should Infant Circumssion be banned?

Original post by Josb

Religion is the negation of common sense.

If that's what you think fair enough

Reply 104

JD1lla

3

Original post by TorpidPhil

That's what I said. Vulva pics are pretty cringe. Because vulvas tend to be quite ugly. Most of the time. Just like penises. You don't admire either for their beauty.

Male bottoms, chests, shoulders, arms, jawlines and female boobs, abs, legs, feet, hands, hair. They're different. They're all very admirable parts of the body for purely aesthetic reasons.

I think they're pretty beautiful tbh.

Reply 105

SophieSmall

21

Unless for a legitimate medical reason, then yes I believe it should be banned.

Reply 106

Original post by Oscar.

All my Muslim friends at uncircumsised

Posted from TSR Mobile

Must be parents decision plus if they're not practising then if affects their decision but as far as religion goes it's a burden on the parents if their boys aren't circumcised

Reply 107

OP

Original post by xGCSE_Studentx

I understand your view but it's the parents duty to do so plus the baby's tiny and has no decision to make

what about non religious peoples doing it then. what argument do they have?

Reply 108

Original post by saxsan4

what about non religious peoples doing it then. what argument do they have?

For non religious people obviously they don't share that Islamic belief so I would assume it's up to them if they chose that option or not however circumcision is becoming uncommon and frowned upon

Reply 109

Josb

6

Original post by xGCSE_Studentx

Must be parents decision plus if they're not practising then if affects their decision but as far as religion goes it's a burden on the parents if their boys aren't circumcised

What a burden indeed. :rolleyes:

Reply 110

OP

Original post by xGCSE_Studentx

For non religious people obviously they don't share that Islamic belief so I would assume it's up to them if they chose that option or not however circumcision is becoming uncommon and frowned upon

but then why should they force this on a child?

Reply 111

toonervoustotalk

20

Original post by Josb

What if you let them choose?

I wouldnt mind :smile:

but usually they can start making their own decisions when they are 16 onwards :smile:

Reply 112

TheTruthTeller

How can you compare fgm with circumcision. How many men who have been circumcised at birth do you see emotionally scared versus the other way around? One is "mutilation" whereas the other is a medical procedure that is done due to religious reasoning, but also health reasons. FGM has no benefits and is done to limit a female's sexual pleasure etc. They are not comparable beyond the fact that the both "remove" a part of the genitalia.

Reply 113

OP

its the same reason parents cant give their child a tatoo as it is a permanent scar that is done without consent

Reply 114

Original post by Josb

What a burden indeed. :rolleyes:

Please don't mock the belief keep it to yourself if you don't agree with it

Reply 115

Josb

6

Original post by TheTruthTeller

How can you compare fgm with circumcision. How many men who have been circumcised at birth do you see emotionally scared versus the other way around? One is "mutilation" whereas the other is a medical procedure that is done due to religious reasoning, but also health reasons. FGM has no benefits and is done to limit a female's sexual pleasure etc. They are not comparable beyond the fact that the both "remove" a part of the genitalia.

Circumcision is also done to prevent boys from masturbating.

Reply 116

OP

Original post by TheTruthTeller

How can you compare fgm with circumcision. How many men who have been circumcised at birth do you see emotionally scared versus the other way around? One is "mutilation" whereas the other is a medical procedure that is done due to religious reasoning, but also health reasons. FGM has no benefits and is done to limit a female's sexual pleasure etc. They are not comparable beyond the fact that the both "remove" a part of the genitalia.

definition of Mutilation:

to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

So yes it is mutilation as it is removing a healthy and vital part of the human body

Reply 117

Zargabaath

21

This thread is genuinely depressing, people arguing for mutilating a baby because their skydaddy told them to. Every time I become more mellow on my views towards religion, the religious give me a reason to despise them even more. It's like you lot want normal people to hate you.

Reply 118

troubadour.

19

Original post by xGCSE_Studentx

woah pipe down I ain't forcing my religion on anyone for a start if the parents are practising Muslims then it's their obligation to circumcise their offspring that's common sense really

Original post by xGCSE_Studentx

I understand your view but it's the parents duty to do so plus the baby's tiny and has no decision to make

I don't understand why those against the proposition keep using words like 'obligation' and 'mandatory' -- it isn't. There is no law of nature that says that parents following a certain religion must engage in genital mutilation of children that compels them to do so. There is a law of nature that says that everything that has mass is attracted to everything else that has mass by a force that is proportional to the square of the distance between them -- that's a law that can't be circumvented, unlike this nonsense religious law, which is as flexible as we want it to be.

If it's between their religion and their offspring's well-being, any parent that opts for the former doesn't deserve to be a parent in the first place. This is the same sort of rubbish as claiming Abraham to be righteous man for being willing to sacrifice his son's life to prove his devotion to God (which is what one of the Muslim Eids celebrates).

To claim 'common sense' doesn't mean anything other than 'here's a viewpoint, I have no arguments for it, so let's just accept it on the basis that it sounds obvious if you devote no thought to it.'

Reply 119