Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK?
Scroll to see replies
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?
Vaccinations, medicine, baptism, being taken places...the list goes on.
Where do you draw the line?
Being taken somewhere isn't a big deal, baptism is pointless but just some water. Circumcision is mutilation so if the child cannot consent it should be illegal.
Original post by queen-bee
No
Why?
Why?
@OP, not saying you support infant male circumcision but re: these points:
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Well, yeh I suppose.
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits though, including:
•
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
These are usually treated with a course of antibiotics. So not a good enough reason to permanently alter the genitals of an child who cannot give consent.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Even if this were a compelling argument (which it isn't as there are other methods to safeguard you against STIs), the answer is still to let men decide whether or not they want a circumcision when they become sexually active, and not when they are babies.
The penile cancer rate is about 1 in 585 for men.
The breast cancer rate is about 1 in 8 for women. 1 in 8.
Do you support baby girls having their breasts surgically removed and if not, why not?
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Treated with good hygiene, not a compelling argument.
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Prevention of something that likely won't even happen (about 1% of boys have phimosis that persists until the age of 17). Even if it does, there are other treatments before circumcision may be required, so this is not a good argument.
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.
A shower will keep your penis clean.
As the owner of a penis and a foreskin, I can assure the non penis/foreskin owners that skipping a day will not make your penis drop off. So this is not a good argument.
Original post by PQ
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).
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).
Well, all your points (aside from the feet) are valid, but all I said was that it prevented UTIs - which it does. I'm not saying that's a great thing - I just stated the benefits - even if many were obvious, there's no need to be aggressive about it.
As for the feet, its a false equivalence. Circumcision does not lead to as much harm as cutting off feet does, the comparison isn't valid, pal.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
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.
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.
I am not saying it is harmful, beneficial etc. I am saying it is unecessary and that raising its supposed benefits is unhelpful as there is nothing conclusive on it. Male circumcision should not be practiced on children.
Original post by hajima
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.
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.
I agree with you.
The benefits as you stated, may not necessarily be noteworthy, but they're still somewhat present. Just stated them to continue the conversation and bring a bit of balance, devils advocate if you will.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Well, all your points (aside from the feet) are valid, but all I said was that it prevented UTIs - which it does. I'm not saying that's a great thing - I just stated the benefits - even if many were obvious, there's no need to be aggressive about it.
As for the feet, its a false equivalence. Circumcision does not lead to as much harm as cutting off feet does, the comparison isn't valid, pal.
As for the feet, its a false equivalence. Circumcision does not lead to as much harm as cutting off feet does, the comparison isn't valid, pal.
I’m not your pal either.
Do you know the rate of accidents in relation to circumcision? Why would you submit any child to surgery for imperceptible and unproven benefits?
“Not as much harm as cutting off a baby’s feet “ a very compelling argument in favour of circumcision there.
Original post by Wilfred Little
Why?
Why?
@OP, not saying you support infant male circumcision but re: these points:
Why?
@OP, not saying you support infant male circumcision but re: these points:
These are usually treated with a course of antibiotics. So not a good enough reason to permanently alter the genitals of an child who cannot give consent.
Even if this were a compelling argument (which it isn't as there are other methods to safeguard you against STIs), the answer is still to let men decide whether or not they want a circumcision when they become sexually active, and not when they are babies.
The penile cancer rate is about 1 in 585 for men.
The breast cancer rate is about 1 in 8 for women. 1 in 8.
Do you support baby girls having their breasts surgically removed and if not, why not?
Treated with good hygiene, not a compelling argument.
Prevention of something that likely won't even happen (about 1% of boys have phimosis that persists until the age of 17). Even if it does, there are other treatments before circumcision may be required, so this is not a good argument.
A shower will keep your penis clean.
As the owner of a penis and a foreskin, I can assure the non penis/foreskin owners that skipping a day will not make your penis drop off. So this is not a good argument.
Your points are valid, fair enough.
While I'm willing to concede it may not be beneficial, are you willing to admit it's at worst, a neutral treatment? I haven't seen any compelling evidence that it's actually harmful?
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
That is not the case with circumcision as it has no permanent negative effects.
It's hard to discern the objective truth on this matter, because of the obvious political, and religious, biases in studies. There are just as many studies that show, as not, that the drying out and callusing of the Glans Penis, post circumcision, reduces sensitivity (of arguable the most sensitive area on a male body), which diminishes male sexual pleasure.
As for the easier to clean argument. If a circumcised man washes his bell-end, is the fraction of a second it takes an uncut man to retract his foreskin going to make any difference at all?
Original post by Bio 7
Being taken somewhere isn't a big deal, baptism is pointless but just some water. Circumcision is mutilation so if the child cannot consent it should be illegal.
But your original argument was condemning circumcision due to the lack of consent on the child's behalf. Be consistent. You can't just pick and choose based on what you think is worse or better.
If your argument has changed to, a child cannot consent to mutilation - a permanent act, then that's fair enough. But this comment doesn't fit with your prior one.
Original post by pq
i’m not your pal either.
Do you know the rate of accidents in relation to circumcision? Why would you submit any child to surgery for imperceptible and unproven benefits?
“not as much harm as cutting off a baby’s feet “ a very compelling argument in favour of circumcision there.
Do you know the rate of accidents in relation to circumcision? Why would you submit any child to surgery for imperceptible and unproven benefits?
“not as much harm as cutting off a baby’s feet “ a very compelling argument in favour of circumcision there.
mate,may the butthurt be with you
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
But your original argument was condemning circumcision due to the lack of consent on the child's behalf. Be consistent. You can't just pick and choose based on what you think is worse or better.
If your argument has changed to, a child cannot consent to mutilation - a permanent act, then that's fair enough. But this comment doesn't fit with your prior one.
If your argument has changed to, a child cannot consent to mutilation - a permanent act, then that's fair enough. But this comment doesn't fit with your prior one.
How was my second comment any different?
Taking a baby on a trip is something they cannot give their consent to, however it will not be causing harm to them. Still they cannot give consent to circumcision and that is a permanent mutilation so should be down to the parents to decide on the childs behalf as they may disagree with it later in life yet it cannot be undone.
In relation to baptism it is also religious but means nothing in terms of permanent change to their body so is still not an act tbey will find verybdisagreeable later in life.
I think it should be banned. Of course it will be enormously difficult as it has been a bonkers religious practice over centuries and many will view it as tantamount to banning their religion. For me the argument of allowing people to decide if they want to do this for a religious reasons ONCE they are an adult is a pretty valid one. I think the prevalence of circumcision would dwindle.
I am sure that many Corbynistas would favour this given how they hate religion and that some of them have anti- Israeli or anti-semitic views.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Your points are valid, fair enough.
While I'm willing to concede it may not be beneficial, are you willing to admit it's at worst, a neutral treatment? I haven't seen any compelling evidence that it's actually harmful?
While I'm willing to concede it may not be beneficial, are you willing to admit it's at worst, a neutral treatment? I haven't seen any compelling evidence that it's actually harmful?
Circumcision is not risk free, some boys die from it so I'm not going to concede that point.
If for the sake of the argument we only consider circumcisions that go perfectly, given the negligible benefits I would still argue that the right decision is to let the child decide for themselves.
Hitchens RIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X70ss7vsS_c
No-one says (said) it better than him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X70ss7vsS_c
No-one says (said) it better than him.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
ok, friend.
WARNING: the link below is about circumcision complications and includes diagrams and photographs you might find upsetting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/#!po=11.0294
Read and enjoy.
The sections on necrotizing fasciitis, degloving of skin, fistulas and amputation of the glans are particularly compelling.
Explain again why the benefits make the risks for routine circumcision of children worthwhile?
Surely 1 death from a procedure with no real proven benefits is too many...
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Thoughts?
No,
It's a religious custom and a duty for parents of that specific religion to ensure their offspring is brought up in the faith...
What the child does when they're are older in adulthood is there own concern. Like you mentioned "children can't consent to a lot of things" that doesn't mean that the parents do it recklessly. It is done usually for the benefit of the child (religiously but also for health).
Health pros:
- A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
- A reduced risk of STD's
- Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) & Balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans & foreskin)
- Prevention of Phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin).
- Cleanliness
The issue with doing it later in life and thus leaving it up to the individual when they're older is that it is far more painful in comparison to when they're a baby.
It's a religious practice and often a cultural one too so banning it would raise an issue amongst communities here in the UK...So no.
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
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
Lol, yes it does???
Original post by Bio 7
How was my second comment any different?
Taking a baby on a trip is something they cannot give their consent to, however it will not be causing harm to them. Still they cannot give consent to circumcision and that is a permanent mutilation so should be down to the parents to decide on the childs behalf as they may disagree with it later in life yet it cannot be undone.
In relation to baptism it is also religious but means nothing in terms of permanent change to their body so is still not an act tbey will find verybdisagreeable later in life.
Taking a baby on a trip is something they cannot give their consent to, however it will not be causing harm to them. Still they cannot give consent to circumcision and that is a permanent mutilation so should be down to the parents to decide on the childs behalf as they may disagree with it later in life yet it cannot be undone.
In relation to baptism it is also religious but means nothing in terms of permanent change to their body so is still not an act tbey will find verybdisagreeable later in life.
Your first comment only mentioned consent. There was no mention of harm being done. The first implied you believed nothing should be imposed on the baby without their consent, while the second was certainly more sensible in clarifying that a baby should not be imposed to anything harmful as he cannot consent. Semantics, but two different comments.
Original post by PQ
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).
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).
Thank **** there are some sensible people on this site
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
