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

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

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Provide one argument against circumcision please and try to be as specific as possible.
    It involves pain and risk. Not difficult. The same can be said of any surgical procedure, that's why we only do them when they are necessary.

    You wouldn't chop of the foreskin off an adult without their consent. Why would you do the same to a baby?
    (Unless there were a medical reason for doing so)


    EDIT: I can't understand the facepalm to this post. Is circumcision not painful? Not perhaps actually during the procedure, but in recovery. Does it not carry risks? This is what the NHS has to say about the risks of circumcision:

    "As with all types of surgical procedure, circumcision has some associated risks. However, complications from circumcisions carried out for medical reasons are rare in England.

    Bleeding and infection are the most common problems associated with circumcision. Other complications can include:

    * a decrease in sensation (feeling) in the penis, particularly during sex
    * damage to the urethra (the tube that carries urine inside the penis) causing it to narrow and making it hard to pass urine
    * accidental amputation of the glans (head of the penis), which is very rare
    * a blood infection or blood poisoning (septicaemia)"

    Yes they are extremely rare, but they exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    It involves pain and risk.
    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, it should not be banned.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You do know it only involves taking a bit of insignificant skin off and not chopping your crown jewels off with a hachet, right?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11652219

    Halfing the chance of HIV has it's advantages in extending your life.

    Put your religious prejudices aside. Not everyone does it for religious purposes.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11652219

    Halfing the chance of HIV has it's advantages in extending your life.

    Put your religious prejudices aside. Not everyone does it for religious purposes.
    Benefits that don't apply to childhood (I don't know any sexually active babies, do you?). It could be left until the person was old enough to choose for themselves, with no disadvantage. Certainly no disadvantage that justifies making an irreversible decision for somebody else.

    Would you circumcise an adult without their consent?

    EDIT: If someone had removed the hood of my clitoris when I was a baby, for no immediately good reason, I would be really pissed off. Really really angry about it. The people who feel that way, deserve for it not to have happened to them. Even if it means the people who are happy with their circumcision would have had to wait until they were gillick-competent (because their waiting would not be of significant consequence. A baby's pain is not less important just because they won't remember it. If you thought like that you could justify doing a lot of awful things to babies).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    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.
    Parents are the legal guardians of their child and have legal authority over them. Hence children are forced to go school without their approval and indeed parents are punished if they do not force them to do so.

    This idea of "freedom of expression" or whatever else is nonsense when applied to children. And if you actually talk to people who have been circumcised, they do not lose any sleep over that "nerve ending" mantra.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    Benefits that don't apply to childhood (I don't know any sexually active babies, do you?). It could be left until the person was old enough to choose for themselves, with no disadvantage. Certainly no disadvantage that justifies making an irreversible decision for somebody else.

    Would you circumcise an adult without their consent?
    There are disadvantages of adult circumcision, which is the reason for doing it as a child.

    Since when do kids consent to anything? Do you plan on asking your kids consent before sending them to school?

    As a parent, you should know better than the child, and so you are be allowed to make decisions on their behalf.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
    There are disadvantages of adult circumcision, which is the reason for doing it as a child.

    Since when do kids consent to anything? Do you plan on asking your kids consent before sending them to school?

    As a parent, you should know better than the child, and so you are be allowed to make decisions on their behalf.
    Not sending my children to school will have permanent negative consequences for their future. They won't be able to choose to have gone to school when they are older, it will be too late.

    Not circumcising my children is nothing like that. It will never be "too late" for them to decide to get a circumcision if they want one. The disadvantages of having an adult circumcision are not worth the price of them not being able to consent to that procedure.

    I don't hate circumcised penises. My boyfriend is circumcised. But I very strongly disagree with making decisions for people without their consent when there is really very little disadvantage in just waiting to see how they feel about it. Which is certainly the case in circumcision. The whole reason it is done to infants is because they are not in a position to refuse, be honest about it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Parents are the legal guardians of their child and have legal authority over them. Hence children are forced to go school without their approval and indeed parents are punished if they do not force them to do so.

    This idea of "freedom of expression" or whatever else is nonsense when applied to children.
    I'm not really arguing about freedom of expression, or at least not while the person is still a child. Forcing a child to go to school or baptising them or making them go to church or something like that doesn't permanently and irreversibly change their body. Big difference.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    And if you actually talk to people who have been circumcised, they do not lose any sleep over that "nerve ending" mantra.
    They don't know what it feels like though because they don't have a foreskin. And so what if most people aren't particularly bothered by it? A lot of men don't like prostate stimulation, but some do. I don't think the removal of a source of sexual pleasure is a decision for a parent to make. It should be up to the person themselves to decide when they are old enough.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    Well, most men would argue sex is one of the most important aspects of their lives, and as the penis is the main instrument of sexual activity, the unnecessary, irreversible removal of part of it is too.

    The idea it prevents disease is also pretty much a myth. Source.

    Tattoos aren't allowed to be performed on children without consent. Why is circumcision any different?
    I agree with you totally.

    Another problem is people weighing in saying 'It happened to me and I don't mind'.

    The opinions of one shouldn't effect millions of other people. I have heard of loads of people who wish they hadn't had it done. Furthermore I think the outcome is irrelevant. You can't say 'Oh it worked for me' and expect that to serve as justification for what is essentially the mutilation of a child's sex organ without permission.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I'm not really arguing about freedom of expression, or at least not while the person is still a child. Forcing a child to go to school or baptising them or making them go to church or something like that doesn't permanently and irreversibly change their body. Big difference.
    I'm sorry but that's just a blatant cop-out, your whole previous posts alludes to the liberty of a person to express and do as they please but then you backtrack and say you're not talking about freedom of expression. So yes, the issue is about the supposed freedom of an individual to do what they want.

    They don't know what it feels like though because they don't have a foreskin. And so what if most people aren't particularly bothered by it? A lot of men don't like prostate stimulation, but some do. I don't think the removal of a source of sexual pleasure is a decision for a parent to make. It should be up to the person themselves to decide when they are old enough.
    I'm sure it must F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C, but I don't care and to tell you the truth, it's a bit creepy to think that other men worry about my sexual stimulation or lack of.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Parents are the legal guardians of their child and have legal authority over them. Hence children are forced to go school without their approval and indeed parents are punished if they do not force them to do so.
    Parents do not have complete authority over their children. You could not cut off one of your child's toes because you thought it appropriate. That would be abusive, because it is not in the interests of that child.

    Very arguably, infant circumcision is not in the best interests of the child. Schooling, necessary medical procedures, whatever other poor comparison you want to come up with along those lines - they are done without consent for two reasons:
    1) They are quite obviously in that individual's best interest
    2) The decision cannot be delayed until that person is in a position to provide consent without serious negative consequences

    Even if you believe ritual circumcision meets criterion 1), the argument for it reaching criterion 2) is extremely poor.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I'm sorry but that's just a blatant cop-out, your whole previous posts alludes to the liberty of a person to express and do as they please but then you backtrack and say you're not talking about freedom of expression. So yes, the issue is about the supposed freedom of an individual to do what they want.
    Well I would say it's more about freedom to not have body parts removed without your consent rather than freedom of expression. If it was an issue that purely affected their childhood, then I'd agree with you. You're right that parents have the responsibility to raise a child in a suitable way, but when the child is an adult they should be free to make their own decisions whether or not that agrees with how their parents raised them. Infant circumcision violates that because once it's gone you can't get it back.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I'm sure it must F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C, but I don't care and to tell you the truth, it's a bit creepy to think that other men worry about my sexual stimulation or lack of.
    Yes it is pretty creepy. Which is why I find it pretty creepy that parents make decisions like that for their newborn children. It really shouldn't be the parent's concern what their child will or will not find sexually pleasurable, so they should leave it alone and not remove body parts that could possibly be involved with that.

    Saying "Oh it's not a big deal, it doesn't feel that good anyway" is a pretty weird argument because it should be up to the individual to decide what they do and don't find pleasurable. It shouldn't be up to a parent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    Parents do not have complete authority over their children. You could not cut off one of your child's toes because you thought it appropriate. That would be abusive, because it is not in the interests of that child.
    Stop being hyperbolic, you know what I mean.

    Very arguably, infant circumcision is not in the best interests of the child
    That isn't for you to decide, you have no right to impose on me as parent what best interests are to my child

    Schooling, necessary medical procedures, whatever other poor comparison you want to come up with
    What, like your laughable "pain and risk" excuse :rolleyes:

    1) They are quite obviously in that individual's best interest
    That's arbitrary and again gives you no legitimacy to decide.

    2) The decision cannot be delayed until that person is in a position to provide consent without serious negative consequences
    It doesn't need to be delayed,as a parent, what I see best for my child goes so long as I don't inflict any unnecessary injury, or any future complication that may hamper the use of the given organ.

    Even if you believe ritual circumcision meets criterion 1), the argument for it reaching criterion 2) is extremely poor.
    No it really isn't, because your entire premise is defeated to being with
    • Offline

      18
      THe aspect about reducing disease risk is actually true - circumcision does reduce disease risk very slightly.
      Studies have looked at this in depth.

      But thaey have done so looking at men already circumcised successfully, not looking at those where it has beena bodge job.

      THe problem is this.
      Who does the circumcision?
      A doctor will never cut into a child without anaesthetic, and any anaesthetic carries a risk.
      For that risk to have really insignificant benefits except to appease the parents religious beliefs is not justifiable.

      So instead circumcisions are often pwerformed by religious men - rabbis etc.
      The infection risk is far higher, and with no formal training the risk of really messing up is real.
      Not to mention that this is performed without anaesthetic.
      That the child may be too young to remember is no excuse for inflicting hideous amounts of pain without any anaesthetic.

      DOI - Have actually seen and performed circumcisions on kids and adults. [medical reasons only!]
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Psyk)
      Well I would say it's more about freedom to not have body parts removed without your consent rather than freedom of expression. If it was an issue that purely affected their childhood, then I'd agree with you. You're right that parents have the responsibility to raise a child in a suitable way, but when the child is an adult they should be free to make their own decisions whether or not that agrees with how their parents raised them. Infant circumcision violates that because once it's gone you can't get it back.
      You're just using circular logic and doesn't address the core issue

      Yes it is pretty creepy. Which is why I find it pretty creepy that parents make decisions like that for their newborn children. It really shouldn't be the parent's concern what their child will or will not find sexually pleasurable, so they should leave it alone and not remove body parts that could possibly be involved with that.
      It has nothing to with sexual pleasure and your assertion that it does defeats your own argument.

      Saying "Oh it's not a big deal, it doesn't feel that good anyway" is a pretty weird argument because it should be up to the individual to decide what they do and don't find pleasurable. It shouldn't be up to a parent.
      I didn't say that, I said, I've been circumcised and I don't sit around and pant all day about the sensitivity of your penis.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Parents make decisions for children but when it's something which actually causes harm, surely the will of the child at an appropriate age should be accounted for.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by BeanofJelly)
      Not sending my children to school will have permanent negative consequences for their future. They won't be able to choose to have gone to school when they are older, it will be too late.

      Not circumcising my children is nothing like that. It will never be "too late" for them to decide to get a circumcision if they want one. The disadvantages of having an adult circumcision are not worth the price of them not being able to consent to that procedure.

      I don't hate circumcised penises. My boyfriend is circumcised. But I very strongly disagree with making decisions for people without their consent when there is really very little disadvantage in just waiting to see how they feel about it. Which is certainly the case in circumcision. The whole reason it is done to infants is because they are not in a position to refuse, be honest about it.
      If the disadvantages of adult circumcision are so tiny, why is it medically advised to circumcise a few days from birth?

      I suggest you do your research on the thing you are so strongly against. And by that I don't mean research on the internet.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      No it represents the convenant between man and God, only heretics want to see this banned.
     
     
     
    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
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  3. 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.

  4. 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.