First  Prev  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next  Last
Circumcision
2285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 11/27/09 , edited 11/27/09
more good news from the U.K


Circumcising boys for religious reasons 'could breach Human Rights Act'
Circumcising boys for religious reasons is akin to pulling out their fingernails and could be a breach of the Human Rights Act, an academic has warned.

By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Published: 8:00AM GMT 27 Nov 2009

Dr David Shaw, lecturer in ethics at Glasgow University, argues that circumcising boys for no medical reason is unethical.

He wrote in the journal Clinical Ethics that any doctor who does perform circumcision without a medical reason could be guilty of negligence and in breach of the Human Rights Act as the child cannot consent to the operation and it can be argued it is not in their best interests.

Dr Shaw wrote: "Imagine a situation where two adherents of a minority religion ask their doctor to pull off their son’s thumbnails, as this is part of the religion in which they want to bring up their son.

"The pain will be transient, and the nails will grow back, but the parents claim that it is an important rite of passage. I think it is reasonable to say that the doctor would send them packing.

"In the case of non-therapeutic circumcision, the foreskin will not grow back; why should this procedure be treated differently simply because of the weight of religious tradition?"

The controversial view is likely to cause a storm among Jewish populations who routinely circumcise boys when infants.

He said guidance to the medical profession on the issue from the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association are flawed and should be revised.

He added that the only medical reason for circumsing men is that there is some evidence it may prevent HIV in countries where cases are very high but that will not be relevant for doctors working in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/rebecca-smith/6662199/Circumcising-boys-for-religious-reasons-could-breach-Human-Rights-Act.html





and i still waiting for answers to these questions especially from the circumfetish american(obviously) females who tried to censor me and others here by crying to the mods. like i said these questions will be listed here until i get a satefsactory answer



If victims of circumcision in the United States were female instead of male, would we be discussing the pros and cons of circumcision?


Many American females argue that males should be circumcised because a circumcised penis is more attractive to them. Would American females, who believe that only they should decide what is in their best interests, alter their bodies if males stated that the removal of the clitoral hood would make sex more attractive for males? If not, then why the chauvinism and bigotry? Obviously what is good for the gander should be good for the goose!



Would any male dare write an article debating the "pros and cons" of female circumcision? Why are so many American females adamant that males undergo a mutilating procedure which they themselves would not undergo? One must seriously question their real motive in defending male circumcision. They are demanding equality under the law - the right to choose what is in the best interests of their own body - "not the church not the state etc". - but will use every possible strategy to vehemently oppose the same rights for males.(like censorship when at least 2 of them crying to the mods ) These individuals have no qualms expressing their outrage (publicly in the media - articles and letters) denouncing males who would dare defend their right to an intact body as they were created.



Would any American female undergo circumcision of any type if it could be demonstrated that it would prevent penile or prostate cancer in males? If such reasons would be unacceptable to American females, then why should similar arguments be made to justify male circumcision?


Why are females in America who are so opposed to the mutilation of their own bodies or that of their daughters so willing to let their sons undergo a practice which they would find dehumanizing themselves? Surely what is good for the gander should be good for the goose.

Posted 11/27/09
whaa i am Japanese and don't like circumcision because it will take pretty much all of the penis i have left whaaa i have a 8in dick circumcised so don't really care.
Posted 11/27/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

whaa i am Japanese and don't like circumcision because it will take pretty much all of the penis i have left whaaa i have a 8in dick circumcised so don't really care.


that was pretty TMI man or are u joking lol?
Posted 11/27/09
If people are unable to converse maturely than this thread no longer needs to be open.
First  Prev  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.