Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Well I don't think it should be. Admittedly piercings do close up after time don't they? Where as foreskins don't grow back, so it's not quite equivalent.
    I had my ears pierced when I was 5. My ears still remain pierced now I'm 23. I can't say I wear earrings very often either...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    An extra sensitive part of me is gone,
    Sounds pretty horrendous to me, in fact it was pretty horrendous for me.

    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    are cut people less likely to suffer from premature ejaculation?
    I dunno, are cut people more likely to suffer from retarded ejaculation?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Sounds pretty horrendous to me, in fact it was pretty horrendous for me.



    I dunno, are cut people more likely to suffer from retarded ejaculation?
    Nope, but the American girls in my uni are in love with me right now.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GrumpyCat)
    It's not antisemitic. It's given children the right not to be mutilated untill they can consent.

    Also why is female always wrong and male just fine n dandy? Both are wrong.
    because female circumscision is done purely to remove sexual enjoyment for women - at least with men there is some medical reasoning for it.


    (Original post by harry_007)
    The all-knowing NHS... ooOOooOO :rolleyes:

    It speaks of advantages and disadvantages. It doesn't know for sure. Have a good read yourself.

    What should a Jew care what the NHS says anyway if he believes that God knows best anyway?

    Stop imposing.
    tell me - whats the medical need to put the babies penis in/near your mouth when the circumcision occurs in some of the jewish doctrines and practices.

    Think ill go with the all knowing NHS over a beardy man performing fellatio on a baby.

    (Original post by harry_007)
    A benefit is a benefit. Not everyone has access to condoms. But anyway, why would a Jew or a Muslim care what you say?
    You live in the UK or the middle of the plains of Africa? That is a stupid argument to anyone living within the UK

    And in response to your next point - why should non muslims and jews care about a child mutilation practice?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No one gives a **** if its antisemitic
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Don't really give two ****s about it all to be frank. It's a cosmetic change and a traditional practice. I don't see any real justification for a change in the law - particularly when faced with both religious concerns and the long period in which circumcision has been practiced.

    (Original post by looseseal)
    Honestly laughable seeing people claim that religious people have any right to permanently mutilate their non-consenting baby just because a piece of ancient text tells them so.
    Not only is it a fact that they do have that right, it is also something which has been done for thousands of years.

    Would this be acceptable if it referred to female circumcision? Many people are saying the two acts are not comparable but they both involve some level of genital mutilation where a body part carrying thousands of nerve endings is chopped off. To say this is acceptable in modern society is an absolute joke.
    That you can find something in common with the two acts does not mean they are remotely similar. They are certainly not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Circumcision is a common procedure carried out for phimosis, and other infections. Immediately saying that circumcision is disgusting and genital mutilation is very arrogant. Not only Jews have it done.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonoahx)
    Circumcision is a common procedure carried out for phimosis, and other infections. Immediately saying that circumcision is disgusting and genital mutilation is very arrogant. Not only Jews have it done.
    Why would we need to point out the difference between health & religion when this thread specifically targets religion?

    You can't compare circumcision for health reasons to religious reasons.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I think underage circumcision for non-medical reasons is barbaric. Who can possibly think that it's okay to remove part of a baby's penis when it's completely unnecessary to do so?

    The religious argument doesn't make sense to me. If it's about establishing a bond with God (and why on Earth would God want a bit of foreskin sacrificed to Him), let the person do so when they are old enough to make that decision and commitment. An eight-day-old baby isn't religious. He cannot make that commitment or establish that bond, so for the parents to make that decision is meaningless. If you believe in that sacrifice, isn't it all the more special when you're, say, 18 and go through it knowingly and willingly?

    Some argue that it's better this way, because the person involved won't remember the pain. Maybe so, but they sure feel it at the time, and who would want to make a newborn suffer like that? Newborns are supposed to feel safe, and loved. Not hurt for no good reason.

    Plus, what if the person grows up and decides they don't believe in God?

    I say, let religion keep their circumcision if they so choose, but, as mentioned above, let it be a voluntary act carried out at the age of consent or above. Underage circumcision should be banned, and that's not antisemitic, that's just common sense and decency.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    because female circumscision is done purely to remove sexual enjoyment for women - at least with men there is some medical reasoning for it.
    The supposed medical benefits only kick in when someone becomes old enough to be sexually active, by which time he can make his own decision. Also, circumcisions can and do go wrong. For a newborn, there is a downside and no upside, medically speaking.

    tell me - whats the medical need to put the babies penis in/near your mouth when the circumcision occurs in some of the jewish doctrines and practices.
    Think ill go with the all knowing NHS over a beardy man performing fellatio on a baby.
    While I would ban neonatal circumcision, I think it's wrong to push the argument by suggesting a sexual motive for this seemingly bizarre ritual.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    This is awkward for me, I am not jewish however i was circumcised when i was age 5 (no clue why).

    I actually imagine i prefer being circumcised, i think it has more benefits than having a foreskin, I think the taboo of circumcision in the UK is completely reversed in America whereby to have a foreskin would be seen as strange..
    I don't think there's that much of a taboo about circumcision here, it's just not widely done. It's not something that gets discussed much. Also even when people are against the practice of circumcising children, I don't think they generally think there's anything wrong with being circumcised, it's just the matter of doing it to a child.

    That's what I think anyway. To me it seems ethically wrong to circumcise a child without a clear medical reason. But I don't think someone who is circumcised is "mutilated" or less of a man or anything like that. I think it's perfectly valid to prefer to have a circumcised penis, I just don't think it's fair to force it on someone before they are capable of forming an opinion.

    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    An extra sensitive part of me is gone, are cut people less likely to suffer from premature ejaculation?
    I wouldn't be surprised if there is a marginal difference. But delayed ejaculation can be a problem for some people too, so it's swings and roundabouts. Anyway, that doesn't have anything to do with circumcising a child because children shouldn't be having sex.

    (Original post by Bonoahx)
    Circumcision is a common procedure carried out for phimosis, and other infections. Immediately saying that circumcision is disgusting and genital mutilation is very arrogant. Not only Jews have it done.
    I don't think anyone has suggested that. It's a completely different situation when it is done to correct a medical condition that a child is suffering from. I don't think anyone is against doing it when there is a genuine medical need.

    Saying that, I've seen opinions from some doctors who disagree it's the most appropriate treatment for phimosis. But I consider that a completely separate issue which I don't have enough medical knowledge to weigh in on.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=silverbolt;44799693]because female circumscision is done purely to remove sexual enjoyment for women - at least with men there is some medical reasoning for it.[QUOTE]

    I'm on about the religious reasons for circumcision. I doubt anybody is saying no to a child who needs it done, for it to be done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Guardian Zionists exposed
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: July 1, 2017
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.