Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK?
Scroll to see replies
I would make all religious indoctrination of children illegal.
Circumcision, Baptism, religious schools etc..
Circumcision, Baptism, religious schools etc..
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Well, yeh I suppose.
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:
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!
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!
People with no feet have a 100% reduced chance of getting athletes foot and ingrown toenails. We don’t chop off babies feet though.
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.
Vaccinations are for their benefit, without it theyre at risk of dying. Silly invalid comparison.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Well, yeh I suppose.
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:
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!
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!
Oh don't get me wrong, I think that child circumcision should be illegal. When you're an adult/late teen you can make an educated decision on your own as to the benefits vs cons of circumcision. The human body is flawed and no part of it (even the parts that are supposed to protect us as their primary function) are without ways for it to f*** up and potentially kill us.
Original post by sciencegirl1499
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 child's best interest at heart, we can't take over how parents raise their children
Why then the double standard of having female genital mutilation, which is widely practiced,legally, around the world, considered illegal in the UK?
Agree with the above post. Consider it the same as tattoos. Legal, if a consenting adult wants it. Illegal, if forceable inflicted on a minor.
[ caveat: except in the extremely rare cases were deemed a medical necessity ]
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by PQ
People with no feet have a 100% reduced chance of getting athletes foot and ingrown toenails. We don’t chop off babies feet though.
Taking it to the extreme a bit mate.
Chopping off feat is going to render the child in emotional as well as physical trauma and has also deterred the child's ability to perform basic human functions.
Circumcision does none of that.
You know this, so why even make the comparison - they're nothing like each other
Original post by flippycipher
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.
But by then it would hurt much more than if it were done very early on
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
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?
Vaccinations, medicine, baptism, being taken places...the list goes on.
Where do you draw the line?
None of those are unnecessary procedures that are not in the best interests of a child.
Also, banging on about the benefits of circumcision is unhelpful. See this from the BMA:
"There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research."
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Thoughts?
Do you mean for babies/children without consent?
Because some condition like phimosis require circumcision
Original post by 303Pharma
Why then the double standard of having female genital mutilation, which is widely practiced,legally, around the world, considered illegal in the UK?
Agree with the above post. Consider it the same as tattoos. Legal, if a consenting adult wants it. Illegal, if forceable inflicted on a minor.
Agree with the above post. Consider it the same as tattoos. Legal, if a consenting adult wants it. Illegal, if forceable inflicted on a minor.
Female genital mutilation is literally cutting off the clit. It bars the individual from having an enjoyable sexual experience ever again. It's a permanent change to the body with no benefits and many negative effects. There's no double standard because they aren't the same thing.
That is not the case with circumcision as it has no permanent negative effects.
As with the consent argument, check my earlier comment.
Original post by Neesaaaa
But by then it would hurt much more than if it were done very early on
But the guy may never want to have a circumcision, even as an adult. He should at least have the option, instead of growing up wishing he could have kept it.
Original post by DenzDVI
No, it makes you cleaner and it's part of religion and faith
Westerners always wanna change things smh
Westerners always wanna change things smh
1. Presumably You're living in the West for a start? Pretty sure they're entitled to define their own laws
2. What scientific evidence do you have that it makes you cleaner? Unless you're a guy that showers down there once a month, I'm pretty confident you'll be fine. More than 90% of men here in the U.K. aren't circumcised and there's no complaints from health professionals or women.
3. You're mutlilating little boys against their will
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Taking it to the extreme a bit mate.
Chopping off feat is going to render the child in emotional as well as physical trauma and has also deterred the child's ability to perform basic human functions.
Circumcision does none of that.
You know this, so why even make the comparison - they're nothing like each other
Chopping off feat is going to render the child in emotional as well as physical trauma and has also deterred the child's ability to perform basic human functions.
Circumcision does none of that.
You know this, so why even make the comparison - they're nothing like each other
UTI rates in men and boys is below 0.1% and utis are easily treated.
Stis and penile/cervical cancer prevention is by using condoms nut mutilating children.
Inflammation of the foreskin is lower in people with no foreskin. No **** Sherlock.
You’re using dodgy science and stats to justify ritual mutilation of babies and get upset when presented with the same justification for a mutilation you disagree with.
(And for the record I am not male and I am NOT your mate).
Original post by 303Pharma
Why then the double standard of having female genital mutilation, which is widely practiced,legally, around the world, considered illegal in the UK?
Agree with the above post. Consider it the same as tattoos. Legal, if a consenting adult wants it. Illegal, if forceable inflicted on a minor.
Agree with the above post. Consider it the same as tattoos. Legal, if a consenting adult wants it. Illegal, if forceable inflicted on a minor.
Circumcision has been proven to have health benefits and is usually done with good intentions whereas FGM is a direct cause of infertility and infections which can in some cases cause death. Also circumcision is done early on and with anesthesia whereas FGM is excruciatingly painful. FGM is done to stop girls from enjoying sex, increase pleasure for men and to stop them from engaging in sex before marriage (as well as other reasons) whereas circumcision is for cleanliness.
Not much of a comparison between them really.
Original post by Conceited
None of those are unnecessary procedures that are not in the best interests of a child.
Also, banging on about the benefits of circumcision is unhelpful. See this from the BMA:
"There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research."
Also, banging on about the benefits of circumcision is unhelpful. See this from the BMA:
"There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research."
That's fair.
However, to claim circumcision is on average, a harmful procedure is a little erroneous. At best, it's beneficial, at worst, it's neutral. If it was harmful (on average), there would be much greater opposition to it. Personally, and this is anecdotal sorry, but I have many Jewish and Muslim friends and none of them thinks of their circumcision as a bad thing - most are indifferent.
Original post by Neesaaaa
But by then it would hurt much more than if it were done very early on
How do you know how much pain it causes babies?
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Well, yeh I suppose.
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:
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!
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!
A lot of that is reaching quite far.
The link to the UTI page has nothing on circumcision and male UTIs as far as I can see, UTI rates among men are rare and easily treated anyway, not exactly an issue.
The penile cancer argument falls under the 'cleanliness' argument: once again, up to the parents to educate their children, not to cut off a part of their body to avoid doing so.
Balanitis, once again, keep clean and it poses no more risk.
And phimosis, really? It's hardly a reasonable prevention method, there are other treatments for paraphimosis too, that don't involve mutilating the genitals of a baby.
All of those 'health risks' are invalid, the only thing it does is damage their genitals (scar tissue, drying, friction); leave them alone smh.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by flippycipher
But the guy may never want to have a circumcision, even as an adult. He should at least have the option, instead of growing up wishing he could have kept it.
I get your point and just out of interest why would a guy actually wish he had kept it?
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
is it possible to go from a size 16 [L] to a size 12 [M] in five months?Last reply 3 minutes ago
How many days a week do you need to go to uni for foundation year?Posted 4 minutes ago
Sixth form for British citizen living aboardLast reply 4 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 5 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
MPhil in Scientific Computing 2024 - University of CambridgeLast reply 11 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Further Mathematics Paper 3C (9FM0 3C) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 12 minutes ago
Student advice for choosing your firm and insurance universities wiselyLast reply 14 minutes ago
Can't see the younger Childs application to supportLast reply 16 minutes ago
Cancel my student finance and restart a new oneLast reply 20 minutes ago
psychology or human geography at university??Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
