Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Court stops circumcision. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    The claimed benefits may have some weight in African countries with a high HIV rate, but in the West I believe it's somewhat speculative.

    There are also botched circumcisions. Being gay I've seen a few penises and that includes a couple of guys who obviously had quite poorly executed circumcisions (was it done with a blunt instrument? I don't know, but it was obviously a mutilation).

    The foreskin evolved for a reason, and the HIV-related justifications really are an after-the-fact excuse. That wasn't the reason they were originally done, and even if that justification didn't exist various religious people would still do it.

    It is wrong to hack at a child's genitals based on the fact that a bronze age text purports it is required by some sky deity whose existence is unproven
    Blah, blah, blah. Dude just admit there are many benefits than risks.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tootles)
    I never said anything about dripping; kindly refrain from misquoting me.
    Sorry. You are correct. You said that problem foreskins run in your family. My mistake.

    While I agree - as I said before - that if it's not necessary then it shouldn't be done, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's mutilation; the foreskin is a usless piece of skin whose only function is to impede hygiene. When a circumsision is performed properly, the erogenous flesh - namely the frenulum - remains undamaged, mooting any arguments people might make concerning a patient's future ability to experience pleasure (remembering an article I read once which claimed that cut men can't orgasm, which I can personally guarantee is incorrect). There is no advantage to be had from retaining one's foreskin, and removing it is, as far as I am concerned, akin to removing an appendix.
    I have noticed that this kind of argument always seems to be put forward by people who have been circumcised, whereas the medical consensus does not make these claims. The NHS no longer performing elective circumcisions, for example. If there really was a benefit in routine circumcision, not only would it be recommended, but we should hear of many people electing to undergo the process. Neither of these are the case.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IGCSEKid)
    Blah, blah, blah. Dude just admit there are many benefits than risks.
    Admit there are "many benefits than risks"? Do you mean "more benefits than risks"? I won't admit it because I don't believe it to be true.

    As a guy I'd say probably the biggest obvious downside of circumcision is that it reduces sensation; it makes sex less pleasurable.

    Some circumcisions are botched, some even result in death of the child. Some figures show on average around 170 neonatal deaths caused by circumcision each year in the United States. It is not medically required and there are countless operations we could do that might reduce some future possible small risk. If circumcision was so manifestly beneficial and awesome then men who hadn't been circumcised by their parents would be queueing up to do it when they reached 18. That doesn't happen, for obvious reasons

    As I said in another comment, male circumcision isn't the worst thing ever. But I do think it's wrong to do something that isn't medically necessary particularly when the real reason many people do it is because a non-existent deity told them to in some ancient text.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IGCSEKid)
    I don't see why people are against circumcision the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. And if your saying that its against the baby's will then the reason why its done when the baby is young is because the surgery is much less risky.
    There are no real benefits. If there were, medical opinion would reccommend it, and men would be queueing up to get it done.

    If it weren't for the religious element perpetuating it, it would only be done in cases of medical necessity.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Err, it's an opinion that there are boys whose circumcisions are botched? No, it's not an opinion; it's fact. I've seen it with my own eyes,
    And there are many cases of failed medical treatment. There are complications after child vaccination. There are tragic and even fatal cases in child sport. There are.. "There are" is not argument.
    The judge didn't "take the side of the divorced mother" automatically. The judge made the decision likely based on the fact that given one parent opposes it, and given it's a substantial medical operation which is not medically necessary and that it can't be reversed, it is better to err on the side of caution and allow these boys to decide when they are able to have an opinion on it.
    The bold is just your edition.
    Freedom of religion is the freedom to worship yourself; it doesn't include the freedom to mutilate your children
    No, male circumcision is not mutilation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Sorry. You are correct. You said that problem foreskins run in your family. My mistake.

    I have noticed that this kind of argument always seems to be put forward by people who have been circumcised, whereas the medical consensus does not make these claims. The NHS no longer performing elective circumcisions, for example. If there really was a benefit in routine circumcision, not only would it be recommended, but we should hear of many people electing to undergo the process. Neither of these are the case.
    Also strange to see the above user claiming circumcision has no deleterious effect on pleasure. It clearly does; firstly the foreskin is not some numb appendage, it has nerves in it. The second is that because the head of the circumcised penis rubs up against the guy's pants, that causes it to be desensitised.

    There's no question this is true; uncircumcised guys usually have quite a sensitive glans whereas the same is patently not true for circumcised men.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Who told you that they are poor and mutilated? It's just an opinion.
    So you don't think that having parts of the genitals needlessly cut off is "mulilation"?

    Mutilate: to inflict a violent and disfiguring injury. (OED)
    Yup, looks like it is mutilation, by definition.

    And you have no pity for children who have their genitals mutilated?
    Shame on you.

    Irrelevant. In this case the judge as usually took the side of divorced mother. It's almost automatic decision exactly because Britain is not "Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Indonesia, etc".
    You made the point that it was stopped because of the wishes of the mother and the welfare of the children. The point of this thread was to applaud the judge for considering them over the "rights" of the father and religion. In those countries, it would have been the father and religion that would have won the case.

    Yes, but tradition is not religion.
    Tradition can be religion, as all religion is tradition.

    And there is specific freedom of religion in democratic countries.
    Yes, but only to practice within the law. Just because something is a religious tradition, doesn't mean that it is either legal or acceptable. Like FGM, for example.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    And there are many cases of failed medical treatment. There are complications after child vaccination. There are tragic and even fatal cases in child sport.
    The obvious distinction being that vaccines are medically indicated and necessary, circumcision is not. Child sport is not a medical operation and so outside the scope of a discussion about what is medically indicated and what is not.

    There are.. "There are" is not argument.
    How is making reference to the consequences of an act I'm arguing against not an argument? You seem to be confused about basic logic

    The bold is just your edition
    My edition? What's my edition? :lol:

    No, male circumcision is not mutilation.
    That's just your opinion. If the old Testament called for the lobes of the ears to be sliced off, you'd be saying the same about that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.
    While most babies do it provides so little benefit, it should be your choice. and just because so many people do it does not mean it is right, hopefully one day America will catch up
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IGCSEKid)
    Blah, blah, blah. Dude just admit there are many benefits than risks.
    OK. List the benefits of circumcision, and the risks of not having it. With references.

    Then ask yourself why the medical profession does not recommend it as a routine operation.
    And then ask yourself why men aren't queueing up to get it done.
    Then ask yourself why the only people who defend circumcision are Muslims, Jews, and men who were circumcised as children.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tootles)
    When a circumsision is performed properly, the erogenous flesh - namely the frenulum - remains undamaged, mooting any arguments people might make concerning a patient's future ability to experience pleasure
    Removing the foreskin exposes the glans and reduces sensitivity frenulum or no.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    To anyone giving any points as to why it is acceptable, do you think fgm is acceptable?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    shiiit, that court case was in my town
    also, child circumcision should always be illegal until there is a genuine medical justification (hygiene or preventing STDs not being one of them.)
    it's a shame that this case seems to be not based on the immorality of forcing genital mutilations upon kids, but based on the conflict between the rights of the father vs the rights of the mother (a neutralisation)
    if we're going to criminalise female circumcision, then why is male circumcision still around?
    the justifications for female version are basically the exact same as the male version
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    My edition? What's my edition? :lol:
    The bold in my previous post is your fantasy.
    Now is it clear?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.
    About 170 babies die in America each year from circumcision. Clearly it is dangerous for some.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    The bold in my previous post is your fantasy.
    Now is it clear?
    Aww, you seem to be getting really upset :console: Chill, blud. This is a friendly discussion
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    About 170 babies die in America each year from circumcision. Clearly it is dangerous for some.
    Aye,as with any surgical procedure there will always be risks. But are there any benefits to it? I'm due to attend my like 20th circumcision party for my friends little cousin. In some cultures it's a right of passage
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    shiiit, that court case was in my town
    also, child circumcision should always be illegal until there is a genuine medical justification (hygiene or preventing STDs not being one of them.)
    it's a shame that this case seems to be not based on the immorality of forcing genital mutilations upon kids, but based on the conflict between the rights of the father vs the rights of the mother (a neutralisation)
    if we're going to criminalise female circumcision, then why is male circumcision still around?
    the justifications for female version are basically the exact same as the male version
    I can't remember which (whether St Augustine or Maimonides, one of those) but one of the religious figures from late antiquity or the Middle Ages said very clearly that one of the most important justifications for circumcision is to deter masturbation.

    It doesn't prevent someone from masturbating but it makes it harder, particularly back when they didn't have lube.

    Circumcision clearly reduces pleasure and sensitivity, and in the West the STD justifications are quite marginal (in Africa where they have 50% HIV rates in some places.. maybe. But in the West, not justifiable or necessary)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Y'all acting like this is to do with only culture and religion. Don't most babies get circumcised in America when they are born? Surely,if it was soooooo dangerous they would've stopped doing it in hospitals.
    they only keep doing it in hospitals because it makes the private hospitals a lot of money. how can you be so daft? you're justifying this for truly appalling and ignorant reasons. child circumcisions without medical necessity are truly abusive and only justified based on the fallacy of tradition only, and the fact that you're just brushing that fact aside is just disgusting in my opinion. how can you even say this given the fact that we don't allow this for girls? my perspective is that you are a creation of your culture and not your own thinking.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.