religious freedom is about the baby's religion. I don't see how he can have one at that age...
Baby have the right, like any other human, of body integrity
Should Child Circumcision Be Allowed?
SodaHead News
2012/06/28 22:50:47
|
|
|||||
|
981 votes
|
|
40% | |||
|
1,485 votes
|
|
60% | |||
Circumcision has been a religious tradition for many years, but has often been the subject of controversy because of the effect it could potentially have on children. On Tuesday, a German court ruled that child circumcision can be classified as "grievous bodily harm." The issue went to court when a 4-year-old boy began bleeding profusely as the result of a circumcision. Naturally, religious communities that practice circumcision are upset.
The court ruled, "[The] fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents ... The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised."
In response, the head of the Central Committee of Jews said the ruling is "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination ... [an] outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries."
The court ruled, "[The] fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents ... The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised."
In response, the head of the Central Committee of Jews said the ruling is "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination ... [an] outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries."
Top Opinion
-
xcheshirecat 2012/06/28 23:19:19
Let me be more specific. I do not back female circumcision as it is a harmful practice involving either partial or total removal of the external female genitalia. Just to give you an idea of how evil it is, the World Health Organization (WHO) calls it "Female Genital Mutilation" or FGM. It removes almost all ability for a woman to ever enjoy sex, and makes normal bodily functions unpleasant.
Male circumcision, however IS a good practice. Male circumcision lends to cleaner male genitals, more enjoyment from sex for both men and women (since it becomes larger due to more blood flow), and does not cause grievous bodily injury.
The above being said, this practice should be done at birth only, not at four years old. Many infants don't even cry during the procedure if done by a medical professional and the area where the extra skin was removed can be cleaned along with the umbilical cord/belly button.
I do believe that people who argue vehemently for the promotion of this practice do so only to justify why their parents had it done to them or why they had it done to their sons. Nobody wants to admit making an irreversible mistake on one's own child.
Not only is it multiple doctors from multiple countries...but multiple websites too!
Prudish views toward sex caused the big circumcision tradition in the United States. Today, people make lame excuses to continue this barbaric practice.
I am happy with the way I am, and sex is amazing, not numbing like you say it is. There's nothing barbaric about male circumcision when done as a medical procedure to infants.
I notice that you never commented on female circumcision. Guess you didn't bother to read my initial post. You ARE bitter. The venom spews from your words.
Seriously, read what you said, I'll even caps the impact words for you:
Joe Davies said:
"I was circumcised as an adult, and REGRET it to this day.......PRUDISH views toward sex caused the big circumcision tradition in the United States. Today, people make LAME excuses to continue this BARBARIC practice."
How is your reader SUPPOSED to take that as anything but bitterness and anger?
You want some reasons why circumcision is good and you're just a mad person shooting others down?
• Eliminates the risk of phimosis, which is not only an
impediment to sex, but makes cleaning under the foreskin
and passing urine difficult and painful, as well as greatly
increasing the risk of penile cancer and geriatric problems.
• Reduces the risk of inflammation and infection of the skin
of the penis.
• Substantially reduces the risk of urinary tract infections
(UTIs), particularly ...
I notice that you never commented on female circumcision. Guess you didn't bother to read my initial post. You ARE bitter. The venom spews from your words.
Seriously, read what you said, I'll even caps the impact words for you:
Joe Davies said:
"I was circumcised as an adult, and REGRET it to this day.......PRUDISH views toward sex caused the big circumcision tradition in the United States. Today, people make LAME excuses to continue this BARBARIC practice."
How is your reader SUPPOSED to take that as anything but bitterness and anger?
You want some reasons why circumcision is good and you're just a mad person shooting others down?
• Eliminates the risk of phimosis, which is not only an
impediment to sex, but makes cleaning under the foreskin
and passing urine difficult and painful, as well as greatly
increasing the risk of penile cancer and geriatric problems.
• Reduces the risk of inflammation and infection of the skin
of the penis.
• Substantially reduces the risk of urinary tract infections
(UTIs), particularly in infancy.
• Almost completely eliminates the risk of invasive penile
cancer.
• Reduces the risk of prostate cancer.
• Reduces the risk of being infected by HIV, the AIDS virus,
by 3-8 fold.
• Provides substantial protection against thrush, genital
ulcers, papillomavirus, herpes, syphilis, trichomonas,
chancroid and mycoplasma.
• Eliminates the need for later circumcision for medical
reasons.
• Does not affect sensitivity of the flaccid penis, penile
sensation arousal, nor ability to get an erection. Sexual
pleasure is the same or better.
(ref: http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/...
You had yours as an adult. You did it due to social pressure. I'm sure you did other things due to social pressure too. Bet you also regretted those decisions. This is not about continuing a 'barbaric practice' but about a beneficial medical procedure which you obviously did not desire in the first place.
The reason it seemed to feel better then is because of two things.
1) It's not something you grew up with, so your brain is not hard-wired to think it's normal.
2) It's not something you wanted to begin with, but by your own admission, was forced into. Thus you're wishing for something you no longer have. Such is human nature.
You're only voice of 'experience' is that you are mad.
The foreskin contains nerves so pleasure is decreased when it's removed. The glans dries up, loses sensitivity, and may change color (yeah, big whoop about that last one). When the glans dries up, it's rougher so during sexual penetration, the normal gliding motion becomes rough and possibly painful.
The old Biblical God-told-Abraham circumcision was more of a snip off the very end. Today's male circumcision involves removing the entire foreskin, including the frenulum (which lets the foreskin stay put over the glans). Viewing the circumcision videos: there IS a lot of blood loss during infant circ.
I can't argue there about genitals being cleaner when cut: I guess if a boy is too stupid to wash his own privates, then it's probably best off. Don't ever walk behind him either because he might be too dumb to wash his ass-crack, too.
We have Kellogg, a known quack, to thank in America for his BS ploy to get boys to stop masturbating: circumcision.