Turn on thread page Beta

should Infant Circumssion be banned? watch

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Which is worrying, because quite a few (as evidenced by this thread) don't understand why men (those most affected) are concerned.
    I can't speak for other females, but I get it. I completely understand why you wouldn't want your son circumcised, but I feel like the men on this thread don't understand the argument for it either.

    They have now started saying that we don't have a penis so we shouldn't comment. Right ok, that's mature. I made a thread about taxing Sanitary products and labelling them as luxury, and a lot of guys commented. You didn't see me say 'hey, you don't have a uterus that sheds once a month so stop posting'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I can't speak for other females, but I get it. I completely understand why you wouldn't want your son circumcised, but I feel like the men on this thread don't understand the argument for it either.

    They have now started saying that we don't have a penis so we shouldn't comment. Right ok, that's mature. I made a thread about taxing Sanitary products and labelling them as luxury, and a lot of guys commented. You didn't see me say 'hey, you don't have a uterus that sheds once a month so stop posting'
    It's not your body to decide what happens to it. You are a useless mother and should be sterilised
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    It's not your body to decide what happens to it. You are a useless mother and should be sterilised
    I'm not a mother..yet.
    thats where you're wrong dear, I can and I will decide if my son gets circumcised & it will be, let me spell it out for you.. N O N E OF Y O U R B U S I N E S S
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I know many people who are circumcised and I can assure you none of them have had a mental breakdown over it. Plus, there are loads of health benefits. Look back in time - loads of people have down it for years from different parts of the earth. Why? It can be more sterile.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    You don't even have a penis you have no idea what it feels like lol. It's just a horrible thing to do to someone. It's like cutting off an ear like OP said. Basically you'l still have a bit of function being able to hear through the hole but it will be ****ed up forever. And ofcourse a bit cleaner because there isn't an ear there anymore to wash lmfao. Which is the only pro MGM argument.

    Ngl that 'it's cleaner' argument is the most stupid thing I've ever come across. "Well it's cleaner now because we've chopped it off." You don't chop someone's toe off just because it will save them cleaning it in the shower lol.
    As they say cutting of head is a good remedy for stupidity..
    Check your facts, not your penis.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    love how women are the only people who support this lol

    #feminism #killallmen
    I am a woman and this practice and those who support it make me sick to my stomach.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see any justifiable reason to mutilate a baby or child, except in extreme circumstances for health reasons when there is no other option
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alba2013)
    I am a woman and this practice and those who support it make me sick to my stomach.
    You are a very smart woman who is a great person
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I feel that it should be banned, apart from when it is an absolute medical necessity (or when someone is old enough to make up their own mind).

    Leaving aside any emotional or religious arguments, what we're talking about here is removing a perfectly healthy, functional part of a baby's or small child's body. It doesn't make sense.

    Perhaps a more emotional, but nonetheless true factor is that it's subjecting a baby or small child to unnecessary pain. Whether or not they will remember that pain is irrelevant - at that moment in time, they experience it. And that surely runs against what parents should want for their children?

    Then there are the risks. Children have died because of that procedure, or experienced long-term health problems. Again, this was unnecessary.

    The arguments used tend to be:

    * It looks better. My answer is that that is subjective.
    * It helps prevent STDs. My answer is that most people, whether circumcised or not, will use contraception until they have settled down with someone. Which makes circumcision unnecessary. Whilst once they have settled down, the people who are uncircumcised will have more nerve endings to enjoy that side of their relationship with.
    * Cleanliness. My answer - wash.

    Which leaves the religious argument. But religion isn't compulsory, and babies and toddlers cannot be religious. Once someone is old enough to decide on what they believe, and can weigh up all the pros and cons of a circumcision, they can always go ahead with it then. That would make the gesture more meaningful (if someone truly believes it has meaning). Yes, it would hurt, but if they truly wanted a circumcision, that shouldn't be an obstacle. At least it would be their own choice.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    Which leaves the religious argument. But religion isn't compulsory, and babies and toddlers cannot be religious. Once someone is old enough to decide on what they believe, and can weigh up all the pros and cons of a circumcision, they can always go ahead with it then. That would make the gesture more meaningful (if someone truly believes it has meaning). Yes, it would hurt, but if they truly wanted a circumcision, that shouldn't be an obstacle. At least it would be their own choice.
    From religious point of view circumcision is not just physical action, but rather religious rite. Are you ready to dictate religious people when and how religious rites should be performed? In fact you deny such notion as religious family, because of course it effects children physically and psychologically.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by admonit)
    From religious point of view circumcision is not just physical action, but rather religious rite. Are you ready to dictate religious people when and how religious rites should be performed? In fact you deny such notion as religious family, because of course it effects children physically and psychologically.
    When it comes to children, religious rites involving them - and especially involving a religious sacrifice on their part - is meaningless, because they will not/cannot understand religion. When it comes to parents carrying out religious rites on their children, or any religious people carrying out religious rites on other people, then there absolutely should be limits to what they can and cannot do. I believe in freedom of religion, so long as the religion (most specifically the practice of that religion) does not cause harm to others. Circumcision causes harm.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    When it comes to children, religious rites involving them - and especially involving a religious sacrifice on their part - is meaningless, because they will not/cannot understand religion. When it comes to parents carrying out religious rites on their children, or any religious people carrying out religious rites on other people, then there absolutely should be limits to what they can and cannot do. I believe in freedom of religion, so long as the religion (most specifically the practice of that religion) does not cause harm to others. Circumcision causes harm.
    For non religious people all religious rites are meaningless. But I'm speaking about religious people. You cannot move or change religious rites just because you don't see sense in them. As for harm - it is not proved in case of circumcision.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    For non religious people all religious rites are meaningless. But I'm speaking about religious people. You cannot move or change religious rites just because you don't see sense in them. As for harm - it is not proved in case of circumcision.
    A persons superstitious rights end where another individuals rights begin. .
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by admonit)
    For non religious people all religious rites are meaningless. But I'm speaking about religious people. You cannot move or change religious rites just because you don't see sense in them. As for harm - it is not proved in case of circumcision.
    Well, as said, children (especially babies and toddlers) growing up in religious families cannot be classed as religious, because that takes being able to understand religion, as well as being able to choose to be a part of that religion. So, indeed, any rites including/involving them are meaningless.

    Medically unnecessary circumcision is harmful. Whilst it is rare, children have died as a result of the procedure, and every death is an unnecessary death. Other complications can occur - see here. Even if all goes well, however, there is a loss of sensitivity. I class that as harm. In fact, I would argue that removing healthy tissue without consent classes as harm.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Just popping in with my two cents.

    I come from a jewish family, however I have not had a bris due to complications that my grandfather had in his later life with his circumcision that has basically put my family off of ever performing the ceremony. Now don't get me wrong, we're not the most observant family by any stretch, but we know plenty of our own traditions and such.

    Firstly, regardless of what anyone will tell you about aesthetics and health benefits, this was never the reason for a child to be circumcised. You have to remember the jewish faith is over 3000 years old and back then nobody gave a toss about those factors. However one thing that very observant jews (particularly orthodox and conservative cliques) value is the sanctity of marriage and the idea of sex only after the ceremony. The -main- reason it was originally practiced was to prevent boys from touching themselves and going after the pursuit of pleasure by removing: 1) The ability to easily stimulate yourself and 2) most of the pleasure from the act as back then the idea of following your desires was uncouth and such.

    I personally am against the idea (Rare for someone of my background I accept) but I support the right of the child to have the procedure later in life if he so chooses.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    Well, as said, children (especially babies and toddlers) growing up in religious families cannot be classed as religious, because that takes being able to understand religion, as well as being able to choose to be a part of that religion. So, indeed, any rites including/involving them are meaningless.
    Children are members of religious families and participate in their religious life. Again, your understanding is different from religious people.
    Medically unnecessary circumcision is harmful. Whilst it is rare, children have died as a result of the procedure, and every death is an unnecessary death. Other complications can occur - see here. Even if all goes well, however, there is a loss of sensitivity. I class that as harm. In fact, I would argue that removing healthy tissue without consent classes as harm.
    The article doesn't say that circumcision is harmful. It just enumerates all theoretically possible complications of circumcision. And there is another article at the same site:http://newborns.stanford.edu/Circumcision.html
    "Though widely practiced in various parts of the world, circumcision remains a controversial issue, with passionate feelings on both sides. The AAP has a policy of "neutrality" on the issue, and many physicians agree that both the medical risks and benefits of the procedure are small, so usually the decision is made by the family for reasons that are culturally, religiously, or emotionally based."
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by admonit)
    Children are members of religious families and participate in their religious life. Again, your understanding is different from religious people.
    Why do you believe that I am not a religious person?

    Children can be present. They can take part in celebrations, and so on. But they cannot understand what it all means, nor have they chosen the religion for themselves. Therefore, they, themselves, are not religious.

    The article doesn't say that circumcision is harmful. It just enumerates all theoretically possible complications of circumcision. And there is another article at the same site:http://newborns.stanford.edu/Circumcision.html
    "Though widely practiced in various parts of the world, circumcision remains a controversial issue, with passionate feelings on both sides. The AAP has a policy of "neutrality" on the issue, and many physicians agree that both the medical risks and benefits of the procedure are small, so usually the decision is made by the family for reasons that are culturally, religiously, or emotionally based."
    I did not claim that the article stated that it is harmful. As said, it states potential complications. I made other arguments about the harm.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    While I have encountered some articles and research that suggest circumcision may reduce rates of HIV prevalence/transmission (particularly across developing regions of the world), the evidence is not conclusive enough to take away a person's bodily autonomy, particularly with the risks involved. If you hit 18 and decide it's something you want to do, then go ahead, but only that person can make that decision about themselves.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Xelfrost)
    Just popping in with my two cents.

    I come from a jewish family, however I have not had a bris due to complications that my grandfather had in his later life with his circumcision that has basically put my family off of ever performing the ceremony. Now don't get me wrong, we're not the most observant family by any stretch, but we know plenty of our own traditions and such.

    Firstly, regardless of what anyone will tell you about aesthetics and health benefits, this was never the reason for a child to be circumcised. You have to remember the jewish faith is over 3000 years old and back then nobody gave a toss about those factors. However one thing that very observant jews (particularly orthodox and conservative cliques) value is the sanctity of marriage and the idea of sex only after the ceremony. The -main- reason it was originally practiced was to prevent boys from touching themselves and going after the pursuit of pleasure by removing: 1) The ability to easily stimulate yourself and 2) most of the pleasure from the act as back then the idea of following your desires was uncouth and such.

    I personally am against the idea (Rare for someone of my background I accept) but I support the right of the child to have the procedure later in life if he so chooses.
    I think this post deserves a lot more reps than it has at the time of writing. Very shrewd.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by admonit)
    For non religious people all religious rites are meaningless. But I'm speaking about religious people. You cannot move or change religious rites just because you don't see sense in them. As for harm - it is not proved in case of circumcision.
    Er... Yes, we can. All we need is a parliamentary majority to vote for it and BOOM. It's banned.

    Unfortunately I doubt the current parliament is enlightened enough to do so and will likely view the issue through the prism of political self-interest, which isn't surprising given that most politicians will say anything to get elected and, as a happy consequence of that, get a good salary and benefits for little work.
 
 
 
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 think parents should charge rent?
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.