The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Trapz99
No, it doesn't cause any big problems for the most part anyway. Parents should be allowed to decide to circumcise their child for religious reasons, especially conspiring that two major religions consider it to be compulsory.


:colonhash:

Are you being serious?
Original post by Bulletzone
:colonhash:

Are you being serious?


Yes, although I meant to write 'considering' not conspiring.
Original post by Trapz99
Yes, although I meant to write 'considering' not conspiring.


Do you also agree with FGM?
Original post by icon_of_sin
Any person of ordinary inteligence should be able to make a educated decsions by the time they are a mid-late child (6-9) possibly before. no need to wait until late teen years or even early teen years.


Kids mature at different rates, but 6-9 is a little young imo.

At 6-9 years they could still be easily influenced by their parents and probably won't do any research outside getting advice from their family (their GP at most). I also doubt such a young boy would even think about circumcision, nevermind wanting to get circumcised himself.

Hell we're only taught sex ed starting from year 7 onwards, so the kid would have to be around 11 to even have a chance of understanding the few advantages of circumcision.
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


I completely agree - the child is not able to consent and therefore the decision should not be made for them, whether for religious reasons, or not.
Original post by Trapz99
No, it doesn't cause any big problems for the most part anyway. Parents should be allowed to decide to circumcise their child for religious reasons, especially conspiring that two major religions consider it to be compulsory.


Nope
parents do not have a right to do as they will to their children ether mortally or under English law and that is the way it should be because the child no matter how young is a person in his own right with all of the rights and protections that the law provides. No person can decide for himself that he has a right to ignore another persons rights.

The only time it is acceptable to override a child's right to any form of autonomy recognized by law is if there is objectively reasonable justification.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Define objectively neccasary?


That which a hypothetical reasonable person who bases his decision only on authoritative evidence who is fully informed and fully qualified (an expert on the subject matter) would think is necessary without any reference to any one persons subjective opinion.
Original post by Pigster
Do you also agree with FGM?


No
Original post by Trapz99
No


So why do you agree with MGM?
Uncircumcised **** is ugly af. Circumcised dicks are so pretty.
Original post by Haviland-Tuf
Uncircumcised **** is ugly af. Circumcised dicks are so pretty.


Posts like this are the worst.

Are you implying you agree with infant circumcision because you prefer how it looks?
Adults should not be able to choose if the child is circumcised. Even for religion. What if they don't want to be a part of that religion when they grow up?

The only time a child or someone without consent to have a circumcision is if it is medical. (Problems that can be solved by circumcising.)
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?


Good point
Original post by HateOCR
Good point


It really isn't. As I've said, neither of those are unnecessary procedures that are not in the best interests of the child.
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 and baptism don't involve literally cutting away a piece of your genitals though. Like they are a lot less extreme compared to circumcision that's why its fine to do that to babies that can't consent. I mean, baptism is just water, and vaccinations prevent death (complications are VERY VERY VERY rare so this can't really be used as a counterargument).
YES. Since when it mutilating babies okay?! I don't care if its an essential procedure to be part of some stupid religion, the law should NEVER be shaped around any religion, Christian, Muslim, Jew, doesn't matter. Religious activities and practices should be considered as hobbies in today's society.

I really hope that if Iceland does make it illegal, more European countries will follow. I mean, female genital mutilation is very illegal in most countries, European or not, but male genital mutilation is somehow okay and even considered as a 'health benefit' to some.They argue it doesn't affect males as much as it does females, but mutilation is mutilation, and its especially bad if its a baby that can't say anything about it. Parents that circumcise their boys clearly don't love them, if they did they wouldn't get them mutilated.

The argument religious people have is that it prevents them from having 'religious freedom', but as I said the law is more important than religious freedom. And besides, it doesn't stop them from doing it completely, if a Jewish man truly wanted to get circumcised to be more involved with his religion, why can't he just get it done when he's 18 and legally able to consent? Why does it have to be done to a baby? And why do they still practice it anyway? You don't see Christians stoning people nowadays because they realised how ****ed up it is but to Jews cutting a baby penis is still a-okay.

Its a sick practice, and everyone that has even done this to a child for non medical reasons should be locked up so they can never harm a child again.
Original post by Sheisun1998
Vaccinations and baptism don't involve literally cutting away a piece of your genitals though. Like they are a lot less extreme compared to circumcision that's why its fine to do that to babies that can't consent. I mean, baptism is just water, and vaccinations prevent death (complications are VERY VERY VERY rare so this can't really be used as a counterargument).


Original post by Sheisun1998
Vaccinations and baptism don't involve literally cutting away a piece of your genitals though. Like they are a lot less extreme compared to circumcision that's why its fine to do that to babies that can't consent. I mean, baptism is just water, and vaccinations prevent death (complications are VERY VERY VERY rare so this can't really be used as a counterargument).


It was a good counterargument in the context in which it was given. Not a good argument on its own though.

Anyway, this discussion is practically finished. Nobody is really adding anything new to the argument and we pretty much reached a consensus that cirumscion is an awful thing, but banning it wouldn't be effective.

(maybe not a consensus but nobody contested)
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Conceited
It really isn't. As I've said, neither of those are unnecessary procedures that are not in the best interests of the child.


This. Vaccinations and medicines are only used to help with an illness or protect someone from getting one.

Whatever the small benefits are with infant circumcision (protecting against life threatening illnesses such as UTIs and smeg), the vast majority of the time it is carried out unnecessarily for religious or cultural reasons and that is ****ed up.
If it's elective and undertaken by a consenting adult, no. If it's inflicted on a child, yes.
Original post by Wilfred Little
This. Vaccinations and medicines are only used to help with an illness or protect someone from getting one.

Whatever the small benefits are with infant circumcision (protecting against life threatening illnesses such as UTIs and smeg), the vast majority of the time it is carried out unnecessarily for religious or cultural reasons and that is ****ed up.


In the majority of cases those can be prevented through simple cleaning, anyway. It's rare that there is a surgical need for it (as opposed to incidental, supposed benefit.)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you