Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

should Infant Circumssion be banned?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 180

username1854431

Beiber has the answer

Reply 181

ivy.98

Yes. Even if it's done due to religious reasons. Every single human has the freedom of religion. You don't have the "freedom" to dictate the religion of others, even if the "others" are your kids.

Reply 182

United1892

Original post by saxsan4

what benefits then?

It may reduce the risk of: developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection. getting some types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), such as HIV and genital herpes

Reply 183

United1892

Original post by G8D

I know lots of infants who are engaging in unprotected sex.

Because the majority of infants don't grow up to have sex in later life, am I right! :rolleyes:

Reply 184

IamJacksContempt

Original post by footygirlx

FGM violates stops a woman enjoying sex and has many health problems whereas circumcision doesnt.

Stop talking and making a fool of yourself

Reply 185

United1892

Original post by G8D

But no one is arguing against autonomous circumcision after (at least) the age of legal maturity, for religious reasons or otherwise.

However that would actually be incredibly painful.

Also it would still be a health benefit of doing it when the child was an infant.

Reply 186

wildleaves

There is no valid argument for it . Its without consent its just wrong.

Reply 187

United1892

Original post by G8D

So it's fine to inflict pain upon a child but it's not ok for someone to subject themselves to pain?

The pain for the child would be relatively minor in comparison. We inflict pain on them by giving them vacinations is that OK?

Reply 188

username917703

It's child abuse. It should have been banned years ago. If an uncirmcumcised person wants to get circumcised for health reasons or cos it looks better let them decide when they are old enough to know what's going on. This guy sums it up for me, when there are people that feel like this you know it has to be stopped.

Big up Davey.

Reply 189

cherryred90s

Original post by Farm_Ecology

Completely agree. It serves absolutely no medical benefit, and can lead to complications. If someone wants to go through the procedure when they are an adult (by which time there might be medical justification) then that is a different issue.

Are you serious? You're justifying mutilating a child's genitals because you think it looks better? Are you in favour of FGM as well?

Also, there are no health benefits.

How is it mutilation? -_- so dramatic. It's only the removal of foreskin. As someone mentioned, people do it for religious & hygiene purposes.

Reply 190

the bear

my friend is foreskin-free and he says that the ladies appreciate a nicely presented unit.

Reply 191

SophieSmall

Original post by the bear

my friend is foreskin-free and he says that the ladies appreciate a nicely presented unit.

Not all of us like it, I personally prefer sex with a foreskin.
But it's not exactly a deal breaker for me.

But that doesn't really help with the issue of whether male circumcision is morally acceptable :tongue:

Reply 192

sleepysnooze

Original post by Oscar.

Well that would be against Judaism, I get that it's disgusting and unnecessary but it can't just be stopped like that

Posted from TSR Mobile

sure it can. why not?

Reply 193

cherryred90s

Original post by G8D

Mutilate is literally derived from the Latin for 'cut off'.

You say people do it for those reasons. The important point is that they do it to others.

By definition, mutilation is to injure severely or disfigure. I don't see how make circumcision does that?

They do it to their own children! It's the parents choice. If done professionally, there's nothing wrong with it.

Reply 194

troubadour.

Original post by cherryred90s

How is it mutilation? -_- so dramatic. It's only the removal of foreskin. As someone mentioned, people do it for religious & hygiene purposes.

How if somebody cuts off your nose? Why is that mutilation? Or is it not? You'd be wrong if you answered the last question with a yes but at least you'd be consistent. :tongue:

Reply 195

troubadour.

Original post by cherryred90s

Parents do not own their children. To argue otherwise might lead to you being the proverbial snake that grew so long that it bit itself (its 'tail') eventually. Let's put it like this:

They do it to their own children! It's the parents choice. If done professionally, there's nothing wrong with parents having sex with their children.

Not so agreeable now, is it? :tongue:

Reply 196

cherryred90s

Original post by ivy.98

Yes. Even if it's done due to religious reasons. Every single human has the freedom of religion. You don't have the "freedom" to dictate the religion of others, even if the "others" are your kids.

It's not only for religious purposes. Also, it is completely within the parents rights to consent to any legal procedures for their child so if they choose to have their baby boy circumcised, so be it. Nobody is telling you to get your kid circumcised so you shouldn't be telling others

Reply 197

cherryred90s

Original post by Hydeman

Parents do not own their children. To argue otherwise might lead to you being the proverbial snake that grew so long that it bit itself (its 'tail' :wink:

eventually. Let's put it like this:

They do it to their own children! It's the parents choice. If done professionally, there's nothing wrong with parents having sex with their children.

Not so agreeable now, is it? :tongue:

I didn't say parents own their children :s

the difference is, one act is legal whereas the other is not -_-