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

    2
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Other benefits of circumcision include lowered risk of penile cancer aswell.
    Women who carry the BRCA1/BRCA2 gene are more susceptible to developing breast cancer.

    Using your disturbed demented logic, we should start testing all young girls for this gene. Thereafter, swiftly amputating their breast tissues because it reduces breast cancer.

    (And, of course, you should scarcely concern ourselves with their consent).


    P.S. Before you respond to me, please take a moment to think …
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    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.
    Oh right because you've had a discussion with every single parent that has had their son circumcised? Most people probably do circumcise their son for religious reasons, but you can't speak for everyone.

    The attempt to reposition the debate into the secular; doesn't conceal the primitive & savage origins of the act you're struggling to defend.
    I'm not struggling to defend anything
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    Women who carry the BRCA1/BRCA2 gene are more susceptible to developing breast cancer.

    Using your disturbed demented logic, we should start testing all young girls for this gene. Thereafter, swiftly amputating their breast tissues because it reduces breast cancer.

    (And, of course, you should scarcely concern ourselves with their consent).


    P.S. Before you respond to me, please take a moment to think …
    Perhaps you should take a moment to think, because we DO test women for this gene and those who carry the gene and have a family history of breast cancer may well decide to have a double masectomy.
    You can't amputate breast tissue until it's fully developed and by then, the girl would likely be an adult. A double masectomy is a much more complicated surgery than circumcision and the affects afterwards are much more daunting.
    Offline

    2
    (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
    HIV is spread through bodily fluids. How is circumcision going to possibly stop that? This was perpetuated in the 1980s by people who zilch about the virus.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    What?!

    You didn't provide requested proof and therefore lost your argument.
    My post...
    What? That definition [of mutilation] 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).
    Your response was a non sequitur.
    By definition, circumcision is "severe physical harm that impairs the usefulness, or normal function" of the penis.
    Here is your "medical proof".
    http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm
    http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I could easily come back at you with another study that conclues the opposite, but if I did that, this would be never ending
    No. please do. That is how debate works.

    However, if you can't, then it is reasonable to assume that circumcision leads to reduced sexual pleasure in some women. And as you are claiming the possibility of minimal benefits as a justification, for, then you must likewise accept it as a justification against.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So the unnecessary, non-consensual labiaectomy of infants is acceptable as long as the clitoris is not harmed?
    At which point did I say that?

    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?
    You're just assuming that a clitoral dehooding alone and a labiaectomy alone is included in this, when type 1 or 2 explicitly mentions both of these procedure in conjunction with partial or total clitoris removal
    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.
    I'm sure that there are some medical reports that think different.
    1 in 30 chance is a pretty high risk if you ask me.
    It is still your opinion nonetheless.
    Are you seriously claiming that non-qualified people should be allowed to make surgical diagnoses of infants? Really??
    I am suggesting that it is none of your business. The risks are low, the benefits are low so I believe that the parents should decide.
    No one is telling you to circumcise your kid.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    No. please do. That is how debate works.

    However, if you can't, then it is reasonable to assume that circumcision leads to reduced sexual pleasure in some women. And as you are claiming the possibility of minimal benefits as a justification, for, then you must likewise accept it as a justification against.
    We've been debating for long enough but since you insist:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...udy-issue.html

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...al-sensitivity

    http://m.livescience.com/27769-does-...-pleasure.html
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    At which point did I say that?


    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.
    I'm sure that there are some medical reports that think different.
    1 in 30 chance is a pretty high risk if you ask me.
    It is still your opinion nonetheless.

    I am suggesting that it is none of your business. The risks are low, the benefits are low so I believe that the parents should decide.
    No one is telling you to circumcise your kid.
    No the parents shouldn't decide to have a part of their baby's penis chopped off for non medical reasons.
    Our bodies are our own and only our own and we should all get to decide what we want done to them.
    All men are born with a foreskin why should they not get to choose whether to keep it? It's theirs not their parents.

    If they want a circumcision then that should be the persons decision when they are old enough to make such a judgement.

    Should parents be allowed to slice a bit of their child's ear off for religious reasons?
    It's ridiculous that we allow parents to have part of their children's genitalis chopped off for religious reasons.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    My post...
    Your response was a non sequitur.
    By definition, circumcision is "severe physical harm that impairs the usefulness, or normal function" of the penis.
    Here is your "medical proof".
    http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm
    http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
    By your definition.
    My response was absolutely logical.
    Your links are irrelevant.
    You lost. Deal with it.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Perhaps you should take a moment to think, because we DO test women for this gene and those who carry the gene and have a family history of breast cancer may well decide to have a double masectomy.
    You can't amputate breast tissue until it's fully developed and by then, the girl would likely be an adult. A double masectomy is a much more complicated surgery than circumcision and the affects afterwards are much more daunting.
    1. We test women and not young girls (which was my point)
    2. It is entirely grounded in medical reasoning (and not primitive superstition which was my point)
    3. You didn't pick up on the fact that just because they have the BRCA gene; doesn't equate to getting breast cancer (but this isn't about science)

    You were the one frantically arguing that circumcision has some shifty scientific basis. When you compare it to any other standard medical practice it has no similarity - as you have amply confirmed above.

    Give yourself a break. This act has nothing to do with medicine and science. I'd much rather you say "I'm religious", and leave it at that.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    At which point did I say that?
    You are claiming that parental consent for non-medical, clinically removing a specific part of a child's genitalia (foreskin/clitoral hood/labia) is acceptable for males but not for females, yet you have failed to present a reason why.

    I'll ask again, if there is no medical necessity, why it it acceptable to remove an infant's foreskin, but not an infant's labia or clitiral hood?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    1. We test women and not young girls (which was my point)
    2. It is entirely grounded in medical reasoning (and not primitive superstition which was my point)
    3. You didn't pick up on the fact that just because they have the BRCA gene; doesn't equate to getting breast cancer (but this isn't about science)

    You were the one frantically arguing that circumcision has some shifty scientific basis. When you compare it to any other standard medical practice it has no similarity - as you have amply confirmed above.

    Give yourself a break. This act has nothing to do with medicine and science. I'd much rather you say "I'm religious", and leave it at that.
    Indeed.
    People by and large have circumcisions carried out on their babies and children for religious or cultural reasons and then when challenged seem to go 'yeah but apparently I saw someone on the internet say it's healthy or something'.

    It's an irrelevant argument, because it's not done for medical reasons and there is no urgent medical reason to have it done.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You are claiming that parental consent for non-medical, clinically removing a specific part of a child's genitalia (foreskin/clitoral hood/labia) is acceptable for males but not for females, yet you have failed to present a reason why.

    I'll ask again, if there is no medical necessity, why it it acceptable to remove an infant's foreskin, but not an infant's labia or clitiral hood?
    I have explained so many times to you that there are associated benefits with male circumcision and the risks are minimal in comparison.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Those are all about male sensitivity, not female satisfaction. Please respond to my points, not yours.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    1. We test women and not young girls (which was my point)
    2. It is entirely grounded in medical reasoning (and not primitive superstition which was my point)
    3. You didn't pick up on the fact that just because they have the BRCA gene; doesn't equate to getting breast cancer (but this isn't about science)

    You were the one frantically arguing that circumcision has some shifty scientific basis. When you compare it to any other standard medical practice it has no similarity - as you have amply confirmed above.

    Give yourself a break. This act has nothing to do with medicine and science. I'd much rather you say "I'm religious", and leave it at that.
    1. We test women because women have developed breast tissue and have an increased likelihood of developing breast cancer
    2. No it doesn't mean that they will get breast cancer, but they are more likely, especially as they age.

    Clearly medicine science have shown that circumcision has its health benefits
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Those are all about male sensitivity, not female satisfaction. Please respond to my points, not yours.
    Did you ignore everything I said beforehand? The reason why all these studies are so FLAWED?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    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.
    What are you on about? It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the NHS and Medicaid, and almost certainly every other medical body on the planet (apart from the Association of Private Cosmetic Surgeons!)

    They do not carry out circumcisions becuase they consider then to be unnecessary.

    Do you believe that we should stop forcing our "opinions" on other people who feel that FGM is not unnecessary?

    Yet again, you present an argument for MGM that equally applies to FGM. You need to think more carefully about where you stand on these issues.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What are you on about? It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the NHS and Medicaid, and almost certainly every other medical body on the planet (apart from the Association of Private Cosmetic Surgeons!)

    They do not carry out circumcisions becuase they consider then to be unnecessary.

    Do you believe that we should stop forcing our "opinions" on other people who feel that FGM is not unnecessary?

    Yet again, you present an argument for MGM that equally applies to FGM. You need to think more carefully about where you stand on these issues.
    Too much repetitiveness* and this has gone on for long enough. We will simply agree to disagree.
    *FGM has no benefits, so it is unnecessary.

    Centre for disease, control and prevention (CDC) support circumcision for health reasons
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    By your definition.
    My response was absolutely logical.
    Your links are irrelevant.
    You lost. Deal with it.
    No, the definition was from the OED.
    Your response was flawed and fallacious.
    The links provide the evidence you asked for.
    You are in denial.
 
 
 
  • 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.