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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Last resort has only one meaning (i.e: when all other avenues have been exhausted).
    Its still very vague as "avenues" that are suitable is different from person to person. What is last resort for one will not be last resort for another.

    Some parents think corporal punishment is good for the children in general, and not "just last resort".

    On an interesting note, believe the current law for corporal punishment in the UK is determined by "whether there is physical wound" and not whether it was last resort...

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I'm not going to be so short-sighted and lay down a blanket statement saying that I oppose corporal punishment, but I won't strike someone out of anger or frustration.
    Ofcourse not. Civil liberty is great, but vague things don't work.

    But what's "anger and frustration" for one would be "care, loving and discipline" for another.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Male circumcision does have benefits such as lowered risk of penile cancer/infection from smegma build up/UTIs
    The benefits are statistically negligable in most cases. That is why the NHS and Medicaid don't perform it for "heath benefits". Only to treat medical conditions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Circumcised boys still masturbate and orgasm from sex. A fully circumcised girl/woman will be unlikely to climax and will feel either nothing at all or severe discomfort during sex. Not the same.
    They will if only the clitoral hood is removed, which is the equivalent of male circumcision.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The benefits are statistically negligable in most cases. That is why the NHS and Medicaid don't perform it for "heath benefits". Only to treat medical conditions.
    I don't know why everyone keeps saying this. I am aware that the benefits are small, but they exist. I made that comment bc someone said that there were no benefits whatsoever, which is incorrect.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I'm aware that the benefits are small, but you initially said that there were no benefits at all, so I corrected you
    There is a health benefit in routine mastectomy, but I don't think any sane person would recommend it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Where a child does not possess the capacity to consent, the parents can do so on his/her behalf (and vice-versa) believing it to be in the best interests of their own child (or parent).

    That is my position and if you have any objections to the above, then inform me of them.
    So you believe that parents should be able to do anything they like to their child as long as they believe that it is in the child's "best interests". That's kinda disturbing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Last resort is not a subjective term. It is measurable, and thus, objective.
    How do you measure "last resort"...? I must get one of these last-resort-o-meter...

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Anger and frustration are subjective terms, and given that they have no need to be objective, I find no reason nor rationale which counters my argument.
    If you were drafting a law, would you put the words "anger and frustration" in there.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You have failed, quite spectacularly, to back up your claims that last resort and certain emotions are, as you claim, vague.
    No idea what you want as back up... but some children get beaten for "not getting an A*" - is that last resort? And not out of "frustration or anger"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Being flippant about this isn't helping whatever argument you are trying to present. Instead of presenting pathetic hypotheticals or practices, try arguing against why parents do not have a child's best interests at heart.
    Because removing a perfectly functioning and harmless part of the body for no benefit is not in the child's best interest.

    You are claiming that non-medical male circumcision is in the child's best interests. You are the one attempting to justify unnecessary surgery.
    So it is you who needs to explain why it is in the child's best interests.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    We know that you will not provide an argument for this, because that is not your style, is it? You will just attempt to obfuscate and deflect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    They will if only the clitoral hood is removed, which is the equivalent of male circumcision.
    Pretty sure removal of the clitoral hood increases sensitivity, therefore making sex more enjoyable. This is the opposite of what FGM seeks to achieve. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that although the clitoral hood may be removed during FGM, parts of the clitoris is also removed in order to reduce sensitivity and stimulation? Because why would they conduct a procedure that will make climaxing easier?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You present hypotheticals, yet again.
    Perhaps you should stop just repeating your hypothetical "if they believe it is in the child's best interests", and explain why performing unnecessary surgery is in the child's best interests?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    There is a health benefit in routine mastectomy, but I don't think any sane person would recommend it.
    You are kind of going off topic here. All I have said is that there are health benefits to male circumcision, so it is incorrect to say that there aren't.
    A masectomy is sometimes recommended to women with a history of breast cancer or a woman carrying the mutated gene.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I believe the state should not serve as a surrogate for the upbringing of the child. It should be the parent's responsibility and they should be held accountable for their actions, until such a time where the child is able to exercise his mental faculties independently.
    So you believe that there should be no legislation covering the welfare of children. It should be solely up the what the parent believes is in the child's best interests.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Corporal punishment should be used as a very last resort, after all alternatives are exhausted, and the child should not be hit out of frustration or anger.
    Like beating a disobedient wife, or stoning an adulterer, or killing an apostate.
    Nice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    "Last resort" is vague and hypothetical. This could differ from people to people...
    No. Arty does not do hypotheticals.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Last resort has only one meaning (i.e: when all other avenues have been exhausted).
    In that case, "all other avenues" can have only one meaning.
    What is that meaning?

    I'm not going to be so short-sighted and lay down a blanket statement saying that I oppose corporal punishment, but I won't strike someone out of anger or frustration.
    You'll only do it in a cold-blooded and and considered way, if they deserve it. Like beating the disobedient wife, of flogging the lovers guilty of consensual adult sex.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Last resort is not a subjective term. It is measurable, and thus, objective.
    Only if all the "avenues" that must first be "exhausted" are objectively quantifiable.

    You have failed, quite spectacularly, to back up your claims that last resort and certain emotions are, as you claim, vague.
    I look forward to your precise and objective description of all the "avenues", and what objectively qualifies as having "exhausted" them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Pretty sure removal of the clitoral hood increases sensitivity, therefore making sex more enjoyable. This is the opposite of what FGM seeks to achieve. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that although the clitoral hood may be removed during FGM, parts of the clitoris is also removed in order to reduce sensitivity and stimulation? Because why would they conduct a procedure that will make climaxing easier?
    So, as removing the clitoral hood can increase sexual pleasure, you would support the procedure in infant girls, as long as it did not affect the clitoris itself, and the parents were ok with it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    You are kind of going off topic here. All I have said is that there are health benefits to male circumcision, so it is incorrect to say that there aren't.
    A masectomy is sometimes recommended to women with a history of breast cancer or a woman carrying the mutated gene.
    But routine mastectomy would minimise the risk of breast cancer in all women. A clear health benefit, and one with far greater social implications than any benefits provided by male circumcision.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So, as removing the clitoral hood can increase sexual pleasure, you would support the procedure in infant girls, as long as it did not affect the clitoris itself, and the parents were ok with it.
    No, because it's pointless. Why would I want to increase sexual pleasure in my newborn child? It will not be any use to her at that stage, whereas male circumcision can be useful in a baby boy because it reduces the risk of UTIs as I have mentioned, and UTIs are most common in infant boys.
    I know that most parents agree to circumcision for religious and cultural reasons, and I believe that it is the right of the parent to decide.
    I wouldn't tell someone else to have their child circumcised. I'm not completely opposed to the idea myself, but since I don't have a penis, I'd probably allow my partner to make the decision tbh.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.