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

    2
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Your argument is entirely circular. The law doesn't determine morality. It determines the law. I'm arguing it should be illegal,and you're saying 'it should be legal because its legal' - circular argument. The law does not determine objective moral standards.
    Something being lawful doesn't mean its not mutilation nor does it mean it's not disgusting or abhorrent - Saudi Arabia execute gay people, that doesn't make being gay immoral.

    Male circumcision permanently removes part of a boy's genitalia without his consent for non-medical reasons. It doesn't matter if it causes serious harm, it permanently changes his body.
    A few years ago, the High Court had to meander the "rights" of parental faith and the child’s best interests. The case concerned whether a Jehovah’s Witness boy can receive blood transfusion despite the religious objections of his parents. The court made the correct decision and ruled against the parent's religious views.

    I am not aware of any legal cases going to court on circumcision so as to raise the legal issue. But the precedent set by that case should be relevant. They're connected in the parents' denying a life-saving treatment because of religious dogma, and parents insisting on a harmful medical procedure because of religious dogma. In both cases, we'd anticipate the courts telling them that, on these issues, the parents don't know what's best for their children

    It reminds me of these horrific stories of children being absolutely beaten & terrified by Voodoo witches in the hope of exorcising the demons out of them. Parents who inflict harm entirely because their religion says so ...
    Offline

    2
    Lol. I'm the only one posting now ....
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    A few years ago, the High Court had to meander the "rights" of parental faith and the child’s best interests. The case concerned whether a Jehovah’s Witness boy can receive blood transfusion despite the religious objections of his parents. The court made the correct decision and ruled against the parent's religious views.

    I am not aware of any legal cases going to court on circumcision so as to raise the legal issue. But the precedent set by that case should be relevant. They're connected in the parents' denying a life-saving treatment because of religious dogma, and parents insisting on a harmful medical procedure because of religious dogma. In both cases, we'd anticipate the courts telling them that, on these issues, the parents don't know what's best for their children

    It reminds me of these horrific stories of children being absolutely beaten & terrified by Voodoo witches in the hope of exorcising the demons out of them. Parents who inflict harm entirely because their religion says so ...
    Exactly.
    Parents' role is to protect and look after their children, not to have bits of their genitals sliced off for non medical reasons.

    It really should be a crime. If a new religion came along and said it was part of their culture to chop off the earlobe of their children we wouldn't accept it, yet for some bizarre reason we accept parents having a bit of their baby's genitalis chopped off.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    Not necessarily.

    In jurisprudence, there is a school of thought called positivsm which argues that there should be a separation between law and morality. I am very sympathetic to this. HLA Hart wrote that just because an action was considered in society to be morally wrong; it should not automatically follow that it warrants legal sanction.
    There is a separation. Law doesn't determine moral standards or even necessarily reflect them. Sometimes there's an overlap but that's about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Or perhaps they are not included because their purpose is to increase sexual pleasure
    Type 2 specifically includes labiaectomy. Clitoral hoodectomy can increase sexual pleasure, but it is still classed as FGM by the WHO.
    Are you seriously trying to defend FGM now? Jeez!

    Don't try and be funny when you're the one that said we can't have opinions about things we haven't personally experienced
    Of course we can have opinions about things we haven't experienced. However, we can't make objective statements of persinal experience. If you have never had a foreskin, you can never know how sensitive the head of the penis is in comparison, and thus cannot make objective statements about it.

    As Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".

    Taken from the NHS website:
    UTIs are a relatively common infection during childhood.They are more common in boys up to the age of six months old, but after this tend to be more common in girls. It is estimated that around 1 in 10 girls and 1 in 30 boys will have had a UTI by the time they turn 1
    Fair enough, we have different sources with different figures. But, still not "common", and more of an issue with girls than boys.

    And more importantly, does either source recommend circumcision as a means of reducing the risk? No.
    So we can reject UTI prevention as a legitimate reason for non-essential circumcision.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    No, because male circumcision is not mutilation - it was already proved in this thread.
    What?!
    You showed, with your own argument, that the procedure corresponded with a definition of "mutilation".

    The confirmation bias of those who have a doctrinal necessity to justify the unnecessary removal of part of a child's genitals is breathtaking!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Taken from the NHS website:
    UTIs are a relatively common infection during childhood.They are more common in boys up to the age of six months old, but after this tend to be more common in girls. It is estimated that around 1 in 10 girls and 1 in 30 boys will have had a UTI by the time they turn 1
    You do know circumcision can lead to infections right? Some chap I know ended up with MRSA after his, in his penis!! Can you imagine.:eek:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Type 2 specifically includes labiaectomy. Clitoral hoodectomy can increase sexual pleasure, but it is still classed as FGM by the WHO.
    Are you seriously trying to defend FGM now? Jeez!
    Where does it explicitly include a labiaectomy without chopping off part of the clitoris as well?
    I'm not defending FGM, I'm just saying that the procedures you refer to are seen more as cosmetic surgeries.

    Of course we can have opinions about things we haven't experienced. However, we can't make objective statements of persinal experience. If you have never had a foreskin, you can never know how sensitive the head of the penis is in comparison, and thus cannot make objective statements about it.
    Who made objective statements? I made it very clear that most of what I've said is subjective. You didn't include the word objective in your initial comment, you just said that we can't make judgements about things we haven't personally experienced.

    As Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".
    True.

    Fair enough, we have different sources with different figures. But, still not "common", and more of an issue with girls than boys.
    It's relatively common and more of an issue in boys under 1.

    And more importantly, does either source recommend circumcision as a means of reducing the risk? No.
    So we can reject UTI prevention as a legitimate reason for non-essential circumcision.
    No we can't. You can reject UTI prevention as a legitimate reason. You can't speak for anyone else. Some people may have a family history of UTIs, and recommendation from a health professional isn't essential, I never actually claimed that a health care professional recommends it. All I said was that UTI prevention is a benefit of circumcision.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hovado)
    You do know circumcision can lead to infections right? Some chap I know ended up with MRSA after his, in his penis!! Can you imagine.:eek:
    Everything can lead to infections. MRSA as a result of circumcision is so incredibly rare, so if we're gonna bring up the risks no matter how rare,why can't I bring up the benefits no matter how rare?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Where does it explicitly include a labiaectomy without chopping off part of the clitoris as well?
    I'm not defending FGM, I'm just saying that the procedures you refer to are seen more as cosmetic surgeries.
    So the unnecessary, non-consensual labiaectomy of infants is acceptable as long as the clitoris is not harmed?

    Well, you're entitled to your own opinion. But the WHO disagrees.
    Type 4 FGM- "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes"
    So, do you still maintain that clitoral hoodectomy or labiaectomy of infants, as individual procedures are not FGM?

    No we can't. You can reject UTI prevention as a legitimate reason. You can't speak for anyone else. Some people may have a family history of UTIs, and recommendation from a health professional isn't essential, I never actually claimed that a health care professional recommends it. All I said was that UTI prevention is a benefit of circumcision.
    It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of several medical reports. The one specifically looking at circumcition and UTIs clearly stated that it was only justified in cases of high risk.

    Are you seriously claiming that non-qualified people should be allowed to make surgical diagnoses of infants? Really??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Everything can lead to infections. MRSA as a result of circumcision is so incredibly rare, so if we're gonna bring up the risks no matter how rare,why can't I bring up the benefits no matter how rare?
    That's easy.

    How likely are infections from circumcision and how harmful are they?
    How likely are UTI from not having a circumcision and how harmful are they?

    Hint: Infections from surgery are not incredibly rare, far from it and MRSA in the penis is significantly more harmful than a UTI.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Everything can lead to infections.
    Which is why unnecessary surgery is to be avoided. Which is why the NHS and Medicaid do not approve the procedure.
    In some countries, it is illegal except for medical or religious reasons.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Which is why unnecessary surgery is to be avoided. Which is why the NHS and Medicaid do not approve the procedure.
    In some countries, it is illegal except for medical or religious reasons.
    Indeed. If we're going to argue circumcision should be allowed 'because it can lead to an infection' then I guess we can chop off people's ears because they can also lead to infections.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What?!
    You showed, with your own argument, that the procedure corresponded with a definition of "mutilation".

    The confirmation bias of those who have a doctrinal necessity to justify the unnecessary removal of part of a child's genitals is breathtaking!
    What?!
    (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 didn't provide requested proof and therefore lost your argument.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hovado)
    That's easy.

    How likely are infections from circumcision and how harmful are they?
    Don't know exact figures but I know that just like any other surgical procedure, it's a possibility but when conducted in a clean and sterile environment by a professional, it's very unlikely.

    How likely are UTI from not having a circumcision and how harmful are they?
    Could be dependent on family history, but even without the family history, there's a 1 in 30 chance of a boy under the age of 1 developing a UTI.

    Since you can't see a UTI, if left untreated, it can lead to kidney damage/failure.

    Other benefits of circumcision include lowered risk of penile cancer aswell.

    Hint: Infections from surgery are not incredibly rare, far from it and MRSA in the penis is significantly more harmful than a UTI.
    Infection from circumcision is very rare.
    Recurrent UTIs are more common than MRSA.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Everything can lead to infections. MRSA as a result of circumcision is so incredibly rare, so if we're gonna bring up the risks no matter how rare,why can't I bring up the benefits no matter how rare?
    Because circumcision is not performed for its invariably contrived "benefits". It's inflicted onto little children out of a cultural obeisance to the Abrahamic sacrifices of the Old Testament.

    The attempt to reposition the debate into the secular; doesn't conceal the primitive & savage origins of the act you're struggling to defend.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting.
    I appears that circumcised men don't sexually satisfy women as well as men with a foreskin.
    http://www.circumcision.org/femalesex.htm

    Turns out that the HIV protection argument may be flawed as well.
    http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hovado)
    You do know circumcision can lead to infections right? Some chap I know ended up with MRSA after his, in his penis!! Can you imagine.:eek:
    So the way to defeat MRSA is to cease all circumcision operations?

    Perhaps the foreskin gives patients super antibiotic powers which stave of any and all infections? Has that been looked into yet? Can we get someone to look into this fascinating discovery?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Which is why unnecessary surgery is to be avoided. Which is why the NHS and Medicaid do not approve the procedure.
    In some countries, it is illegal except for medical or religious reasons.
    Which is why YOU believe that the surgery is unnecessary and which is why YOU believe that it should be avoided. Stop forcing your opinions onto other people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Interesting.
    I appears that circumcised men don't sexually satisfy women as well as men with a foreskin.
    http://www.circumcision.org/femalesex.htm

    Turns out that the HIV protection argument may be flawed as well.
    http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm
    You're back with this nonsense. I have said several times that this whole notion of sensitivity and sexual pleasure is so flawed. How can you objectively deduce that the male being circumcised is the reason for the lack of pleasure that women feel? This study you linked was of 138 participants, how can that seriously be relied upon? How do you know that the woman just doesn't orgasm from vaginal sex? A lot of women don't. You can just make a correlation like that when there are other extraneous variables that are not considered.

    I could easily come back at you with another study that conclues the opposite, but if I did that, this would be never ending
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    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.