About religion's rights to sever a very neat bundle of nerve ends... (ie circumcision

[princealbertofb]

So this particular case came to my knowledge and I thought it was interesting. Some of you will probably not understand where this is coming from, especially if they have had the operation done. Many people don't see this as a grave act to perform upon a non consenting child, or more often baby.
Here is a series of articles, or letters which pertain to the German court's decision in Cologne to say that circumcision will be banned for non consenting people, including babies, as it is a serious mutilation. They give two reasons for this which you'll find in the article, not least important is the one pertaining to the right to decide one's own faith.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun...lim-jewish
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul...defensible

[princealbertofb]

And now this, for anyone who's still wondering what the furore is all about.

[princealbertofb]

As a further argument, I'd like to tell this personal story.

When my now deceased brother was born, in the state of New York, USA, the obstetric surgeon dealing with my mother's delivery was going to perform a routine circumcision on him since the baby was a male. My mother opposed this as she was neither Jewish, nor a Muslim, nor a genital hygiene fanatic, nor afraid of sexually transmitted diseases (for a baby it would be absurd!), nor American and that she'd not had any of her other male children thus mutilated. I don't know if the doctor insisted but in the end the child was left intact.

Thanks, mum. mile:

As it happened, my brother found when he grew up and started being sexually active that his foreskin would need operating. I don't know the details of why but in the end he had to have the circumcision done. It was mildly painful, I was told and healed within the prescribed period. As he said, the annoyance was of having erections or feeling aroused when the incision was healing. I suppose the doctor gave him the right medication to avoid involuntary arousal.

The thing is, being now circumcised did not prevent him from getting AIDS and dying from it. So all this palaver about it reducing the risks of catching HIV by only 60% seems all a bit trivial and a bit of a comfortable lie.

I am rather appalled to read that the World Health Organisation is now circumcising all the male population of countries like Rwanda in the hopes (for want of better care systems) of reducing the spread of the disease.



But what this BBC report also states is that the young men and teenagers etc... have the CHOICE to have it done.

[princealbertofb]

It is also interesting to read the comments made after this piece of propaganda:
http://allafrica.com/stories/201206130170.html

[wanderingboy]

I don't see why people get so upset about it. It is part of sincere religious practice for many, and it really doesn't cause harm. I'd personally rather be circumcised when too young to really remember (or worry about erections) than when older.

[dfiant]

The thing is, being now circumcised did not prevent him from getting AIDS and dying from it. So all this palaver about it reducing the risks of catching HIV by only 60% seems all a bit trivial and a bit of a comfortable lie.

a comfortable lie? 60% isn't 100% so the risk remains, just reduced.

And as for 60% being a trivial figure. There are 1.3 million people in Zimbabwa living with HIV, 1.2 million in the USA, 5.7 million in South Africa, 2.6 million in Uganda and those examples account for 10 million people living with HIV. If those numbers are 50:50 male and female, then that means over 3 million lives could potentially be prevented being impacted with HIV, but yes there will still be over 2 million MALES affected.

[sonofthemanse]

Those of you who are British, did anyone see a programme with something like the name 'How God Made The English' on a few months ago? Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch went to a Jewish circumcision ceremony and since I watched that, I've been totally opposed to circumcision. it was barbaric in the truest sense of the word. Wasn't even done in a hospital, I don't know if anaesthetic was used and the baby was paraded round the room like a trophy afterwards. Poor thing must have been petrified.

[bluefox4000]

I was circumcised as a baby. So this shit never bothered me like some. I never felt like half a man or some weird view that that.

Mick

[pellaz]

if left un cut till about 16-18 years old i bet no one would get it done. Its just there is no champion for not getting it done early at birth. I think the individual should judge for them selves and there should be laws enabling that. Any parent that does this to their child has latent personal issues and is not proud who they are.

you cant compare people in Zimbabwe with the UK/ US which has more than adequate access to hygiene. Use a condom; 99% protection level; low tech and available for free here.

during college i worked in a hospital and yes it is indeed wild to see a circumcision procedure. again along the lines; if most parents had to witness it themselves it would not get done.

[archubbycub]

I myself am circumcised. Mainly for the "hygiene" thing (yeah my mom fell for that too). But I've never felt like I was missing out on anything