sensitive than others, regardless of whether they have been circumcised or not.


are you joking. the penile skin (glands) hardens when it is circumcised.

Yes Tattoos are different because they pose no health benefits and will do more harm than good.
I have acknowledged that circumsion is largely the result of culture and religion, yes. It doesn't mean that I can't mention health benefits though.


but circumcisions pretty much have no scientific benefits -_- they have benefits in outdated contexts, like african contexts. basically nobody is circumcised in europe yet how come we have less STDs here than the USA? also, the justifications for circumcisions contemporarily are not medical, as you've suggested - it's cultural and it's a massive exception when it isn't.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you