The Student Room Group

Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Well, I'm also here to educate myself so forgive me if I'm not some sort of expert on the matter.

Given the fact that we've essentially agreed circumcision holds no significant benefits, it's hard for me to provide a good rebuttal to your question.

Maybe someone more educated than me can take the reigns on this one. Good question.


Original post by zxcvbnm123456789
Fair enough, I commend your honesty.


Me too.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
No, it hasn't occurred to me actually.

Take into account, so far, I've only tried to question and counter.

We haven't discussed (bar 1) arguments FOR keeping circumcision legal.

I think the strongest one would be that, as seen by prohibition or the war on drugs, when you ban something ingrained in (certain areas) of society, the fallout is always negative.

If circumcision becomes illegal, a black market will arise, providing more dangerous circumcision leading to malpractice, inefficiency and possible casualties.

Moreover, if the government want to prevent this, punishments would have to be increased, immigration laws may have to be tightening, and taxpayer money will certainly be deleted.


Ok that is definitely something worth discussing, pretty much all discourse so far has focused on the medical practicality (lack thereof) and moral standpoint.

I think it is something that would probably have to be implemented gradually with education and awareness being made the focus. Showing people the potential negative effects it can have on a child both physically and psychologically, immediately and in later life. I also would suggest (and hope) that as generations progress, belief in this antiquated practice will gradually shrink and hopefully become non-existent (unlikely unfortunately I realise). Perhaps in a similar way as newer generations have become more accepting of people that are a different colour/religion/sexual orientation etc.
Reply 82
Avatar for Hppsgm
Hppsgm
3
I don’t think it should be illegal. I don’t understand how it is possible to be pro-abortion and against circumcision thinking about it now. It’s logically inconsistent, I think, when we imagine the UK ushering in laws that allow parents to abort children but forbid the the snipping of “excess” foreskin on there newly born child. When a women gets pregnant, within 3-6 months the child has no guarantee right to life, but another set of parents are not allowed to cut the foreskin of their 7 or 8 day old child. From being a foetus to being born, something magical has to happen whereby a parents are allowed to terminate the life of the child in its entirety to not being allowed to cut ‘excess’ foreskin because he couldn’t ‘consent’?

Some might object with the ‘personhood’ argument. You know, people might say, well the ‘magical’ thing is, is they become ‘people’ as a baby. But then shouldn’t we be offering the status of personhood to adult pigs or dogs which are probably much smarter then a newly born human child? That opens another can of worms.
What's wrong with circumcision honestly I had it when i was a baby and it had no negative effect on my life whatsoever.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Thoughts?


No it should not be illegal as it has many health benefits and if done properly, there is no long term damage. Anyone who has to do it for religious or cultural reasons would just resort to having them done illegally as it has to be done. Alternatively many families will just have it done on their children when they are visiting their home countries (most who do this are foreign).
Original post by Hppsgm
I don’t think it should be illegal. I don’t understand how it is possible to be pro-abortion and against circumcision thinking about it now. It’s logically inconsistent, I think, when we imagine the UK ushering in laws that allow parents to abort children but forbid the the snipping of “excess” foreskin on there newly born child. When a women gets pregnant, within 3-6 months the child has no guarantee right to life, but another set of parents are not allowed to cut the foreskin of their 7 or 8 day old child. From being a foetus to being born, something magical has to happen whereby a parents are allowed to terminate the life of the child in its entirety to not being allowed to cut ‘excess’ foreskin because he couldn’t ‘consent’?

Some might object with the ‘personhood’ argument. You know, people might say, well the ‘magical’ thing is, is they become ‘people’ as a baby. But then shouldn’t we be offering the status of personhood to adult pigs or dogs which are probably much smarter then a newly born human child? That opens another can of worms.


Personally I see a distinct difference between a 3-6 month old foetus and a child that has been born. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with the last bit, becoming a person as a result of interaction/developing a personality as a baby perhaps? But then you seem to refer to the perceived intelligence of a creature? I don't think either offer a worthy point of view.
Original post by tedgfbtebfetedfb
No it should not be illegal as it has many health benefits


No, it really doesn't.
Original post by zxcvbnm123456789
I think it is something that would probably have to be implemented gradually with education and awareness being made the focus. Showing people the potential negative effects it can have on a child both physically and psychologically, immediately and in later life. I also would suggest (and hope) that as generations progress, belief in this antiquated practice will gradually shrink and hopefully become non-existent (unlikely unfortunately I realise). Perhaps in a similar way as newer generations have become more accepting of people that are a different colour/religion/sexual orientation etc.


Agreed! I think in this case, government intervention would simply aggravate problems while causing new ones. The gradual method of education is definitely the way to go, in my opinion. It has its problems, nothings perfect, but much better than a ban I think.
Original post by Got KoolAid
What's wrong with circumcision honestly I had it when i was a baby and it had no negative effect on my life whatsoever.


I'm not arguing that it has but how can you be so certain that it hasn't had any negative effect? You have no frame of reference.

You are only one example anyhow.
Original post by zxcvbnm123456789
No, it really doesn't.


Yes, it really does

https://www.mariestopes.org.za/advantages-of-circumcisions-7-reasons-to-get-circumcised/
Original post by Wilfred Little
I'm not arguing that it has but how can you be so certain that it hasn't had any negative effect? You have no frame of reference.

You are only one example anyhow.


1. I was talking to the OP
2. "so certain that it hasn't had any negative effect" what negative effect are we looking at here just wondering.
Original post by tedgfbtebfetedfb


'Well, part of the reason might be because there’s no definitive evidence that being circumcised is better, medically speaking, than being uncircumcised – and vice versa'

lol come on dude, even your own incredibly dodgy source directly contradicts itself before listing supposed health benefits 'that they are certain of'
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Agreed! I think in this case, government intervention would simply aggravate problems while causing new ones. The gradual method of education is definitely the way to go, in my opinion. It has its problems, nothings perfect, but much better than a ban I think.


Ah it would appear we are in agreement then! Who saw that coming haha :tongue:
Original post by zxcvbnm123456789
'Well, part of the reason might be because there’s no definitive evidence that being circumcised is better, medically speaking, than being uncircumcised – and vice versa'

lol come on dude, even your own incredibly dodgy source directly contradicts itself before listing supposed health benefits 'that they are certain of'


Is this a better source?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2860727/Benefits-circumcision-outweigh-risks-Procedure-cuts-risk-HIV-STDs-penile-cancer-official-report-declares.html
Original post by zxcvbnm123456789
Ah it would appear we are in agreement then! Who saw that coming haha :tongue:


I do love threads where this happens. It's rare, but it's worth the wait. I'm glad nobody lost their cool otherwise this thread could have gone from rather productive to an utter sh*tshow lol.
Original post by tedgfbtebfetedfb




Here are some of the advantages of circumcisions:

•

Circumcision does not affect male sexual drive or functioning.




That's not an advantage :biggrin:



•

When a guy is not circumcised, moisture can get trapped between his penis and the foreskin, which creates an ideal environment for bacteria to grow. This means there’s a higher risk of infection and it’s easier to spread viruses to others.




Already been addressed. Good hygiene/treat infections with antibiotics/practice safe sex.



•

Removing the foreskin gets rid of the wet, warm and dark environment that can sustain viruses such as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis, herpes and cancroids.




See above.

Also does not even remove transmission risk, just lowers it.

If you want to stay safe from HIV you will still need to practice safe sex, so this is a silly argument.



•

Being circumcised reduces your female partner’s risk of cervical cancer.



Doesn't remove risk, doesn't say by how much. Not a great argument.




•

By getting circumcised, you not only reduce your own HIV and STI risk, but your partner’s too.




Practice safe sex.



•

It can be difficult to keep an uncircumcised penis fresh 100% of the time. Circumcision simplifies the task of keeping the penis clean and keeps you fresher, giving you more confidence.




It's difficult to keep any body part 'fresh' 100% of the time if not impossible.

A shower and some soap every day = clean bell-end.



•

Some women prefer circumcised penises due to personal preference, as well as the reasons listed here.




Assuming this is based at least partly on aesthetics. If anyone argues for the genital mutilation of a child, based on how it looks, then you're not a good person imo.

True that some women will prefer the circumcised look, but it's probably better to just have higher standards in a partner.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by tedgfbtebfetedfb


You have to be trolling me right? The daily mail, reeeeeeaaaally?
Original post by Got KoolAid
1. I was talking to the OP


I don't really care who you were talking to. You are posting opinions in a debate so I have responded.

2. "so certain that it hasn't had any negative effect" what negative effect are we looking at here just wondering.


You were the one that said it so you should provide the examples.
Original post by zxcvbnm123456789
You have to be trolling me right? The daily mail, reeeeeeaaaally?


You cant criticise whats written in the article, you just criticise the source which is subjective in the end on the day. The fact is you are much safer from STD's with circumcision and you are refusing to accept it because of the reliability of the daily mail.
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


Yes, a baby is a human. The right of choice should not be disregarded according to their age.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you