51–60 of 207 posts
We tried this in San Francisco and it gets dragged into some crazy anti-religious fight. It's about the rights of the baby, not about some religion's outdated beliefs. Children should be free of mutilation, regardless of their religion.
Exactly. And last time I checked Jewish people have a place to live that is violently protective of their way of life, namely Israel.
It's genital mutilation. There's no medical reason [1]. Yes, having a foreskin means you need to clean it regularly (or your caregiver if you're a baby). And then there are disgusting things like this [2]: > In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to clean…
It's a valid medical reason for the operation. Not to mention the above mentioned.
Not only do your facts not hold up to a brief Google, but the reputation of the people suggesting this could have made you think twice.
Twice about the possible motivations. And that could have given you again doubts.
And calling it mutilation implies those who have and want to have this engage in mutilation akin to FGM. It's irresponsible.
It's genital mutilation. There's no medical reason [1]. Yes, having a foreskin means you need to clean it regularly (or your caregiver if you're a baby). And then there are disgusting things like this [2]: > In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to clean…
Categorically false. I have a newborn boy and talked to a number of doctors about it - there is actually a slight benefit to the circumcised child [1], it just isn't enough for the American Association of Pediatrics to recommend it outright. [1] https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages...
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756
Which has all the hallmarks of misleading data.
See the comments for more http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.com...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, parents are allowed to mark their children with musical taste, their political views, their habits, their values. These are also irreversible. Parents are allowed to feed their children the way they want, to take their children to spots where they might get a disease, to pass on their own diseases to their children. Parents are allowed even to pass on their genes, which may contain horrible psychological tenden…
"Other bad things happen so we shouldnt try to improve this Bad thing!"
It's genital mutilation. There's no medical reason [1]. Yes, having a foreskin means you need to clean it regularly (or your caregiver if you're a baby). And then there are disgusting things like this [2]: > In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to clean…
Categorically false. I have a newborn boy and talked to a number of doctors about it - there is actually a slight benefit to the circumcised child [1], it just isn't enough for the American Association of Pediatrics to recommend it outright. [1] https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages...
In other words don't fucking do it because it is barbaric and evil. If you think it's not, ask an uncircumcised adult to have the procedure done for all the benefits it provides and see how many agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found a big exception to your blanket statements: There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be consi…
I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases. Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us? Not that I'm saying you're advocating it; just continuing the train of thought.
It's genital mutilation. There's no medical reason [1]. Yes, having a foreskin means you need to clean it regularly (or your caregiver if you're a baby). And then there are disgusting things like this [2]: > In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to clean…
Look up phimosis. At two minute Google search could have found this. It's a valid medical reason for the operation. Not to mention the above mentioned. Not only do your facts not hold up to a brief Google, but the reputation of the people suggesting this could have made you think twice. Twice about the possible motivations. And that could have given you again doubts. And calling it mutilation implies those who have a…
Should we also ban the piercing of infant ears?
This is one of those topics where people have extremely strong opinions, yet the vast majority of people affected by this practice (circumcised males) have no opinion or even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.