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

Denmark’s 29,000 Doctors Declare Ritual Circumcision Boys an “Ethically Unacceptable" Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    Due to space, I changed "circum... of healthy boys" to "ritual circum", since that is basically the only reason circum. it is carried out on healthy boys in Denmark.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...=1484242698606
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Male Genital Mutilation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Due to space, I changed "circum... of healthy boys" to "ritual circum", since that is basically the only reason circum. it is carried out on healthy boys in Denmark.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...=1484242698606
    Hopefully, one day, this barbaric practice will be banned.
    • Offline

      18
      Inb4 'but muh religious freedom.'
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Hydeman)
      Inb4 'but muh religious freedom.'
      Or "muh health benefits."
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      Should be illegal. Imagine if this wasn't an established religious ritual and two parents cut off part of their baby's penis? They'd lose custody faster than you could say "oy vey!"
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      I prefer cut guys tbh. But I'm all for banning it for babies born from now on, my preferences only matter when it comes to adults, obviously.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      It is barbaric.Most parents would not consider tattooing their babies or getting their ears pierced so how can this be ok? Or how about if they were to remove a babies ear lobes or something else you wouldn't need. Baby teeth maybe.You only have to make these comparisons to see how backwards it is.A child's body does not belong to it's parents. They cannot just chop bits off just because they feel like it.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Robby2312)
      It is barbaric.Most parents would not consider tattooing their babies or getting their ears pierced so how can this be ok? Or how about if they were to remove a babies ear lobes or something else you wouldn't need. Baby teeth maybe.You only have to make these comparisons to see how backwards it is.A child's body does not belong to it's parents. They cannot just chop bits off just because they feel like it.
      But in Britain they can, Muslims Jews and Copts do it. I dont know about Hindus and Sikhs, probably not.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Mair18919)
      But in Britain they can, Muslims Jews and Copts do it. I dont know about Hindus and Sikhs, probably not.
      Whether they can and whether they should are different issues. We're discussing the latter.

      I personally feel that it's fine to mutilate yourself (obviously opening yourself up to criticism as well) once you're at an age where you are conscious of your belief system and are able to come to a reasonable decision. However, male circumcision when the child is a baby, or when they're barely reached adolescence (such as before a bar mitzvah at 14) is unlikely to be the product of free will. Rather, it's the parents forcing their own tradition onto a child who can neither resist nor has the range of options that are necessary to allow him to make anything resembling a free choice.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by JohnGreek)
      Whether they can and whether they should are different issues. We're discussing the latter.

      I personally feel that it's fine to mutilate yourself (obviously opening yourself up to criticism as well) once you're at an age where you are conscious of your belief system and are able to come to a reasonable decision. However, male circumcision when the child is a baby, or when they're barely reached adolescence (such as before a bar mitzvah at 14) is unlikely to be the product of free will. Rather, it's the parents forcing their own tradition onto a child who can neither resist nor has the range of options that are necessary to allow him to make anything resembling a free choice.
      I agree. Muslim circumcision is especially brutal because boys are old enough to be aware but too young to make a fully conscious decision - about nine or ten.
      • Offline

        18
        (Original post by JohnGreek)
        I personally feel that it's fine to mutilate yourself (obviously opening yourself up to criticism as well) once you're at an age where you are conscious of your belief system and are able to come to a reasonable decision. However, male circumcision when the child is a baby, or when they're barely reached adolescence (such as before a bar mitzvah at 14) is unlikely to be the product of free will. Rather, it's the parents forcing their own tradition onto a child who can neither resist nor has the range of options that are necessary to allow him to make anything resembling a free choice.
        I think this idea of people being able to make a free choice at the age of 18 (or 21 or whatever), though great to think about, isn't realistic. Children are largely a product of their environment so even if you could make it illegal, and do so without pushing it underground, for most of them there still wouldn't be a 'free' choice. Parents can simply condition their children to think they have to have it done because not to do so is 'dirty' or 'weird.' Women who've had their genitals mutilated could tell you as much - it's become a coming of age ritual, something that you have to do to become a 'real' woman.

        Ideally people would make choices like this by weighing up cost and benefit but I doubt that's ever going to happen, especially among the young.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Hydeman)
        I think this idea of people being able to make a free choice at the age of 18 (or 21 or whatever), though great to think about, isn't realistic. Children are largely a product of their environment so even if you could make it illegal, and do so without pushing it underground, for most of them there still wouldn't be a 'free' choice. Parents can simply condition their children to think they have to have it done because not to do so is 'dirty' or 'weird.' Women who've had their genitals mutilated could tell you as much - it's become a coming of age ritual, something that you have to do to become a 'real' woman.

        Ideally people would make choices like this by weighing up cost and benefit but I doubt that's ever going to happen, especially among the young.
        It would be much, much rarer though. We don't use that argument about FGM, which is exceedingly rare though undoubtedly horrific.
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        It should only be banned up until a certain age. Then if someone wants to get circumcised then they can be, be it for religious reasons or otherwise.
       
       
       
      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: January 13, 2017
    • 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.