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

    18
    (Original post by jamiep151)
    "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?
    Analogies don't work with this individual. She'll just brush it off with a 'lol you really are taking it too seriously' type comment. I've literally tried all sorts of analogies and they just go over her head. +1 to you and I wish you could still give negative ratings because then at least this person's lack of contribution to the debate could be quantified.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    This is one of those rare instances where the government would be quite justified in banning something. Outdated and ridiculous practice.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamiep151)
    "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?
    Breast augmentation exists yes, but most of the time it's obvious someone's had a boob job, not to mention the cost and the fact that you cannot breastfeed with fake boobs.

    I didn't say it was necessary, but I'd imagine it's something that new mums would like to experience (even if they decide it's not for them) wouldn't be fair to take away that potential experience, not to mention circumcision is not only for medical reasons, so bear that in mind that people have their own reasons for why they choose circumcision.

    Removing both breasts is very dramatic compared to removing a thin layer of skin. Good thing girls don't stop growing breats until around 16-18 (maybe even later) so by that time, they can decide themselves if they want to have their breasts removed. For such a drastic move like that, it should depend on the individuals decision alone.

    Also, the risk of breast cancer increases with age and poses very little threat as a teenager and even as a young adult, whereas infections/UTIs are things that can occur from infancy and early childhood and for something like a UTI, once you've contracted it once, you're likely to get it again
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)

    Also, the risk of breast cancer increases with age and poses very little threat as a teenager and even as a young adult, whereas infections/UTIs are things that can occur from infancy and early childhood and for something like a UTI, once you've contracted it once, you're likely to get it again
    There is no risk of penis infection if it is washed everyday. I have never had one in 26 years.

    We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore and people wash regularly, so this argument that 'circumcision reduces the risk of infection" is totally ludicrous. Following your logic, you could also say that we should shave our heads to get rid of head lice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by footygirlx)
    Thats completely different, what the hell does this have to do with gay marriage anyway.
    Lmao you should've gotten out when you foot was out of the door...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    The idea of parents making decisions on behalf of their child is frightening.
    Lmfao
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    There is no risk of penis infection if it is washed everyday. I have never had one in 26 years.

    We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore and people wash regularly, so this argument that 'circumcision reduces the risk of infection" is totally ludicrous. Following your logic, you could also say that we should shave our heads to get rid of head lice.
    Just because you didn't have any difficulty, doesn't mean others haven't. I could then argue that there are many circumcised men who also have never had any of the complications that people have associated with circumcision. My point is that it doesn't matter if you're circumcised or not. It's ultimately the parents decision, whether people like it or not. I honestly don't think it makes any difference and I don't prefer one over the other. To me, there's no right or wrong. I merely gave some reasons for why parents may opt for circumcision, with one of those reasons being for cleanliness
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    The health/hygeine benefits only apply if the person in question does not wash themselves. There is also a risk of complications which can cause a whole series of problematic issues.

    Also, I didn't realize child mutilation was a joke.
    Start a new thread on how people take care of their hygiene in this country and let us know the result. There is not much that wipes and tissues can do. There are lots of people who don't take proper shower/bath.
    like someone said, "foreskin is vile". I concur with that.

    I was circumcised, my boys if and when I have them would be circumcised. UK laws if any exists wont stop me. I bet most of the royal males were circumcised.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    This is one of those rare instances where the government would be quite justified in banning something. Outdated and ridiculous practice.

    Male circumcision can not be banned. Let government try that and see the consequences. That hideous mass of folded skin MUST be snipped.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What's wrong with it? They do it to everyone here in the US, and the men here all seem to be doing okay. I've never heard of a guy here keeping the foreskin unless he was a Catholic or a Muslim.

    It's just excess skin that would require me to bathe more regularly. I've never missed mine. And if I'm going to need it done, I'd rather have it done when I'm younger and won't remember it.

    It's pretty unsanitary to keep that thing anyway. Eww. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    What's wrong with it? They do it to everyone here in the US, and the men here all seem to be doing okay. I've never heard of a guy here keeping the foreskin unless he was a Catholic or a Muslim.

    It's just excess skin that would require me to bathe more regularly. I've never missed mine. And if I'm going to need it done, I'd rather have it done when I'm younger and won't remember it.

    It's pretty unsanitary to keep that thing anyway. Eww. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.
    Prepare to be attacked
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    Lmfao
    ??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree 100% with your statement. Why is it that FGM is seen as a terrible thing whereas the mutilation of male parts is acceptable. It is fooked up. It may be part of Jewish and Muslim culture to do it but that doesn't mean it is cruel. When the child is an adult they shouldbe free to do it but until they are old enough to consent it is morally wrong to perform an irreversable medical procedure on a child.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Prepare to be attacked
    Haha, exactly what i was thinking :P When i saw the title of this thread i was hoping to read some intresting arguments and maybe start a nice convo/debate...lool that didnt happen.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    What's wrong with it? They do it to everyone here in the US, and the men here all seem to be doing okay. I've never heard of a guy here keeping the foreskin unless he was a Catholic or a Muslim.

    It's just excess skin that would require me to bathe more regularly. I've never missed mine. And if I'm going to need it done, I'd rather have it done when I'm younger and won't remember it.

    It's pretty unsanitary to keep that thing anyway. Eww. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.
    Muslims don't keep their foreskins, they are circumcised.

    Go back to page ten and watch the video I posted. Just because they do it to everyone it doesn't make it OK. That is an unbelievably stupid way of thinking.

    Your foreskin serves a purpose. Just lol at cutting it off. The whole point is that the person doesn't have a say in what happens to their own body. I'm uncut and I clean my ******* every time I am in the shower, it is not difficult or time consuming.

    It is not unsanitary to keep your foreskin, it is unsanitary if you are a scruffy ******* who doesn't wash but if you aren't it's no problem.

    "Everyone in America does it, I don't miss mine so what's the problem" just ****ing lol. Seriously go back to page ten and watch that video.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    It's just excess skin that would require me to bathe more regularly. I've never missed mine. And if I'm going to need it done, I'd rather have it done when I'm younger and won't remember it.
    While you might be fine with it, there are many many men that are not, that would have preferred to be circumcised against their will. And this is the ultimate issue; if you would like to be circumcised, you can have the procedure done when you are older. If you don't want to be circumcised, you cannot be uncircumcised

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    .It's ultimately the parents decision, whether people like it or not. .
    I want to tackle this, because it seems to be a consistent issue here: we are not not discussing whether it is current legal to circumcise a child..

    We are discussing whether parents should have the right to circumcise a child, not what the current law in the UK is.

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I honestly don't think it makes any difference and I don't prefer one over the other.
    Maybe if it was a piece of you they were taking away, you would feel different.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    I agree 100% with your statement. Why is it that FGM is seen as a terrible thing whereas the mutilation of male parts is acceptable. It is fooked up. It may be part of Jewish and Muslim culture to do it but that doesn't mean it is cruel. When the child is an adult they shouldbe free to do it but until they are old enough to consent it is morally wrong to perform an irreversable medical procedure on a child.
    FGM is carried out non professionally by an untrained invidiual. No anaesthetic is used. Girls can undergo it any age (from infancy right up to the age of 15, and sometimes even later) and is even carried out against the parents wishes. They literally take a razor blade or knife, forcibly restrain the girl and cut out the entire clitoris and the inter and outer lips of the vagina, therefore severe blood loss is likely. As it is carried out in unsanitary conditions, the risk of contracting tetanus, hepatitis, septacemia and other types of infection is incredibly high, as well as complications during childbirth and possible infertility. In addition, there's a risk of inability to urinate, recurrent UTIs, cysts and abnormal periods. Unlike male circumcision FGM prevents all sexual pleasure, so they literally feel nothing during sexual activity. In addition, FGM carries no potential health or hygienic benefits.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes it should be banned
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    While you might be fine with it, there are many many men that are not, that would have preferred to be circumcised against their will. And this is the ultimate issue; if you would like to be circumcised, you can have the procedure done when you are older. If you don't want to be circumcised, you cannot be uncircumcised



    I want to tackle this, because it seems to be a consistent issue here: we are not not discussing whether it is current legal to circumcise a child..

    We are discussing whether parents should have the right to circumcise a child, not what the current law in the UK is.


    Maybe if it was a piece of you they were taking away, you would feel different.
    I know what is being discussed, and IMO, it should remain legal and at the discretion of the parent. If I had a penis, there's no doubt in my mind that I would have been circumcised. It isn't detrimental to health so I really don't see why it is such a big deal. I also don't think it should be made a legal requirement, it is by no means an essential procedure (unless it's a medical emergency) so I think it should remain as it is. The option is there, but it's not compulsory
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    FGM is carried out non professionally by an untrained invidiual. No anaesthetic is used. Girls can undergo it any age (from infancy right up to the age of 15, and sometimes even later) and is even carried out against the parents wishes. They literally take a razor blade or knife, forcibly restrain the girl and cut out the entire clitoris and the inter and outer lips of the vagina, therefore severe blood loss is likely. As it is carried out in unsanitary conditions, the risk of contracting tetanus, hepatitis, septacemia and other types of infection is incredibly high, as well as complications during childbirth and possible infertility. In addition, there's a risk of inability to urinate, recurrent UTIs, cysts and abnormal periods. Unlike male circumcision FGM prevents all sexual pleasure, so they literally feel nothing during sexual activity. In addition, FGM carries no potential health or hygienic benefits.
    Male genital mutilation removes up to 90% of nerve endings sevrely reducing pleasure, not all FGm is as server as this
 
 
 
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.