The Student Room Group

should Infant Circumssion be banned?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Avatar for JD1lla
JD1lla
3
I find it hideously barbaric.

Ok it's not along the same lines as FGM but still. The idea of parents making decisions on behalf of their child is frightening.
Reply 121
Avatar for saxsan4
saxsan4
OP
13
Original post by toonervoustotalk
I wouldnt mind :smile: but usually they can start making their own decisions when they are 16 onwards :smile:


then PLEASE let him decide, he will love you more for that as well
Reply 122
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by xGCSE_Studentx
Please don't mock the belief keep it to yourself if you don't agree with it


No, I'm saying it loud: ISLAM IS A DISGUSTING RELIGION.
Original post by saxsan4
then PLEASE let him decide, he will love you more for that as well


Ok:h:
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.


They are both mutilation. That FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it isn't abhorrent.


Original post by xGCSE_Studentx
Please don't mock the belief keep it to yourself if you don't agree with it

You are talking about mutilating a child for your misguided belief in a deity, and you're talking about people keeping things to themselves?
Reply 125
Avatar for saxsan4
saxsan4
OP
13
Original post by xGCSE_Studentx
You sound confused - if they are not religious then it's entirely up to them if they decide to circumcise or not but obviously if they follow a belief then it's expected they follow it


no, its not their body , not their choice to make
Reply 126
Avatar for saxsan4
saxsan4
OP
13
Original post by toonervoustotalk
Ok:h:


Thank you!
Original post by saxsan4
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[/QUOTE]

Nope. If I were to remove my appendix would that be mutilation? Nope because I can function perfectly without it. Ashame you could not respond to my other points and had to nit pick the definition.
It should be outright illegal for both sexes until age of 18.

*Stares at the USA*
[QUOTE="TheTruthTeller;60172099"]
Original post by saxsan4
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[/QUOTE]

Nope. If I were to remove my appendix would that be mutilation? Nope because I can function perfectly without it. Ashame you could not respond to my other points and had to nit pick the definition.


So can he harvest baby kidneys (only need 1), little toes, ear lobes, etc as well then? How can you not see that cutting up a baby is wrong?
Original post by Farm_Ecology
They are both mutilation. That FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it isn't abhorrent.



You are talking about mutilating a child for your misguided belief in a deity, and you're talking about people keeping things to themselves?


Well it does tbh. Lightly tapping someone versus knocking somebody unconcious is very different. The effects are extremely different just like FGM and circumcision. As I said how many men, circumcised at birth have come out and protested about the "abhorrence" of their expereince? How many men worry about their circumcised penis acting as a psycological, physical impediment in their daily lives? Now compare that number to women and reevaluate your use of "abhorrent".
Reply 131
Avatar for saxsan4
saxsan4
OP
13
[QUOTE="TheTruthTeller;60172099"]
Original post by saxsan4
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[/QUOTE]

Nope. If I were to remove my appendix would that be mutilation? Nope because I can function perfectly without it. Ashame you could not respond to my other points and had to nit pick the definition.


Foreskin is a vital part, it protects the glans from drying out. I can survive with no legs or arms, should we allow parents to remove them?
Original post by Josb
No, I'm saying it loud: ISLAM IS A DISGUSTING RELIGION.

Please that's another argument for another thread enough with Islam bashing behaviour it's actually disgusting that you have a religion so much
[QUOTE="saxsan4;60172177"]
Original post by TheTruthTeller


Foreskin is a vital part, it protects the glans from drying out. I can survive with no legs or arms, should we allow parents to remove them?


Your use of "vital" suggests it is ABSOLUTLEY necessary. Which it is clearly not... You can be sure of it because more than half the worlds males are circumcised. Having no arms or legs is an IMPEDIMENT. Having no foreskin is not. Such a silly game to be playing because they cannot be compared.
Original post by TheTruthTeller
Well it does tbh. Lightly tapping someone versus knocking somebody unconcious is very different. The effects are extremely different just like FGM and circumcision. As I said how many men, circumcised at birth have come out and protested about the "abhorrence" of their expereince? How many men worry about their circumcised penis acting as a psycological, physical impediment in their daily lives? Now compare that number to women and reevaluate your use of "abhorrent".


Quite a lot actually. And as I said, that FGM is worse does not negate that circumcision is also abhorrent, why is this difficult to understand?
[QUOTE="jamiep151;60172163"]
Original post by TheTruthTeller


So can he harvest baby kidneys (only need 1), little toes, ear lobes, etc as well then? How can you not see that cutting up a baby is wrong?


Having only one kidney, little toes etc acts as an impediment in a childs daily life. Not having foreskin does not. Again how many protests do you see from circumcised men (at birth) about how their circumcsion has deeply scared them and impeded their living standards?
Reply 136
Avatar for saxsan4
saxsan4
OP
13
[QUOTE="TheTruthTeller;60172247"]
Original post by saxsan4


Your use of "vital" suggests it is ABSOLUTLEY necessary. Which it is clearly not... You can be sure of it because more than half the worlds males are circumcised. Having no arms or legs is an IMPEDIMENT. Having no foreskin is not. Such a silly game to be playing because they cannot be compared.


You can live without arms and legs many people have them amputated. Arguments are the same.
Original post by TheTruthTeller
Having only one kidney, little toes etc acts as an impediment in a childs daily life. Not having foreskin does not. Again how many protests do you see from circumcised men (at birth) about how their circumcsion has deeply scared them and impeded their living standards?


Ah, the 'some people who've had it done to them in the past were okay with it, so everyone else should be too' argument... I was wondering when that would break ground with its undefeatable logic on this thread.
[QUOTE="saxsan4;60172299"]
Original post by TheTruthTeller


You can live without arms and legs many people have them amputated. Arguments are the same.


How does having one leg affect you? I can think of many things. Running, walking, playing footie, rugby...

Now how does not having foreskin affect you? Well in my short life on this earth I can't seem to think of many things tbh
[QUOTE="TheTruthTeller;60172293"]
Original post by jamiep151


Having only one kidney, little toes etc acts as an impediment in a childs daily life. Not having foreskin does not. Again how many protests do you see from circumcised men (at birth) about how their circumcsion has deeply scared them and impeded their living standards?


Actually neither of those is an impediment hence why I chose them rather than an arm. leg, nose, etc. If you want to look there are plenty of men who are unhappy with the fact they were circumcised just because they don't get press attention doesn't mean they don't exist.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you