Scroll to see replies
yes it should ofc
Infant circumcision should be banned, yes, because they cannot consent to that. The guy should choose what he wants to do with his body later on.
Original post by Bio 7
Maybe, since the child cannot consent to it. Given that it is a religious thing it is very assumptive the child will stay in the religion or even be happy with the choice.
Children can't consent to a lot of things.
Vaccinations, medicine, baptism, being taken places...the list goes on.
Where do you draw the line?
Original post by sciencegirl1499
yes it should ofc
Why, in your opinion, do you think that?
Original post by Caesar333
I think the rules for male circumcision should be the same as that for tattoos. Both are permanent changes to your body and a baby is not able to make the choice of whether he can be permanently mutilated or not
Babies have lots of permanent things that are done to them without their consent. Take vaccinations for example. One can argue this is because vaccinations are healthy for the baby, but proponents argue that is also true for circumcision (which, tbh, has some validity). I think the consent argument is too simplistic.
(edited 6 years ago)
What is circumcision?
Original post by Bio 7
Maybe, since the child cannot consent to it. Given that it is a religious thing it is very assumptive the child will stay in the religion or even be happy with the choice.
I agree.
I don't think religious practises which have been done for so many years without issues or concerns should be made illegal.
parents have their Childs best interest at heart. we can't take over how parents raise their children
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Babies have lots of permanent things that are done to them without their consent. Take vaccinations for example. One can argue this is because vaccinations are healthy for the baby, but proponents argue that is also true for circumcision (which, tbh, has some validity). I think the consent argument is too simplistic.
I dont understand the issues of circumcision
Original post by TheAlchemistress
What is circumcision?
Cutting the foreskin of a penis
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by sciencegirl1499
I dont understand the issues of circumcision
Critics argue its an outdated, barbaric practise which is essentially genital mutilation. The most common arguments are often moral, or consent-based, but the main reason I made the thread was to learn some more about them.
Original post by Tosspot
Yeah, parents who do it for cultural, religious or social reasons are weird to me.
Don't mean to come off as confrontational here, but should we start making everything we find 'weird'...illegal?
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Don't mean to come off as confrontational here, but should we start making everything we find 'weird'...illegal?
No offense taken or anything, my dude.
Gonna get my biases out the way here, my dad's a practicing muslim and I would have been circumcised had my mum hadn't intervened, so suffice to say I'm not a fan.
It shouldn't be illegal because it's weird, it should be illegal because it's an intrusive surgery that doesn't provide enough benefits to justify doing it. Just clean yo' ****, wear a condom and you've already gotten pretty much all the objective benefits from circumcision.
Original post by Tosspot
No offense taken or anything, my dude.
Gonna get my biases out the way here, my dad's a practicing muslim and I would have been circumcised had my mum hadn't intervened, so suffice to say I'm not a fan.
It shouldn't be illegal because it's weird, it should be illegal because it's an intrusive surgery that doesn't provide enough benefits to justify doing it. Just clean yo' ****, wear a condom and you've already gotten pretty much all the objective benefits from circumcision.
Gonna get my biases out the way here, my dad's a practicing muslim and I would have been circumcised had my mum hadn't intervened, so suffice to say I'm not a fan.
It shouldn't be illegal because it's weird, it should be illegal because it's an intrusive surgery that doesn't provide enough benefits to justify doing it. Just clean yo' ****, wear a condom and you've already gotten pretty much all the objective benefits from circumcision.
Well, yeh I suppose.
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:
•
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
•
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
•
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
•
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
•
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.
But I do see your point. Often these benefits don't give a mandate for getting the surgical tools out!
(edited 6 years ago)
Yes.
People often claim that you're at less risk of getting HIV if you're circumcised, and they also claim that it's easier to keep clean. However these are, in my opinion, just petty justifications for what's a purely cultural or religious procedure that provides no real benefit at all. First of all, both the problems listed above can be fixed with adequate education about STIs and basic hygiene, to justify removing such a sensitive part of the body at an age in which they can't consent, just because 'it's easier to clean' or 'I don't want to talk to my children about STIs' is frankly cruel and unacceptable in a modern society. Second of all, no, your religious rights should not extend that far. End of.
People often claim that you're at less risk of getting HIV if you're circumcised, and they also claim that it's easier to keep clean. However these are, in my opinion, just petty justifications for what's a purely cultural or religious procedure that provides no real benefit at all. First of all, both the problems listed above can be fixed with adequate education about STIs and basic hygiene, to justify removing such a sensitive part of the body at an age in which they can't consent, just because 'it's easier to clean' or 'I don't want to talk to my children about STIs' is frankly cruel and unacceptable in a modern society. Second of all, no, your religious rights should not extend that far. End of.
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
