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

Should non-medical circumcision of under-18s be banned? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It puts money it wealthy Jewish doctor's pockets
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    What's the argument against it? I don't really see a problem. I had it circumcised and even though I probably wouldn't circumcise my children, I don't really see the problem with other parents circumcising theirs. What's the medical disadvantages? What's the harm? How likely is the harm? What's the medical benefits? How likely are these benefits? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? If someone answers those questions, I will reconsider my viewpoint. Also, how comes the circumcised adults rarely complain or campaign against it?
    What's the harm? Well, you've lost part of your penis.

    The sad thing is, we've become so accustomed to it that some people don't even see the problem. If you heard of a country where boys had a chunk of their penis shaft removed as children, you would rightly be alarmed. You should be equally alarmed by circumcision.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    Lol, 'if this thread is anything to go by' as if an internet forum is reliable enough to use as scientific evidence in a moral debate.
    "Lol" it wasn't a factual statement, hence "if this thread is anything to go by"

    Furthermore, you obviously didn't read my source properly (what a surprise :rolleyes:)
    My source had recent studies, some were around one or two years old. :lolwut:
    Actually I did, and it sounds more like an atheist anti religion conspiracy website.


    Also, from some of your sources some of them even argued against circumcision! In the BBC article posted, here is a following quote:
    'We know from the US example, where the majority of men already are circumcised, that circumcision does not protect against infection from anal intercourse.'
    I gave you 4 sources including the WHO,BMJ but you choose to pick that line in an attempt to refute me
    :sigh:

    The argument for circumcision that it protects against sexually diseases is irrelevant really, because most circumcisions occur when the victim is a child and obviously children do not have sex.
    Therefore when a person becomes emotionally and mentally mature enough to have sex that they would be old enough to give consent for circumcision.
    Note that I stopped taking scientific advice from you 30 minutes ago.

    As for 'religious and cultural norms' I really do not give much weight to them in today's increasingly secular world. How can a child be religious? Stop forcing your religion onto defenseless minors, until they are old enough to decide.
    Cool, it's irrelevant to me what you would think of either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Provide one argument against circumcision please and try to be as specific as possible.
    I think it breaches children's human rights as they are subjected to surgery that is non-consensual, irreversible and unnecessary.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Provide one argument against circumcision please and try to be as specific as possible.
    Provide one argument against the removal of a 1cm by 1cm square piece of flesh from the penis shaft.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just get a room
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    I think it breaches children's human rights as they are subjected to surgery that is non-consensual, irreversible and unnecessary.
    How does it breach children's human rights? The parents is responsible for the child. If it doesn't have any medical disadvantages or anything then surely there is no point in banning it. If it doesn't harm the child physically or mentally, then I really don't see the different between that and dressing your child up the way you want him to dress. Ear piercing is irreversible and unnecessary, shall we ban it too?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Provide one argument against circumcision please and try to be as specific as possible.
    There are nerve endings in the foreskin that can be pleasurable when stimulated. Perhaps not everyone's that bothered about it, but I think it's pretty weird for parents to make decisions about their newborn child's sex life.

    Also "It looks better" is the most freaky, bizarre and downright disturbing reasoning for infant circumcision I've ever heard.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Ear piercing is irreversible and unnecessary, shall we ban it too?
    Err, I'm pretty sure it is illegal to have a child's ears pierced...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    There are nerve endings in the foreskin that can be pleasurable when stimulated. Perhaps not everyone's that bothered about it, but I think it's pretty weird for parents to make decisions about their newborn child's sex life.
    How important is that? And are you sure there are no other parts that when stimulated can't be pleasurable? Can I have a source?

    (Original post by Psyk)
    Err, I'm pretty sure it is illegal to have a child's ears pierced...
    I have seen plenty of children ears pierced...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    I have seen plenty of children ears pierced...
    Ear piercing is not permanent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    How does it breach children's human rights? The parents is responsible for the child. If it doesn't have any medical disadvantages or anything then surely there is no point in banning it. If it doesn't harm the child physically or mentally, then I really don't see the different between that and dressing your child up the way you want him to dress. Ear piercing is irreversible and unnecessary, shall we ban it too?
    The Declaration of Human Rights:
    Article 6
    'Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.' and not just an extension of their parents...

    The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
    Article 8, part 1:
    'States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity' and not be surgically altered to adhere to their parent's religious beliefs.
    Article 13, part 1:
    'The child shall have the right to freedom of expression' and circumcision stops the child's freedom to decide for himself what parts of his body to keep and his freedom of sexual expression.

    The point of banning it is a matter of principle. Even in some countries of the world such as South Africa, circumcision of children is illegal.
    Also ear piercing is reversible, one can easily take the piercing out and the skin heals up. :rolleyes: Something that can't be said for circumcision.

    I can't understand why all the primitive theists can't just accept no child is having sex anyway, so all your dubious arguments about it preventing sexual diseases are irrelevant. As the age of consent for sex in the UK is 16, it logically follows the age of consent for circumcision should also be 16.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I bet you are just angry because you grew up in Golders Green and are upset about being the odd one out amongst your peers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Operation Bagel is trying to tackle anti-circumcision activists.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    The Declaration of Human Rights:
    Article 6
    'Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.' and not just an extension of their parents...
    Ok... The parents are still the legal guardian and are the ones that make most of the child's choices.

    The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
    Article 8, part 1:
    'States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity' and not be surgically altered to adhere to their parent's religious beliefs.
    Did you just add the bolded part?

    Article 13, part 1:
    'The child shall have the right to freedom of expression' and circumcision stops the child's freedom to decide for himself what parts of his body to keep and his freedom of sexual expression.
    No, it doesn't. That's like saying someone dressing their daughter in a particular style of clothing is stopping the child's freedom to decide for himself how to express himself.

    The point of banning it is a matter of principle. Even in some countries of the world such as South Africa, circumcision of children is illegal.
    Doesn't matter and also Diaz showed a source and that source shows that circumcision can actually help south Africa.

    Also ear piercing is reversible, one can easily take the piercing out and the skin heals up. :rolleyes: Something that can't be said for circumcision.
    Ear piercing can be dangerous at times. Anyway, it was an example.

    I can't understand why all the primitive theists can't just accept no child is having sex anyway, so all your dubious arguments about it preventing sexual diseases are irrelevant. As the age of consent for sex in the UK is 16, it logically follows the age of consent for circumcision should also be 16.
    I am not a theist. My argument is that there is really not many valid arguments against circumcision ergo it should be allowed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Circumcision for religious reasons always puzzled me.

    If God made man, he would have made man precisely how he wanted man to be made. Why would you modify God's creation?

    Circumcision for hygiene reasons (in our times) has always puzzled me.

    As a parent you simply teach your child to wash theirselves regularly and properly. It's not exactly the most difficult thing to teach a child, is it?

    Circumcision makes the penis less sensitive. It's a fact. The foreskin exists to protect the head of the penis from the outside world. If the glans are frequently exposed to the outside world they desensitise. Meaning that sex is less pleasurable, not even taking into account the nerve endings in the foreskin itself and the pleasure the foreskin moving over the glans provides.

    It could be argued that foreskin is simply a religious invention as a way to control the people. Sex is a means of expression of the people, and it is undeniable that religious bodies aren't too keen on this. Sex a 'sin' if done outside of marriage. Sex should be reserved only for making babies etc. etc. It's similar to in 1984 where sex is frowned upon and only considered a necessity to create children for the state.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that it is wrong. It is something that has no proven medical benefit, and even if it did - that benefit could wait until the person was old enough to decide for themselves.
    Whether or not you think the foreskin is very important, you can't just hack of someone's body part without consent because you consider it to be unimportant to them.

    Two examples which I think support my viewpoint:

    1) If your doctor circumcised you as an adult without your consent (ie: during an operation for something else) there would be outrage and a lawsuit to follow. Just because babies are unable to complain about it afterward (presumably other than crying in pain) doesn't mean they don't deserve the same regard.

    2) If I wanted my babies to be missing their smallest toe on either foot, there is absolutely no way on earth I could get a doctor to chop it off for me without a good reason, and if I did it myself I would be seen to have committed child abuse.
    And the cutting off of the foreskin for no reason is equivalent, if not worse to that. I'm sure if there was some religious movement for the hacking off of babies toes we'd have found all sorts of non-conclusive "evidence" about how it helps them to walk or not get athlete's foot.

    It entails unnecessary suffering and risk to the child. What about the very small minority of infants that are seriously injured by the procedure?
    And I do know of adults who are very angry that the decision was made for them. Ultimately, if you don't circumcise a child they can have the choice to get sliced later. I suspect though without forced infant circumcision the whole thing would die out as a voluntary practice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moneyballs2)
    It could be argued that foreskin is simply a religious invention as a way to control the people. Sex is a means of expression of the people, and it is undeniable that religious bodies aren't too keen on this. Sex a 'sin' if done outside of marriage. Sex should be reserved only for making babies etc. etc. It's similar to in 1984 where sex is frowned upon and only considered a necessity to create children for the state.
    It's a way to try and prevent normal masturbation. A practice based on prudish, superstitious, overbearing religious edicts that have no basis in evidence.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    How important is that? And are you sure there are no other parts that when stimulated can't be pleasurable? Can I have a source?
    Source? Me and my penis.

    So what if there are other parts that are pleasurable? Women have G-spots, so does that make it ok to remove their clitoris?

    How important is it? Don't you think it's quite weird for a child's parents to make a decision like that?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    No, it doesn't. That's like saying someone dressing their daughter in a particular style of clothing is stopping the child's freedom to decide for himself how to express himself.
    That's totally different. Clothes are not permanent. When the child grows up they will be able to dress however they want. However a circumcised man can't decide regrow his foreskin.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: March 12, 2011
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.