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

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

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)
    argument from authority.
    the argument from authority (medical specialists) is that it is a sound medical procedure.... for those against this procedure, you'd have to present your case to the BMA/courts to prove your claim that it is 'unecessary mutilation' (something which you obviously can't do)..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    So you feel that laws in Britain should be based on Abrahamic teachings despite members of Abrahamic faiths being a minority in Britain and having no scientific evidence to back up their claimed benefits?
    Yes, especially as science is simply propaganda for the atheist horde, it has no relevance to the large proportion of Christians in Britain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    So you feel that laws in Britain should be based on Abrahamic teachings despite members of Abrahamic faiths being a minority in Britain and having no scientific evidence to back up their claimed benefits?
    aren't the vast majority of british laws based on abrahamic teachings, given that when these laws were established, britain was a christian country?

    Any law students?

    Aren't the majority of britons members of the abrahmic faith?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    the argument from authority (medical specialists) is that it is a sound medical procedure.... for those against this procedure, you'd have to present your case to the BMA/courts to prove your claim that it is 'unecessary mutilation' (something which you obviously can't do)..
    Never said it was medically unecessary mutilation.

    But it's uncessary in the informal sense that any benefit is outweighed by washing thoroughly. And so suits the definition of mutilation.

    And your comment was an argument from authority since you just namedropped a medical body. If youd have given a link to a statement ffrom them regarding the procedure or made the argument yourself it wouldn't necessarily have been that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if it should be banned or not in certain religions it's sacred and it's they're tradition. But in terms of non-religious circumcision yes I agree to ban them as they're unessential for the baby and ofcouse it's neglecting their human rights and if they want it to be done let them do it when they're making a concious decision.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)
    Never said it was medically unecessary mutilation.

    But it's uncessary in the informal sense that any benefit is outweighed by washing thoroughly. And so suits the definition of mutilation.

    And your comment was an argument from authority since you just namedropped a medical body. If youd have given a link to a statement ffrom them regarding the procedure or made the argument yourself it wouldn't necessarily have been that.
    With regards to the thread discussion, a ban would require it to be examined medically and do such a claim of it being 'uncessary mutilation' would be studied.

    It may be unecessary to you, but is necessary for those of the jewish/islamic faith and so your view doesn't come into it.

    Well given that the BMA allow circumcision in infants, they wouldn't really have any ethical issues... (are there any ethical issues presented by our medical board?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casshern1456)
    I'm not sure if it should be banned or not in certain religions it's sacred and it's they're tradition. But in terms of non-religious circumcision yes I agree to ban them as they're unessential for the baby and ofcouse it's neglecting their human rights and if they want it to be done let them do it when they're making a concious decision.
    If you read this carefully, it looks like you're saying you believe that human rights do not apply to religion. That is a rather sinister statement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casshern1456)
    I'm not sure if it should be banned or not in certain religions it's sacred and it's they're tradition. But in terms of non-religious circumcision yes I agree to ban them as they're unessential for the baby and ofcouse it's neglecting their human rights and if they want it to be done let them do it when they're making a concious decision.
    I would think that non-religous circumcision of babies/infants is extremely rare (unless there is a medical condition)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    With regards to the thread discussion, a ban would require it to be examined medically and do such a claim of it being 'uncessary mutilation' would be studied.

    It may be unecessary to you, but is necessary for those of the jewish/islamic faith and so your view doesn't come into it.

    Well given that the BMA allow circumcision in infants, they wouldn't really have any ethical issues... (are there any ethical issues presented by our medical board?
    A baby doesn;t have a religion. It isn't developed enough to even think in that regard.

    And I don;t mean that it doesn;t have a religion legally

    Stop using the argument from authority
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    I would think that non-religous circumcision of babies/infants is extremely rare (unless there is a medical condition)
    the OP mentioned nothing of circumcision relating to religion, I'm simply saying circumcision done outside of religious beliefs should not be performed. imo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShnnyShiz)
    No offence, but you are one dumbass. Parental consent is required for MEDICAL procedures. The motivation for the procedures in this case is benefiting the health of the child; it is deemed beneficial to the child by the healthcare professional. So yes, you're right, the child might not realise the implications and come to an informed consensus and hence the need for parental consent. NON-MEDICAL circumcision however is based on religious/whatever views the parents have. [B]You DON'T have the doctor pushing you to do it, just the parents. There is no benefit to be had for the child, apart from satisfying whatever beliefs the said parents might have. In other words, the only motivation for the procedure in this case is BELIEF. Putting your child through circumcision, an irreversible and for some, a regretful experience, just because of some beliefs you might have, which might not even be true might I add, is wrong[/B].
    That's why I started my point off by mentioning medical ethics and what role religious beliefs have on medical decisions.... Does the BMA take into consideration the religous beliefs affecting/dictating a medical/procedure?
    They do and they accept it, provided that there is no great risk.

    It may be wrong in your eyes, but it is their belief.... (and something which they wish to instill in their child and would assume circumcision is part of the religous belief/practice). Your view of this practice has no relevance no the medical decision.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casshern1456)
    the OP mentioned nothing of circumcision relating to religion, I'm simply saying circumcision done outside of religious beliefs should not be performed. imo.
    the op intentionally didn't mention it.... quiet sure he is aware fo the fact that 99% of baby/infant circumcision are due to religous beliefs..

    I accept your view of banning non-religous baby/infant circumcision, but would add that they v.rarely occur (neglible). There would be no need for the parents. They would wait until the child is old enoguh and let them decide...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)
    A baby doesn;t have a religion. It isn't developed enough to even think in that regard.

    And I don;t mean that it doesn;t have a religion legally

    Stop using the argument from authority
    yes, I know the baby doesn't have views/opinions!

    What argument from authority? There is no negative statement from the BMA with regards to infant circumcision and the fact that they carry out these procedures, would lead me to believe there are no medical/ethical issues.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    yes, I know the baby doesn't have views/opinions!

    What argument from authority? There is no negative statement from the BMA with regards to infant circumcision and the fact that they carry out these procedures, would lead me to believe there are no medical/ethical issues.
    That's the definition of an argument from authority.

    You quote an authority. Then use what that authority thinks as an argument.

    1. Authority says this
    2. That authority knows what its talking about
    3. Therefore x is wrong/correct.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    the op intentionally didn't mention it.... quiet sure he is aware fo the fact that 99% of baby/infant circumcision are due to religous beliefs..

    I accept your view of banning non-religous baby/infant circumcision, but would add that they v.rarely occur (neglible). There would be no need for the parents. They would wait until the child is old enoguh and let them decide...
    okay I understand what you're saying. In answer to the title of the thread no. I don't think it's our place to judge what other religions want to do with their babies, although I would not like to see it being performed as it may lead to complication and I don't understand why it's performed it's what they believe in and y'know fair enough I can't do anything about it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)
    That's the definition of an argument from authority.

    You quote an authority. Then use what that authority thinks as an argument.

    1. Authority says this
    2. That authority knows what its talking about
    3. Therefore x is wrong/correct.
    Oh, come on! Is this something you picked up in a debate class?

    If we are discussing the thread title, it is going to lead to the BMA. We are talking about circumcisions in britain.

    If a ban ever was pushed through, which "authority" would they consult? Yes, you've got it, the BMA.....

    If you just want to discuss our personal views, then yes you agree it should be banned for reason x and y and I don't agree with a ban for reasons x,y,z....
    but we can agree a ban won't go through because those like you can't accept the evidence of the "authority" in question, and there is not a strong engouh argument for a ban
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casshern1456)
    okay I understand what you're saying. In answer to the title of the thread no. I don't think it's our place to judge what other religions want to do with their babies, although I would not like to see it being performed as it may lead to complication and I don't understand why it's performed it's what they believe in and y'know fair enough I can't do anything about it.
    But this was thought about long ago by our medical assoication and they are happy with the risk assesment and so are the parents (consent is given).....

    Why should you feel the need to do anything about it? (if you could)... surely it is something which is down to the parents and our medical association..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    But this was thought about long ago by our medical assoication and they are happy with the risk assesment and so are the parents (consent is given).....

    Why should you feel the need to do anything about it? (if you could)... surely it is something which is down to the parents and our medical association..
    As I said it's because the baby hasn't and could not give consent to having a circumcision. Fair enough if it's medical but I feel the baby has he's own rights, isn't this is what it's all about??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mozo)
    where I'm from if your not circumcised, people around will be disgusted of you, they wont even want to be around you, it would be the equivalent of walking around with a massive **** on your face, and when it comes to girls, forget it. Fact is that "individual" represents the majority which I am part of, iff your going to get it done you much better off getting it done early than late.
    what is the majority? And we you talking about in britain?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casshern1456)
    As I said it's because the baby hasn't and could not give consent to having a circumcision. Fair enough if it's medical but I feel the baby has he's own rights, isn't this is what it's all about??
    I would have thought that the parents are the representatives of the rights of their child. Any sane parent is looking out for the best interests of thier child.
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.