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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    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.
    Alrighty
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    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.
    Or forbid all religions or let religious people do what they think is right (without breaking the law of course). You cannot do both things.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Good circumcision is a clear invasion of human rights & totally abhorrent if not medically necessary/without the persons consent. Should be illegal everywhere!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Religion of peace.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    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"?
    If you think that cutting off the foreskin does not impair the "usefulness, or normal function" of the penis, then you clearly don't know what the foreskin is for, or how an uncircumcised penis functions.

    You are assuming that because it can still serve its original, designed purpose, it is not damaged. This is not the case. A thing can be severley damaged and still function.
    Offline

    1
    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"?
    You mean female genital mutilation where the clitoris isn't removed isn't mutilation at all?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by admonit)
    Or forbid all religions or let religious people do what they think is right (without breaking the law of course). You cannot do both things.
    Well we already DO do both things in this country. For instance, we do not allow polygamy or stoning. We do not have punishments for homosexuality or adultery. We permit divorce. "An eye for an eye" has been replaced by the justice system and juries.

    I personally don't see why circumcision below the age of consent, which is arguably an act of assault, should not also be forbidden by the law. I mean you can't get a tattoo until you are 18, equally if you want to be circumcised (unless for a medical reason) I think it should be accepted that you have to be 18. It doesn't stop people practising their religion.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    Losing your penis is a pretty big risk.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Cannot believe there are people in this day and age that are apologists for the unnecessary mutilation of babies..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Losing your penis is a pretty big risk.
    -_______-
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Cannot believe there are people in this day and age that are apologists for the unnecessary mutilation of babies..
    It's very believable. Many people don't actively think about or challenge their ethics. It's a practice that has become ingrained in certain cultures. Men are seen as the disposable sex and so I'm not that surprised people take MGM non-seriously.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Great.

    Religious tradition, in my book, is no justification for hacking bits off your child. It's a disgraceful practice.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I personally don't see why you should get a say in what others feel is in the best interests of their own child unless of course, you are also shouldered with the burden of bringing the child up yourself.
    In this case it is nothing to do with telling people how to parent, but about the principle of serious physical alterations being made to non-consenting individuals. Regardless of whether their parents feel it is in their best interests or not, that shouldn't have a bearing on the rights of the child to decide what is done with their body, as and when they are capable of making such a decision.

    My point is that it shouldn't be something for parents to decide at all. People can have themselves circumcised as young adults if that is their wish.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)

    I personally don't see why you should get a say in what others feel is in the best interests of their own child unless of course, you are also shouldered with the burden of bringing the child up yourself.


    Furthermore, circumcision is practiced even where religion is not even a major factor.
    You don't own your children. Bringing a child up does not give you the right to chop bits off them at will.

    At some point society has to step in and protect the child for the child's own sake, whether that is because the parents are refusing necessary cancer treatment for their children in favour of prayer or homeopathy or because the parents would like to put their children under the knife for absolutely no reason.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Great.

    Religious tradition, in my book, is no justification for hacking bits off your child. It's a disgraceful practice.
    Interestingly enough, it's quite the common procedure in the States. In fact, it's the most common surgical procedure performed there. More than a million newborn males are circumcised by doctors every year. And most aren't muslims/jews.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    Interestingly enough, it's not mentioned a lot but it's quite the common precedure in the states. Infact, it's the most common surgical procedure performed in the United States. More than a million newborn males are circumcised by doctors every year. And most aren't muslims/jews.
    Yes, and I think it's awful and bizarre.

    I actually read a case of doctors going ahead and circumcising a baby without the parents' consent, because there's such a level of expectation.

    edit: I don't know when that would have been. Presumably it wasn't newborn? Maybe some unrelated hospital visit.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    Many people don't actively think
    Indeed. The resident pro-mutilation brigade couldn't make this point any better than they have on this thread.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    As an advocate for a limited state presence, I will defend the rights of parents to act in the best interests of their child, especially in opposition to those who would dictate otherwise.

    Well yes. But do you think that circumcision -- when not for medical purposes -- can be reasonably argued to be in the child's best interest?

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I actually read a case of doctors going ahead and circumcising a baby without the parents' consent, because there's such a level of expectation.

    edit: I don't know when that would have been. Presumably it wasn't newborn? Maybe some unrelated hospital visit.
    I assume they did it as an automatic thing where the parents had said nothing to the contrare as opposed to going against the parents because they thought it was best.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Of course you do. Children are the product of parents and as such, are the primary care-givers and guardians of the child, to act in their best interests, until such a time where the being is capable of exercising his or her own mental faculties (i.e: become independent).



    Interfering busy bodies, especially in a society where people are actively choosing to not have children, think that they are a surrogate for the interests and welfare of children that are not theirs.

    Such people think that they can dictate how others should bring up their children, without necessarily sharing the burdens of bringing up said children.


    As an advocate for a limited state presence, I will defend the rights of parents to act in the best interests of their child, especially in opposition to those who would dictate otherwise.
    :laugh: okay, yeah, you own your children and have the right to take a knife and shape them as best pleases you. If I want to cut my child's foot off, so that he stays in and studies instead of going out and playing football all the time, presumably that too is hunky-dory.

    Since you didn't answer the point I assume you would be quite happy for the parents who refuse objectively necessary medical treatment for their children to go ahead and do that, and for everyone else to stay out of it. So complete is the parental ownership of the child that they are at liberty to condemn it to death, if that is their parenting preference. Right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I assume you would be quite happy for the parents who refuse objectively necessary medical treatment for their children to go ahead and do that, and for everyone else to stay out of it.
    Ooh, like those Jehovahs's Witnesses.


    Judge rules Jehovah’s Witness boy can receive blood transfusion
 
 
 
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.