Court stops circumcision.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by QE2
Yes, but your explanations make no sense in the context of the question. When comparing two almost identical situations, you are claiming that one is acceptable and one is unacceptable.
I'll make this very simple.
Is medically unnecessary, culturally motivated labiaectomy of an infant girl, carried out under clinical conditions, acceptable or unacceptable?
I'll make this very simple.
Is medically unnecessary, culturally motivated labiaectomy of an infant girl, carried out under clinical conditions, acceptable or unacceptable?
You seem them as identical, I do not.
Cite where a labiaectomy is performed in FGM. I'm unfamiliar with it.
Original post by cherryred90s
*sigh* even when FGM is conducted by healthcare professionals, the risks I have listed are still prominent. I'm not repeating that again
Yes it does.
'FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered acceptable sexual behaviour. It aims to ensure premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist extramarital sexual acts.'
'FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered acceptable sexual behaviour. It aims to ensure premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist extramarital sexual acts.'
What you have quoted is an explanation of why some FGM is carried out.
Two very different things.
I've explained to you many times why I don't consider it to be the same procedure.
You said: 'If you have no experience of having a foreskin, how can you make a judgement as to the effect of its removal on your life?'
This is clearly implying that we can only make judgements about things we've personally experienced.
This is clearly implying that we can only make judgements about things we've personally experienced.
I cannot make a sensory judgement on Type 1 FGM, but I can make an ethical judgement.
Perfectly valid opinion. In my opinion, since male circumcision is a relatively simple procedure that poses small risks and small benefits, it should be the decision of the parent(s).
I have a suspicion that supporters of circumcision know that if it was left until the victim was 16 or 18, nobody would get it done, and the religionists would be failing in their duty to god, and the culturalists would not be able to make their children suffer as they did.
Original post by QE2
I have a suspicion that supporters of circumcision know that if it was left until the victim was 16 or 18, nobody would get it done, and the religionists would be failing in their duty to god, and the culturalists would not be able to make their children suffer as they did.
This is essentially it. I can't think of any other explanation for the level of confirmation bias on display in this thread. Although I suspect that, even if left to 16 or 18, the consequence would be fewer people getting it done rather than nobody at all getting it done.
Original post by cherryred90s
You seem them as identical, I do not.
Cite where a labiaectomy is performed in FGM. I'm unfamiliar with it.
•
Type 2: Often referred to as excision, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without excision of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva).
•
Type 4: This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
Original post by Hydeman
This is essentially it. I can't think of any other explanation for the level of confirmation bias on display in this thread. Although I suspect that, even if left to 16 or 18, the consequence would be fewer people getting it done rather than nobody at all getting it done.
Original post by QE2
It might take a few generations, but it would die out eventually.
One would hope so. But I have my reservations about how possible this is in insular, self-segregated religious communities where routine circumcision is currently the norm. I mean, isn't it the case that if children are raised to think, as they are in many communities where FGM is/was prevalent, that it's somehow 'dirty' or 'impure' to have a foreskin, that they wouldn't be able to make an informed choice about this at the 16 or 18?
I did initially think of a comparison with hijabs and religious belief, where people love to insist that they made a free choice and weren't forced or indoctrinated to think a certain way, but on second thought it's not a perfect comparison because of the significant physical pain involved in genital mutilation, which isn't the case with wearing the hijab or praying five times a day.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by QE2
I have still yet to see your evidence that clinically performed, type 4 FGM leads to those complications.
Refer back to the link that you posted. Type 4 doesn't lead to those complications, types 1-3 do. Type 4 refers to piercing/cutting/poking/burning the area.
No. The WHO does not differentiate between FGM on the basis of motivation, only on procedure.
What you have quoted is an explanation of why some FGM is carried out.
Two very different things.
What you have quoted is an explanation of why some FGM is carried out.
Two very different things.
No, you said that the WHO doesn't explain the purpose of FGM. what I quoted proved otherwise.
Yes, but your explanation makes no sense n the context of the actual question.
Yes, it does.
Ah, that is talking about personal experience, not of ethics or acceptability.
I cannot make a sensory judgement on Type 1 FGM, but I can make an ethical judgement.
I cannot make a sensory judgement on Type 1 FGM, but I can make an ethical judgement.
You didn't refer to ethics or acceptability. Your quote was very clear cut and since you have no personal experience, who are you to pass judgement of any kind then?
None of us have personal experience of everything we've discussed, so I suppose can none of us can have an opinion.
But it involves permanently removing a part of the body for, as you say no real benefit, so why not leave it until the victim is old enough to make that decision themselves. Even the negligable benefits are irrelevant during childhood, so no benefit is lost.
Not necessarily true. UTIs are common in young boys so they may benefit from a circumcision at a young age.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by cherryred90s
since you have no personal experience, who are you to pass judgement of any kind then?
None of us have personal experience of everything we've discussed, so I suppose can none of can have an opinion.
None of us have personal experience of everything we've discussed, so I suppose can none of can have an opinion.
Er, speak for yourself.
In any case, personal experience is not necessary to have an opinion.
Original post by Hydeman
Er, speak for yourself.
In any case, personal experience is not necessary to have an opinion.
In any case, personal experience is not necessary to have an opinion.
Why do you always only refer to a snippet? If you read the whole sentence, you'd see that I said that none of us have personal experience of everything we've discussed.
I know that personal experience is not necessary to have an opinion. That's probably the only thing we agree on. It was actually QE2 who told someone that they can't pass judgement about the effects of circumcision because they haven't experienced it, but he's also the one talking about the effects of FGM in the same breath..
Original post by cherryred90s
Refer back to the link that you posted. Type 4 doesn't lead to those complications, types 1-3 do. Type 4 refers to piercing/cutting/poking/burning the area.
Clitoral hoodectomy and labiaectomy, as lone procedures, are not mentioned in types 1-3, therefore thay are included in type 4.
No, you said that the WHO doesn't explain the purpose of FGM. what I quoted proved otherwise.
In other words, the purpose does not affect whether it is classed as FGM or not. Whether it is to reduce pleasure, ensure virginity, aesthetics, whatever, it is still FGM.
Yes, it does.
You didn't refer to ethics or acceptability.
Not necessarily true. UTIs are common in young boys so they may benefit from a circumcision at a young age.
Didn't you read it?
Original post by QE2
You really need to read the link more carefully. It says that type 4 " includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes."
Clitoral hoodectomy and labiaectomy, as lone procedures, are not mentioned in types 1-3, therefore thay are included in type 4.
Clitoral hoodectomy and labiaectomy, as lone procedures, are not mentioned in types 1-3, therefore thay are included in type 4.
Or perhaps they are not included because their purpose is to increase sexual pleasure
WTF do you think this whole discussion has been about!?!
Don't try and be funny when you're the one that said we can't have opinions about things we haven't personally experienced
UTIs are not "common" in young boys. The meta study I linked to earlier stated that prevention from UTIs was not a legitimate reason for circumcision, unless the child was at high risk of UTI. It cites the risk of occurance of UTI in young boys as about 1%.
Didn't you read it?
Didn't you read it?
Taken from the NHS website:
UTIs are a relatively common infection during childhood.They are more common in boys up to the age of six months old, but after this tend to be more common in girls. It is estimated that around 1 in 10 girls and 1 in 30 boys will have had a UTI by the time they turn 1
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by BeastOfSyracuse
Yeah I know about that, it's totally gross. I'd add that this occurs mostly amongst Haredi Jews (who are basically an extremist cult, or "ultra-orthodox"). The vast majority of ordinary Orthodox Jews (Orthodox Judaism is basically mainstream Judaism) would not do that.
Of course that doesn't take away from the fact the practice is absolutely disgusting and must be prohibited
Of course that doesn't take away from the fact the practice is absolutely disgusting and must be prohibited
It's not really theological. It's more primative ideas of sacrifice.
The Bible was compiled more than a thousand years after Abraham putatively died (approx death is 2100BC). The Israelites blamed themselves for their subsequent suffering & hardship (famine & conquests) and looked inwards in self-flaggelation to aver God respect. The Bible was drawn up from around 9th century BC onwards. The aim was to cidify and enforce code of practise (dietry prohibitions, wordship of only one God, circumcision etc).
Circumcision is a desperate and primitve form of comunal sacrifices. Thankfully, we dont sacrifice the first new born girl. Some of the contemporaneous Mediterranean sects practised child sacrifice. I believe Jeremiah records this practice among the Israelites too. After all, Abraham was instructed by the divine to sacrifice his own. Most parents would rather die, than kill their own children. The Abrahamic cult can never really recover from that wicked act. In order to replace human sacrifice, what could be offered as the parents most valuable possessions, their sons, to have their penises cut & amputated? It's desined to stultify the organ's sexual function and, utlimately, a man's acme of earthly sexual pleasures. By living up to this code; God would protect them. There were multiple authors to the Old Testament which was accumated over the years. It's final form was completed around the 2nd century BC. The passages in Genesis that command circumcision were inserted in the 6th century BC by the Priestly source.
It's extraordinary how this particular practices of a wandering tribe should come to dominate the lives of so many poor little boys and girls. They're also responsible for a thread of homophobia that has dominated Christisanity in the West.
(I also really dislike the "get over it" attitude people have on this thread to circumcision. I think it must have long-term consequences that pivot on self-confidence, sexual satisfaction and self-worth. I'm quite sure that the 'unquantified' psychological damage is fairly staggering).
Good. All religions and cultures that insist on mutilating their children's genitalia should be ashamed. Stuff like that belongs to barbarous nations. No place in the UK.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
Good. All religions and cultures that insist on mutilating their children's genitalia should be ashamed. Stuff like that belongs to barbarous nations. No place in the UK.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Right. That's why FGM is illegal in the UK.
Original post by admonit
Right. That's why FGM is illegal in the UK.
I'm glad it is and male circumcision would be for children to.
If you want to have part of your genitals cut off for non medical reasons then that is a decision a person should make for themselves when they are old enough to make such a decision, not have it done to them when they are a baby or child.
Original post by Bornblue
I'm glad it is and male circumcision would be for children to.
If you want to have part of your genitals cut off for non medical reasons then that is a decision a person should make for themselves when they are old enough to make such a decision, not have it done to them when they are a baby or child.
If you want to have part of your genitals cut off for non medical reasons then that is a decision a person should make for themselves when they are old enough to make such a decision, not have it done to them when they are a baby or child.
No, because male circumcision is not mutilation - it was already proved in this thread. Parents are responsible for their children and they have the right to exercise this responsibility. This also was already explained. Additionally I offered to all fans of "forbid and punish" to open appropriate criminal case. Are you ready doing it?
Original post by admonit
No, because male circumcision is not mutilation - it was already proved in this thread. Parents are responsible for their children and they have the right to exercise this responsibility. This also was already explained. Additionally I offered to all fans of "forbid and punish" to open appropriate criminal case. Are you ready doing it?
No parents don't have a right to have a piece of their children removed permanently for non medical reasons. Parents shouldn't have a right to cut off a part of the child's genitals.
It's abhorrent and one of the reasons I dislike religious groups.
If you want to have a piece of your body chopped off for non medical reasons then you should be able to decide for yourself when you are of an age capable of making such a decision. Why should children against their will have a part of them chopped off for non medical reasons? Everyone should get to make their own decisions about their bodily integrity, it's a basic right.
If a new religion comes along and says its in their religious doctrine to chop their child's baby toe off would we just accept it? Of course not.
Parents are responsible for their children yes, that's a reposbisbility to look after and care, not a responsibility to chop off part of their genitalia for non medical reasons.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
No parents don't have a right to have a piece of their children removed permanently for non medical reasons. Parents shouldn't have a right to cut off a part of the child's genitals.
It's abhorrent and one of the reasons I dislike religious groups.
If you want to have a piece of your body chopped off for non medical reasons then you should be able to decide for yourself when you are of an age capable of making such a decision. Why should children against their will have a part of them chopped off for non medical reasons? Everyone should get to make their own decisions about their bodily integrity, it's a basic right.
If a new religion comes along and says its in their religious doctrine to chop their child's baby toe off would we just accept it? Of course not.
Parents are responsible for their children yes, that's a reposbisbility to look after and care, not a responsibility to chop off part of their genitalia for non medical reasons.
It's abhorrent and one of the reasons I dislike religious groups.
If you want to have a piece of your body chopped off for non medical reasons then you should be able to decide for yourself when you are of an age capable of making such a decision. Why should children against their will have a part of them chopped off for non medical reasons? Everyone should get to make their own decisions about their bodily integrity, it's a basic right.
If a new religion comes along and says its in their religious doctrine to chop their child's baby toe off would we just accept it? Of course not.
Parents are responsible for their children yes, that's a reposbisbility to look after and care, not a responsibility to chop off part of their genitalia for non medical reasons.
OK, barbaric mutilation and the crime against humanity.
Why there is no criminal case?
Original post by admonit
OK, barbaric mutilation and the crime against humanity.
Why there is no criminal case?
Why there is no criminal case?
I haven't said it's a 'crime against humanity' and there are of course levels of mutilation, male circumcision being the least harmful. But they are all wrong, they are all removing a part of a human for non medical reasons without their consent.
Why is there no criminal case? That's a pretty weak argument to justify it. Largely because it's lawful, but that doesn't mean it should be. It's just cultural relativism gone mad.
Up until 1991 marital rape wasn't illegal, doesn't mean it wasn't abhorrent. (I am not comparing the two, just making the point that something not being illegal doesn't make it right)
Our bodies are our own and any decision we make should be made by ourselves when we are of age to make them. Fair enough if you are young and need something doing for medical reasons, such as an operation or objection. But to justify cutting off a part of your child's genitalia without their consent and for non medical reasons, because some book written thousands of years ago says its okay, is truly disgusting. And that goes for all religions and cultures that practice it.
If you want to have a circumcision for non medical reasons, that should be your choice.
First of all, legally, parents do have the right to speak on behalf of their children
Now, this ends when the child reaches 18. Logically, circumcision is a painless procedure below the age of 1, like removing a tiny piece of skin. think how painful it would be at the age of 18, where its removing a considerable 'chunk'
a plus point is probably the prevention of d*** cheese
Posted from TSR Mobile
Now, this ends when the child reaches 18. Logically, circumcision is a painless procedure below the age of 1, like removing a tiny piece of skin. think how painful it would be at the age of 18, where its removing a considerable 'chunk'
a plus point is probably the prevention of d*** cheese
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Circumcision Fetish
- Penis head sensitive to touch when erect
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- Phimosis/frenulum breve - sex with condom possible?
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- Circumcision
- Revision circumcision
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- masturbating dry
- Cannot ejaculate during sex
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Question about Frenuloplasty
- My boyfriend's ****
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Frenulectomy
- Circumcision or not
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
choosing a medical school (Leicester, St Andrews, Nottingham)Last reply 6 minutes ago
Why do some girls take pleasure in going after other girls boyfriends?Posted 7 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 9 minutes ago
Can someone please mark my AIC essay (my teacher is such an unreliable marker)Last reply 10 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 10 minutes ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 11 minutes ago
Best Accommodation for Med Students at University of Plymouth?Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official University of Warwick Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 14 minutes ago
Bae systems accommodation barrowLast reply 17 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
University of Liverpool veterinary work experience form.Last reply 20 minutes ago
Worried about son who wants to move out, will he be able to afford it?Last reply 20 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 20 minutes ago
Degree Apprenticeship at Accenture (assessment centre)Last reply 21 minutes ago
emmanuella's study discussions #1: motivation and disciplineTrending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
