Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should non-medical circumcision of under-18s be banned? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    I agree that it shouldn't be allowed for religious purposes unless the child is old enough to understand what's happening and give consent. Same with piercing a baby's ears, makes me sick!
    but then this is denying the rights of jewish/muslim parents and their right to raise the children according to their faith.... this will open up a whole can of worms...

    wider issues can be addressed, such as the rights of parents to indoctrinate their child in their religion from a young age (some argue of "psychologcal" damage or "brainwashing")....

    The main argument against male circumcision is that of consent, but when religion comes into it (and this procedure being a fundamental part of the jewish/islamic faiths), the debate becomes interesting and wide ranging.....

    what if the parents wish to raise their child as a jew/muslim? Surely denying them the right to decide in which faith they want to raise thier child is wrong.

    I don't believe the issue of circumcised young men and the "psychological" damage they experience is true. They may be a few isolated cases, but not enough to warrant denying thousands of people the right to raise their children in the faith they wish.
    • Offline

      0
      (Original post by Jamie)
      Actually it is.

      THere are many grades of FGM, the mildest being excision of the clitoral hood, the worst being excision of clitoris, and labia and then sewing the vagina up.
      Okay, I'll give you one for pointing out the fact that I was exaggerating with the word 'nothing' (even though I thought it was obvious) but apart from that I still maintain the fact they are two very incomparable things regardless of different 'gradings'.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Doctors should be told to strongly advise against it. However if it is banned, the bad effects may outweigh the good ones - they might be done 'backstreet', most likely leading to severe damage.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      umm,
      no thanks
      i don't want genitlia disease, bad smells, and the bad aspects ...
      i disagree
      i liked you for being labour
      but your as good as isreal and america
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Jamie)
      Actually it is.

      THere are many grades of FGM, the mildest being excision of the clitoral hood, the worst being excision of clitoris, and labia and then sewing the vagina up.
      labiaplasty is the female equivalent of the male circumcision, is it not?

      and the term 'mutilation'.... can you honestly and say this can be applied to male circumcision.

      as for sewing up the vagina (the most extreme form of fgm), how on earth can you compare this to male circumcision.....

      surely such a view shows the reasoning behind your opposition to male circumcision.
      Is your opposition purely to do with issues of autonomy?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by veux)
      Doctors should be told to strongly advise against it. However if it is banned, the bad effects may outweigh the good ones - they might be done 'backstreet', most likely leading to severe damage.
      what exactly does 'backstreet' mean....... there are more than enough experienced individuals in the jewish/muslim community who offer this service.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Tbh i prefer the look of a circumcised penis to an uncircumcised one. My brother was circumcised when he was very young, i highly doubt he remembers the pain , and the word mutilate brings about biased responses. Tbh , circumcision is the least of my worries atm.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Psyk)
      I can just imagine the conversation when a baby is born.

      Doctor: Congratulations you've given birth to a beautiful and completely healthy baby boy.

      Parents: That's wonderful! He's perfect. Except for that bit of skin on the end of his penis. Lets cut it off.

      I do find it quite strange that some religions feel the need to "correct" God's work. If God didn't want men to have foreskin, wouldn't they be born without it in the first place? That would make more sense than giving males foreskin then expecting their parents to cut it off.
      with regards to the theological discussion, christ would have been circumcised.... the views of christians today is based on St Paul (paulian chrisianity). There are chrisitians who follow the practice of circumcisions in males or are indifferent to the practice...St Paul, the founder of the christianity we know today (western) was strongly opposed to circumcision....
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      Yes it should.

      I'd go further. Bringing a child up in a religion should be banned.
      wishful thinking from an atheists viewpoint, but not really possible, given that the majority of english laws are cemented in chrisitan beliefs....

      and also the church would close down.... image that... no more choir boys!
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      It is mutilation.

      Hacking off body parts is mutilation, and that's what circumcision is.

      YOU may prefer the look, but not all girls do, and not all boys do either. So shouldn't your brother have been allowed to decide?

      Suppose your parents had decided that they preferred the look of vaginas without clitorises. Would you still be so laid back and relaxed if you had sat typing that sentence with no clitoris to speak of?

      Also, your brother lost a LOT of sensitive cells that day which are particularly fun during sex. He may not know it, and he may never know what he's missing... but that doesn't mean that the decision to remove that from him is justified.

      So now, a quick roundup of your arguments:

      1) It looks better.
      2) They won't remember the pain.

      1) Maybe so, but still not your decision.
      2) Oh, so it's alright to batter kids about when they're young then?
      the clitoris is the female penis....... the foreskin is loose skin over the glans.... cutting off the clitoris is equivalent to lobbing off the whole penis!
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      I was circumcised as a very young kid for medical reasons, and I didn't and don't feel violated in any way, even though I didn't really have any other options. I don't remember any pain, nor do I have any recollection that I was ever in any pain from the circumcision itself; all I remember was being put to sleep by an anaesthetist before the op. Unlike FGM there are no associated health risks, and equally no health advantages as proposed by some nutters out there, and it doesn't restrict the functionality of the male genitals in any way.

      However I will freely admit that there is a personal choice element to all of this and whilst I'm not opposed to non-ritual (if you're going to circumcise your kids, do it for a reason other than your dumb faith compels you to do so) circumcision of kids I wouldn't object to all non-medical infant circumcision being made illegal.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      Not really. It used to be cemented in Christian beliefs, but since then we've gotten rid of all the abhorrent ones and are left with the ones that we should agree with whether we're Christian or not. I'd say they were mostly humanist (barr a few).

      Don't see why it's not possible to enforce. It's illegal abuse children in other ways and we do a pretty good job of policing and counselling against it, so why not?



      If fail to see the downsides of such a consequence...
      Think hard and you'll see why it is not possible to enforce... when we question countries like iran, groups like the taliban about forcing thier beliefs on their people, who then can we do the same... Surely it should be about freedom of choice?

      What is humanist? Don't think the term applies in this case, because if it did, then everyone would be allowed to raise their children in the faith they wish (as long as it doesn't cause harm to society). Freedom of choice is best.

      as for the closure of the church..... the conservatives (and white nationalists who harp on about british indigenous culture) wouldn't allow it. They would stamp down hard on anyone who suggested such a thing..... Imagine that tories and edl marching side by side!
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      It doesn't matter. The point is that NOBODY should decide to lob off ANY portion of a person's body because they think it 'looks better without it'.

      Morally, they do not have the right.
      well depends on what the moral stance is? Religous/athiest etc

      The point is, should parents have the right do decide which faith they wish to raise thier children under?
      Does the autonomy of an individual start at birth?

      If we deny parents the right to circumcise their child, then we are denying them the right to raise their children in the faith they wish. In terms of the law, this will raise many issues and will not be enforcable by any gov (not even the bnp)..... essentially.... can....worms...... and not an issues any gov would like to be faced with...
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      There is a vastly increased incidence of infection, and some few hundred people die as a result every year.

      Might not sound like a lot of people, but for even just one person to die because of something completely unnecessary and frankly, archaic, is a disgrace.

      Naturally, medically necessary circumcision should continue.
      Ironically I think I was circumcised because the foreskin was infected and otherwise I could have lost the whole shebang downstairs. :eek:

      As I understand it, infection is only vastly increased when it's performed ritually in unsanitary conditions by religious figures rather than medical observers; I've not seen any studies suggesting that those who undergo circumcision by trained professionals are at any great risk from infection.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      If we were talking about clitoral mutilation I sense people would care a hell of a lot more.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
      I was circumcised as a very young kid for medical reasons, and I didn't and don't feel violated in any way, even though I didn't really have any other options. I don't remember any pain, nor do I have any recollection that I was ever in any pain from the circumcision itself; all I remember was being put to sleep by an anaesthetist before the op. Unlike FGM there are no associated health risks, and equally no health advantages as proposed by some nutters out there, and it doesn't restrict the functionality of the male genitals in any way.

      However I will freely admit that there is a personal choice element to all of this and whilst I'm not opposed to non-ritual (if you're going to circumcise your kids, do it for a reason other than your dumb faith compels you to do so) circumcision of kids I wouldn't object to all non-medical infant circumcision being made illegal.
      But that is the issue! The majority of circumcisions are carried out for religous reasons. The british gov can't ban such a practice on theological grounds nor on medical grounds (the argument isn't there or strong enough)...

      so what to do?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Arekkusu)
      If we were talking about clitoral mutilation I sense people would care a hell of a lot more.
      Really! and why do you think that is then?

      (don't answer!)
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      There is a vastly increased incidence of infection, and some few hundred people die as a result every year.

      Might not sound like a lot of people, but for even just one person to die because of something completely unnecessary and frankly, archaic, is a disgrace.

      Naturally, medically necessary circumcision should continue.
      yeh, perhaps if performed by avi/ali at the local kosher/halal butchers....

      I'd like to see your source with regards to your statement.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by bunty64)
      But that is the issue! The majority of circumcisions are carried out for religous reasons. The british gov can't ban such a practice on theological grounds nor on medical grounds (the argument isn't there or strong enough)...

      so what to do?
      Human rights grounds. Ritual infantile circumcision could easily be argued to be illegal on the basis that it involves the permanent alteration of another person's body, almost unilaterally without consent, for no sound medical reason.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
      No, it depends on whether the moral stance is justified. If it is a religious based stance, then it's not justified, and should be ignored.



      No, they shouldn't. The same way they have no right to decide whether their child is gay or straight, socialist or capitalist, tory or labour, heavy metal or poprock, etc, etc.



      No, it starts when the individual is capable. However, efforts should be made to make sure that important life choices are postponed until the child is autonomous. That is, wait until they have the tools to listen to, dissect, analyse and make decisions about arguments before they are given religions to choose from. That is, wait until they have sex lives and so on before you go about lopping bits of their genitalia off.



      GOOD.



      I repeat myself from above. We already enforce similar laws against similar child abuses with no problem whatsoever, and anybody whose mind isn't clouded by fairytales and nonsense can see that non-medical infant circumcision is an abuse.
      It is not as easy to ban such a practice (especially when it has its roots in judeo-christian beliefs). First you would have to scrap/adjust current laws on religious freedom etc… this would in turn contradict several other laws, which then would have to be changed and will open up a whole lot of problems for the gov (litigation/house of lords etc)..
      Not to mention the great influence (monetary) a number of individuals of the jewish faith over individuals in power. It is not possible to ban such a practice (only if there is sufficient medical backing; which there isn’t)

      well, then once again you would have to change the laws…. same applies as mentioned above.

      once again to reply to your point about circumcision being ‘child-abuse’ you would have to change the child-abuse laws and legally that is not likely to happen (it simply wouldn’t pass in the courts (who are rooted in judeo-chrisitan values)….

      It’s all good and well looking at this from a simplistic athetist point of view, but the truth is that the issue is much more complicated and can’t be addressed by stamping a bill to pass a ban…

      There are many issues to consider (but I suspect you won’t understand that, so I’ll accept your view that religion should be a choice and not forced upon a child.)
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    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: March 12, 2011
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. 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

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