The Student Room Group

Circumcision ban is the 'worst attack on Jews since Holocaust'

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Original post by jogijogan
Muslims and Jews can just go on a holiday to Usrael or a muslim country, and have it done there, if the Germans want to be awkward they can, circumcision does no harm if done properly.


Yes but its a matter of choice...the baby's choice.
What if the kid grows up and isn't religious, changes religion or simply doesn't like being circumcised without giving consent?

Its one thing giving parents power to consent for their kids when its a medical issue its another thing allowing them to have his penis altered.

Its also part of forcing a religion on the kid...the whole point of religious circumcision is to mark the guy as a member of that religion...again the kid might grow up and chose to be another religion or atheist...you can't reverse the procedure.


This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my U20i
Reply 121
Original post by Arva
Child ones are against free will and may permanantly leave a man unhappy with his genitalia. Adults can weigh up the risks of the surgery and their beliefs and come to a rational decision of their own volition.


Your free will argument is without foundation, people would change a lot of decisions their parents make, eg some might not have wanted to exist so should we ban having babies because a few wish they were never born?

Original post by Arva
It will never be 100% the same, and not all of the nerves will be replaced perfectly. Also, why should the adult have to pay and deal with a second, tricky, operation on his penis because his parents saw fit to chop a load of it off when he was too young to speak for himself at all?

Your points are becoming flimsier and flimsier.


Circumcision is when the foreskin is removed, the penis is not chopped off as you so like to put it, as the penile muscle remains intact.
Original post by A.J10
Void argument, the person you're replying to had not mentioned ear piercings, so you can't really use it as a counter-argument.


I'm struggling to see how it is void. I'm merely using his logic against another hypothetical. The argument he put forward must also apply to ear piercing, and as such, ear piercing should also be banned.

BTW, the person who I replied to has accepted that ear piercing should also be banned.
Reply 123
Original post by gm15
Yes but its a matter of choice...the baby's choice.
What if the kid grows up and isn't religious, changes religion or simply doesn't like being circumcised without giving consent?

Its one thing giving parents power to consent for their kids when its a medical issue its another thing allowing them to have his penis altered.

Its also part of forcing a religion on the kid...the whole point of religious circumcision is to mark the guy as a member of that religion...again the kid might grow up and chose to be another religion or atheist...you can't reverse the procedure.


This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my U20i


Well a circumcised man might be a little unhappy about being circumcised, but is it really the end of the world, no. As adults we can look back and say we would not have liked our parents to make certain decision, for example some people wish they were never born, so shall we ban having babies, because a few wish they were never born?

People who regret beiing circvumcised are few and far inbetween certainly not enough to warrant a total ban on circumcision.

By the way Jews and Muslims perform circumcision for hygeine purposes so to prevent the accumalation of bacteria under the foreskin
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by . .
A child has no say in whether he/she wants a vaccination should we stop them too because the child cannot give consent? :rolleyes:


and while we are at it they cant consent to life saving operations - better not give them any of them either. Muppet
Maybe they should also ban baptisms for babies then
Reply 126
Original post by jogijogan

People who regret beiing circvumcised are few and far inbetween certainly not enough to warrant a total ban on circumcision.


Agreed. Instead of banning it entirely, the law should say people should have the choice whether to be circumcised or not. That way, the people who are pro circumcision can be circumcised, and the people who are against it won't be.

Ok, I know that's not really what you meant. Don't you think that's a bit unfair on the small number of people who aren't ok with being circumcised? So you just say to them "Tough luck, we thought you'd be ok with it"?

Rights should apply to individuals. I don't think we should justify not giving people rights on the basis that most people are fine with not having that right.
Reply 127
Original post by Skip_Snip
Maybe they should also ban baptisms for babies then


Baptisms don't remove a part of the body. They don't permanently alter that person's life even into adulthood. A baptism only has an effect on a person's life into adulthood if they choose it to. Where as with a circumcision, there is no way to choose for it to not have any effect on your life.
Reply 128
Original post by Psyk
Agreed. Instead of banning it entirely, the law should say people should have the choice whether to be circumcised or not. That way, the people who are pro circumcision can be circumcised, and the people who are against it won't be.

Ok, I know that's not really what you meant. Don't you think that's a bit unfair on the small number of people who aren't ok with being circumcised? So you just say to them "Tough luck, we thought you'd be ok with it"?

Rights should apply to individuals. I don't think we should justify not giving people rights on the basis that most people are fine with not having that right.


well what about pople who wish they were never born, shall we ban having babies then?
I'm very for this, can't understand what gave my parents the right. However it is proven circumcision makes you last longer... and less chance of diseases right?
Reply 130
Original post by jogijogan
well what about pople who wish they were never born, shall we ban having babies then?


If they have a problem with being alive, they can change that. Suicide is both possible and legal.

If someone has a problem with being circumcised, there isn't really anything they can do about it.
Reply 131
Original post by pshewitt1
However it is proven circumcision makes you last longer... and less chance of diseases right?


Making you last longer isn't necessarily always a good thing. Anyway, I'm sure you'll agree that sexual performance isn't really a good reason for circumcising a baby.
Original post by Psyk
Making you last longer isn't necessarily always a good thing. Anyway, I'm sure you'll agree that sexual performance isn't really a good reason for circumcising a baby.


I did make it clear I was for what the German government was doing, I would say lasting longer to men is a worry to a few, so it could do some good, It should be the choice of the person involved not the parents...obviously, and of course it isn't :smile:
Reply 133
Circumcision is an unnecessary intervention forced upon an infant that has no will of choice. It is morally repugnant.

The religious have hijacked the issue as they see it as their right to do this and will cry and wail about it being anti-them - it's nothing to do with religion, it's everything to do with 'mutilation'.
Reply 134
Original post by pshewitt1
I did make it clear I was for what the German government was doing,

I know, that's why I thought you'd agree :smile:

Although to be correct, it's not really the German government that has banned infant circumcision. In fact the German chancellor has explicitly said she disagrees with it. The decision was made by a Cologne court based on their interpretation of an existing law. No one has actually made a law with banning circumcision in mind, they've just realised that technically it's already banned. I suspect the German government will simply change the law to make it an exception.

Original post by pshewitt1

I would say lasting longer to men is a worry to a few, so it could do some good, It should be the choice of the person involved not the parents...obviously, and of course it isn't :smile:


Well, some men do have the opposite problem.
Original post by . .
Surely they have parents consent though.


Circumcise the parents then.
Original post by Psyk
I know, that's why I thought you'd agree :smile:

Although to be correct, it's not really the German government that has banned infant circumcision. In fact the German chancellor has explicitly said she disagrees with it. The decision was made by a Cologne court based on their interpretation of an existing law. No one has actually made a law with banning circumcision in mind, they've just realised that technically it's already banned. I suspect the German government will simply change the law to make it an exception.



Well, some men do have the opposite problem.


hopefully, I wouldn't call it mutilation but it's a removal of 'liberty' and choices should always be allowed...

Lasting too long isn't as bad a problem as not lasting, surely?
Reply 137
May I just clarify that this has nothing to do with our government. It's a court that made this decision and this has little to do with what the government does. Please note I'm not saying the government should be for or against it.
I wouldn't compare the banning of chopping a little bit of skin off to the mass genoicide and discrimination that was the Holocaust.
Reply 139
Original post by Psyk
If they have a problem with being alive, they can change that. Suicide is both possible and legal.

If someone has a problem with being circumcised, there isn't really anything they can do about it.


i never said ' problem with being alive' i said 'problem with having been born' they will have been born even if they commit suicide though.

Quick Reply