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

should Infant Circumssion be banned? watch

  • View Poll Results: should infant Circumssion be banned?
    Yes!
    137
    76.11%
    NO!!!
    43
    23.89%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=TheTruthTeller;60172343]
    (Original post by saxsan4)

    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
    makes masturbation harder, requires more lube, can cause abrasions through sex, drying out of glands, scarring, death.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Ah, the '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.
    Nope, merely stating facts. Not once have I stated "Oh because I haven't had anything wrong with it it's fine". I have presented my argument several times about the lack of risks and the plain wrong useage of "abhorrent". None have been responded to, other than through very flawed analogies.
    Offline

    18
    (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
    With all due respect, it is you who sounds confused and, might I add, hopelessly brainwashed. The fact that the parents apparently feel they have to is not an argument in favour of actually allowing them to do it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's not barbaric, it's cleaner. Plus as baby it heals faster apparently

    Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    With all due respect, it is you who sounds confused and, might I add, hopelessly brainwashed. The fact that the parents apparently feel they have to is not an argument in favour of actually allowing them to do it.
    I assure you I am not brainwashed I just passionately accept my religion which is seen as a threat nowadays I understand that to a certain extent
    If the parents are religious then they would choose to circumcise but some parents don't so they shouldn't be forced to do anything at the end of the day religion is just guidance
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=saxsan4;60172391]
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)

    makes masturbation harder, requires more lube, can cause abrasions through sex, drying out of glands, scarring, death.
    Now I can also site several cons of having circumcised.

    abrasions through sex
    Can happen with foreskin too

    makes masturbation harder
    Damn... Thought when I asked for effects I meant those that can actually back up your claim of the practice being abhorrent. If I have sex with a condom and potentially feel less pleasure because of the condom.. is it the condom abhorrent?

    Now please compare these very stupid claims which can equally be applied to having foreskin with the effects of FGM.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Nope, merely stating facts. Not once have I stated "Oh because I haven't had anything wrong with it it's fine". I have presented my argument several times about the lack of risks and the plain wrong useage of "abhorrent". None have been responded to, other than through very flawed analogies.
    You've misunderstood my objection by personalising it to yourself. Have another read:

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    As for lack of risks, I find those insisting that it reduces the risk of infection to be incredibly ignorant of the prevailing medical consensus. Unnecessarily cutting a part of somebody's body -- hence leaving an opening, even temporarily, for harmful microbes to enter the body -- reduces the risk of infection? Yeah, I suggest you do some more research on it if that's what you're saying.

    The issue of consent seems to have escaped you as well, it seems.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=jamiep151;60172351]
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)

    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.
    Are they deeply psycologically scared for life? Any sources etc? Or are you just making it up?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=TheTruthTeller;60172533]
    (Original post by saxsan4)

    Now I can also site several cons of having circumcised.

    abrasions through sex
    Can happen with foreskin too

    makes masturbation harder
    Damn... Thought when I asked for effects I meant those that can actually back up your claim of the practice being abhorrent. If I have sex with a condom and potentially feel less pleasure because of the condom.. is it the condom abhorrent?

    Now please compare these very stupid claims which can equally be applied to having foreskin with the effects of FGM.
    read this

    http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=519
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=TheTruthTeller;60172575]
    (Original post by jamiep151)

    Are they deeply psycologically scared for life? Any sources etc? Or are you just making it up?
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...-circumcision/

    1 google search shows they exist, obviously I'm not going to have polls to provide that show exact numbers but to pretend every man who has been circumcised is happy with it is stupid.

    You also act as if there are never complications with the surgery which there are.

    And the fact remains even if there were no negatives it is still obviously wrong to cut up a child.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Damn... Thought when I asked for effects I meant those that can actually back up your claim of the practice being abhorrent. If I have sex with a condom and potentially feel less pleasure because of the condom.. is it the condom abhorrent?
    It is permanently removing a part of a child for no benefit, and with medical risks, before the child can make any informed choice on the matter. How can this be acceptable?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by xGCSE_Studentx)
    I assure you I am not brainwashed I just passionately accept my religion which is seen as a threat nowadays I understand that to a certain extent
    If the parents are religious then they would choose to circumcise but some parents don't so they shouldn't be forced to do anything at the end of the day religion is just guidance
    It's not the parents' choice to make. They've no right to make such a choice for their child. If what you're saying is that they do have this right, then you really are brainwashed, whether you agree or not. No right-thinking person can come to that conclusion.

    Nobody is saying they should be forced to do anything -- the proposition is that they shouldn't be allowed to do something. If they don't mutilate their child's genitals, then good on them for not indulging in a disgusting practice.

    That you think that a serious issue can be concluded by saying 'religion is just guidance' reveals your lack of critical thinking skills. For the record: it's not your religion that is criticised for this. It's individuals who partake in this crime against their children that are being criticised. As far as I can see, you're simply doing what people without critical thinking skills do in any debate: 'This is my view, I cannot/will not change it, therefore I will persist in wasting everybody's time engaging in a debate I entered with the intention to not change my mind no matter what the other person says.'
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    It is permanently removing a part of a child for no benefit, and with medical risks, before the child can make any informed choice on the matter. How can this be acceptable?
    But the "no benefit" claim is still disputed. Many are torn about the issue of whether it does have benefits due to foreskin infection etc. Parents have a duty to do what they believe is right till the child becomes an adult. In the same way you can argue it is wrong to feed your child meat before they can make an "informed" decision about whether they want to consume animals or not, when in reality children are products of their upbringing so they are never fully going to be informed about anything like everyone else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    But the "no benefit" claim is still disputed. Many are torn about the issue of whether it does have benefits due to foreskin infection etc. Parents have a duty to do what they believe is right till the child becomes an adult. In the same way you can argue it is wrong to feed your child meat before they can make an "informed" decision about whether they want to consume animals or not, when in reality children are products of their upbringing so they are never fully going to be informed about anything like everyone else.
    A child can decide to eat meat when they are older, a child cannot decide they wan their foreskin back your logic if flawed
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It's not the parents' choice to make. They've no right to make such a choice for their child. If what you're saying is that they do have this right, then you really are brainwashed, whether you agree or not. No right-thinking person can come to that conclusion.

    Nobody is saying they should be forced to do anything -- the proposition is that they shouldn't be allowed to do something. If they don't mutilate their child's genitals, then good on them for not indulging in a disgusting practice.

    That you think that a serious issue can be concluded by saying 'religion is just guidance' reveals your lack of critical thinking skills. For the record: it's not your religion that is criticised for this. It's individuals who partake in this crime against their children that are being criticised. As far as I can see, you're simply doing what people without critical thinking skills do in any debate: 'This is my view, I cannot/will not change it, therefore I will persist in wasting everybody's time engaging in a debate I entered with the intention to not change my mind no matter what the other person says.'

    :cry2:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    A child can decide to eat meat when they are older, a child cannot decide they wan their foreskin back your logic if flawed
    A child cannot uneat the meat they've eaten in the past so your logic is also "flawed". There is NO universally accepted parenting style neither a Parenting Manual with absolute parenting tips. Any parent in the world (apart from mental cases) are guided by love and acts in (what he/she thinks is) his child’s best interests.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    But the "no benefit" claim is still disputed. Many are torn about the issue of whether it does have benefits due to foreskin infection etc.
    No it isn't. The medical community is very clear on the matter, that there are no benefits to circumcision except in special circumstances.

    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Parents have a duty to do what they believe is right till the child becomes an adult. In the same way you can argue it is wrong to feed your child meat before they can make an "informed" decision about whether they want to consume animals or not, when in reality children are products of their upbringing so they are never fully going to be informed about anything like everyone else.
    You could argue the same for anything, including FGM. The parents have a duty to do what they believe is right, but if that believe is wrong, they should not be permitted to do it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    A child cannot uneat the meat they've eaten in the past so your logic is also "flawed". There is NO universally accepted parenting style neither a Parenting Manual with absolute parenting tips. Any parent in the world (apart from mental cases) are guided by love and acts in (what he/she thinks is) his child’s best interests.
    Eating meat has no risks, its completely different, a child can stop eating meat if they want to,how can people get their foreskin back?

    A parent who does this is a bad parent, a parent might want sex with a child doesn't mean they should be allowed to does it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    Eating meat has no risks, its completely different, a child can stop eating meat if they want to,how can people get their foreskin back?

    A parent who does this is a bad parent, a parent might want sex with a child doesn't mean they should be allowed to does it?
    Meat has many risks.. Heard of mad cow disease? I'm not even going to cite sources because there are thousands upon thousands of studies which present the many risks of consuming meat.

    Secondly again how desperate are you in trying to make circumcision sound like the worst type of abuse possible. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE IT TO HAVING SEX WITH A CHILD? Does a child get scared psycologically having sex with a parent at a young age? YESSSSSS. This went too far. Terrible flawed analogy repeatedly being perpetuated by you is actually horrific...
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    I'm torn.

    On one part I'd say no, it's good for the infant because foreskin can have all sorts of things wrong with it, and without it, it's more hygienic and none of that 'one sec bae I need to pull my foreskin back' will happen

    On the other hand, the child has absolutely no say in it. And if they did, they're probably too young to know the consequences of it.

    My brothers were circumcised, and I remember it used to hurt me seeing them urinate and be in ABSOLUTE PAIN AND AGONY because their skin had not yet healed. I couldn't even stay and in the house while it was happening because I knew I'd start crying if I heard them scream. On the plus side, all is good now that it's healed and I know that they're clean down there. :dance:
 
 
 
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 agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.