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

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Well I guess if you're happy to go around with gaps where your teeth used to be, and consider that perfectly fine, all power to you. I rather think that in any case, the decision to have your teeth removed or a bit of your penis chopped off lies with the person. Not all people are as bold as yourself!
    Medical removal of teethes is not mutilation. Some people do it to insert implants.
    The use of the word "mutilation " is an attempt to replace medical conclusions. It presents the parents as evil persons, who intentionally inflict severe damage to their children.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Medical removal of teethes is not mutilation.
    We're not talking about medical removal.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    this is your opinion, I don't understand why I am not allowed to exercise my own. Nobody is telling you to circumcise your kid, and quite frankly, I could care less.

    I don't see it as damage to the body..I'm in denial because you do? Lol

    Well yeah, circumcision has been occurring in my family for many years. I was actually present at my nephews circumcision, and he was absolutely fine. This is probably why I see it as no biggie.
    And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen.

    Of course this subjective and based on my personal views and experience but whose opinions aren't?
    Those of the medical profession. The NHS has a formal position that "routine circumcision brings no identifiable medical benefits that could justify the quantifiable risks".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    No. Not only are there no real health benefits to this procedure, there would be an increased risk of breast abscesses/cysts/breast cancer and issues with breastfeeding. It doesn't matter how carefully this procedure is carried out, those risks are still very prominent whereas male circumcision conducted in a clean and sterile environment by a health care professional will hugely minimise the risk of any complication - any kind of complication is extremely rare.
    In either scenario, the child does not have a say in the procedure and in both cases the child's body is being altered. Both have benefits and risks but neither one is worth the child having to endure the pain. If you are altering someone's body unnecessarily then that individual should have a say in whether or not they want it done. Thus, it is far more logical for the parents to wait until the individual is old enough to decide for themselves.

    Are you a Muslim?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Lowered incidence of STDs are not the only potential benefits as I have clearly demonstrated.
    You told me that you were not claiming reduced STD risk as a benefit!

    As I suggested (and you appeared to agree with) claiming such a thing as a benefit would likely lead to higher infection risk as people assume that circumcision is an effective alternative to condoms (whereas the actual risk reduction is negligible). The higher STD incidence in the US, where circumcision is commonplace, seems to bear this out.

    So it would seem that in the real world, being circumcised may well actually increase the risk of STDs!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRUsername99)
    Ah so that's the reason for the confirmation bias, it wasn't about health benefits at all, understandable but a little dishonest. :naughty:
    Everyone forms opinions from personal views, family upbring/socialisation or experience
    I know about circumcision because it's been in my family for years.
    If we can show you some health benefits of FGM no matter how small and insignificant and outweighed by the negatives would you be happy to have a daughter circumcised if your partner wanted it?
    The only reason why I said I would allow my partner to decide about circumcising our son is because he'd be a man, so he'd have more knowledge and perhaps first hand experience of being cut or not and being that he is my partner, I'd value his opinion.
    Seeing as I am a woman who is not circumcised, I don't see any viable reason for why I would subject my daughter to it. In this instance, it would be my decision. I'm the one that has the vagina..

    Cos

    It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foulsecretions beneath the prepuce.

    It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections

    It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.
    Source?

    In the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 it says:

    With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.
    The sole purpose of the clitoris is for pleasure. There are more nerve endings in the clitoris alone than there are in the entire penis. So to remove it would mean that the woman would likely feel nothing during sex, or feel severe discomfort - imagine someone cutting off your entire ****, or at least most of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    No. Not only are there no real health benefits to this procedure,
    But there are no real heath benefits to circumcision, according to the the likes of the NHS and Medicaid.
    It is only religionists and apologists who claim that there is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You told me that you were not claiming reduced STD risk as a benefit!

    As I suggested (and you appeared to agree with) claiming such a thing as a benefit would likely lead to higher infection risk as people assume that circumcision is an effective alternative to condoms (whereas the actual risk reduction is negligible). The higher STD incidence in the US, where circumcision is commonplace, seems to bear this out.

    So it would seem that in the real world, being circumcised may well actually increase the risk of STDs!
    Someone else mentioned lowered risk of STDs first, not me.. It was never part of my argument if you read back
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    But there are no real heath benefits to circumcision, according to the the likes of the NHS and Medicaid.
    It is only religionists and apologists who claim that there is.
    *sigh* okay.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    There aren't any known benefits to FGM.
    Yes there are. Clitoral dehooding can increase sexual pleasure in women with excessive "foreskin" or phimosis.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    In either scenario, the child does not have a say in the procedure and in both cases the child's body is being altered. Both have benefits and risks but neither one is worth the child having to endure the pain. If you are altering someone's body unnecessarily then that individual should have a say in whether or not they want it done. Thus, it is far more logical for the parents to wait until the individual is old enough to decide for themselves.

    Are you a Muslim?
    What are the benefits to breast flattening? They definitely don't outweigh the risks whereas a procedure like circumcision has small benefits and small risks. That's why I think it should be the parents decision.

    No I'm not a Muslim.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Everyone forms opinions from personal views, family upbring/socialisation or experience
    I know about circumcision because it's been in my family for years.
    That's fine any everything but if that's what you base your opinion on then its very dishonest to claim you've based your opinion on health benefits.

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Source?
    Some book from 1979 by the looks of it, still it beats some book from 1966 for the no loss of sensitivity from male circumcision claim.

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The sole purpose of the clitoris is for pleasure. There are more nerve endings in the clitoris alone than there are in the entire penis. So to remove it would mean that the woman would likely feel nothing during sex, or feel severe discomfort - imagine someone cutting off your entire ****, or at least most of it.
    1.It's not claiming anything about removing the clitoris, only the clitoral prepuce.

    2. I don't need to imagine someone cutting off part of my ****, I've experienced it and would never wish it on any child.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRUsername99)
    That's fine any everything but if that's what you base your opinion on then its very dishonest to claim you've based your opinion on health benefits.



    Some book from 1979 by the looks of it, still it beats some book from 1966 for the no loss of sensitivity from male circumcision claim.



    1.It's not claiming anything about removing the clitoris, only the clitoral prepuce.

    2. I don't need to imagine someone cutting off part of my ****, I've experienced it and would never wish it on any child.
    Okay.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    mutilate: to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part.(CED)
    Nope, medical removal of foreskin is not mutilation.
    What? That definition fits circumcision exactly!

    to damage something - the penis is damaged, because it no longer has the foreskin

    severely, - the damage is irreversable and fundamentally alters the apprarance and operation of the penis

    especially by violently removing a part. - the foreskin is removed by cutting with a sharp blade (if you applied the same action to a stranger's face, you would be prosecuted for violent assault).

    Ouch!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    What are the benefits to breast flattening? They definitely don't outweigh the risks whereas a procedure like circumcision has small benefits and small risks. That's why I think it should be the parents decision.

    No I'm not a Muslim.
    There are social benefits that I mentioned previously. For instance, it allows a woman to continue with her education and decreases the likelihood of her being sexually harassed/raped as in those cultures having breasts implies you are sexually active or ready for such activities. Both breast flattening and male circumcision are unnecessary procedures which you have, to an extent, acknowledged by stated that the benefits and risks are minimal. If an individual’s body is unnecessarily being altered, then that individual (not the parents) should be the one deciding whether or not it is altered. Therefore, it should not be happening to young children.

    I’ll just throw in this quote because it's so relevant:

    (Original post by QE2)
    Those of the medical profession. The NHS has a formal position that "routine circumcision brings no identifiable medical benefits that could justify the quantifiable risks".
    Thus, children should not be having part of their body chopped off just because it's a cultural practice.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by admonit)
    Medical removal of teethes is not mutilation. Some people do it to insert implants.
    The use of the word "mutilation " is an attempt to replace medical conclusions. It presents the parents as evil persons, who intentionally inflict severe damage to their children.
    Yeah but these kids aren't having their foreskins removed so they can be replaced with a prosthetic foreskin of their own volition because they've decided it's a good idea. They're having them removed without their informed consent at an age where it's not possible to have any say over what happens to their bodies.

    "Mutilation" does not suggest a parent is evil, although it does describe the physical effect. Obviously parents don't do this for 'evil' reasons to torture their children, but for cultural and religious reasons. Even FGM is done for sound reasons according to the parents who do not think they are being evil but rather are behaving in a way consistent with their culture and beliefs and actually feel it is beneficial for their children to do the same. However what is going on nevertheless remains mutilation.

    In my opinion as a society we ought to be able to say: look, this is essentially a serious physical alteration which is being performed on babies and young children without their consent, in a way which can never be reversed and which will have effects lasting the rest of their lives. The fact it has been accepted amongst some cultures and religions for a long time is neither here nor there, appealing to historical precedent is a false concept because we now live in a society where people do have choices.

    Given the way society generally feels about autonomy of the individual and their right to decide what happens to their body, it is very surprising that in this day and age we have one rule for circumcision and another for everything else. Fact is if somebody is going to perform a long lasting non-essential surgical procedure, they should do it with the consent of the individual. If that individual is too young to consent then it can wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves how they feel.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    There are social benefits that I mentioned previously. For instance, it allows a woman to continue with her education and decreases the likelihood of her being sexually harassed/raped as in those cultures having breasts implies you are sexually active or ready for such activities. Both breast flattening and male circumcision are unnecessary procedures which you have, to an extent, acknowledged by stated that the benefits and risks are minimal. If an individual’s body is unnecessarily being altered, then that individual (not the parents) should be the one deciding whether or not it is altered. Therefore, it should not be happening to young children.

    I’ll just throw in this quote because it's so relevant:
    I haven't referred to any social benefits of circumcision. The risks of breast flattening largely outweigh the health benefits, seeing as there aren't any..



    Thus, children should not be having part of their body chopped off just because it's a cultural practice.
    This is your opinion. Nobody is telling you to circumcise your son.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What? That definition fits circumcision exactly!

    to damage something - the penis is damaged, because it no longer has the foreskin

    severely, - the damage is irreversable and fundamentally alters the apprarance and operation of the penis

    especially by violently removing a part. - the foreskin is removed by cutting with a sharp blade (if you applied the same action to a stranger's face, you would be prosecuted for violent assault).

    Ouch!
    OED
    damage: Physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something
    So, severe damage = "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something".
    Could you provide solid medical proof that male circumcision is "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something"?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    OED
    damage: Physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something
    So, severe damage = "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something".
    Could you provide solid medical proof that male circumcision is "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something"?
    I'd give up if I were you. This discussion has being going on for long enough and nobody will come to an agreement, not that we have to :laugh:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I haven't referred to any social benefits of circumcision. The risks of breast flattening largely outweigh the health benefits, seeing as there aren't any.

    This is your opinion. Nobody is telling you to circumcise your son.
    And I will quote: ‘Not many NHS trusts fund circumcision for non-medical reasons, because the risks outweigh the potential health benefits.’

    So the same could be said for circumcision.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.