Why wont people touch the issue of male circumcision?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by drowzee
Minors should not undergo circumcision, it's wrong, but most men do not really care and it's not that harmful. It should be talked about more. FGM on the other hand is incredibly harmful, it is A LOT worse. Many men get circumcised out of choice, no women would mutilate their genitals out of choice. That is why it gets more attention. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation/Pages/Introduction.aspx This link explains the different types of FGM and the effects, it is really horrific.
i just saw a reenactment and I'm scarred. Excuse the pun.
Original post by TurboCretin
Male circumcision can't really be compared to FGM, though I do think it's wrong. It's unnecessary severing of a baby's body parts. Outside the context of religion and tradition we would be reviled by that.
exactky this
Putting aside the horror of fgm for a moment; male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure considerably. The 'banjo string' is often removed completely and anyone who goes through it as a child or adult has to put up with the delight of having soluble stitches through their ****ING HELMET!
People need to leave genitals alone, unless, as an adult, you want them fiddled with.
People need to leave genitals alone, unless, as an adult, you want them fiddled with.
There should be outrage over infant male circumcision (that's not medically necessary) because it's a breach of fundamental human rights rather than comparing it with FGM as that is much worse. I got circumsised do to my parents religious beliefs but I'd never inflict that on a hypothetical son as that's plain wrong. It really should be illegal unless medically necessary as I've already mentioned, nothing else to it really.
Original post by Reluire
Perhaps not, but FGM can kill, whereas - as far as I know - male genital circumcision can't.
they both can kill, if done cack- handedly. essentially they are both unnecessarry surgery, but fgm can also be perfomred at a much older age than mgm, and has then greater risk.
Original post by Reluire
The majority of male circumcision takes place for religious or aesthetic reasons
The majority of male circumcision takes place for religious or aesthetic reasons
Original post by Reluire
FGM is much worse, but that's not to say male circumcision isn't an issue to be taken notice of.
FGM is much worse, but that's not to say male circumcision isn't an issue to be taken notice of.
i think thats the point Op is making
I think the word "touch" in the title is a bit inappropriate considering the subject matter 
I've previously read that this whole circumcision business is due to the Jewish-owned American porn industry wanting to normalise and proliferate this vile act of mutilation.
Regardless of the accuracy of this claim, circumcision is mutilation and completely unnecessary these days in all but the most severe cases of phimosis. I would have never been able to forgive my parents had I been circumcised. American fathers push for their sons to be circumcised to validate their own mutilation and so that their children 'look like them'. Circumcision was sold en mass to Americans as being more 'healthy'. Foreskin protects this most vital organ, if we didn't need it then evolution would have displaced it. Supporters of any circumcision are frankly delusional.
I don't give a damn if it's religious, all forms of circumcision are barbaric and proponents of it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Regardless of the accuracy of this claim, circumcision is mutilation and completely unnecessary these days in all but the most severe cases of phimosis. I would have never been able to forgive my parents had I been circumcised. American fathers push for their sons to be circumcised to validate their own mutilation and so that their children 'look like them'. Circumcision was sold en mass to Americans as being more 'healthy'. Foreskin protects this most vital organ, if we didn't need it then evolution would have displaced it. Supporters of any circumcision are frankly delusional.
I don't give a damn if it's religious, all forms of circumcision are barbaric and proponents of it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Original post by kemi28
In what way does the Bible support slavery?
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
and there are 6 more passages that support it but obviously I'm not going to be adding much by giving you a wall of text from the bible
Yes, we live in a secular age but why does America and the UK still consider themselves as countries who believe in God?
america considers itself religious in terms of numbers, but that doesn't mean it's not secular by constitution/law; by law, we shouldn't allow atrocities just because a very popular supports them. in the 1860s, america prohibited slavery once and for all - the bible disagreed with the law at that time, but so what? secularism means that religion isn't forced on people - religion shouldn't be forced on infant males in the form of circumcision. as for the UK, we are basically only a "christian" country in the same sense that norway is a "lutheran" country - it's only a historical lense which would render us and norway religious countries, in that basically nobody is a fundamentalist or a church-goer any more, and there is now a rather large chunk of people calling themselves non-religious (something like 45% in the UK and something like 85% in norway, yet norway is still religious by constitution like the UK)
Christian public holidays are still respected, the dollar bill still says in God we trust.....
1) holidays will always be respected because it's a celebration of something for the purposes of time off - look at valentines day - do you think it makes us a nation of cupid-believers?
2) "in god we trust" was added to the money in a very political time period where, as you may know already, the cold war caused a lot of religious polarity between the west and the east - religion was a thing which caused people to think "this is what makes us moral compared to those heathen communists" - it was also, obviously, a total violation of the first amendment of the US constitution but nobody is willing to say it because they're too focused on their own bias towards christianity in the US
Ofc it's wrong as a child can't consent.
However a religious tradtion (no matter how ridiculous) is in no way comparable to FGM.
However a religious tradtion (no matter how ridiculous) is in no way comparable to FGM.
Original post by zippity.doodah
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
and there are 6 more passages that support it but obviously I'm not going to be adding much by giving you a wall of text from the bible
america considers itself religious in terms of numbers, but that doesn't mean it's not secular by constitution/law; by law, we shouldn't allow atrocities just because a very popular supports them. in the 1860s, america prohibited slavery once and for all - the bible disagreed with the law at that time, but so what? secularism means that religion isn't forced on people - religion shouldn't be forced on infant males in the form of circumcision. as for the UK, we are basically only a "christian" country in the same sense that norway is a "lutheran" country - it's only a historical lense which would render us and norway religious countries, in that basically nobody is a fundamentalist or a church-goer any more, and there is now a rather large chunk of people calling themselves non-religious (something like 45% in the UK and something like 85% in norway, yet norway is still religious by constitution like the UK)
1) holidays will always be respected because it's a celebration of something for the purposes of time off - look at valentines day - do you think it makes us a nation of cupid-believers?
2) "in god we trust" was added to the money in a very political time period where, as you may know already, the cold war caused a lot of religious polarity between the west and the east - religion was a thing which caused people to think "this is what makes us moral compared to those heathen communists" - it was also, obviously, a total violation of the first amendment of the US constitution but nobody is willing to say it because they're too focused on their own bias towards christianity in the US
and there are 6 more passages that support it but obviously I'm not going to be adding much by giving you a wall of text from the bible
america considers itself religious in terms of numbers, but that doesn't mean it's not secular by constitution/law; by law, we shouldn't allow atrocities just because a very popular supports them. in the 1860s, america prohibited slavery once and for all - the bible disagreed with the law at that time, but so what? secularism means that religion isn't forced on people - religion shouldn't be forced on infant males in the form of circumcision. as for the UK, we are basically only a "christian" country in the same sense that norway is a "lutheran" country - it's only a historical lense which would render us and norway religious countries, in that basically nobody is a fundamentalist or a church-goer any more, and there is now a rather large chunk of people calling themselves non-religious (something like 45% in the UK and something like 85% in norway, yet norway is still religious by constitution like the UK)
1) holidays will always be respected because it's a celebration of something for the purposes of time off - look at valentines day - do you think it makes us a nation of cupid-believers?
2) "in god we trust" was added to the money in a very political time period where, as you may know already, the cold war caused a lot of religious polarity between the west and the east - religion was a thing which caused people to think "this is what makes us moral compared to those heathen communists" - it was also, obviously, a total violation of the first amendment of the US constitution but nobody is willing to say it because they're too focused on their own bias towards christianity in the US
Well done for doing your research.
But the the Bible verse which you picked out is from the old testament, and there are some old laws in the old testament which are not practiced anymore because it is believed that Jesus Christ has bought a new law which has given people freedom.
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 (New Living Translation - New testament)
So that means that the Bible is against slavery in this day and age
Although the world is secular, in my opinion, I think there are always going to be religious fundamentals seeping through into the law and into people's lives one way or another even without people noticing
Original post by battycatlady
Ofc it's wrong as a child can't consent.
However a religious tradtion (no matter how ridiculous) is in no way comparable to FGM.
However a religious tradtion (no matter how ridiculous) is in no way comparable to FGM.
oh course it's "comparable" to FGM - how is it not comparable? in fact, you've just compared it to FGM in one sense with your first sentence
Original post by justag
Meh, male circumcision is not that dramatic. In the majority of cases, it happens as a baby so there is no recollection of trauma. FGM happens at an older age in horrific circumstances for victims.
See my later comments.
Male circumcision, unless done for medical reasons, is as unnecessary as FGM.
Original post by Reluire
Perhaps not, but FGM can kill, whereas - as far as I know - male genital circumcision can't.
That said, I think there is a huge issue with circumcision of any kind because a baby or child cannot consent to it, and more often or not there is no logical reason for it. The majority of male circumcision takes place for religious or aesthetic reasons whilst the majority of FGM that takes place is in third world countries, most commonly in Africa, for a multitude of horrible reasons you can read about here.
FGM is much worse, but that's not to say male circumcision isn't an issue to be taken notice of.
That said, I think there is a huge issue with circumcision of any kind because a baby or child cannot consent to it, and more often or not there is no logical reason for it. The majority of male circumcision takes place for religious or aesthetic reasons whilst the majority of FGM that takes place is in third world countries, most commonly in Africa, for a multitude of horrible reasons you can read about here.
FGM is much worse, but that's not to say male circumcision isn't an issue to be taken notice of.
In A-level biology the textbook included a case of a haemophilia sufferer dying after circumcision. It can kill but I don't think many people die due to it nowadays.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
