88 replies to this topic

[Peeves]

The “Bris Ban”: German Court Calls Circumcision a “Criminal Act”

One can argue that it's cruel, painful, disfiguring and does not seek the wishes of the child. Others have (erroneously I suggest), compared the brit milah to Female Genital Mutilation, whichis of course much more traumatic.
Having been circumcised I can reasonably question the need and it being continued as a token of a covenant. I think not. Surely there are other choices such as perhaps a ritual with a substitute operation such as ...? I can think of a couple. You may too. Certainly at Passover there are substitutions now made for articles ordained in the Pesach seder.

Is a circumcision only to be done/justified for medical reason? Since the child can't be asked, why are there also piercings done on a young child without their permission? Apparently that's acceptable?

In my personal opinion a circumcision should not be performed on a child unless medically required, or, until they may legally make the choice as in tat's or piercing.

Or:

The irony is that by “protecting the freedom” of these children, German legislators has deprived parents of their freedom to choose what they think is best for their children.

http://www.jewocity.com/blog/the-bris-ban-german-court-calls-circumcision-a-criminal-act/2627

The brit milah (Hebrew: בְּרִית מִילָה‎ [b'rīt mī'lā], Ashkenazi pronunciation, bris milôh, "covenant of circumcision"; Yiddish pronunciation, bris) is a Jewish religious circumcision ceremony performed on 8-day-old male infants by a mohel. The brit milah is followed by a celebratory meal (seudat mitzvah).


"It’s not only the Jews who are ticked about this; Muslim leaders have been loudly opposed to this legislation. Considering that Muslims comprise one-third of the world’s population (not to mention most of our oil), it would be wise not to get on their bad side."

[Canuckistani]

Actually clitoral hood removal is very similar to foreskin removal. The former is done by adult women to enhance sexual pleasure or for medical reason as well. Should that be allowed to be performed on female infants.

I think it's time to ban this practice for children under 18.

[wyly]

The “Bris Ban”: German Court Calls Circumcision a “Criminal Act”

One can argue that it's cruel, painful, disfiguring and does not seek the wishes of the child. Others have (erroneously I suggest), compared the brit milah to Female Genital Mutilation, whichis of course much more traumatic.
Having been circumcised I can reasonably question the need and it being continued as a token of a covenant. I think not. Surely there are other choices such as perhaps a ritual with a substitute operation such as ...? I can think of a couple. You may too. Certainly at Passover there are substitutions now made for articles ordained in the Pesach seder.

Is a circumcision only to be done/justified for medical reason? Since the child can't be asked, why are there also piercings done on a young child without their permission? Apparently that's acceptable?

In my personal opinion a circumcision should not be performed on a child unless medically required, or, until they may legally make the choice as in tat's or piercing.

agreed, it's not something that can be undone, if that child rejects his parents religious indoctrination later in life how does he go about getting back that foreskin?...and damn that's got to hurt, how do they get away with inflicting that on a baby...

[bush_cheney2004]

....if that child rejects his parents religious indoctrination later in life how does he go about getting back that foreskin?

By using a skin "tugger":

[American Woman]

Actually clitoral hood removal is very similar to foreskin removal. The former is done by adult women to enhance sexual pleasure or for medical reason as well. Should that be allowed to be performed on female infants.

I think it's time to ban this practice for children under 18.

The purpose of circumcision isn't to enhance sexual pleasure; often the reasons are medical, so there's really no relevant comparison between a hoodectomy* and circumcision. Whether or not the medical advantages justify circumcision, there is some evidence that circumcision does reduce the incidence of urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, penile inflammation, and penile cancer. From what I've read, most people today believe that a local anesthetic is necessary, so pain isn't the issue that it used to be. I'm certainly not advocating it - just presenting the reality.


*A hoodetomy and female circumcision are two different things - and I've never heard of hoodectomy procedures being performed for medical reasons, so any information in that regard would be appreciated. "Among boys who are circumcised, most have no penile, urologic, or sexual dysfunction as adults. A majority of girls who are circumcised experience urologic, reproductive, and sexual dysfunction as adults."

Read more: Circumcision - Definition, Purpose, Description, Risks, Normal results http://www.healthofc...b#ixzz1zg7gbipD

[Canuckistani]

my understanding is that a hoodectomy can be done for the same medical reasons as circumcision - cleanliness and the problems that arise from lack of same. We live in a 1st world country. There is no reason that an uncircumcised man needs to worry about cleanliness if he's been taught how to keep himself clean. There are also horror stories about circumcisions gone wrong, including the Winnipeg man who they tried to raise as a girl - didn't work and he finally committed suicide. Doctors seem to agree that the medical benefits from circumcision aren't worth the risk and suffering of the infant. We don't ban it because we want to be pc. It's mutilation for no good reason, and should be banned in a secular society.

[wyly]

my understanding is that a hoodectomy can be done for the same medical reasons as circumcision - cleanliness and the problems that arise from lack of same. We live in a 1st world country. There is no reason that an uncircumcised man needs to worry about cleanliness if he's been taught how to keep himself clean. There are also horror stories about circumcisions gone wrong, including the Winnipeg man who they tried to raise as a girl - didn't work and he finally committed suicide. Doctors seem to agree that the medical benefits from circumcision aren't worth the risk and suffering of the infant. We don't ban it because we want to be pc. It's mutilation for no good reason, and should be banned in a secular society.

I wouldn't agree we should ban it, just require those having it done be consenting adults...unless there are pressing medical reasons it should be done to a child...

[American Woman]

my understanding is that a hoodectomy can be done for the same medical reasons as circumcision - cleanliness and the problems that arise from lack of same.

That may be your understanding, but I've seen nothing to suggest that it's true.

We live in a 1st world country. There is no reason that an uncircumcised man needs to worry about cleanliness if he's been taught how to keep himself clean.

The medical benefits I referred to are real, but it's up to individuals to decide if the reduction of the risk is worth the procedure. However, HIV studies have shown that circumcised men are significantly less likely to contact HIV than those who are not - and that includes lst world countries.

A team of researchers from the CDC, Johns Hopkins, and the Baltimore health department examined the records of more than 1,000 African American males — all heterosexual — who tested positive for HIV at Maryland clinics. Uncircumcised men were 50 percent more likely to be infected.

These results have caused many U.S. doctors to reconsider their positions. "I've always told families that the health benefits of circumcision are real, but not enough to warrant advocating that all boys be circumcised," says Lise Johnson, M.D., the director of healthy-newborn nurseries at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. "But I find these HIV studies pretty striking. The weight of scientific evidence might be shifting in favor of circumcision." link

There are also horror stories about circumcisions gone wrong, including the Winnipeg man who they tried to raise as a girl - didn't work and he finally committed suicide. Doctors seem to agree that the medical benefits from circumcision aren't worth the risk and suffering of the infant. We don't ban it because we want to be pc. It's mutilation for no good reason, and should be banned in a secular society.

That's a matter of opinion.

[bush_cheney2004]

... It's mutilation for no good reason, and should be banned in a secular society.

Maybe for infants, but not as an elective procedure. Hell, some people support aborting the entire viable infant, not just the foreskin!


Turtleneck or crew neck in Toronto:


http://www.thestar.com/living/article/1111317--why-adult-men-are-getting-circumcised

[Canuckistani]

I wouldn't agree we should ban it, just require those having it done be consenting adults...unless there are pressing medical reasons it should be done to a child...

That's what ban it means - ban if for children under 18. You can do what you want with your body after that. I can't think of one pressing medical reason it should be done to an infant.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's what ban it means - ban if for children under 18. You can do what you want with your body after that. I can't think of one pressing medical reason it should be done to an infant.

That's because you are not a doctor...there are medical reasons to perform circumcisions on children under 18 years of age.

[Canuckistani]

That's because you are not a doctor...there are medical reasons to perform circumcisions on children under 18 years of age.

Anybody under 18 is an infant?

[bush_cheney2004]

Anybody under 18 is an infant?

Anyone under 18 is under 18....child...infant...or fetus. To say that circumcision should be "banned" for "children under 18" is not medically responsible.

[Canuckistani]

Anyone under 18 is under 18....child...infant...or fetus. To say that circumcision should be "banned" for "children under 18" is not medically responsible.

I have no problem with it being performed for valid medical reasons ie ones that require an intervention now not because of some future supposed catastrophe. I would bet the number of infants that require a circumcision for immediate medial reasons is exceedingly small.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have no problem with it being performed for valid medical reasons ie ones that require an intervention now not because of some future supposed catastrophe. I would bet the number of infants that require a circumcision for immediate medial reasons is exceedingly small.

Circumcision is probably the most common surgical procedure in North America, and it is performed for valid medical reasons at any age. So any talk of a "ban" is a non-starter.