Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics
It should be a matter of choice and we shouldn't stand in the way of those who decide to have a circumcision because of religious reasons nor should be stand against those who need to have a circumcision because of medical reasons.
But the vast majority of the time it's not "those who decide to have a circumcision because of religious reasons", it's those who's parents have forced them to have a circumcision for religious reasons.
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?
Vaccination, medication and baptism are either beneficial or not harmful.Circumcision offers no benefits.The only reason its allowed is because of culture and religion.In reality it's just as much child abuse as if you decided to cut a babies ear lobes off or tear out his fingernails.Honestly it's weird and perverted how religious people have a fixation with this.Just leave it alone for heaven's sake.
Religious freedom does not give you the right to mutilate the genitals of OTHER PEOPLE. Infant circumcision for religious reasons is an affront to the religious freedom of the baby, period. How can it be anything else? You have permanently altered his body in the name of YOUR own personal beliefs. The people comparing circumcision to baptism are either morons, or being intellectually dishonest. How on EARTH can you compare sprinkling some water over their head to amputating perfectly healthy tissue from their genitals?
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 Childs best interest at heart. we can't take over how parents raise their children
parents have their Childs best interest at heart. we can't take over how parents raise their children
So you you think parents should be allowed to practise FGM?
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Thoughts?
Well in US, Canada boys get it, and they aren't religious ban it for non religious non medical
Original post by Pigster
So, contrary to your earlier claim, you are in fact in favour of FGM, "otherwise that would infringe on ... religious freedom"
Where would it stop?
If a religion starts that mandates necrophilia, rape, incest, murder etc. and it becomes a major religion, would you be in favour of the adherents carrying out such horrific activities, "otherwise that would infringe on their religious freedom imo"
Where would it stop?
If a religion starts that mandates necrophilia, rape, incest, murder etc. and it becomes a major religion, would you be in favour of the adherents carrying out such horrific activities, "otherwise that would infringe on their religious freedom imo"
Something like that probably wouldn't become a major religion lol
It's a medically unnecessary, permanent surgical alternation of the genitalia. A baby cannot consent to that. If one wants to be circumcised as a matter if personal preference, one can choose to do so when one is old enough to make one's own life choices.
The hygiene benefits are marginal at best. I've never had any problem, because I wash properly.
Also, I'm pretty sure it decreases sensitivity. Every uncircumcised man knows how uncomfortable it is to walk around with it... out. So unless circumcised men are in a constant state of physical discomfort, chafing and tickling, they've probably lost some feeling down there.
The hygiene benefits are marginal at best. I've never had any problem, because I wash properly.
Also, I'm pretty sure it decreases sensitivity. Every uncircumcised man knows how uncomfortable it is to walk around with it... out. So unless circumcised men are in a constant state of physical discomfort, chafing and tickling, they've probably lost some feeling down there.
Original post by Trapz99
Something like that probably wouldn't become a major religion lol
If someone tried to set up a new religion that proudly performed male genital mutilation it "probably wouldn't become a major religion", but because it was established a long time ago, then that's OK.
No actually, given your "lol" you seem to think that mutilating the penis of a small child is a laughing matter. Shame on you.
This is an interesting topic. I find it interesting because it exposes the double standards of this gynocentric world that we live in.
Female circumcision affects a minority of women, has been made illegal and the entire world is in uproar against it.
Male circumcision affects most men around the globe, is legal and promoted by many countries across the globe and nobody gives a damn.
Social hierarchy = Women > >>>>>>>> children > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men
Female circumcision affects a minority of women, has been made illegal and the entire world is in uproar against it.
Male circumcision affects most men around the globe, is legal and promoted by many countries across the globe and nobody gives a damn.
Social hierarchy = Women > >>>>>>>> children > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
nobody gives a damn.
You haven’t read the thread then.
Not taking any side in this I'm just trying to explain.
Circumcision happens in babies because it is a mark of the covenant and follows the orders God gave to Abraham, "on the 8th day" from Genesis( bc or bce).Although this may seem like a load of nonsense to some fulfilling the mitzvot (613 Jewish laws and duties) may be really important to others as it is important for going to Gan Eden ( which is like Catholic heaven almost). There's this thing called Halakhah which kind of refers to the more mitzvot you follow the closer you become to God and therefore the closer you are to God, which obviously Jewish parents would want for their children.
so that's just the religious perspective on things. Whether its wrong or right it's not just done for no reason
Circumcision happens in babies because it is a mark of the covenant and follows the orders God gave to Abraham, "on the 8th day" from Genesis( bc or bce).Although this may seem like a load of nonsense to some fulfilling the mitzvot (613 Jewish laws and duties) may be really important to others as it is important for going to Gan Eden ( which is like Catholic heaven almost). There's this thing called Halakhah which kind of refers to the more mitzvot you follow the closer you become to God and therefore the closer you are to God, which obviously Jewish parents would want for their children.
so that's just the religious perspective on things. Whether its wrong or right it's not just done for no reason
Some stats on male circumcision:
WHO estimates that globally 1/3rd of males are circumcised by the age of 15. ...but this figure provided by WHO does not take into account non-therapeutic circumcisions carried out by non-govenremntal religious agencies/persons. So non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns is almost entirely unknown and a large number of males are circumcised by this method. So this WHO figure is a huge underestimate.
I’ve just recently started reading about this issue. I’m not anti-circumcision. I'm pro-circumcision but I am anti-feminisation of this issue. Feminism has hijacked this issue, and done to it what it has done to rape and domestic violence. It has turned it into a women's issue and part of this process has involved them trivialising male circumcision and its impact on boys and men.
WHO estimates that globally 1/3rd of males are circumcised by the age of 15. ...but this figure provided by WHO does not take into account non-therapeutic circumcisions carried out by non-govenremntal religious agencies/persons. So non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns is almost entirely unknown and a large number of males are circumcised by this method. So this WHO figure is a huge underestimate.
I’ve just recently started reading about this issue. I’m not anti-circumcision. I'm pro-circumcision but I am anti-feminisation of this issue. Feminism has hijacked this issue, and done to it what it has done to rape and domestic violence. It has turned it into a women's issue and part of this process has involved them trivialising male circumcision and its impact on boys and men.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
Some stats on male circumcision:
WHO estimates that globally 1/3rd of males are circumcised by the age of 15. That is roughly speaking 3 billion men that are circumcised. That's three thousand million men....but this figure provided by WHO does not take into account non-therapeutic circumcisions carried out by non-govenremntal religious agencies/persons. So non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns is almost entirely unknown and a large number of males are circumcised by this method. So this WHO figure is a huge underestimate.
I’ve just recently started reading about this issue. I’m not anti-circumcision. I'm pro-circumcision but I am anti-feminisation of this issue. Feminism has hijacked this issue, and done to it what it has done to rape and domestic violence. It has turned it into a women's issue and part of this process has involved them trivialising male circumcision and its impact on boys and men.
WHO estimates that globally 1/3rd of males are circumcised by the age of 15. That is roughly speaking 3 billion men that are circumcised. That's three thousand million men....but this figure provided by WHO does not take into account non-therapeutic circumcisions carried out by non-govenremntal religious agencies/persons. So non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns is almost entirely unknown and a large number of males are circumcised by this method. So this WHO figure is a huge underestimate.
I’ve just recently started reading about this issue. I’m not anti-circumcision. I'm pro-circumcision but I am anti-feminisation of this issue. Feminism has hijacked this issue, and done to it what it has done to rape and domestic violence. It has turned it into a women's issue and part of this process has involved them trivialising male circumcision and its impact on boys and men.
There’s “only” 7.6b people on the planet, 3.8b men/boys. Your sums are off.
Original post by CookieButter
This is an interesting topic. I find it interesting because it exposes the double standards of this gynocentric world that we live in.
Female circumcision affects a minority of women, has been made illegal and the entire world is in uproar against it.
Male circumcision affects most men around the globe, is legal and promoted by many countries across the globe and nobody gives a damn.
Social hierarchy = Women > >>>>>>>> children > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men
Female circumcision affects a minority of women, has been made illegal and the entire world is in uproar against it.
Male circumcision affects most men around the globe, is legal and promoted by many countries across the globe and nobody gives a damn.
Social hierarchy = Women > >>>>>>>> children > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men
You can’t compare FGM!!!!!!! Watch as I fail to do an apples to apples comparison and compare the most severe form of FGM to the least severe form of male circumcision
Original post by limetang
You can’t compare FGM!!!!!!! Watch as I fail to do an apples to apples comparison and compare the most severe form of FGM to the least severe form of male circumcision
Yeah you can.Circumcision would be just as harmful if it wasn't performed using high tech facilities in modern countries.There are cases where the doctor botched the procedure and the babies had to have a sex change.So the child lived it's entire life the wrong sex all because of something written down in a 2000 year old book.Such a waste.FGM generally doesn't occur in most high tech facilities because it's illegal.They end up shipping the girls off to Africa which is why it's so harmful.When male circumcision is done in the same conditions it's just as harmful.You can die due to blood loss or get infections.
Original post by Robby2312
Yeah you can.Circumcision would be just as harmful if it wasn't performed using high tech facilities in modern countries.There are cases where the doctor botched the procedure and the babies had to have a sex change.So the child lived it's entire life the wrong sex all because of something written down in a 2000 year old book.Such a waste.FGM generally doesn't occur in most high tech facilities because it's illegal.They end up shipping the girls off to Africa which is why it's so harmful.When male circumcision is done in the same conditions it's just as harmful.You can die due to blood loss or get infections.
First of all, FGM and MGM, both done in a high tech-facility, would still be disproportionatly harmful w/ FGM being more so.
Second of all, in FGM, you remove the clitoris - the part with induces sexual pleasure. By doing so, you're condemning the child to a future without any sex, essentially.
With MGM, all you're doing it surgically removing the foreskin, with has its disadvantages sexually, making the tip less sensitive, but overall, it's far from rendering the male at a compete disadvantage in his sexual exploits.
You cannot compare something which permanently removes sexual pleasure , and something with only decreased sensitively.
I stopped commenting a while since the discussion has ended pretty much, but just had to butt in here to get that point across.
FGM has not been banned solely because of the double standard (although, who knows, that may be a factor), it has been banned because it's more dangerous, even in equal conditions, and is more cruel.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
First of all, FGM and MGM, both done in a high tech-facility, would still be disproportionatly harmful w/ FGM being more so.
Second of all, in FGM, you remove the clitoris - the part with induces sexual pleasure. By doing so, you're condemning the child to a future without any sex, essentially.
With MGM, all you're doing it surgically removing the foreskin, with has its disadvantages sexually, making the tip less sensitive, but overall, it's far from rendering the male at a compete disadvantage in his sexual exploits.
You cannot compare something which permanently removes sexual pleasure , and something with only decreased sensitively.
I stopped commenting a while since the discussion has ended pretty much, but just had to butt in here to get that point across.
FGM has not been banned solely because of the double standard (although, who knows, that may be a factor), it has been banned because it's more dangerous, even in equal conditions, and is more cruel.
Second of all, in FGM, you remove the clitoris - the part with induces sexual pleasure. By doing so, you're condemning the child to a future without any sex, essentially.
With MGM, all you're doing it surgically removing the foreskin, with has its disadvantages sexually, making the tip less sensitive, but overall, it's far from rendering the male at a compete disadvantage in his sexual exploits.
You cannot compare something which permanently removes sexual pleasure , and something with only decreased sensitively.
I stopped commenting a while since the discussion has ended pretty much, but just had to butt in here to get that point across.
FGM has not been banned solely because of the double standard (although, who knows, that may be a factor), it has been banned because it's more dangerous, even in equal conditions, and is more cruel.
Except that ALL FGM is banned, from the practices that ARE more severe than male circumcision (such as clitorectomy) to those that ARE much much less severe.
You cannot make statements like "in FGM, you remove the clitoris" because, sometimes you do, other times you don't. FGM encompasses a wide variety of practices ALL of which are illegal. Circumcision refers to one type of practice where IF the equivalent were to be done on girls it would be illegal.
Original post by limetang
Except that ALL FGM is banned, from the practices that ARE more severe than male circumcision (such as clitorectomy) to those that ARE much much less severe.
You cannot make statements like "in FGM, you remove the clitoris" because, sometimes you do, other times you don't. FGM encompasses a wide variety of practices ALL of which are illegal. Circumcision refers to one type of practice where IF the equivalent were to be done on girls it would be illegal.
You cannot make statements like "in FGM, you remove the clitoris" because, sometimes you do, other times you don't. FGM encompasses a wide variety of practices ALL of which are illegal. Circumcision refers to one type of practice where IF the equivalent were to be done on girls it would be illegal.
Source: http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/
Female genital mutilation is classified into four types:
•
Type I: Also known as clitoridectomy, this type consists of partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or its prepuce.
•
Type II: Also known as excision, the clitoris and labia minora are partially or totally removed, with or without excision of the labia majora.
•
Type III: The most severe form, it is also known as infibulation or pharaonic type. The procedure consists of narrowing the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or labia majora, with or without removal of the clitoris. The appositioning of the wound edges consists of stitching or holding the cut areas together for a certain period of time (for example, girls’ legs are bound together), to create the covering seal. A small opening is left for urine and menstrual blood to escape. An infibulation must be opened either through penetrative sexual intercourse or surgery.
•
Type IV: This type consists of all other procedures to the genitalia of women for non-medical purposes, such as pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.
As you can see, the first 3 types all involve partial or full removal of the clit. And since we have agreed that is worse than the removal of a foreskin, this means 75% of the types of FGM are abhorrent.
This leaves us with the remaining type 4. Pricking. Piercing. Incising. Scraping. Cauterization. All awful, but not as bad as the removal of a clit, fair enough. I imagine this has been banned solely due to political and pragmatic reason, not because of any double standard. If the government allowed type 4 to exist, it would lead to a rather slippery slope, inducing confusion, and allowing the other types to be practised in some form or another. If you allowed 1, the presence of FGM would still remain in society, and it would lead to the other types being maintained.
So frankly, while you're entirely wrong, you're not right either. As you can see, it makes sense to place a blanket ban on FGM.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Source: http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/
Female genital mutilation is classified into four types:
As you can see, the first 3 types all involve partial or full removal of the clit. And since we have agreed that is worse than the removal of a foreskin, this means 75% of the types of FGM are abhorrent.
This leaves us with the remaining type 4. Pricking. Piercing. Incising. Scraping. Cauterization. All awful, but not as bad as the removal of a clit, fair enough. I imagine this has been banned solely due to political and pragmatic reason, not because of any double standard. If the government allowed type 4 to exist, it would lead to a rather slippery slope, inducing confusion, and allowing the other types to be practised in some form or another. If you allowed 1, the presence of FGM would still remain in society, and it would lead to the other types being maintained.
So frankly, while you're entirely wrong, you're not right either. As you can see, it makes sense to place a blanket ban on FGM.
Female genital mutilation is classified into four types:
•
Type I: Also known as clitoridectomy, this type consists of partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or its prepuce.
•
Type II: Also known as excision, the clitoris and labia minora are partially or totally removed, with or without excision of the labia majora.
•
Type III: The most severe form, it is also known as infibulation or pharaonic type. The procedure consists of narrowing the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or labia majora, with or without removal of the clitoris. The appositioning of the wound edges consists of stitching or holding the cut areas together for a certain period of time (for example, girls’ legs are bound together), to create the covering seal. A small opening is left for urine and menstrual blood to escape. An infibulation must be opened either through penetrative sexual intercourse or surgery.
•
Type IV: This type consists of all other procedures to the genitalia of women for non-medical purposes, such as pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.
As you can see, the first 3 types all involve partial or full removal of the clit. And since we have agreed that is worse than the removal of a foreskin, this means 75% of the types of FGM are abhorrent.
This leaves us with the remaining type 4. Pricking. Piercing. Incising. Scraping. Cauterization. All awful, but not as bad as the removal of a clit, fair enough. I imagine this has been banned solely due to political and pragmatic reason, not because of any double standard. If the government allowed type 4 to exist, it would lead to a rather slippery slope, inducing confusion, and allowing the other types to be practised in some form or another. If you allowed 1, the presence of FGM would still remain in society, and it would lead to the other types being maintained.
So frankly, while you're entirely wrong, you're not right either. As you can see, it makes sense to place a blanket ban on FGM.
You clearly haven't read the information you've cited. First, while you're correct that 75% of the types of circumcision involve clitoridectomy (a term I'm not sure you fully understand btw), that says literally NOTHING on prevalence.
The website YOU CITED says that 90% are either type I II or IV. Which is a fairly useless number because we can't use it to infer (as you like to claim we can) that most FGM is worse than circumcision. 89% could be type IV while only 1% could be type I or II.
Further I'm fairly sure you don't know what clitoridectomy means. "
•
Type I: Also known as clitoridectomy, this type consists of partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or its prepuce.
"
It includes a range of practices from total removal of the clitoris to something that is VERY analogous to male circumcision, that is removal of the prepuce.
You can't argue that this is a pragmatic catch all. It's illegal to chop of a boys glans, it's illegal to castrate him, it's illegal to do lots of the more severe forms of genital mutilation and YET we don't throw circumcision into the mix under the reasoning that if people are given an inch they'll take a mile.
You seem to be under the impression that all FGM is done for the same reason and has the same cultural origins. Cultures that practice FGM will, broadly speaking, only practice a single type. The cultures that practice the more minor forms of type I, removal of the prepuce, are not likely to start moving onto other types, that's not how culture and cultural practices work.
Further FGM and male circumcision have VERY similar rationales behind them. You correctly claim that FGM is (sometimes) done to diminish womens sexual pleasure. Guess what, so's circumcision. They both remove erogenous tissue DELIBERATELY to make sex less pleasurable
The situation is this we're against all forms of genital mutilation except the one form that we've just sort of gotten used to. It's okay to mutilate boys genitals in this one specific way because ... well we've always done it.
I have no issue with comparing FGM to circumcision, because they are comparable, when even a minor pinprick is illegal for girls yet lopping off perfectly healthy tissue which DOES provide sexual pleasure from boys I am more than happy to say that we care less about the bodily integrity of boys than we do girls (at least when it comes to their genitals).
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 1 hour ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 1 hour ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 2 hours ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 2 hours ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 2 hours ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 2 hours ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKTrending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
