Court stops circumcision.

Scroll to see replies

Same applies to FGM.

No. Risks of FGM include inability to enjoy sex, increased risk of UTIs, menstrual problems, chronic pelvic infections that can lead to infertility and childbirth complications.

Same applies to MGM.
(Remember that we are talking about non-medically essential circumcision)

No it doesn't. There will never be a need to remove the clitoris, whereas there are instances where foreskin removal is needed.

Basically, the argument you use for male circumcision can be applied equally to female circumcision, and the argument you use against FGM can equally be applied to MGM.

No it can't.

I explained to you why I don't see circumcision to be such a terrible thing and clearly you chose to ignore that, so we will never come to any sort of agreement, and tbh, we don't have to.

Reply 441

Rorschach II

Original post by TheArtofProtest

I'd like to think that they would be equally as trusting of me, should they ever get to an age where they can no longer exercise independent thought, and come to rely on my and my siblings to make decisions for them.

The availability of information and the intelligence in making a decision is simply correlation.

One can remain entirely ignorant, and make the correct decision whilst one may have all the information at hand, and still make the incorrect decision.

But what is there a tendency towards? A tendency which you're gambling against.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 442

Rorschach II

Children should ****ing get the choice as to whether they want to be mutilated or not.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 443

Rorschach II

Original post by TheArtofProtest

What are you talking about?

There seems to be 2 half-complete sentences there.

Last two paragraphs in your last post.

Nope.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 444

Studentus-anonymous

Sad that we live in a world where a court of law honestly hears the argument of an absent father about mutilating some little boys genitals "because reasons".

At least it had the common sense to shoot him down.

Reply 445

troubadour.

@childofthesun, what do you think of all this? :beard:

Reply 446

childofthesun

Original post by Hydeman

@childofthesun, what do you think of all this? :beard:

I agree with the court's decision in this case to refuse the circumcision, but in general I believe parents should be able to decide whether or not to have their male child circumcised.

Reply 447

troubadour.

Original post by childofthesun

I agree with the court's decision in this case to refuse the circumcision, but in general I believe parents should be able to decide whether or not to have their male child circumcised.

I see.

Thanks anyway. :3

Mixed topic...

Circumcision is practised in Christianity and Judaism too, not just Islam. The only religion that completely condones it is Sikhism. The only difference is that nowadays there aren't many Christians who do undergo circumcision. It's funny though how differently everyone would be viewing this if circumcision was still practised regularly in a religion like Christianity.
Parents should be allowed to decide whether their child is circumcised because there are clear health benefits. Non-circumcised men are twice as likely to contract and spread STDs as those who are circumcised. That's common knowledge so I don't know why people get so defensive and disregard the health benefits when these are facts that you can find on any medical website like webmd.
It can't be compared to FGM at all because FGM is done with malicious intent - to stop young women from developing too fast and from engaging in sex before marriage. Unlike male circumcision which is done because of the obvious health and hygiene benefits, there are no benefits of FGM.
And if male circumcision was anything as bad as FGM, do you really think the NHS would be allowed to carry it out?

Reply 450

troubadour.

Original post by Petulia

I would view it with the same contempt regardless of which god (or none) the parents of a child subjected to this claimed to follow. As would most of the people opposed to routine circumcision on this thread, I would imagine. If you'd read their arguments, you'd know that there's no element of 'we don't like it because it's Islamic.'

Parents should be allowed to decide whether their child is circumcised because there are clear health benefits. Non-circumcised men are twice as likely to contract and spread STDs as those who are circumcised. That's common knowledge so I don't know why people get so defensive and disregard the health benefits when these are facts that you can find on any medical website like webmd.

'Facts' and 'WebMD' don't belong in the same sentence. Go back and read the sources cited in the thread; this proposition has already been refuted, and the only people refusing to countenance this reality are the ones who would not be convinced no matter what or how much evidence to the contrary was produced.

It can't be compared to FGM at all because FGM is done with malicious intent - to stop young women from developing too fast and from engaging in sex before marriage.

If you really think that most cases of routine circumcision are done for 'health benefits', you're badly misinformed. Most of them are done for religious and cultural reasons, and the original justification for all these rituals was to make it difficult to masturbate, viewed as it then was as a disordered, immoral act. Sounds pretty malicious to me.

And if male circumcision was anything as bad as FGM, do you really think the NHS would be allowed to carry it out?

The NHS no longer carries it out and in the most recent analysis has bluntly contradicted the claims of people like you by saying that there are no health benefits of routine (i.e. medically unnecessary) infant circumcision that justify the risk and ethical implications. That the practice still continues has more to do with, 'cultural sensitivity', to put it kindly; it's not a statement that it's safe or morally commendable.

Reply 451

Xelfrost

Original post by QE2

Genital piercing on under 16s is classed as sexual assault.
So WTF isn't elective circumcision?

I get the feeling you're assuming that I'm disagreeing with you here. I'm not, I wouldn't wish circumcision on anybody. The reason why it isn't banned is because large religious groups perform the act and anyone who would try to push a bill would be labelled "Antisemitic" or "Islamophobic". It's a crappy situation as millions of uninformed parents listen to skewed "Evidence" that it's better for their sons and end up giving them the procedure.

Reply 452

childofthesun

Original post by Mathemagicien

And what do you think of FGM?

Disagree with it and find it abhorrent and degrading

Reply 453

childofthesun

Original post by Hydeman

I see.

Thanks anyway. :3

Lol why did u want to know? :lol:

Reply 454

troubadour.

Original post by childofthesun

Lol why did u want to know? :lol:

Because you're a liberal/progressive Muslim (or, at least, I think of you as one). :smile:

I already knew what conservatives would think.

Reply 455

isitisisitis

The case of the non-muslim British-born mother versus the muslim Algerian-born father in Britain at a time when the western world and the muslim world are at war.

Reply 456

childofthesun

Original post by Goddess Flora

And doing it to males isn't, are you serious?

No, I don't think so. FGM is carried out purely to deprive girls of sexual pleasure and discourage them for engaging in sexual activity before marriage. It has many negative effects and frequently results in girls having difficulty in passing urine, infections,continuous severe pain etc.. There are no health benefits of FGM. With male circumcision, there is still some debate regarding whether or not it has health benefits. Some health sources report there are, others say otherwise. There are hardly any negative effects on health, and it's so commonly practiced and even offered as part of some health care programmes. I feel parents should use their discretion in deciding whether or not to circumcise male children.

Reply 457

childofthesun

Original post by Hydeman

Because you're a liberal/progressive Muslim (or, at least, I think of you as one). :smile:

I already knew what conservatives would think.

I see. I guess I'm 'liberal' in some matters more than others then

Reply 458

troubadour.

Original post by childofthesun

I see. I guess I'm 'liberal' in some matters more than others then

Well, I'm reliably informed that you're for same-sex marriage, which is still pretty damn liberal for a Muslim person (no offence). :tongue:

Reply 459

childofthesun

Original post by Goddess Flora

This is just hypocritical to the extreme and if I had to make a bet I'd day you were only saying this because you've been brought up in a religious tradition that deems it acceptable, Muslim? Jewish?

There are no real or recognised health benefits to circumcision which is why neither the NHS nor Medicaid offer it other than on medical grounds.

The foreskin not only contains many nerve endings which renders a circumcised penis much less sensitive, but it also provides protection and moisture for the glans when the penis isn't erect, it's not some vestigial organ that serves no purpose.

It's disgraceful that there are people who support this. A man should be given the choice to be circumcised for religious reasons when he is old enough to understand the implications involved.

How is it hypocritical? And yes I was brought up in a Muslim household.

The only negative effect of circumcision is that it results in decreased sensitivity, but this is only minimal as circumsised men are still able to enjoy sex and feel sensations etc.. If this is the only drawback then like I said if a parent choses to circumsise their child then that's fine.

You can continue calling my opinion disgraceful and hypocritical I don't really care. I was tagged in this thread by someone wanting to know my opinion and I shared it.