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 bunty64)
    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.
    I don't consider that to be "necessary". They don't have to be Muslims or follow Judaism. It is their choice to follow those religions, therefore any practices involved in those religions are not necessary.

    (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.
    One thing I'm even more against than infant circumcision is giving religious groups special privileges or applying different laws to them. Either it's allowed for everyone or it's allowed for no one. Belief in a deity is no justification for having any special legal status.
    • Offline

      18
      (Original post by Diaz89)
      False on both accounts. It's neither unnecessary nor an injury, and the fact that it's has been recommended by every major health organization, well that perfectly demolished your argument I would say.
      Rubbish.
      Every major health organisation meaning who exactly?
      • Offline

        18
        (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)..

        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?
        Seriously why do you keep harping on about the BMA as if they have authority?

        They don't. THey cannot ban anything, and you would never present your case to them.

        Furthermore the BMA and 'medical specialists' have never said it is a 'sound' procedure when done for non-theraputic reasons.

        Perhaps you might like to read up a bit more.
        The BMA position statement might be a start
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by bunty64)
        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.
        What if they aren't sane? There are plenty of those parents around.. what then? Also think about the ones who are sane, think about the BEST parents in the world. Do they make mistakes of judgement? The answer is yes. Could they be mistaken about their belief that it is right to circumcise their child? YES. Are a parent's beliefs representative of their children's beliefs? NO. Children very often grow up to be atheists, who don't share their parents' beliefs. Circumcision with no benefit is parents forcing their beliefs on the child, in the worst way possible.
        Offline

        2
        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.
        some people do it for religious reasons
        its better for it to be done when the child is small
        so they aint living in sin untill they make they own judgement
        im just saying it from a Muslim point of view, so don't go off on one
        besides its cleaner.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        I agree that cirumcision on children who are under 18 should be banned. It is like a culturalised form of FGM in my eyes
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Psyk)
        I don't consider that to be "necessary". They don't have to be Muslims or follow Judaism. It is their choice to follow those religions, therefore any practices involved in those religions are not necessary.



        One thing I'm even more against than infant circumcision is giving religious groups special privileges or applying different laws to them. Either it's allowed for everyone or it's allowed for no one. Belief in a deity is no justification for having any special legal status.
        it is not necessary to you, but they are muslims/jews so therefore it is necessary to them.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Jamie)
        Seriously why do you keep harping on about the BMA as if they have authority?

        They don't. THey cannot ban anything, and you would never present your case to them.

        Furthermore the BMA and 'medical specialists' have never said it is a 'sound' procedure when done for non-theraputic reasons.

        Perhaps you might like to read up a bit more.
        The BMA position statement might be a start
        given that we are discussing about banning a procedure which is carried out by british doctors, the BMA comes into it. The BMA are consulted by officals in gov if a ban on this procedure was to be pushed through. They are the authority which would be consulted.

        The procedure, whether done for medical/non-medical reasons is sound. If it wasn't then the BMA wouldnt' carry it out. There is no evidence to suggest that non-medical circumcision in detrimental to the individual baby/infant...... it is a procedure which has been carried out for thousands of years.....

        the only grounds to ban such a procedure would be based on theological disagreement. There is no medical reason to ban such a procedure.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by ShnnyShiz)
        What if they aren't sane? There are plenty of those parents around.. what then? Also think about the ones who are sane, think about the BEST parents in the world. Do they make mistakes of judgement? The answer is yes. Could they be mistaken about their belief that it is right to circumcise their child? YES. Are a parent's beliefs representative of their children's beliefs? NO. Children very often grow up to be atheists, who don't share their parents' beliefs. Circumcision with no benefit is parents forcing their beliefs on the child, in the worst way possible.
        If they are clinically "insane", it is down to the medical professional to judge this....
        and take the necessary action.

        Yes but it is not up to the doctor to dictate whether or not the parent should impose their religous belief/practice upon the child. The doctors personal view of the religion doesn't affect their decision on the medical procedure. They base it on their medical knowledge.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        I always wonder whether the people who argue about this issue so vehemently are those who have or haven't been circumcised. Usually I suspect the latter.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by bunty64)
        it is not necessary to you, but they are muslims/jews so therefore it is necessary to them.
        They believe it to be necessary. But surely they really believe it to be necessary for everyone because they believe their religion to be the correct one? My point is it's not necessary in any way that can be verified. The child could grow up to believe it was unnecessary but it's too late by then.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Psyk)
        They believe it to be necessary. But surely they really believe it to be necessary for everyone because they believe their religion to be the correct one? My point is it's not necessary in any way that can be verified. The child could grow up to believe it was unnecessary but it's too late by then.
        Don't know what you mean by them believing circumcision to be necessary for everyone. That is not is the issue....or if you feel it is, then another topic of discussion.

        It doesn't need to be verified. It cannot be verified, because it goes against the christian/athiest beliefs. Medical procedures don't need to be veriefed on a theological basis, but rather only on a medical one. British law doesn't feel the need to verify anothers religion. If they have a belief and it doesn't contradict british law, then it is accepted as their belief and allowed.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by House of Jonny)
        I agree that cirumcision on children who are under 18 should be banned. It is like a culturalised form of FGM in my eyes
        so you are comparing the surgical removal of the foreskin by a qualified professional to the hacking off of the clitoris and surrounding tissues by a religous scholar/part time halal meat butcher?
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by bunty64)
        Don't know what you mean by them believing circumcision to be necessary for everyone. That is not is the issue....or if you feel it is, then another topic of discussion.
        Well it depends on the religion. If they believe their religion is the correct one, then presumably that means they believe everyone should follow it to reach heaven, so by extension they believe everyone should cut a part of their male children's penises off. But anyway, you're right it is another topic so that's all I'll say about it.

        (Original post by bunty64)
        It doesn't need to be verified. It cannot be verified, because it goes against the christian/athiest beliefs. Medical procedures don't need to be veriefed on a theological basis, but rather only on a medical one. British law doesn't feel the need to verify anothers religion. If they have a belief and it doesn't contradict british law, then it is accepted as their belief and allowed.
        Yes in this case it is allowed by British law, but I disagree with it being legal. I just think that it should be illegal to permanently alter a child's body except for medical reasons where the benefits can be verified and are significant. I also disagree that the benefits are significant enough, especially considering the most significant benefits don't apply until they are old enough to decide for themselves anyway. And lets face it, most people use the supposed medical benefits as a justification rather than the actual reason for it. Most of the time people do it because their religion tells them to, or it's just the done thing.

        I'm all for personal freedoms, for example I'm against a ban on the veil, but this is different because it's not about consenting adults. It's making a permanent, irreversible decision for a child that cannot consent.

        That's my view, there's not much else for me to say about it. I'd probably never actively campaign against it because it's something that doesn't affect me personally and I realise it would be a battle I'd have no chance of winning. For some reason it's just too deeply engrained in society to consider chopping bits off a baby's penis an acceptable practice.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by lovely_me)
        You're an individual example out of millions.

        Are you implying we shouldn't fight for the human rights of children, even though they may not be directly related to us?
        Lol "human rights of children"... get over yourself Em. :rolleyes:

        It's a circumcision - not some mutilation which renders the person somehow abnormal. It would be a human rights issue if there were millions of men in the world complaining about what had been done to them, whereas I don't see the complaints.

        Whereas, there are over a billion people directly affected by AIDS, at high risk of contracting HIV, starving and malnourished, stuck in war-torn regions with no real human rights, and if you want a sexual example: females being genitally mutilated which does have an impact on their lives - and you (and the OP) are worrying about this. Seriously. Get some ****ing perspective.

        Oh and do you feel the same about little girls getting their ears pierced? If not, why not?

        (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. It's child abuse, it's sick, and it's a barbaric practice that needs to stop.
        Lay off the buzz-words blud. And read above. ^^
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by bunty64)
        so you are comparing the surgical removal of the foreskin by a qualified professional to the hacking off of the clitoris and surrounding tissues by a religous scholar/part time halal meat butcher?
        If FGM was legal and performed by a medical professional do you think it would be comparable? Although I do agree most forms of FGM aren't comparable just because there's such a massive difference in the loss of function that results. Removing the clitoral hood is quite similar, but that's not something that's commonly done.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Psyk)
        Well it depends on the religion. If they believe their religion is the correct one, then presumably that means they believe everyone should follow it to reach heaven, so by extension they believe everyone should cut a part of their male children's penises off. But anyway, you're right it is another topic so that's all I'll say about it.


        Yes in this case it is allowed by British law, but I disagree with it being legal. I just think that it should be illegal to permanently alter a child's body except for medical reasons where the benefits can be verified and are significant. I also disagree that the benefits are significant enough, especially considering the most significant benefits don't apply until they are old enough to decide for themselves anyway. And lets face it, most people use the supposed medical benefits as a justification rather than the actual reason for it. Most of the time people do it because their religion tells them to, or it's just the done thing.

        I'm all for personal freedoms, for example I'm against a ban on the veil, but this is different because it's not about consenting adults. It's making a permanent, irreversible decision for a child that cannot consent.

        That's my view, there's not much else for me to say about it. I'd probably never actively campaign against it because it's something that doesn't affect me personally and I realise it would be a battle I'd have no chance of winning. For some reason it's just too deeply engrained in society to consider chopping bits off a baby's penis an acceptable practice.
        you can't disagree with it being legal because it is legal, but rather disagree with the moral issue.

        There is no argument for it to be banned, because if there was any half decent argument it would have been presented to a western gov, somewhere in the world where there are psychologically scarred men without foreskins!

        Are you circumcised?
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Psyk)
        If FGM was legal and performed by a medical professional do you think it would be comparable? Although I do agree most forms of FGM aren't comparable just because there's such a massive difference in the loss of function that results. Removing the clitoral hood is quite similar, but that's not something that's commonly done.
        FGM in the sense we know wouldn't be legal....... but a procedure like labiaplasty would be the closest comparison to male circumcision. Although labiaplasty is only performed on over 16s in this country (I think, or over 18).

        given that there is no argument for male circumcision to be banned and that it has basis in the abrahamic faiths, it won't be banned.

        I suspect OP may be circumcised and have had some sort of incident which has led him to question his hoodless ****.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by bunty64)
        you can't disagree with it being legal because it is legal, but rather disagree with the moral issue.
        I don't mean I disagree that it is legal, I know it is actually legal. What I mean is I don't think it should be legal because I disagree with it morally.

        (Original post by bunty64)
        There is no argument for it to be banned, because if there was any half decent argument it would have been presented to a western gov, somewhere in the world where there are psychologically scarred men without foreskins!
        That's a big assumption that governments and people will listen to a half decent argument. Cannabis is still illegal for example.

        (Original post by bunty64)
        Are you circumcised?
        No, but I don't see how it's relevant. I realise most people who are circumcised are happy with it, but they've never known anything different. The great thing about not circumcising children is that when they get older they can get circumcised if they want, or they can stay how they are. They have the choice, so everyone wins. People who like having foreskin can keep their foreskin, people who would prefer to be circumcised can be circumcised. I'm arguing for giving people that choice.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Diaz89)
        I think most people are concerned with combating diseases and poverty which ironically with the prior, circumcision helps to prevent
        While the circumcision can help to reduce disease, I severely doubt that it in any way combats poverty
        Punctuation changes everything.
       
       
       
      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.