Turn on thread page Beta

Should male circumcision be illegal in the UK? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    I do love threads where this happens. It's rare, but it's worth the wait. I'm glad nobody lost their cool otherwise this thread could have gone from rather productive to an utter sh*tshow lol.
    Haha totally, I suppose some topics are more prone to evoking that response. But yeh I never get involved in reddit/forums/social media etc as it is usually mindless drivel. However I just made a throwaway account on here as I am attending university in Sept as a mature student and there were a few things I wanted to check out/ask. In doing so I found myself uncharacteristically getting involved in some threads haha. Tbh on the odd occasion I've lurked over the years I have usually found this site is one of the worst for moronic conversation and people taking nonsense =S (Sorry any long time contributers/fans! )
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    but sometimes it needs to be done?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tedgfbtebfetedfb)
    You cant criticise whats written in the article, you just criticise the source which is subjective in the end on the day. The fact is you are much safer from STD's with circumcision and you are refusing to accept it because of the reliability of the daily mail.
    All these sources are using research that is hotly contended, admits it contains a number of faults and only claims to show that 'evidence may suggest...'

    Hardly fort knox when any level of scrutiny is applied...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tedgfbtebfetedfb)
    You cant criticise whats written in the article, you just criticise the source which is subjective in the end on the day. The fact is you are much safer from STD's with circumcision and you are refusing to accept it because of the reliability of the daily mail.
    Officials say it can lower a male's risk of sexually-transmitted diseases, penile cancer and even urinary tract infections
    These have all been addressed already. The 'positives' listed in this article are not great.

    Cut a man's risk of getting HIV from an infected female partner by 50 to 60 per cent.
    The risk of transmission from a one time contact with a presumed HIV+ female is already extremely low, I'm not going to put numbers on it but we're probably talking about a fraction of a percent here. Given that condoms protect you 100% of the time when correctly used then I must reject this argument.

    Reduce their risk of genital herpes and certain strains of human papillomavirus by 30 per cent or more.
    Doesn't remove the risk. But I would say that given this is an STI then there is no harm in delaying the procedure until the individual is sexually active if you feel that this is a good enough reason to permanently alter your genitals.

    Lower the odds of urinary tract infections during infancy, and cancer of the penis in adulthood.
    UTIs are not serious and easily treated with antibiotics.

    Furthermore, is the penile cancer argument is good enough for you do you also support removing the breasts of newborn girls given that the breast cancer rate in women is far higher?

    Your article even says that the guidelines actually stop short of recommending the procedure.

    Your article is nonsense.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tedgfbtebfetedfb)
    You cant criticise whats written in the article, you just criticise the source which is subjective in the end on the day. The fact is you are much safer from STD's with circumcision and you are refusing to accept it because of the reliability of the daily mail.
    Also I can post websites too if that will satisfy you?

    http://www.intactamerica.org/learnmore
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zxcvbnm123456789)
    Haha totally, I suppose some topics are more prone to evoking that response. But yeh I never get involved in reddit/forums/social media etc as it is usually mindless drivel. However I just made a throwaway account on here as I am attending university in Sept as a mature student and there were a few things I wanted to check out/ask. In doing so I found myself uncharacteristically getting involved in some threads haha. Tbh on the odd occasion I've lurked over the years I have usually found this site is one of the worst for moronic conversation and people taking nonsense =S (Sorry any long time contributers/fans! )
    Yup, social media is cancer.

    If you're looking for civil debate/discussion though, you should totally try some of the smaller subreddits on Reddit. They can be very good. But the big ones are awful, stay away at all costs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeclanGCSEs)
    but sometimes it needs to be done?
    I think most anti-abortion people here are pragmatic enough to realise that if a circumcision is need for medical reasons, that is perfectly fine.

    But the majority of circumcisions arent and that's generally what the debate is centered around.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zxcvbnm123456789)
    Personally I see a distinct difference between a 3-6 month old foetus and a child that has been born. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with the last bit, becoming a person as a result of interaction/developing a personality as a baby perhaps? But then you seem to refer to the perceived intelligence of a creature? I don't think either offer a worthy point of view.
    Yea, my last paragraph was just a possible objection someone could raise. Like you said, you see a distinct difference between a 3-6 month old foetus and a child that has been born. However, the reasoning someone may employ to justify this distinction maybe that, a 3-6 month old foetus isn’t a ‘person’ but a newly born child is a ‘person’ so that’s why the latter deserves to voice its consent (e.g. circumcision) whilst the former does not (e.g. being aborted). ‘Personhood’ in this context could literally be defined broadly, for example, simply having some form of intelligence, interaction with other animals (inc humans) etc. The minor point I was trying to make is that if one accepted the personhood view to justify this distinction, then in order to be consistent, they have to extend it to other animals who also deserve the status of personhood. If a newly born child can the status of personhood as per definition, then there’s no reason why adult pigs or other animals humans eat can obtain the status as well. This might not pose a problem with some people (e.g. vegetarians/vegans who don’t eat meat), but shakes the moral foundation of other people (e.g. those who do eat meat).

    The major point I was trying to make was that if two agree that personhood is not suitable in distinguishing a 3-6 month old foetus and a newly born child, and they can’t find any reason to distinguish between them, then its inconsistent for them to support abortion and be against circumcision. Why? Because they are still left to explain the ‘magical’ thing that happens between being a foetus (where it doesn’t have a guaranteed right to life - regardless of consent) and a newly born child (where it cant be circumcised because it can’t consent).

    This argument, I think, is mainly objecting to the line that ‘circumcision should be illegal because babies can’t consent’ but the person making that call happens to support abortion.

    Obviously, there are many things people can use to distinguish between the two if personhood doesn’t work out for them, such as consciousness. Consciousness could be key to distinguishing a foetus from a newly born baby perhaps?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Yup, social media is cancer.

    If you're looking for civil debate/discussion though, you should totally try some of the smaller subreddits on Reddit. They can be very good. But the big ones are awful, stay away at all costs.
    Yes I would completely echo your thoughts. That's why I just find it better to lurk. Take in the useful and correct information, that you can hopefully verify, always have your ******** detector set to maximum, remain aware of any general trends/biases of a particular sub, and always be aware of the echo chamber and users' tendency to upvote things that have already been upvoted regardless of actually being correct. Then get the hell out of there asap hahaha.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    I think most anti-abortion people here are pragmatic enough to realise that if a circumcision is need for medical reasons, that is perfectly fine.

    But the majority of circumcisions arent and that's generally what the debate is centered around.
    I assume you meant anti-circumcisionn =P
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Coming from a country where a sizable community practises it (I'm not circ myself), I guess I'm less against it as people here
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    It’s a very difficult thing to do with the millions of Muslims in the country and the strong Jewish lobby. But yes it should be banned, cutting baby’s penisis isn’t cool.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hppsgm)
    Yea, my last paragraph was just a possible objection someone could raise. Like you said, you see a distinct difference between a 3-6 month old foetus and a child that has been born. However, the reasoning someone may employ to justify this distinction maybe that, a 3-6 month old foetus isn’t a ‘person’ but a newly born child is a ‘person’ so that’s why the latter deserves to voice its consent (e.g. circumcision) whilst the former does not (e.g. being aborted). ‘Personhood’ in this context could literally be defined broadly, for example, simply having some form of intelligence, interaction with other animals (inc humans) etc. The minor point I was trying to make is that if one accepted the personhood view to justify this distinction, then in order to be consistent, they have to extend it to other animals who also deserve the status of personhood. If a newly born child can the status of personhood as per definition, then there’s no reason why adult pigs or other animals humans eat can obtain the status as well. This might not pose a problem with some people (e.g. vegetarians/vegans who don’t eat meat), but shakes the moral foundation of other people (e.g. those who do eat meat).

    The major point I was trying to make was that if two agree that personhood is not suitable in distinguishing a 3-6 month old foetus and a newly born child, and they can’t find any reason to distinguish between them, then its inconsistent for them to support abortion and be against circumcision. Why? Because they are still left to explain the ‘magical’ thing that happens between being a foetus (where it doesn’t have a guaranteed right to life - regardless of consent) and a newly born child (where it cant be circumcised because it can’t consent).

    This argument, I think, is mainly objecting to the line that ‘circumcision should be illegal because babies can’t consent’ or to that effect.

    Obviously, there are many things people can use to distinguish between the two if personhood doesn’t work out for them, such as consciousness. Consciousness could be key to distinguishing a foetus from a newly born baby perhaps?
    I see, I think your logic is mostly sound however I would point out that most humans do not equate humans and animals (not that I agree with this). And the specific definition you have created of 'personhood' is what allows it to be extended to animals. Also I think there is perhaps a difference of moral values in people when it is something they believe is an animal that is natural and necessary for them to eat(regardless of whether it actually is or not. I haven't studied the whole vegan-ism thing closely and can't really get into a debate on that haha). I haven't articulated that particularly well but hopefully you get the gist of what I meant?

    Following all your specific definitions, situations and proposed hypothetical viewpoints then yes I think your conclusion is absolutely correct.

    The main point I think is that you're making a lot of hypothetical situations here and making assumptions in creating people with your specified hypothetical views (not that I'm saying it's not possible they exist)(also not that I'm suggesting you believe them). If such a person was to come along then sure I don't disagree with what you have said.

    Personally I don't think I accept the concept of 'personhood' that you have suggested, and if I did I definitely wouldn't accept the proposed definition. I am of the somewhat controversial viewpoint that until the sprog pops out and can support itself (as in breath/digest/drink etc, not get a job at asda =P) it is a foetus and at that moment it becomes a child

    Possibly, depends upon how you define consciousness I suppose?

    I'm assuming most of what you said was just to explore your own ideas/possible opinions, as well as those of others?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Circumcision has its benefits,one big one too that it prevents the risk of stds.It's only people who hate religion that are denying this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Male circumcision is already illegal in the UK.

    Although there is no specific statute against it performing an unnecessary circumcision break a number of criminal laws including

    - GBH (S18 Offences against the Person Act)
    - Wounding
    - ABH (S18 Offences against the Person Act)
    - Battery (S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.)

    The consent of the parents is not valid because the procedure cannot be shown to be objectivity in the child's best interests.

    Unfortunately there have been a range of practical barriers that have prevented anyone from being a civil case for male circumcision including a lack of evidence being available by the time a person decides to take a case, the need to start a case before age 21 (18 + 3 years) , the cost (few people would have enough money before they are 21), privacy issues (any case would likely end up in the national media) and backlash from their families and religious communities (made worse by the fact that they are likely to be financially dependent on them until they are long past 21)

    More despicable and inexcusable - CPS seam to turn a blind eye and refuse to take on criminal cases even thou there is nothing top actually stop them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    You draw the line by distinguishing between what is OBJECTIVELY necessary and what is not. No optional procedures may be done until the child has sufficient understanding to choose for himself
    .
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sciencegirl1499)
    I agree.
    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 Childs best interest at heart. we can't take over how parents raise their children
    Yes actually we can.
    Parents have NO rights over their children only responsibility. and that fact that a parents subjectively thinks that something is in a child's best interest does not magically make is so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by icon_of_sin)
    You draw the line by distinguishing between what is OBJECTIVELY necessary and what is not. No optional procedures may be done until the child has sufficient understanding to choose for himself
    .
    Define objectively neccasary?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tosspot)
    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
    Any person of ordinary inteligence should be able to make a educated decsions by the time they are a mid-late child (6-9) possibly before. no need to wait until late teen years or even early teen years.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No, it doesn't cause any big problems for the most part anyway. Parents should be allowed to decide to circumcise their child for religious reasons, especially conspiring that two major religions consider it to be compulsory.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.