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

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

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    You're just using circular logic and doesn't address the core issue
    Please explain why so I can put my point across more clearly.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    It has nothing to with sexual pleasure and your assertion that it does defeats your own argument.
    Of course it has something to do with sexual pleasure. Removing the foreskin could potentially have a negative effect on sexual pleasure. I don't think a parent should make a judgement either way when it comes to things that provide sexual pleasure for their child upon reaching adulthood. Removing the foreskin is making the judgement that it's not significant. Why does that defeat my argument?

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    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.
    Well I'm sure you don't, but the point is you've never had the opportunity to experience it so you have no idea what you're missing (or not missing, as it's down to personal preferences).
    • Offline

      18
      (Original post by Diaz89)
      That isn't for you to decide, you have no right to impose on me as parent what best interests are to my child
      Actually we as a society really do.
      Thats one of the disadvantages of living in a society. Loss of personal freedoms.
      It is countered by the advantage of everyone coming together and eciding a common good and enforcing that for the good of the majority.
      • Offline

        18
        (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
        If the disadvantages of adult circumcision are so tiny, why is it medically advised to circumcise a few days from birth?
        I don't recall reading that. Where did you get that from?

        Your language is I'm sure misleading because its certainly not the common practice as a rule.
        Not 'medically' anyway.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by There will be Particles)
        This is a direct attack on the Jewish and Islamic faiths.
        I think you need to look up the meaning of 'direct'.
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Diaz89)
        That isn't for you to decide, you have no right to impose on me as parent what best interests are to my child
        Society does have rights to impose upon parents what the best interests of their child are. Clearly, as in the toe example.

        And, medically speaking, if parents are not seen to be acting in the interests of their child, a representative for that child will be provided who may overule parental decisions.

        If you find that wrong, you're the one whose out of sync with current mindsets on these kind of ethics, not me.

        I suspect circumcision is only exempted from the same rules for fear of stirring up religious groups.


        (Original post by Diaz89)
        What, like your laughable "pain and risk" excuse :rolleyes:
        It isn't laughable. A small but significant number of circumcisions result in complications, including septicaemia, just like with any surgical procedure.
        Circumcision is painful (I'm not talking during, but afterward in recovery). You can't remove a piece of skin without it hurting.

        Those things aren't great enough that if an adult (or even a gillick-competent child) chooses to take them on that they aren't acceptable. But an infant does not choose to take them on.

        (Original post by Diaz89)
        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.
        Circumcision is an unneccessary injury, which very arguably affects functioning. Do circumcised penises function differently to those which are not? Almost irrefutably yes.
        If the person affected considers that change to be positive, great.
        But if the person affected considers that change to be negative, there you have it: you have hampered their use of the "given organ".

        Beside it is wrong to make permanent decisions for someone else when they could just as easily wait.

        A surgeon will not remove someone's diseased testicle when they are on the operating table, unless they deem the risk of a further anaesthetic to be great enough that it is very much in that person's best interests.
        They will wait until that person is awake and ask them, even at a much greater inconvenience to that person - because it is not right to not give them the opportunity to refuse. It is a staple of medical ethics.

        It's like.. someone finding something in your room and throwing it away without asking you. Whether it is a useless piece of junk or not, it's much better to wait until you see that person and ask them, because frankly - it isn't your junk to mess around with, and there is no harm in patience.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Jamie)
        I don't recall reading that. Where did you get that from?

        Your language is I'm sure misleading because its certainly not the common practice as a rule.
        Not 'medically' anyway.
        I inquired at a hospital.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by paddyman4)
        I think you need to look up the meaning of 'direct'.
        This is obviously an atheist plot to weaken the abrahamic faiths. as i've said before, it symbolises the convenant of God, so it should not be banned.
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
        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.
        Actually, I suggest you do yours - because there are some strong arguments that adult circumcision is actually medically preferable to infant circumcision.

        Perhaps rabbi thinks infant circumcision is best, but you know maybe that's because he has an agenda. The people doing infant circumcisions from whom you have perhaps gleamed your information, are also likely to be exactly those who already approve of them.


        Here are some factors:

        1. More precise with better outcome. Circumcision of an adult can be more precise and less risky than for the infant. This is because the adult penis is fully formed. Many plastic surgeons operate on the penis in the erect state because this way it is clear to what extent the skin is stretched during erection. In the infant, this more precise method cannot be employed. Also, based on the knowledge of his own penis, the adult patient can specify how much tissue to remove, the infant cannot. In terms of how much tissue to remove, there is much more guess work involved in the infant and often too much skin is removed. In adult circumcision precise instruments are used. In the infant, usually more cumbersome and less precise instruments like the Gomco clamp are used. The results of operating on a fully formed penis, in the erect state, with precise instruments by a trained surgeon, benefit the adult and not the infant.

        2. Reduced risk of injury. For the same reasons mentioned above, injury to the penis is less likely in adult circumcision than in infant circumcision. It is less likely that too much or too little tissue will be removed and the chances of lacerating the glans itself are also minimized. Scarring is also reduced in the adult.

        3. Reduced loss of sensitivity. Because in the adult, the penis has had many years to develop with a foreskin covering, the glans is fully sensitive at the time of the circumcision. The glans has grown with its protective covering and the foreskin has already separated naturally from the glans. This spares the adult some of the sensitivity loss that occurs when circumcision is performed at birth. At birth, the foreskin must be torn away from the glans to which it is normally adhered. Then, the denuded glans of the infant spends much time exposed to caustic urine while in diapers. In adult circumcision this early damage to the glans is avoided.

        4. Personal choice. With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the "lack of choice" objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights.

        5. Reduced potential psychological effects. With adult circumcision potential psychological effects are reduced. This is because the patient understands the experience. He knows why it is happening and that he has chosen this. Anesthesia is used in the adult and is usually omitted or ineffective in the infant. In contrast, the infant has an experience of inexplicable pain and terror which he cannot rationalize as an adult. Some speculate that this intensely painful experience for the infant can lead to problems later on. Although on the surface it may seem that an infant is less sensitive to or unaware of the circumcision experience, he does experience it fully and because of his very formative and psychologically sensitive age, the experience is thought to be potentially more impacting than it is for the adult.

        source: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/


        (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
        And by that I don't mean research on the internet.
        Also, don't be such a hypocrite and a snob. The internet is an invaluable source of information, not all of which is unreliable. And something makes me doubt you've looked through bound research papers on this subject. Do you expect me to go out an what, read books and come back to discuss this with you?


        EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the removal of the foreskin to be some radical massively damaging event (as quite strongly implied in that rather one-sided article). But it doesn't have to be for it to be wrong in principle, to make a choice for an infant that has no significant benefit over waiting until they can make that choice themselves.

        And I do think that probably the above points make a lot of sense. Why would it be superior to operate on a not-fully-developed miniature version of the penis rather than one in which you are able to fully examine the implications of any action you take in both it's flaccid and erect states? Just think about it.
        Offline

        10
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Teveth)
        I find it disgusting that in the 21st century we still allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their children for ritualistic purposes. If an adult wants to have part of his penis removed for whatever reason, then let him go ahead, but to enforce it on a defenceless child is abhorrent. It's child abuse, it's sick, and it's a barbaric practice that needs to stop.

        I can't believe Iam agreeing with someone who is such a red diper doper baby they have a picture of ed miliband. But I do. I have a moral argument, but it is too lengthy to get into,but I will say this, I don't believe unless medically necesscary someone should let a surgeon cut them, particular if the choice is made by others and not that person. There are health risks involved with this operation. And frankly I wouldn't let a surgeon loose on my todger unless it was going to fall off if I didn't.

        I had a medical problem that warranted circumcision, I did a lot of research and spoke to several consultants before opting for a more minor less invasive surgical solution which touch wood has cured it.I also disliked how the NHS consultant seemed pushy about giving me a full circumcision, when suddenly when I went private more options were open to me. A mans penis is a very important bodypart, and personally unless absolutely necesscary it should be left alone.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by BeanofJelly)
        Actually, I suggest you do yours - because there are some strong arguments that adult circumcision is actually medically preferable to infant circumcision.

        Perhaps rabbi thinks infant circumcision is best, but you know maybe that's because he has an agenda.


        Here are some factors:

        1. More precise with better outcome. Circumcision of an adult can be more precise and less risky than for the infant. This is because the adult penis is fully formed. Many plastic surgeons operate on the penis in the erect state because this way it is clear to what extent the skin is stretched during erection. In the infant, this more precise method cannot be employed. Also, based on the knowledge of his own penis, the adult patient can specify how much tissue to remove, the infant cannot. In terms of how much tissue to remove, there is much more guess work involved in the infant and often too much skin is removed. In adult circumcision precise instruments are used. In the infant, usually more cumbersome and less precise instruments like the Gomco clamp are used. The results of operating on a fully formed penis, in the erect state, with precise instruments by a trained surgeon, benefit the adult and not the infant.

        2. Reduced risk of injury. For the same reasons mentioned above, injury to the penis is less likely in adult circumcision than in infant circumcision. It is less likely that too much or too little tissue will be removed and the chances of lacerating the glans itself are also minimized. Scarring is also reduced in the adult.

        3. Reduced loss of sensitivity. Because in the adult, the penis has had many years to develop with a foreskin covering, the glans is fully sensitive at the time of the circumcision. The glans has grown with its protective covering and the foreskin has already separated naturally from the glans. This spares the adult some of the sensitivity loss that occurs when circumcision is performed at birth. At birth, the foreskin must be torn away from the glans to which it is normally adhered. Then, the denuded glans of the infant spends much time exposed to caustic urine while in diapers. In adult circumcision this early damage to the glans is avoided.

        4. Personal choice. With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the "lack of choice" objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights.

        5. Reduced potential psychological effects. With adult circumcision potential psychological effects are reduced. This is because the patient understands the experience. He knows why it is happening and that he has chosen this. Anesthesia is used in the adult and is usually omitted or ineffective in the infant. In contrast, the infant has an experience of inexplicable pain and terror which he cannot rationalize as an adult. Some speculate that this intensely painful experience for the infant can lead to problems later on. Although on the surface it may seem that an infant is less sensitive to or unaware of the circumcision experience, he does experience it fully and because of his very formative and psychologically sensitive age, the experience is thought to be potentially more impacting than it is for the adult.

        source: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/
        I'm fool enough to believe anything off the internet.

        And can you please stop bringing religion into this. I don't care what religion has to do with it. When you bring religion into it, it just makes you seem like you justify your stance simply as 'it's religious, therefore it's bad'. Plenty of non religious people do it too.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Teveth)
        I find it disgusting that in the 21st century we still allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their children for ritualistic purposes. If an adult wants to have part of his penis removed for whatever reason, then let him go ahead, but to enforce it on a defenceless child is abhorrent. It's child abuse, it's sick, and it's a barbaric practice that needs to stop.
        Only ban such a practice if it has a detrimental affect on the child (not aware that it does, so wouldn't agree with a ban)...
        • Offline

          18
          (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
          I inquired at a hospital.
          What you called up the hospital and asked?
          Or you asked a consultant paediatric urologist? [as you do]


          Whoever told you was wrong.
          Offline

          12
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
          I'm fool enough to believe anything off the internet.

          And can you please stop bringing religion into this. I don't care what religion has to do with it. When you bring religion into it, it just makes you seem like you justify your stance simply as 'it's religious, therefore it's bad'. Plenty of non religious people do it too.
          It is really not my intention to bring religion into it. I quite agree with you in fact.

          I only mention religion to point out that a considerable proportion of the evidence/support pro-circumcision has a religious source, one which I do not consider reliable. And I just like being cynical about religion okay! It's like a bad habit, I try to restrain myself.
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by BeanofJelly)
          Society does have rights to impose upon parents what the best interests of their child are. Clearly, as in the toe example.

          And, medically speaking, if parents are not seen to be acting in the interests of their child, a representative for that child will be provided who may overule parental decisions.

          If you find that wrong, you're the one whose out of sync with current mindsets on these kind of ethics, not me.

          I suspect circumcision is only exempted from the same rules for fear of stirring up religious groups.




          It isn't laughable. A small but significant number of circumcisions result in complications, including septicaemia, just like with any surgical procedure.
          Circumcision is painful (I'm not talking during, but afterward in recovery). You can't remove a piece of skin without it hurting.

          Those things aren't great enough that if an adult (or even a gillick-competent child) chooses to take them on that they aren't acceptable. But an infant does not choose to take them on.



          Circumcision is an unneccessary injury, which very arguably affects functioning. Do circumcised penises function differently to those which are not? Almost irrefutably yes.
          If the person affected considers that change to be positive, great.
          But if the person affected considers that change to be negative, there you have it: you have hampered their use of the "given organ".

          Beside it is wrong to make permanent decisions for someone else when they could just as easily wait.

          A surgeon will not remove someone's diseased testicle when they are on the operating table, unless they deem the risk of a further anaesthetic to be great enough that it is very much in that person's best interests.
          They will wait until that person is awake and ask them, even at a much greater inconvenience to that person - because it is not right to not give them the opportunity to refuse. It is a staple of medical ethics.

          It's like.. someone finding something in your room and throwing it away without asking you. Whether it is a useless piece of junk or not, it's much better to wait until you see that person and ask them, because frankly - it isn't your junk to mess around with, and there is no harm in patience.
          circumcision in not an injury.... not sure what sense you mean?
          and how does a circumcised penis operate differently to a non-circumcised one.... Both can perform the function of micturition, and when of age can perform the act of copulation....
          Offline

          13
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Jamie)
          What you called up the hospital and asked?
          Or you asked a consultant paediatric urologist? [as you do]


          Whoever told you was wrong.
          Sadly, I will have to choose to believe them over you, no offence to you, but you're not a 'consultant paediatric urologist' and neither am I.
          Offline

          12
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by bunty64)
          circumcision in not an injury.... not sure what sense you mean?
          and how does a circumcised penis operate differently to a non-circumcised one.... Both can perform the function of micturition, and when of age can perform the act of copulation....
          In the taking a sharp object to flesh sense?
          It's an injury to the penis. Don't interpret that really strongly though, getting your ears pierced is an injury, being cut open to allow surgical access is an injury.. it doesn't have to be bad or unjustified for that reason.

          Circumcised penises function differently sexually, by almost all the accounts I have found. It would be impossible for them not to function differently, because not having movement of the foreskin is a functional difference. Again, that is not to automatically assume that that difference is negative or important.

          My objection to circumcision of infants is because it denies consent. People have the right to autonomy over their own genitals, particularly in this instance because as I have said, functionality and injury (whether negative or positive down to personal opinion) is clearly involved. People have the right to autonomy over every aspect of their body.

          Current ethical standards (with which I agree) deem that autonomy should only be overruled in instances where consent must be sacrificed or else an incompetent individual's best interests will be unmet. And the degree of interest really determines the degree of invasion into that person's autonomy.

          It seems that in infant circumcision, autonomy is denied for no good reason at all. It seems a totally unjustified exemption. There is no serious harm involved in waiting for consent, quite the opposite.
          Offline

          12
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
          Sadly, I will have to choose to believe them over you, no offence to you, but you're not a 'consultant paediatric urologist' and neither am I.
          Doctors can be very wrong. They may easily have their own biased interests. Somebody who conducts infant circumcisions in the first place is more likely to be in favour of circumcision, quite obviously.

          Besides, you wouldn't circumcise someone who's in a coma because "it won't hurt them so much and they're not having sex so let's make the most of this opportunity!". You'd clearly (or at least I hope) see it as a violation of their rights and their body.

          Why then use those justifications to impose circumcision on a baby? I don't believe you or your "consultant" about the benefits of infant over adult circumcision, but even if they were true - they couldn't be so vast as to justify that violation of choice.
          Adults have perfectly successful elective circumcisions, you gave us the link to prove it yourself.
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by BeanofJelly)
          In the taking a sharp object to flesh sense?
          It's an injury to the penis. Don't interpret that really strongly though, getting your ears pierced is an injury, being cut open to allow surgical access is an injury.. it doesn't have to be bad or unjustified for that reason.

          Circumcised penises function differently sexually, by almost all the accounts I have found. It would be impossible for them not to function differently, because not having movement of the foreskin is a functional difference. Again, that is not to automatically assume that that difference is negative or important.

          My objection to circumcision of infants is because it denies consent. People have the right to autonomy over their own genitals, particularly in this instance because as I have said, functionality and injury (whether negative or positive down to personal opinion) is clearly involved. People have the right to autonomy over every aspect of their body.

          Current ethical standards (with which I agree) deem that autonomy should only be overruled in instances where consent must be sacrificed or else an incompetent individual's best interests will be unmet. And the degree of interest really determines the degree of invasion into that person's autonomy.

          It seems that in infant circumcision, autonomy is denied for no good reason at all. It seems a totally unjustified exemption. There is no serious harm involved in waiting for consent, quite the opposite.
          Ok well then a circumised penis is not an injury..... the act of cutting the skin is an injury according to you...

          No it doesn't..... both function the same in the during micturition/copulation.....
          The foreskin has no function in either.

          A parent / guardian has full rights in deciding whether or not their child with undergo a medical procedure (only unless they are actnig against the best interests of the child; health/life in danger)....

          There is no evidence to suggest that circumcision has any negative effect on the male...... any such so called evidence out there I would believe to be anecdotal and biased.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          Not all. There are actually some medical conditions that necessitate circumcision, like too much foreskin. In these circumstances, you've just got to do it.. unless you've considered that in your title post?
          But yeah, non-medical circumcision is ridiculous. Children shouldn't have to go through that just because their parents have beliefs; they might not share the same views! It's pretty much surgery without consent.
          Offline

          12
          ReputationRep:
          Infant circumcision will never be banned for the same reason that the Halal method of slaughter will never be banned - it would upset the Jews.
         
         
         
        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
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
        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.