Turn on thread page Beta

Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK? watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=howitoughttobe;76360312]There is no solid evidence that circumcision has health benefits or helps with cleanliness. It is done in the UK for religious reasons and people try to use health and cleanliness as an excuse for their religious

    Cleanliness isn't an excuse for the religious belief around circumcision, it IS the reason for the religious belief. There aren't other reasons like sexual pleasure or ensuring virginity like in FGM, the main if not only reason it is done is for the purpose of cleanliness.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neesaaaa)
    Cleanliness isn't an excuse for the religious belief around circumcision, it IS the reason for the religious belief. There aren't other reasons like sexual pleasure or ensuring virginity like in FGM, the main if not only reason it is done is for the purpose of cleanliness.
    Firstly, that is not true. People do not know the reason why they carry out circumcision on boys. There is no clear explanation for it in the any of the three abrahamic religions that carry it out.

    Secondly, people who carry out female circumcision do not carry it out to maintain virginity. That is a feminist lie that is disagreeable with reality. How can circumcision circumvent penetration? It cannot any way stop a woman from loosing her virginity. Thirdly, societies that carry out this procedure and they are a non-existent minority of societies, do not carry it out to reduce pleasure in women as feminists claim. They carry it out because they believe in circumcision as a concept that should be applied to all followers of the religion, men and women. What you've stated here is all feminist nonsense that is distanced from reality.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Neesaaaa;76520230]
    (Original post by howitoughttobe)
    There is no solid evidence that circumcision has health benefits or helps with cleanliness. It is done in the UK for religious reasons and people try to use health and cleanliness as an excuse for their religious

    Cleanliness isn't an excuse for the religious belief around circumcision, it IS the reason for the religious belief. There aren't other reasons like sexual pleasure or ensuring virginity like in FGM, the main if not only reason it is done is for the purpose of cleanliness.
    Except that proponents of Male circumcision have argued for it based upon arguments of sexuality and proponents of fgm have argued for that practice on grounds of cleanliness. It shows you have a warped view of the practice that has no link to reality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Firstly, that is not true. People do not know the reason why they carry out circumcision on boys. There is no clear explanation for it in the any of the three abrahamic religions that carry it out.

    Secondly, people who carry out female circumcision do not carry it out to maintain virginity. That is a feminist lie that is disagreeable with reality. How can circumcision circumvent penetration? It cannot any way stop a woman from loosing her virginity. Thirdly, societies that carry out this procedure and they are a non-existent minority of societies, do not carry it out to reduce pleasure in women as feminists claim. They carry it out because they believe in circumcision as a concept that should be applied to all followers of the religion, men and women. What you've stated here is all feminist nonsense that is distanced from reality.
    Firstly, I have no idea how you managed to quote me in this as I never wrote that and if you click the link back to my original post I said something completely different. Congratulations, you broke TSR.

    Secondly, FGM (there is no such thing as female circumcision) involves sewing up the opening to a woman's vagina, so yeah it does maintain virginity.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by howitoughttobe)
    Firstly, I have no idea how you managed to quote me in this as I never wrote that and if you click the link back to my original post I said something completely different. Congratulations, you broke TSR.
    My mistake. I misquoted the name of the person i was replying to because their comment is all messed up. I've corrected it now.

    (Original post by howitoughttobe)
    Secondly, FGM (there is no such thing as female circumcision) involves sewing up the opening to a woman's vagina, so yeah it does maintain virginity.
    Circumcision is an act of removing tissue. It does not involve the sewing up of anything...but yeah back to whatever you were doing mate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by howitoughttobe)
    Firstly, I have no idea how you managed to quote me in this as I never wrote that and if you click the link back to my original post I said something completely different. Congratulations, you broke TSR.

    Secondly, FGM (there is no such thing as female circumcision) involves sewing up the opening to a woman's vagina, so yeah it does maintain virginity.
    Depends upon what type of FGM we’re talking about. It encompasses a wide range of practices. Some of which involve “sewing up the opening to a woman’s vagina” but MOST don’t. THe most common practices are analogous to male circucision and often simply involve the removal of the clitoral hood (homologous tissue to the male foreskin).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    people who carry out female circumcision do not carry it out to maintain virginity. That is a feminist lie that is disagreeable with reality. How can circumcision circumvent penetration? It cannot any way stop a woman from loosing her virginity. Thirdly, societies that carry out this procedure and they are a non-existent minority of societies, do not carry it out to reduce pleasure in women as feminists claim.
    . What you've stated here is all feminist nonsense that is distanced from reality.
    People like you and I know that the concept of fgm preserving virginity is illogical but the people who carry it out do not so for them it's a reason. Also, I fail to see how any of this links to feminism. Is it only feminists like myself that think fgm happens?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Circumcision is an act of removing tissue. It does not involve the sewing up of anything...but yeah back to whatever you were doing mate.
    You clearly have very little knowledge on the topic. There are different types of FGM. Often sewing is involved in an attempt to preserve virginity. Please do not comment on a topic you aren't properly informed about.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neesaaaa)
    You clearly have very little knowledge on the topic. There are different types of FGM. Often sewing is involved in an attempt to preserve virginity. Please do not comment on a topic you aren't properly informed about.
    Sure, but the person you quoted explicitly said that circumcision doesn't involve the sewing up of anything, they never said that FGM didn't and circumcision in the strict sense of the word IS the removal of tissue. They were completely correct.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Male circumcision actually reduces risk of HIV transmission. So if anything the government alongside the NHS and other healthcare organisations should be promoting voluntary male circumcision in a bid to reduce HIV transmissions further as a part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haviland-Tuf)
    Male circumcision actually reduces risk of HIV transmission. So if anything the government alongside the NHS and other healthcare organisations should be promoting voluntary male circumcision in a bid to reduce HIV transmissions further as a part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
    Even if the reduction in HIV transmission was undoubtably proven, HIV is already fairly well controlled in the UK, cases are currently in decline and premature deaths are fairly low. Considering circumcision, like any surgery, has an inherent risk, I think the problems among a population wide uptake of the procedure would likely outweigh any minor benefit you may see in a reduction in HIV cases.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haviland-Tuf)
    Male circumcision actually reduces risk of HIV transmission. So if anything the government alongside the NHS and other healthcare organisations should be promoting voluntary male circumcision in a bid to reduce HIV transmissions further as a part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
    Mastectomies would reduce the prevalence of breast cancer in women (which kills far more women than HIV does men in this country). Would you be okay if parents decided to give their infant daughters mastectomies for this reasoning?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Mastectomies would reduce the prevalence of breast cancer in women (which kills far more women than HIV does men in this country). Would you be okay if parents decided to give their infant daughters mastectomies for this reasoning?
    Yes. I support any initiative that is evidence-based and is promoting the health and well-being of the people I care about the most, the children.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Haviland-Tuf)
    Yes. I support any initiative that is evidence-based and is promoting the health and well-being of the people I care about the most, the children.
    So you don't want girls to grow up and have breasts so they are flat chested as boys? :holmes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S-man10)
    So you don't want girls to grow up and have breasts so they are flat chested as boys? :holmes:
    It is a false equivalence comparing male circumcision to a double mastectomy - apples and oranges. Its true that HIV is a manageable disease in the West but lets not delude ourselves with thinking that HIV/AIDs is something that is not a major inconvenience. Lets get real at the end of the day someone with a HIV positive status will have a lower life-expectancy than the average population and this depends on several factors, most importantly how early the diagnosis was made. Even in a 20 year old who started anti-retroviral treatment in 2008 what you'll find is that their life expectancy is up to a decade less than the average population. Which brings me to my next point living with HIV is not an easy road you'll be on life-long antiretrovirals until you croak and these come with a whole host of side effects and differential sensitivites so it won't be an easy road. Additionally you'll be getting tested at least twice a year which is a major nerve wracking experience on the same level of waiting to hear from your doctor that your cancer is in remission...or not. I'm not trying to dampen the mood there have been many strides in the last 20 years in terms of progress for control of HIV transmission and preventing the condition from turning into AIDs. However, the reality is life sucks if you have HIV and although the media/people on the internet are peddling this idea that living with HIV is like living with a cold that never really clears is a massive, big, fat lie. What's even more scary is that in west midlands, which has one of the highest infection rates in the UK, 30% of the population is undiagnosed with HIV.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Haviland-Tuf)
    It is a false equivalence comparing male circumcision to a double mastectomy - apples and oranges. Its true that HIV is a manageable disease in the West but lets not delude ourselves with thinking that HIV/AIDs is something that is not a major inconvenience. Lets get real at the end of the day someone with a HIV positive status will have a lower life-expectancy than the average population and this depends on several factors, most importantly how early the diagnosis was made. Even in a 20 year old who started anti-retroviral treatment in 2008 what you'll find is that their life expectancy is up to a decade less than the average population. Which brings me to my next point living with HIV is not an easy road you'll be on life-long antiretrovirals until you croak and these come with a whole host of side effects and differential sensitivites so it won't be an easy road. Additionally you'll be getting tested at least twice a year which is a major nerve wracking experience on the same level of waiting to hear from your doctor that your cancer is in remission...or not. I'm not trying to dampen the mood there have been many strides in the last 20 years in terms of progress for control of HIV transmission and preventing the condition from turning into AIDs. However, the reality is life sucks if you have HIV and although the media/people on the internet are peddling this idea that living with HIV is like living with a cold that never really clears is a massive, big, fat lie. What's even more scary is that in west midlands, which has one of the highest infection rates in the UK, 30% of the population is undiagnosed with HIV.
    You should use paragraphs.

    My question to you is this, as you mentioned and you even agreed when someone mentioned evidence about masectomies with the following:

    Yes. I support any initiative that is evidence-based and is promoting the health and well-being of the people I care about the most, the children.


    This is after you were asked:

    Mastectomies would reduce the prevalence of breast cancer in women (which kills far more women than HIV does men in this country). Would you be okay if parents decided to give their infant daughters mastectomies for this reasoning?
    Read the bold bit again. So tell me, are you in support of cutting of an infant female's breasts?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S-man10)
    You should use paragraphs.

    My question to you is this, as you mentioned and you even agreed when someone mentioned evidence about masectomies with the following:



    This is after you were asked:

    [i]

    Read the bold bit again. So tell me, are you in support of cutting of an infant female's breasts?
    I already answered that question but it is not the answer you wanted. Its a false equivalence the two procedures are not the same one is more invasive than the other and is much more riskier. I am not here to entertain pseduointellectual comparisons between things that have nothing to do with each other. The topic is voluntary male circumcision. Stop trying to be controversial.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Haviland-Tuf)
    I already answered that question but it is not the answer you wanted. Its a false equivalence the two procedures are not the same one is more invasive than the other and is much more riskier. I am not here to entertain pseduointellectual comparisons between things that have nothing to do with each other. The topic is voluntary male circumcision. Stop trying to be controversial.
    All of this after you were asked:

    Mastectomies would reduce the prevalence of breast cancer in women (which kills far more women than HIV does men in this country). Would you be okay if parents decided to give their infant daughters mastectomies for this reasoning?


    To which you answered:

    Yes. I support any initiative that is evidence-based and is promoting the health and well-being of the people I care about the most, the children.


    So its pretty much a yes you would cut of their breasts. Not even sure why you are trying mental gymnastics given you already answered :laugh:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S-man10)
    All of this after you were asked:

    [/b]

    To which you answered:

    [/i]

    So its pretty much a yes you would cut of their breasts. Not even sure why you are trying mental gymnastics given you already answered :laugh:
    Is this the level of conversation and debate in this thread? Crude and inaccurate statements about life-saving medical intervention and equating it to hacking someone with a knife is ridiculous. I said I support evidence-based interventions. You need to improve your reading comprehension.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Haviland-Tuf)
    Is this the level of conversation and debate in this thread? Crude and inaccurate statements about life-saving medical intervention and equating it to hacking someone with a knife is ridiculous. I said I support evidence-based interventions. You need to improve your reading comprehension.
    You mean I'm only repeating your words back to you and you don't like them? If you are going to have a go at me for reading comprehension then perhaps you should look at your answer "yes" to:

    Would you be okay if parents decided to give their infant daughters mastectomies for this reasoning?
    You do realise the fact a women has breasts automatically puts them at risk to breast cancer. Which kills far more women men than men with HIV in the UK.

    All of that justification about "oh it reduces chances of getting HIV because drugs inconvenient". Well, how about you let a grown up man decide if he wants to follow onto that path?

    That would also imply circumcision prevents transmission but it doesnt. Don't need me to tell you.

    As far as risk goes, babies can also die of circumcision.
 
 
 

3,390

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.