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

should Infant Circumssion be banned? watch

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    #
    you are very lucky
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    #
    you are very lucky
    I agree ^^ I do find it concerning how many people support the act however. Particularly this "Aesthetic" argument that is being thrown around quite liberally by some of the female posters. No doubt if I were to suggest these women to get Breast Augmentation Surgery as it "Visually pleases" me I'd be hounded for all manner of sexism's.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xelfrost)
    Particularly this "Aesthetic" argument that is being thrown around quite liberally by some of the female posters. No doubt if I were to suggest these women to get Breast Augmentation Surgery as it "Visually pleases" me I'd be hounded for all manner of sexism's.
    Very valid point. I think it's stupid to base your opinion solely on the fact that it "looks better" when there are health-related problems, self-confidence, religion and so on to take into account. It's not like these infants are getting circumcised specifically so woman can appreciate it in later life.. Circumcision should be banned just like FGM is banned.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone I've spoken to who is circumcised say they have a lot of feeling down there so not sure where this argument of reducing sexual pleasure comes from? (I genuinely want to know!). All of my friends said it was less sensitive when they were younger but as they got older their bodies have adapt and its now really sensitive and feel as much pleasure as someone else...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone heard of Metzitzah b'peh? it's widely used practice by Jews, where they suck the blood fthe babies circumcised penis.

    The mohel brings the baby’s organ into his mouth immediately after the excision of the foreskin and sucks blood from it vigorously. This action lowers the internal pressure in the tissues of the organ, in the blood vessels of the head of the organ and in the exposed ends of the arterioles that have just been cut. Thus, the difference between the pressure in the blood vessels in the base of the organ and the pressure in the blood vessels at its tip is increased. This requirement has deep religious significance as well as medical benefits.
    According to wiki, around 60-90% of American Jews have this done to them.



    How is this allowed?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 2nite)
    Anyone heard of Metzitzah b'peh? it's widely used practice by Jews, where they suck the blood fthe babies circumcised penis.



    According to wiki, around 60-90% of American Jews have this done to them.



    How is this allowed?
    I believe the practise was initially just a way to halt the bleeding, akin to how one would suck a finger when it is cut, however the religious significance of it increased over time. I can't answer on behalf of Orthodox Jews as I don't know but either way the act of sucking an infant penis nowadays is crude to say the least and should be rightfully frowned upon.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mizzsnazzter)
    Everyone I've spoken to who is circumcised say they have a lot of feeling down there so not sure where this argument of reducing sexual pleasure comes from? (I genuinely want to know!). All of my friends said it was less sensitive when they were younger but as they got older their bodies have adapt and its now really sensitive and feel as much pleasure as someone else...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It comes from the fact that reducing is a relative term. Nobody is suggesting that circumcision outright removes pleasure, but we are saying that the amount of sexual pleasure experienced by someone with an uncircumcised penis will be more than that of someone with a circumcised penis, primarily because the bit that contains the highest nerve density on the penis (that is the foreskin) is still there in uncircumcised people. But such anecdotal statements as they "feel as much pleasure as someone else" are meaningless because they have absolutely no idea how much pleasure someone else feels, but virtue of them never having experienced being uncircumcised. They have absolutely no grounds on which to make that comparison for themselves from their own personal experience.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mizzsnazzter)
    Everyone I've spoken to who is circumcised say they have a lot of feeling down there so not sure where this argument of reducing sexual pleasure comes from? (I genuinely want to know!). All of my friends said it was less sensitive when they were younger but as they got older their bodies have adapt and its now really sensitive and feel as much pleasure as someone else...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You lose thousands and thousands of nerve endings. Those people who you spoke to are either unaware because it's all they've ever known, in denial because they don't want to believe they've lost something they can never get back, or are defending it because it's a requirement of their religion.

    Also it's exposed, it's going to become less sensitive and dry without the protection of the foreskin.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2nite)
    Anyone heard of Metzitzah b'peh? it's widely used practice by Jews, where they suck the blood fthe babies circumcised penis.



    According to wiki, around 60-90% of American Jews have this done to them.



    How is this allowed?
    I've seen it, some of the babies get Hepatitis and I think some have even died.

    60-90% seems like a high percentage btw I'd be interested to see if that was true.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Er... Yes, we can. All we need is a parliamentary majority to vote for it and BOOM. It's banned.
    No, it is still not BOOM. The real BOOM will be when Muslims, who practice circumcision, will start to protest against such stupid attempt to resolve religious issue by parliamentary voting.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by admonit)
    No, it is still not BOOM. The real BOOM will be when Muslims, who practice circumcision, will start to protest against such stupid attempt to resolve religious issue by parliamentary voting.
    Do you really think the rest of the country will give a **** about whether Muslims are protesting or not? Democracy is majority rule by definition and if they don't like it, tough. My reply was in response to your silly statement that we couldn't ban it when we very easily could ban it provided the politicians vote on principle and not on the basis of how many votes they're likely to lose if they vote to ban it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    No, it is still not BOOM. The real BOOM will be when Muslims, who practice circumcision, will start to protest against such stupid attempt to resolve religious issue by parliamentary voting.
    So they should protest against the Law that prevents them from stoning adulterous women?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    Why do you believe that I am not a religious person?
    Because of your suggestion to postpone an important religious event, in our case circumcision. Try to convince christians to postpone Christmas just to one day later. I want to see it.
    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.
    ..which is just your opinion. And I presented a professional conclusion from the same site.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Do you really think the rest of the country will give a f*ck about whether Muslims are protesting or not?
    Do you really think that muslims worldwide will be silent? Britain will apologize ten years about it. Besides it my answer to your question is "yes".
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by admonit)
    Do you really think that muslims worldwide will be silent? Britain will apologize ten years about it. Besides it my answer to your question is "yes".
    It's a rhetorical question -- and your answer would be wrong even if it wasn't. You're assuming we're talking about the present reality despite my having made it clear several times that our current parliament is not enlightened enough to make it illegal (the bits you keep cutting out in your quotations of me). If and when it did, it would not matter one jot what 'muslims worldwide' thought about it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Try to convince christians to postpone Christmas just to one day later. I want to see it.
    So you compare circumcision with Christmas?

    :rofl:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    So they should protest against the Law that prevents them from stoning adulterous women?
    No, they just will kill them, as it happens in Israel.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    So you compare circumcision with Christmas?

    :rofl:
    Of course not. Religious circumcision is personal and happens only once, and Christmas - every year.:hat2:
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by admonit)
    Because of your suggestion to postpone an important religious event, in our case circumcision. Try to convince christians to postpone Christmas just to one day later. I want to see it.
    I am a Christian. If there were a good reason to postpone Christmas, such as that harm would be caused by celebrating it on the 25th of December, then I would have no problem with it. My faith is something personal between me and my God, and it does not give me the right to cause harm to others.

    ..which is just your opinion. And I presented a professional conclusion from the same site.
    I would say that it is more than my opinion. Thousands of nerve endings being removed = harm. Removing healthy tissue against someone's consent = harm. Babies have died because of infant circumcision, and have complications due to circumcision. A quick Google search showed that one hospital had over 100 children in A & E over the course of just one year, due to complications, with one per month being life-threatening. And that is just one hospital here in the UK. All that is completely avoidable.

    So, I ask you - how is it okay to take away a piece of a baby or small child's skin? How is it okay to deprive them of thousands of nerve endings? How is it okay to place babies and small children at risk of death or complications?

    The practice of FGM has been banned in the UK, and rightfully so. Yet some people see it as a part of their religious or cultural traditions. That they see it as such is not an excuse, though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    You lose thousands and thousands of nerve endings. Those people who you spoke to are either unaware because it's all they've ever known, in denial because they don't want to believe they've lost something they can never get back, or are defending it because it's a requirement of their religion.

    Also it's exposed, it's going to become less sensitive and dry without the protection of the foreskin.
    Doesn't affect how pleasurable sex is. Can confirm sex is better based on anecdotal evidence.
 
 
 
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 like carrot cake?
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.