Turn on thread page Beta

should Infant Circumssion be banned? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: should infant Circumssion be banned?
    Yes!
    138
    76.24%
    NO!!!
    43
    23.76%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I find it hideously barbaric.

    Ok it's not along the same lines as FGM but still. The idea of parents making decisions on behalf of their child is frightening.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toonervoustotalk)
    I wouldnt mind but usually they can start making their own decisions when they are 16 onwards
    then PLEASE let him decide, he will love you more for that as well
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xGCSE_Studentx)
    Please don't mock the belief keep it to yourself if you don't agree with it
    No, I'm saying it loud: ISLAM IS A DISGUSTING RELIGION.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    then PLEASE let him decide, he will love you more for that as well
    Ok
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    How can you compare fgm with circumcision. How many men who have been circumcised at birth do you see emotionally scared versus the other way around? One is "mutilation" whereas the other is a medical procedure that is done due to religious reasoning, but also health reasons.
    They are both mutilation. That FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it isn't abhorrent.


    (Original post by xGCSE_Studentx)
    Please don't mock the belief keep it to yourself if you don't agree with it
    You are talking about mutilating a child for your misguided belief in a deity, and you're talking about people keeping things to themselves?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xGCSE_Studentx)
    You sound confused - if they are not religious then it's entirely up to them if they decide to circumcise or not but obviously if they follow a belief then it's expected they follow it
    no, its not their body , not their choice to make
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toonervoustotalk)
    Ok
    Thank you!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=saxsan4;60171961]definition of Mutilation:


    to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

    So yes it is mutilation as it is removing a healthy and vital part of the human body[/QUOTE]

    Nope. If I were to remove my appendix would that be mutilation? Nope because I can function perfectly without it. Ashame you could not respond to my other points and had to nit pick the definition.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It should be outright illegal for both sexes until age of 18.

    *Stares at the USA*
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=TheTruthTeller;60172099]
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    definition of Mutilation:


    to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

    So yes it is mutilation as it is removing a healthy and vital part of the human body[/QUOTE]

    Nope. If I were to remove my appendix would that be mutilation? Nope because I can function perfectly without it. Ashame you could not respond to my other points and had to nit pick the definition.
    So can he harvest baby kidneys (only need 1), little toes, ear lobes, etc as well then? How can you not see that cutting up a baby is wrong?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    They are both mutilation. That FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it isn't abhorrent.



    You are talking about mutilating a child for your misguided belief in a deity, and you're talking about people keeping things to themselves?
    Well it does tbh. Lightly tapping someone versus knocking somebody unconcious is very different. The effects are extremely different just like FGM and circumcision. As I said how many men, circumcised at birth have come out and protested about the "abhorrence" of their expereince? How many men worry about their circumcised penis acting as a psycological, physical impediment in their daily lives? Now compare that number to women and reevaluate your use of "abhorrent".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=TheTruthTeller;60172099]
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    definition of Mutilation:


    to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

    So yes it is mutilation as it is removing a healthy and vital part of the human body[/QUOTE]

    Nope. If I were to remove my appendix would that be mutilation? Nope because I can function perfectly without it. Ashame you could not respond to my other points and had to nit pick the definition.
    Foreskin is a vital part, it protects the glans from drying out. I can survive with no legs or arms, should we allow parents to remove them?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    No, I'm saying it loud: ISLAM IS A DISGUSTING RELIGION.
    Please that's another argument for another thread enough with Islam bashing behaviour it's actually disgusting that you have a religion so much
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=saxsan4;60172177]
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)

    Foreskin is a vital part, it protects the glans from drying out. I can survive with no legs or arms, should we allow parents to remove them?
    Your use of "vital" suggests it is ABSOLUTLEY necessary. Which it is clearly not... You can be sure of it because more than half the worlds males are circumcised. Having no arms or legs is an IMPEDIMENT. Having no foreskin is not. Such a silly game to be playing because they cannot be compared.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Well it does tbh. Lightly tapping someone versus knocking somebody unconcious is very different. The effects are extremely different just like FGM and circumcision. As I said how many men, circumcised at birth have come out and protested about the "abhorrence" of their expereince? How many men worry about their circumcised penis acting as a psycological, physical impediment in their daily lives? Now compare that number to women and reevaluate your use of "abhorrent".
    Quite a lot actually. And as I said, that FGM is worse does not negate that circumcision is also abhorrent, why is this difficult to understand?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=jamiep151;60172163]
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)

    So can he harvest baby kidneys (only need 1), little toes, ear lobes, etc as well then? How can you not see that cutting up a baby is wrong?
    Having only one kidney, little toes etc acts as an impediment in a childs daily life. Not having foreskin does not. Again how many protests do you see from circumcised men (at birth) about how their circumcsion has deeply scared them and impeded their living standards?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=TheTruthTeller;60172247]
    (Original post by saxsan4)

    Your use of "vital" suggests it is ABSOLUTLEY necessary. Which it is clearly not... You can be sure of it because more than half the worlds males are circumcised. Having no arms or legs is an IMPEDIMENT. Having no foreskin is not. Such a silly game to be playing because they cannot be compared.
    You can live without arms and legs many people have them amputated. Arguments are the same.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Having only one kidney, little toes etc acts as an impediment in a childs daily life. Not having foreskin does not. Again how many protests do you see from circumcised men (at birth) about how their circumcsion has deeply scared them and impeded their living standards?
    Ah, the 'some people who've had it done to them in the past were okay with it, so everyone else should be too' argument... I was wondering when that would break ground with its undefeatable logic on this thread.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=saxsan4;60172299]
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)

    You can live without arms and legs many people have them amputated. Arguments are the same.
    How does having one leg affect you? I can think of many things. Running, walking, playing footie, rugby...

    Now how does not having foreskin affect you? Well in my short life on this earth I can't seem to think of many things tbh
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=TheTruthTeller;60172293]
    (Original post by jamiep151)

    Having only one kidney, little toes etc acts as an impediment in a childs daily life. Not having foreskin does not. Again how many protests do you see from circumcised men (at birth) about how their circumcsion has deeply scared them and impeded their living standards?
    Actually neither of those is an impediment hence why I chose them rather than an arm. leg, nose, etc. If you want to look there are plenty of men who are unhappy with the fact they were circumcised just because they don't get press attention doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
 
 
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: December 22, 2015
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.