[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by B-Man.)
They haven't been debunked and certainly not in the website you have linked to. Circumcision does reduce:

- The risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection.
- The risk of getting three sexually transmitted infections: HIV, Syphilis, Chancroid.
- The risk of developing penile cancer.

Routine circumcision in the UK stopped because most healthcare professionals now agree that the risks, such as infection and excessive bleeding, outweigh any potential benefits to people as a whole. Complications can include:

- Damage to the tube that carries urine inside the penis (urethra), causing it to narrow and making it hard to pass urine
- Accidental amputation of the head of the penis, which is very rare
- A blood infection or blood poisoning (septicaemia)

I am unsure as to where I stand on this ban though. On one hand consent to unnecessary medical procedures shouldn't be dismissed. On the other hand Jews will get circumcised, but at a later age instead, which means they will suffer more pain because recovery can take up to six weeks, whereas a baby would heal in a matter of days. However, I definitely support routine circumcision in other parts of the world such as Africa, where the benefits certainly outweigh the risks. (Research in Africa found that heterosexual circumcised men are 38-66% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men.)

A baby is not at risk of HIV,Syphillis or any other STI.

Penile cancer can be avoided if the head of the penis is properly cleaned.

Therefore, there is no need for them to be circumcised at least till they are sexually activ and can at least express their choice.

[B-Man.]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
A baby is not at risk of HIV,Syphillis or any other STI.

I was obviously talking about the benefits of circumcision in general.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Penile cancer can be avoided if the head of the penis is properly cleaned.

That doesn't negate from the fact that penile cancer is reduced by circumcision.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Therefore, there is no need for them to be circumcised at least till they are sexually activ and can at least express their choice.

You have intentionally ignored the reduction of the risk of developing a UTI because it doesn't support your conclusion, which makes your response considerably weak. Make an effort to eliminate your bias when debating the issue.

[sukee]

(Original post by Space Jockey)
This attitude, boys and girls, is exactly why criticisng religion is an imprisonable offence in some countries.

Is that the attitude you got from most of us? Nice of you to have picked one out, shame it was the idiot.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by B-Man.)
I was obviously talking about the benefits of circumcision in general.



That doesn't negate from the fact that penile cancer is reduced by circumcision.



You have intentionally ignored the reduction of the risk of developing a UTI because it doesn't support your conclusion, which makes your response considerably weak. Make an effort to eliminate your bias when debating the issue.

...and this a discussion is about the benefits for babies.

No one cares what an adult wants to do to themselves.

Stopping UTI and Penile Cancer are supported by the same point. Clean the head of the penis, the risk of the UTI's and Penile Cancer both fall dramatically.

[wwelol]

(Original post by Agenda Suicide)
Because it's often done at such a young age without the consent of the person?

How can you mutilate a child without it's opinion for a belief ?

yeh a child dosent want to go to school
should we give him consent iswell

and circumcision is benefical to health as it keeps the penis clean
thats y favoured by religions
and the child is kept asleep
and so NO PAIN

[the bear]

(Original post by the bear)
It does not seem very sensitive of the Germans after what they did to the Jews in the Shoah

Neg me all you want Jew-haters... it is nothing compared to what happened in Germany

[yomomalomo]

(Original post by B-Man.)
...

Yes, I looked at the information on the NHS website as well, but apparently their is some controversy about the test done on circumcised and intact African males. Problem is that the period of sexual activity was not equal for both groups (the intact males were active for a greater period of time) and in some cases there are issues with number of sexual partners too.

This has sort swayed me a tad, because I previously believed that in cases like sub-saharan Africa, where the risk of catching HIV is far higher than anywhere else, the possible complications of circumcision are outweighed - thus circumcising children would be somewhat acceptable here. However, discovering other tests done, showing no significant statistical difference with STD contraction rates between the two groups also aided my tergiversation.


Nevertheless, the problem still remains that religious people will continue to practice circumcision regardless of the law. Children will then be at a higher risk of infection because rather than the circumcision being carried out in sterile hospital conditions, they will be carried out underground or in countries with poorer standards of sanitation. Ultimately, then, banning circumcision will lead to more problems than it would solve.

If your (to readers in general) solution is to try and confront religious communities about these problems and tell them that they are wrong, then you seriously underestimate how strongly people believe in their faiths and to what lengths they will go to continue practising it as fully as they like.

[Alpharius]

If I said I wanted to circumcise my child I'd be villified.

If a rabbi does it, it's Kosher?

Bore off. Only through religion would you think of mutilating a perfectly healthy child.

[Josh93]

In medicine it's a basic principle that procedures should only be carried out without the individual's consent if the situation is such that to not do so would cause them serious harm/suffering and would not at all be in their best interests - and only then if they are deemed incapable of making a rational decision for themselves. If other parties are then approached to provide consent on their behalf it must be clear that they are not making the decision for selfish reasons (e.g if they accept a palliative care regime for their elderly relative will they benefit financially when they die?).

Using that logic vaccines are entirely justified but circumcision is not. We would not allow parents to have tatoos placed on their babies and in many respects circumcision is more extreme as it actually physically and permanently alters their body, there is no benefit to the child and the parents are clearly providing consent for their own reasons, not based on what they believe that their child would want.

Religion should not get special treatment, either it is right to make life-altering decisions when there is no benefit to the person concerned and without their consent or it is not, it's that simple.

I've never understood why any religion would require you to cut off a boy's foreskin anyway....?

[jo1692]

(Original post by wwelol)
yeh a child dosent want to go to school
should we give him consent iswell

and circumcision is benefical to health as it keeps the penis clean
thats y favoured by religions
and the child is kept asleep
and so NO PAIN

Are you seriously trying to equate the value of going to school i.e. becoming literate, numerate, educated, without which one has virtually no future prospects, with circumcision? I don't have a personal position on circumcision because I don't know enough about it, although I did read an article a while ago about some middle aged men very, very angry that they'd been circumcised. But that is one false analogy!

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by . . .)
http://www.medicirc.org/

Lol. Half surprised it didn't use comic sans.

[A.J10]

(Original post by wwelol)
yeh a child dosent want to go to school
should we give him consent iswell

and circumcision is benefical to health as it keeps the penis clean
thats y favoured by religions
and the child is kept asleep
and so NO PAIN

Lemme just take your last point, as someone else has taken care of the first and I've seen the argument before. If they're asleep and don't remember it, where's the harm?

Well, first of all I'm pretty sure they're not asleep most of the time, and if they are anaesthetic is a very tricky thing, you ever seen the shows on tv where they have to operate on a tiger before it wakes up and eats them?

Also, if I introduce your face to a chloroform rag, then carve out your appendix, is it alright because it didn't hurt, you don't remember it and it stopped you maybe getting ill in the future?

And that's without going into the trauma it must inflict on the poor thing.

[Politricks]

(Original post by the bear)
It does not seem very sensitive of the Germans after what they did to the Jews in the Shoah

Oh dear, what a poor group they are now...how evil of Germany to ban people from cutting the foreskins of babies' penises without their consent

I was circumcised at 11, and believe me, it's an extremely painful procedure.

[Llamageddon]

I have a hard time believing that the addition of a bit of skin that has a resource cost to the individual maintaining it would so consistently appear amongst male mammals who, fyi, ALL have foreskins, if indeed this bit of skin had negative rather than positive characteristics.

Just speaking as an evolutionary biologist here.

[Bobo1234]

(Original post by Giggy88)
Ok, now you are just pointing out things which have nothing to do with the point I made. Ground Zero is connected with the 9/11 attacks which are a very sensitive topic on their own. And reasons for opposing the mosque where not merely intolerance, but people being afraid of attacks and public conflicts.

I did not say, the only topic discussed in germany is about foreigners. Ofcourse the papers talk about other current issues in the country, the infrastructure about Stuttgart 21 being one. Greece is a global/european problem which is surely discussed in every country including britain.

The point I'm making (which I also made in the last post) is that Germany is more intolerant about issues concerning foreigners than Britain is.

Ok fine my red herrings aside (and I apologise for those they were a bit stupid) I don't see the statistics backing up your point- the Muslim population in Germany is growing at a faster rate than in Britain as is the Jewish one, there are millions of Turks living in Germany and book after book is written on Turkish-German culture, if Germany really was to be associated with a typically intolerant mindset (which is what your original point seems to say, not just that Germany is less tolerant than Britain) then I don't see that being possible. If your'e going to take a shot at Germany over the circumcision ban (or non-ban as it turns out, seeing as they basically promised it wouldn't become policy) then you could equally take a shot at France for the burkha ban, but either way I just don't think, based on my own experiences of Germany and German people, that they are any more pre-disposed as a nationality toward racial or national intolerance.

[JabCross]

(Original post by sukee)
Since cleanliness is 50% of the Islamic faith, circumcision is a preventative measure to ensure you're clean for prayer etc. I don't think anyone implied that uncircumcised people are unhygienic. With regards to affecting my life, I can't think of any physical or psychological effects that circumcision has had on my life, I guess an added bonus of the procedure means I don't have to worry about having a potential right foreskin etc.

what about people that were born to muslim parents that when they grew up decided they didn't want to be a muslim, why should they be forced have to have a mutilated penis.

[CosmicVengeance]

What is your guys actual problem its not your ****ing penis thats going to be circumcised so stfu and get a life please


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Tesphena]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
What is your guys actual problem its not your ****ing penis thats going to be circumcised so stfu and get a life please


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

It is the state's duty to prevent its citizens coming to harm and having inhumane acts committed against them. So, why not discuss whether circumcision is inhumane and needs to be prevented?

[Tesphena]

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumc...roduction.aspx

(Original post by The NHS)
However, most healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, outweigh any potential benefits.

So if the NHS don't recommend circumcision I don't know why people are listening to their local rabbi or imam. I know who I'd rather go to for health advice!

[Josh93]

(Original post by CosmicVengeance)
What is your guys actual problem its not your ****ing penis thats going to be circumcised so stfu and get a life please


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Well we can hardly ask those undergoing the procedure for their opinion, can we? They're too young to talk after all...