Should non-medical circumcision of under-18s be banned?

I don't mean I disagree that it is legal, I know it is actually legal. What I mean is I don't think it should be legal because I disagree with it morally.


That's a big assumption that governments and people will listen to a half decent argument. Cannabis is still illegal for example.


No, but I don't see how it's relevant. I realise most people who are circumcised are happy with it, but they've never known anything different. The great thing about not circumcising children is that when they get older they can get circumcised if they want, or they can stay how they are. They have the choice, so everyone wins. People who like having foreskin can keep their foreskin, people who would prefer to be circumcised can be circumcised. I'm arguing for giving people that choice.

My point is that there is no argument (apart from it is against my morals/beliefs) for male circumcsision to be banned. No gov is the western world has been presented with a case for banning male circumcision..... because there is no negative effect on individuals and society as a whole.... cannabis on the other hand is a different issue and the arguments for the negative effect on individuals/society is wide ranging.

I don't mean I disagree that it is legal, I know it is actually legal. What I mean is I don't think it should be legal because I disagree with it morally.


That's a big assumption that governments and people will listen to a half decent argument. Cannabis is still illegal for example.


No, but I don't see how it's relevant. I realise most people who are circumcised are happy with it, but they've never known anything different. The great thing about not circumcising children is that when they get older they can get circumcised if they want, or they can stay how they are. They have the choice, so everyone wins. People who like having foreskin can keep their foreskin, people who would prefer to be circumcised can be circumcised. I'm arguing for giving people that choice.

Well I disagree that there is no argument for it to be banned. I have presented an argument and you don't agree with it. So what you really mean is you disagree with the arguments against it.

It is down to the parents which beliefs they instill in their child, not wider society... and if their religion insists on circumcision, then they will get circumcised.... Boys in the jewish faith are recognised as a man at 10/11 (or whenever they have their bar mitzvah and they have to be circumcised before then....

No I mean a realistic argument (which would need to be presented if a ban was pushed through gov)......

Your argument is essentially that the individual should be allowed to decide when they are of age 16/18 etc... This argument wouldn't be accepted in a potential real life situation...

I accept your view in terms of our tsr discussion...

I'm not saying parents wouldn't be allowed to advise their children. Parents would still be allowed to tell their children they think circumcision is a good idea, they just wouldn't be allowed to force them into it. They can still instil their belief that men should be circumcised, and the child can choose to take that on board or they can reject it if they want.




Well that's just yet another way of saying you disagree, which is fair enough. As I said, I don't really expect that many people to agree. I'm bored of this now, so lets just agree to disagree There isn't really anywhere else to go with it.

I accept your view against male circumcision, but it isn't an argument for it to be banned. There is no real argument for the banning of male circumcision.

Is it really that difficult to just say you disagree with it? It is an argument for banning it, it's just one you disagree with. It's kind of up to me what it's an argument for because I'm the one arguing it. Fair enough if you think it's a weak argument, that's how these things work. But it is still an argument for it. At least accept that.

it is your view of the practice of male circumcision. It is not an argument for it to be banned. It wouldn't be accepted as an argument for banning this practice.... think about it..... you have to provide some factual evidence in an argument for banning this procedure.

Well my argument is that it removes the individual's choice to have their foreskin removed or not. That is a fact.

I think permanently removing a person's body part without their consent should be illegal. In most situations other than circumcision most people would agree. That's an ideological thing. If you don't agree with that then we just fundamentally have different points of view about the rights an individual should have.

I wouldn't expect the government to accept this argument. The practice is just too widespread.

factual evidence as in ban male circumcision because, point 1,2,3........ and the afffects of this on the individual and society as a whole, backed by factual evidence points 1,2,3......etc

your argument won't stand up.... whenever something is presented to be changed in terms of law, a fairly thorough argument needs to be presented....

I agree that an individual has the right to decide, but the right of the parent to choose what upbringing/religion to raise their child under supersedes this.

to put an end to it, we can say that you believe it should be banned. I don't. Is there an argument for it to be banned (with factual evidence)? No, so it will not be banned.

I find it disgusting that in the 21st century we still allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their children for ritualistic purposes. If an adult wants to have part of his penis removed for whatever reason, then let him go ahead, but to enforce it on a defenceless child is abhorrent. It's child abuse, it's sick, and it's a barbaric practice that needs to stop.

given that we are discussing about banning a procedure which is carried out by british doctors, the BMA comes into it. The BMA are consulted by officals in gov if a ban on this procedure was to be pushed through. They are the authority which would be consulted.

The procedure, whether done for medical/non-medical reasons is sound. If it wasn't then the BMA wouldnt' carry it out. There is no evidence to suggest that non-medical circumcision in detrimental to the individual baby/infant...... it is a procedure which has been carried out for thousands of years.....

The only grounds to ban such a procedure would be based on theological disagreement. There is no medical reason to ban such a procedure.

No, the goverment would probably speak to the royal college of surgeons and paediatrics. Not the BMA.

What the hell does 'sound' mean. You aren't kicking the tires of some second hand fiesta here. There is a great difference in the body of evidence between circs performed for medical reasons and non-medical.
There is plenty of evidence showing it is detrimental. There is also evidence showing it is beneficial. Thats why there is debate in medical circles about it. Its not clear one way or the other sceintifically.

Because of this the general advice is not to bother.
Hence why the NHS will not fund non-medical circumcisions. You must go private for it.
Hence why few urologists will do it electively for non medical reasons on private lists. Its viewed in the same way as cosmetic plastic surgery.

You still seem confused as to the role of the BMA. THey do not allow anything. That is not their role. They do not have ANY authority over doctors.


Actually there are plenty of reasons to ban male circ. But there are also reasons to not.
One of the main reason they have not put out advice to say male circs should not be performed privately by doctors is that it would lead to a surge in complications, infections and problems resulting from 'backstreet circs' - those performed by non-professionals.
Furthermore the body of evidence typically has to be quite powerfully against something before doctors are 'banned' from doing it - there is not this level of evidence either way for male circs.

Lay off the buzz-words blud.

Putting circumcision for medical reasons aside, what is evidence to suggest that non-medical circumcision (religous) is detrimental to the individual?.