Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK? Watch

SCIENCE :D
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 months ago
#21
I would make all religious indoctrination of children illegal.

Circumcision, Baptism, religious schools etc..
3
quote
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 months ago
#22
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Well, yeh I suppose.


There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

But I do see your point. Often these benefits don't give a mandate for getting the surgical tools out!
People with no feet have a 100% reduced chance of getting athletes foot and ingrown toenails. We don’t chop off babies feet though.
10
quote
reply
Caesar333
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 months ago
#23
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Babies have lots of permanent things that are done to them without their consent. Take vaccinations for example. One can argue this is because vaccinations are healthy for the baby, but proponents argue that is also true for circumcision (which, tbh, has some validity). I think the consent argument is too simplistic.
Vaccinations are for their benefit, without it theyre at risk of dying. Silly invalid comparison.
3
quote
reply
Tosspot
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 months ago
#24
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Well, yeh I suppose.


There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

But I do see your point. Often these benefits don't give a mandate for getting the surgical tools out!
Oh don't get me wrong, I think that child circumcision should be illegal. When you're an adult/late teen you can make an educated decision on your own as to the benefits vs cons of circumcision. The human body is flawed and no part of it (even the parts that are supposed to protect us as their primary function) are without ways for it to f*** up and potentially kill us.
0
quote
reply
303Pharma
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 months ago
#25
(Original post by sciencegirl1499)
I don't think religious practises which have been done for so many years without issues or concerns should be made illegal. Parents have their child's best interest at heart, we can't take over how parents raise their children
Why then the double standard of having female genital mutilation, which is widely practiced,legally, around the world, considered illegal in the UK?

Agree with the above post. Consider it the same as tattoos. Legal, if a consenting adult wants it. Illegal, if forceable inflicted on a minor.

[ caveat: except in the extremely rare cases were deemed a medical necessity ]
Last edited by 303Pharma; 7 months ago
1
quote
reply
HighOnGoofballs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#26
(Original post by PQ)
People with no feet have a 100% reduced chance of getting athletes foot and ingrown toenails. We don’t chop off babies feet though.
Taking it to the extreme a bit mate.

Chopping off feat is going to render the child in emotional as well as physical trauma and has also deterred the child's ability to perform basic human functions.

Circumcision does none of that.

You know this, so why even make the comparison - they're nothing like each other
3
quote
reply
Neesaaaa
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 months ago
#27
(Original post by flippycipher)
Infant circumcision should be banned, yes, because they cannot consent to that. The guy should choose what he wants to do with his body later on.
But by then it would hurt much more than if it were done very early on
0
quote
reply
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 months ago
#28
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Children can't consent to a lot of things.

Vaccinations, medicine, baptism, being taken places...the list goes on.

Where do you draw the line?
None of those are unnecessary procedures that are not in the best interests of a child.

Also, banging on about the benefits of circumcision is unhelpful. See this from the BMA:

"There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research."
1
quote
reply
Tosspot
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 months ago
#29
Good convo by the way, I'm happy to see you brought further research instead of autistic screeching (which is what I usually find on the internet).
1
quote
reply
DenzDVI
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 months ago
#30
No, it makes you cleaner and it's part of religion and culture

Westerners always wanna change things smh
Last edited by DenzDVI; 7 months ago
0
quote
reply
username2752874
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 months ago
#31
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Thoughts?
Do you mean for babies/children without consent?

Because some condition like phimosis require circumcision
0
quote
reply
HighOnGoofballs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#32
(Original post by 303Pharma)
Why then the double standard of having female genital mutilation, which is widely practiced,legally, around the world, considered illegal in the UK?

Agree with the above post. Consider it the same as tattoos. Legal, if a consenting adult wants it. Illegal, if forceable inflicted on a minor.
Female genital mutilation is literally cutting off the clit. It bars the individual from having an enjoyable sexual experience ever again. It's a permanent change to the body with no benefits and many negative effects. There's no double standard because they aren't the same thing.

That is not the case with circumcision as it has no permanent negative effects.

As with the consent argument, check my earlier comment.
1
quote
reply
flippycipher
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 months ago
#33
(Original post by Neesaaaa)
But by then it would hurt much more than if it were done very early on
But the guy may never want to have a circumcision, even as an adult. He should at least have the option, instead of growing up wishing he could have kept it.
0
quote
reply
username2752874
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 months ago
#34
(Original post by DenzDVI)
No, it makes you cleaner and it's part of religion and faith

Westerners always wanna change things smh
1. Presumably You're living in the West for a start? Pretty sure they're entitled to define their own laws

2. What scientific evidence do you have that it makes you cleaner? Unless you're a guy that showers down there once a month, I'm pretty confident you'll be fine. More than 90% of men here in the U.K. aren't circumcised and there's no complaints from health professionals or women.

3. You're mutlilating little boys against their will
4
quote
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 months ago
#35
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Taking it to the extreme a bit mate.

Chopping off feat is going to render the child in emotional as well as physical trauma and has also deterred the child's ability to perform basic human functions.

Circumcision does none of that.

You know this, so why even make the comparison - they're nothing like each other
UTI rates in men and boys is below 0.1% and utis are easily treated.

Stis and penile/cervical cancer prevention is by using condoms nut mutilating children.

Inflammation of the foreskin is lower in people with no foreskin. No **** Sherlock.

You’re using dodgy science and stats to justify ritual mutilation of babies and get upset when presented with the same justification for a mutilation you disagree with.



(And for the record I am not male and I am NOT your mate).
1
quote
reply
Neesaaaa
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 months ago
#36
(Original post by 303Pharma)
Why then the double standard of having female genital mutilation, which is widely practiced,legally, around the world, considered illegal in the UK?

Agree with the above post. Consider it the same as tattoos. Legal, if a consenting adult wants it. Illegal, if forceable inflicted on a minor.
Circumcision has been proven to have health benefits and is usually done with good intentions whereas FGM is a direct cause of infertility and infections which can in some cases cause death. Also circumcision is done early on and with anesthesia whereas FGM is excruciatingly painful. FGM is done to stop girls from enjoying sex, increase pleasure for men and to stop them from engaging in sex before marriage (as well as other reasons) whereas circumcision is for cleanliness.

Not much of a comparison between them really.
2
quote
reply
HighOnGoofballs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#37
(Original post by Conceited)
None of those are unnecessary procedures that are not in the best interests of a child.

Also, banging on about the benefits of circumcision is unhelpful. See this from the BMA:

"There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research."
That's fair.

However, to claim circumcision is on average, a harmful procedure is a little erroneous. At best, it's beneficial, at worst, it's neutral. If it was harmful (on average), there would be much greater opposition to it. Personally, and this is anecdotal sorry, but I have many Jewish and Muslim friends and none of them thinks of their circumcision as a bad thing - most are indifferent.
0
quote
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 months ago
#38
(Original post by Neesaaaa)
But by then it would hurt much more than if it were done very early on
How do you know how much pain it causes babies?
1
quote
reply
hajima
Badges: 13
#39
Report 7 months ago
#39
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Well, yeh I suppose.


There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

But I do see your point. Often these benefits don't give a mandate for getting the surgical tools out!
A lot of that is reaching quite far.
The link to the UTI page has nothing on circumcision and male UTIs as far as I can see, UTI rates among men are rare and easily treated anyway, not exactly an issue.
The penile cancer argument falls under the 'cleanliness' argument: once again, up to the parents to educate their children, not to cut off a part of their body to avoid doing so.
Balanitis, once again, keep clean and it poses no more risk.
And phimosis, really? It's hardly a reasonable prevention method, there are other treatments for paraphimosis too, that don't involve mutilating the genitals of a baby.
All of those 'health risks' are invalid, the only thing it does is damage their genitals (scar tissue, drying, friction); leave them alone smh.
Last edited by hajima; 7 months ago
quote
reply
Neesaaaa
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 months ago
#40
(Original post by flippycipher)
But the guy may never want to have a circumcision, even as an adult. He should at least have the option, instead of growing up wishing he could have kept it.
I get your point and just out of interest why would a guy actually wish he had kept it?
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Who is most responsible for your success at university

Mostly me (759)
90.57%
Mostly my university including my lecturers/tutors (79)
9.43%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed