Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

should Infant Circumssion be banned? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: should infant Circumssion be banned?
    Yes!
    137
    76.11%
    NO!!!
    43
    23.89%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Your repeated reference to the law does nothing to strengthen your case; the debate is over what the law should be, not its current applications.

    Bold bit: This doesn't apply to unnecessary decisions like genital mutilation, which has no benefits.



    The same could be said for genital mutilation.

    I didn't compare them; I simply highlighted the ludicrousness of your argument in implying that parents have the right to mutilate their children's genitals simply because they're the parents.

    I recommend leaving before you embarrass yourself further.
    So are you suggesting that parents should not be responsible for their child? For some people, particularly strongly religious people, it is necessary. We are nobody to judge their decisions regarding something that, IMO is pretty trivial and has been over exaggerated in this here thread.

    How does circumcision remove a child's innocence? How does it negatively affect them physically, emotionally and mentally? How does it leave devastating effects on future relationships?

    I'm not at all embarassed. Just because I understand both viewpoints therefore disagreeing with the majority, I should be made to feel embarrassed?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    And the skin is presumably not part of the penis? I think I'm pretty justified in calling that dumb.

    No thanks, I'll keep quoting stupid people making stupid arguments to remind them of their stupidity. To call the foreskin 'just skin', even ignoring the stupid assertion that it's not part of the penis, is to diminish its function and impact.
    I didn't say it wasn't part of the penis, but the person referred to circumcision as something vulgar 'chopping off part of your ****'

    It is just skin, idk why that seems to hurt your feelings so much. Literally skin.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The benefits are aimed primary for the future. Parents choose to circumcise their kids as babies because it's less painful/easily forgotten compared to doing so at 18 or whenever.
    I doubt that's the rationale behind the decisions made by the majority of people who indulge in male genital mutilation. More often than not, it is a religious conviction that they have and one that they would not hesitate to fulfil if it turned out later in life that it wasn't done or was done incorrectly.

    These 'benefits' do not exist and, even if they did, the cost of obtaining them is too great to allow parents to decide to carry out something as irreversible as genital mutilation on behalf of the child.

    It's rare, but if you can significantly reduce the risks, why not? It's not detrimental to your health so in conjunction with the other benefits I mentioned, it's an added bonus. It's something your child won't have to worry about in the future.
    You're clearly blurring the lines between what can and cannot be seen as future planning on the parents' part. If you can't tell the difference between cutting your child's genitals and deciding whether to open them a savings account when they turn five, then you're beyond any help.

    It may be difficult to completely remove dirt and dead skin cells that reside in the foreskin, especially as a small child/preteen or even as a teenager.
    Yes, let's continue allowing this atrocity on the off-chance that you think it takes some effort to wash up properly. What really astounds me about your case here is how casually you're taking it, as if it's as routine as washing hands. I do hope you never have children if this is your attitude.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Correlation does not imply causation.



    Great, let's also remove the child's brain while we're at it so that it never has to experience discomfort of any kind, let alone discomfort in their genitals.



    Why not cut off the child's hands too? And their arms and feet too so that they never have to undertake such a hefty task as washing themselves properly.

    Even if these laughable excuses for 'benefits' were true, it would not do anything to suggest that male genital mutilation should be tolerated by the law.
    lol so now we're talking about pretty much killing a child or leaving a child severely disabled & to compare that with the removal of foreskin? I'm tired.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Benefits:Reduces the risk of STDs & UTIs

    The risk of UTI is not only small, but pretty irrelevant. It is easily treated. and non-permanent (unlike circumcision).

    The reduced risk of STDs is pretty minor when you compare it to traditional methods of protection. Not to mention this is no justification for doing so on infants. And in all honestly, is only really relevant to the 3rd world.

    That being said, the idea that circumcision reduces the risk of either is contentious.

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The benefits are aimed primary for the future. Parents choose to circumcise their kids as babies because it's less painful/easily forgotten compared to doing so at 18 or whenever.
    .
    And what do you say to men who, upon growing up, are no happy with their parents choice?

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It is just skin, idk why that seems to hurt your feelings so much. Literally skin.
    Your completely disregard for a man's right to autonomy of their body is mind-numbing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I doubt that's the rationale behind the decisions made by the majority of people who indulge in male genital mutilation. More often than not, it is a religious conviction that they have and one that they would not hesitate to fulfil if it turned out later in life that it wasn't done or was done incorrectly.

    These 'benefits' do not exist and, even if they did, the cost of obtaining them is too great to allow parents to decide to carry out something as irreversible as genital mutilation on behalf of the child.



    You're clearly blurring the lines between what can and cannot be seen as future planning on the parents' part. If you can't tell the difference between cutting your child's genitals and deciding whether to open them a savings account when they turn five, then you're beyond any help.



    Yes, let's continue allowing this atrocity on the off-chance that you think it takes some effort to wash up properly. What really astounds me about your case here is how casually you're taking it, as if it's as routine as washing hands. I do hope you never have children if this is your attitude.
    religion is not the only reason for circumcision, which is why I made that point.

    The benefits do exist.

    What astounds me is how serious you're taking it. It's really not that serious.

    You kidding me? I'm gonna have a house full of mini me's and if I decide to circumcise my future sons, I will and it would be none of your business
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by footygirlx)
    No it shouldn't, aesthetically it looks better and its mandatory for Jews to have it and has health benefits.
    1) Its not asethetically better looking thats subjective.
    2) Who gives a **** if a religion mandates it? And what?
    3) NO it does not have health benefits lmao
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    The risk of UTI is not only small, but pretty irrelevant. It is easily treated. and non-permanent (unlike circumcision).

    The reduced risk of STDs is pretty minor when you compare it to traditional methods of protection. Not to mention this is no justification for doing so on infants. And in all honestly, is only really relevant to the 3rd world.

    That being said, the idea that circumcision reduces the risk of either is contentious.



    And what do you say to men who, upon growing up, are no happy with their parents choice?


    Your completely disregard for a man's right to autonomy of their body is mind-numbing.
    Just because the risks are small, doesn't mean they do not exist. I'm bored now
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Just because the risks are small, doesn't mean they do not exist. I'm bored now
    Yet you completely ignore the complications that can arise from the procedure, and the potential psychological damage that can result?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    So are you suggesting that parents should not be responsible for their child? For some people, particularly strongly religious people, it is necessary.
    It is not necessary, mandatory, compulsory, obligatory or any other variant of that word. You and those who agree with you on this thread have said this so many times that I'm sick of it -- there is no law of nature that says that the genitals of children must be mutilated. It is therefore unnecessary, non-mandatory, non-compulsory and non-obligatory. If they feel so strongly about it, they're free to mutilate their own genitals. If particularly religious people said that their religion tells them to rape their children, would that be okay? I suspect not.

    You obviously don't understand the word 'responsibility' if you think cutting off part of the genitals of their child is something parents should be allowed to do.

    We are nobody to judge their decisions regarding something that, IMO is pretty trivial and has been over exaggerated in this here thread.
    Of course we have the right to judge their decisions. In the same way that I judge those who do anything else that is harmful to their children, whether that be beating them, raping them, or killing them.

    'Trivial.' Hmm. I somehow doubt you'd see it that way if your parents decided to cut off your nose when you were born. What you dismiss as 'just skin' serves a useful function when it comes to sexual activity -- which, again, I doubt you'd see as trivial if your parents decided to come into your room right now and peel the skin off your face or other body part.

    How does circumcision remove a child's innocence? How does it negatively affect them physically, emotionally and mentally? How does it leave devastating effects on future relationships?
    Physically: tissue damage, pain, loss of blood, risk of infection during the procedure, disfigurement of the penis by leaving an ugly scar, difficulty engaging in sexual activity in the future, glans dries out and becomes desensitised due to friction with clothing material etc.

    Mentally and emotionally: distress and pain during the procedure and subsequently while urinating as the wound heals, reduced pleasure from sexual activity in future, including masturbation and intercourse, possible feelings of resentment towards the parents if they happen to arrive at the correct conclusion about the morality of what was done to them etc.

    Future relationships: Sex isn't as pleasurable with all those missing nerve endings because the penis is no longer as sensitive, (if in the UK) not being able to satisfy partners who prefer 'uncut' penises, feelings of inadequacy as a result etc.

    Child's innocence: Hmm. Let's see... Geez, that's a hard one... I can't possibly think why cutting off a part of their body and putting them in immense emotional and physical pain (given the thresholds in children) might count as taking away their innocence.

    I'm not at all embarassed. Just because I understand both viewpoints therefore disagreeing with the majority, I should be made to feel embarrassed?
    You understand nothing. Your argument thus far has been paltry at best and morally reprehensible at worst. 'it's legal so it's okay.' I do hope this is because you're young and not because you're, as I suspect, monumentally stupid.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I didn't say it wasn't part of the penis, but the person referred to circumcision as something vulgar 'chopping off part of your ****'
    Proof, if any was needed, that you're just wasting everybody's time on this thread:

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's hardly chopping off part of your ****! It's just removing skin!
    It is just skin, idk why that seems to hurt your feelings so much. Literally skin.
    So is the skin on your face. Is it okay if your parents peel that off? You clearly don't understand the issue if you think of the foreskin as being comparable with skin on other parts of the body given its sexual and protective functions (for the glans in the latter case).
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    lol so now we're talking about pretty much killing a child or leaving a child severely disabled & to compare that with the removal of foreskin? I'm tired.
    Yes, we're talking about why you think it's okay to disable a child up to a point, but not 'severely.' You don't seem to have a knack for getting analogies so I'll break it down for you:

    Your argument: Genital mutilation is okay because it makes it's easier to keep clean.
    My rebuttal: So is it also okay to mutilate other parts of the body, such as hands, feet, arms and legs?
    Your rebuttal: *repetitive nonsense due to the either embarrassment or stupidity*

    Your argument: Genital mutilation is okay because it saves the child potential discomfort in future.
    My rebuttal: So is it okay to save them future discomfort by removing their brain, given that it is a required organ for pain/discomfort to be felt? (keeping in mind that they can still be kept technically 'alive' on life support)
    Your rebuttal: Same as the above.

    You're honestly talking nonsense here. You're clearly incapable of rational thought if your 'arguments' here are anything to go by.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    religion is not the only reason for circumcision, which is why I made that point.
    It's the reason in the majority of cases, which is why I made my point.

    The benefits do exist.
    Proof, or GTFO.

    What astounds me is how serious you're taking it. It's really not that serious.
    Only a morally contemptible idiot would say that this isn't serious. Unfortunately, you're also immune to analogies. That usually works for idiots who're slow on the uptake but they seem to go over your head. By all means keep posting nonsense on this thread. It ensures that you develop a well-deserved reputation for obstinacy in the face of reason and helps members of this website save themselves the trouble of arguing with you.

    You kidding me? I'm gonna have a house full of mini me's and if I decide to circumcise my future sons, I will and it would be none of your business
    Hmm. I'll continue to hope that you're infertile and, if you aren't, that this practice is outlawed by a more enlightened parliament than the current one. People like you don't deserve children.

    P.S. Learn how to multi-quote, you noob.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It is not necessary, mandatory, compulsory, obligatory or any other variant of that word. You and those who agree with you on this thread have said this so many times that I'm sick of it -- there is no law of nature that says that the genitals of children must be mutilated. It is therefore unnecessary, non-mandatory, non-compulsory and non-obligatory. If they feel so strongly about it, they're free to mutilate their own genitals. If particularly religious people said that their religion tells them to rape their children, would that be okay? I suspect not.

    You obviously don't understand the word 'responsibility' if you think cutting off the part of the genitals of their child is something parents should be allowed to do.



    Of course we have the right to judge their decisions. In the same way that I judge those who do anything else that is harmful to their children, whether that be beating them, raping them, or killing them.

    'Trivial.' Hmm. I somehow doubt you'd see it that way if your parents decided to peel the cut off your nose when you were born. What you dismiss as 'just skin' serves a useful function when it comes to sexual activity -- which, again, I doubt you'd see as trivial if your parents decided to come into your room right now and peel the skin off your face or other body part.



    Physically: tissue damage, pain, loss of blood, risk of infection during the procedure, disfigurement of the penis by leaving an ugly scar, difficulty engaging in sexual activity in the future, glans dries out and becomes desensitised due to friction with clothing material etc.

    Mentally and emotionally: distress and pain during the procedure and subsequently while urinating as the wound heals, reduced pleasure from sexual activity in future, including masturbation and intercourse, possible feelings of resentment towards the parents if they happen to arrive at the correct conclusion about the morality of what was done to them etc.

    Future relationships: Sex isn't as pleasurable with all those missing nerve endings because the penis is no longer as sensitive, (if in the UK) not being able to satisfy partners who prefer 'uncut' penises, feelings of inadequacy as a result etc.

    Child's innocence: Hmm. Let's see... Geez, that's a hard one... I can't possibly think why cutting off a part of their body and putting them in immense emotional and physical pain (given the thresholds in children) might count as taking away their innocence.



    You understand nothing. Your argument thus far has been paltry at best and morally reprehensible at best. 'it's legal so it's okay.'
    Just because it's not compulsory, doesn't make it wrong. Not everyone agrees with you, and that's their choice and completely within their rights to disagree. You're right about that, there's no law that says parents should circumcise, but there's also no law that says parents should not circumcise.

    If their religion involves doing something that may not necessarily be morally right in all societies, but is not law-breaking nor causing significant damage to the child, the choice is up to them.

    Peeling skin off my face? Really? Yeah because I hear doing that can benefit me significantly in the future. :s

    Physically: You and a couple others have stated that the reduced risks of STDs and UTIs isn't worthy of a benefit because the chances of contracting them is very low. The same applies to the physical complications of circumcision. When carried out properly and professionally, it is an incredibly safe procedure that lasts all of 20minutes (if that)

    Emotionally & mentally: the same goes for the difficulty in sexual activity and masturbation. Even in uncircumcised men, it carries its own risks. It may be difficult/ painful if the foreskin doesn't retract back when erect. Resentment toward parents? Again, I could say the same for uncircumcised men if they do happen to have difficulty with foreskin. The healing process takes 7-10 days so parents are advised to dress their children in loose clothing for this period to allow for recovery and to avoid rubbing and friction.

    Mentally & emotionally: the area is numbed so pain felt is significantly reduced. May cause a little discomfort of course, but that doesn't last long at all. My nephew was circumcised and he let out a tiny whimper during the procedure, was completely fine after. He was laughing and smiling when we were on our way home and had no difficulty urinating/ no infection. the risks you've associated are very small.

    Future relationships: I could argue the opposite. Not being able to satisfy partners who prefer cut penises, therefore increasing feelings of resentment

    My argument is simply that it's up to the parents. Just like with ear piercings and spankings, completely at the parents discretion. If it doesn't pose any obvious high risks toward the child, then it doesn't and shouldn't concern us.

    We don't have the right to judge. Circumcision carries very small risks. Opting against circumcision also carries small risks. There is no right option, I wish you'd understand that
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    We don't have the right to judge. Circumcision carries very small risks. Opting against circumcision also carries small risks. There is no right option, I wish you'd understand that
    So if parents decided to remove a daughters breast tissue would that also be their right? It has no real risk while removing the chances of their daughter developing breast cancer. Your arguments hold the same for this, hopefully you will see that this is a terrible thing to do as is circumcision. It is mutilating your child end of.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It's the reason in the majority of cases, which is why I made my point.



    Proof, or GTFO.



    Only a morally contemptible idiot would say that this isn't serious. Unfortunately, you're also immune to analogies. That usually works for idiots who're slow on the uptake but they seem to go over your head. By all means keep posting nonsense on this thread. It ensures that you develop a well-deserved reputation for obstinacy in the face of reason and helps members of this website save themselves the trouble of arguing with you.



    Hmm. I'll continue to hope that you're infertile and, if you aren't, that this practice is outlawed by a more enlightened parliament than the current one. People like you don't deserve children.

    P.S. Learn how to multi-quote, you noob.
    When people resort to insulting me, I tend not to respond and so this is the last time I quote you, hopefully the same goes for you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamiep151)
    So if parents decided to remove a daughters breast tissue would that also be their right? It has no real risk while removing the chances of their daughter developing breast cancer. Your arguments hold the same for this, hopefully you will see that this is a terrible thing to do as is circumcision. It is mutilating your child end of.
    The breast has a purpose though. Not only does it compliment the feminine body, but it's a direct agent to breastfeeding and building a strong attachment with a newborn for the first few months of their life. It wouldn't be fair to take away that opportunity because of something that may occur in the future. Foreskin serves little benefit in comparison. Circumcised men are open to the same opportunities as uncircumcised men. Some would argue that it's better to make the risks as little as possible whilst also ensuring your child lives a relatively normal life.

    I don't have a problem with circumcision, each to their own
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The breast has a purpose though. Not only does it compliment the feminine body, but it's a direct agent to breastfeeding and building a strong attachment with a newborn for the first few months of their life. It wouldn't be fair to take away that opportunity because of something that may occur in the future. Foreskin serves little benefit in comparison. Circumcised men are open to the same opportunities as uncircumcised men. Some would argue that it's better to make the risks as little as possible whilst also ensuring your child lives a relatively normal life.

    I don't have a problem with circumcision, each to their own
    "compliment the feminine body" you can have fakes that achieve that (which you can't do with a foreskin). Breastfeeding is in no way necessary although positive so one could easily argue it is a good trade off to make sure your child never gets breast cancer. Surely if you think parents should be allowed to circumcise it follows they should be allowed to do this?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Just because it's not compulsory, doesn't make it wrong. Not everyone agrees with you, and that's their choice and completely within their rights to disagree. You're right about that, there's no law that says parents should circumcise, but there's also no law that says parents should not circumcise.
    I suggest you go back and read the post you're replying to one more time. You clearly haven't read it properly. I was talking about laws of nature and why, because there isn't one that says, as you do, that genital mutilation is compulsory for some parents, you were wrong to say that. Jesus Christ, what a fail of an attempt to read and respond to a post.

    The whole argument of this thread is about whether parents should not be allowed to circumcise so your silly approaches to this from a legal perspective by saying that it should be allowed because it's legal amount to saying 'it is, and therefore it must be', which is nonsense.

    They have the right to disagree with me and act on it when they're not perpetrating mutilation on their children. They don't have the right to disagree with me and act on it if they're harming their child. If that basic interventionist principle is wasted on you, don't bother replying.

    If their religion involves doing something that may not necessarily be morally right in all societies, but is not law-breaking nor causing significant damage to the child, the choice is up to them.
    The point of this thread is to debate whether it should be legal. Stop coming at it from the angle of 'it's legal, so it's okay.' That's nonsense on a thread debating whether it should be legal or not. This is not a debate about what is currently the case but what should be the case. I really wish you'd get this bit right because I know of at least two other people on this thread who've called you out on this faulty reasoning but you seem to understand nothing that you don't want to understand.

    Bold bit: It is causing significant damage to the child. All your rebuttals to myself and others on this point can be summarised as, 'it's not harming the child because I said so and because it's legal.'

    Peeling skin off my face? Really? Yeah because I hear doing that can benefit me significantly in the future. :s
    Neither does removing the skin from genitalia. You miss the point yet again: my point was that you would not see the mutilation of genitals against the will of their owners as 'trivial' if it was done to any part of your body, in this case. Not to mention you've proven nothing about the so-called benefits but to say that they exist because you say they exist.

    Physically: You and a couple others have stated that the reduced risks of STDs and UTIs isn't worthy of a benefit because the chances of contracting them is very low. The same applies to the physical complications of circumcision. When carried out properly and professionally, it is an incredibly safe procedure that lasts all of 20minutes (if that)
    You honestly are incapable of looking at the bigger picture... You seem to think that there needs to be a very good reason not to mutilate genitals (which you continue to euphemise as 'circumcision') but that any old reason will do when it comes to mutilating genitals, including the parents' religious persuasion or just their whim. You obviously haven't read my post so I'm not going to respond beyond this point. Quote me again when you've actually read my post and we'll talk.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    When people resort to insulting me, I tend not to respond and so this is the last time I quote you, hopefully the same goes for you.
    Ha -- I've merely called you out for the idiocy you're blatantly displaying. You are not reading anybody's replies to you, evidenced by the fact that you keep repeating 'arguments' that have been debunked and why you've failed to get every single analogy used to illustrate points that shouldn't even need analogies to be understood. I suggest you develop some critical thinking skills before trying to debate with rational people again, because you're clearly not up to it.
 
 
 
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
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.