Turn on thread page Beta

should Infant Circumssion be banned? watch

  • View Poll Results: should infant Circumssion be banned?
    Yes!
    138
    76.24%
    NO!!!
    43
    23.76%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Beiber has the answer
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. Even if it's done due to religious reasons. Every single human has the freedom of religion. You don't have the "freedom" to dictate the religion of others, even if the "others" are your kids.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    what benefits then?
    It may reduce the risk of: developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection. getting some types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), such as HIV and genital herpes
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    I know lots of infants who are engaging in unprotected sex.
    Because the majority of infants don't grow up to have sex in later life, am I right! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by footygirlx)
    FGM violates stops a woman enjoying sex and has many health problems whereas circumcision doesnt.
    Stop talking and making a fool of yourself
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    But no one is arguing against autonomous circumcision after (at least) the age of legal maturity, for religious reasons or otherwise.
    However that would actually be incredibly painful.

    Also it would still be a health benefit of doing it when the child was an infant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There is no valid argument for it . Its without consent its just wrong.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    So it's fine to inflict pain upon a child but it's not ok for someone to subject themselves to pain?
    The pain for the child would be relatively minor in comparison. We inflict pain on them by giving them vacinations is that OK?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It's child abuse. It should have been banned years ago. If an uncirmcumcised person wants to get circumcised for health reasons or cos it looks better let them decide when they are old enough to know what's going on. This guy sums it up for me, when there are people that feel like this you know it has to be stopped.



    Big up Davey.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Completely agree. It serves absolutely no medical benefit, and can lead to complications. If someone wants to go through the procedure when they are an adult (by which time there might be medical justification) then that is a different issue.


    Are you serious? You're justifying mutilating a child's genitals because you think it looks better? Are you in favour of FGM as well?

    Also, there are no health benefits.
    How is it mutilation? -_- so dramatic. It's only the removal of foreskin. As someone mentioned, people do it for religious & hygiene purposes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    my friend is foreskin-free and he says that the ladies appreciate a nicely presented unit.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    my friend is foreskin-free and he says that the ladies appreciate a nicely presented unit.
    Not all of us like it, I personally prefer sex with a foreskin.
    But it's not exactly a deal breaker for me.

    But that doesn't really help with the issue of whether male circumcision is morally acceptable
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oscar.)
    Well that would be against Judaism, I get that it's disgusting and unnecessary but it can't just be stopped like that


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    sure it can. why not?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    Mutilate is literally derived from the Latin for 'cut off'.

    You say people do it for those reasons. The important point is that they do it to others.
    By definition, mutilation is to injure severely or disfigure. I don't see how make circumcision does that?

    They do it to their own children! It's the parents choice. If done professionally, there's nothing wrong with it.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    How is it mutilation? -_- so dramatic. It's only the removal of foreskin. As someone mentioned, people do it for religious & hygiene purposes.
    How if somebody cuts off your nose? Why is that mutilation? Or is it not? You'd be wrong if you answered the last question with a yes but at least you'd be consistent.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    By definition, mutilation is to injure severely or disfigure. I don't see how make circumcision does that?

    They do it to their own children! It's the parents choice. If done professionally, there's nothing wrong with it.
    Parents do not own their children. To argue otherwise might lead to you being the proverbial snake that grew so long that it bit itself (its 'tail') eventually. Let's put it like this:

    They do it to their own children! It's the parents choice. If done professionally, there's nothing wrong with parents having sex with their children.

    Not so agreeable now, is it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivy.98)
    Yes. Even if it's done due to religious reasons. Every single human has the freedom of religion. You don't have the "freedom" to dictate the religion of others, even if the "others" are your kids.
    It's not only for religious purposes. Also, it is completely within the parents rights to consent to any legal procedures for their child so if they choose to have their baby boy circumcised, so be it. Nobody is telling you to get your kid circumcised so you shouldn't be telling others
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Parents do not own their children. To argue otherwise might lead to you being the proverbial snake that grew so long that it bit itself (its 'tail' eventually. Let's put it like this:

    They do it to their own children! It's the parents choice. If done professionally, there's nothing wrong with parents having sex with their children.

    Not so agreeable now, is it?
    I didn't say parents own their children :s

    the difference is, one act is legal whereas the other is not -_-
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    ffs next you'll say little girls shouldn't have their ears pierced....it really isn't a big deal at all
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not only for religious purposes. Also, it is completely within the parents rights to consent to any legal procedures for their child so if they choose to have their baby boy circumcised, so be it. Nobody is telling you to get your kid circumcised so you shouldn't be telling others
    But this whole thread is about whether circumcision should be legal. So arguing it is okay purely on the basis that is is legal is redundant.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 22, 2015
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.