Scottish Charity Air Ambulance 31/7
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
A Baby's Human Rights
193 Answers
Both Jews and Muslims lop bits off their young male children, not for medical reasons, but because their religions demand it, so a hypothetical question. If a case were brought before the European Court of Human Rights claiming that this practice is in violation of a human being's right to decide what happens to his body, what do you think the outcome would be?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chris, for an individual I've always respected on this open forum, you've, sadly, gotten your facts wrong, re: Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
The U.S. signed the Declaration: "... on February 16, 1995, the United States signed the Convention indicating the nation's intent to consider ratification.. but hasn't presented it to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by our Constitution." (Source: Amnesty International http://www.amnestyusa...rights-of-the-child-0 )
There are several problems inherent in the Declaration that are going to take a long time for it to wend it's way through the U.S. system for ratification.
The U.N. Declaration, for one, imposes requirements and restrictions on education. Fine... except in the U.S., for the Federal government to sign on to any sections of any treaty it first has to determine if the Federal government has the sole right to that power. In fact, the individual States (and even lower political subdivisions) are responsible for education funding, not the Federal government.
The Declaration also prohibits captial punishment or long terms of imprisonment for those "children" under the age of 18. Fine, again, except several States allow for captial punishment in extreme cases for "children 17 years old (or long terms of imprisonment).
So, the whole story is somewhat different that your report...
The U.S. signed the Declaration: "... on February 16, 1995, the United States signed the Convention indicating the nation's intent to consider ratification.. but hasn't presented it to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by our Constitution." (Source: Amnesty International http://www.amnestyusa...rights-of-the-child-0 )
There are several problems inherent in the Declaration that are going to take a long time for it to wend it's way through the U.S. system for ratification.
The U.N. Declaration, for one, imposes requirements and restrictions on education. Fine... except in the U.S., for the Federal government to sign on to any sections of any treaty it first has to determine if the Federal government has the sole right to that power. In fact, the individual States (and even lower political subdivisions) are responsible for education funding, not the Federal government.
The Declaration also prohibits captial punishment or long terms of imprisonment for those "children" under the age of 18. Fine, again, except several States allow for captial punishment in extreme cases for "children 17 years old (or long terms of imprisonment).
So, the whole story is somewhat different that your report...
Oh no they don't - that's funny after criticizing Chris for getting his facts wrong Clanad is behind the times!
The US supreme court raised the age to 18 in 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons
The US supreme court raised the age to 18 in 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons
Actually, jake, Roper vs. Simmons, found unconstitutional laws in those States that permitted the death penalty for persons who were under the age of 18 "at the time of the commission of the crime".
This, effectively, stopped all such executions. However, as I stated in my response to Chris, the laws in the individual States that had permitted this punishment, were only held in abeyance... not repealed, since that can only be done by the legislatures of the individual States.
This, effectively, stopped all such executions. However, as I stated in my response to Chris, the laws in the individual States that had permitted this punishment, were only held in abeyance... not repealed, since that can only be done by the legislatures of the individual States.
Jomifl - Even if you talk about personal hygiene then you can't show a mirror to Muslims. Try offering five times prayer a day and see what the requirements are before that known as “Wuzu” or Wudhu”.
Clanad – Where I do agree with your facts and figures I must inform you that you are up against few people who believe in what scientists and their research says. But as long as that research agrees what they want to believe in otherwise it is classed as rubbish. That is the reason I say that for few people who always propagate about logic, sometimes logic does not go beyond their own nose.
Finally as for the female circumcision, it is to do completely with culture in few African countries and I do not think has anything to do with religion.
Clanad – Where I do agree with your facts and figures I must inform you that you are up against few people who believe in what scientists and their research says. But as long as that research agrees what they want to believe in otherwise it is classed as rubbish. That is the reason I say that for few people who always propagate about logic, sometimes logic does not go beyond their own nose.
Finally as for the female circumcision, it is to do completely with culture in few African countries and I do not think has anything to do with religion.
Keyplus:
Have you ever asked yourself, “Why does my religion demand that all foreskins be removed from all male babies?”. Doesn't it strike you as an odd thing to do? To slice off a piece of skin that God has put there specifically? Didn't God create man in His own image?
Regardless, the tradition of genital mutilation of males (in the Abrahamic faiths at least) is derived from – wouldn't you just know it – the Old Testament. That old Hebrew book from which so much Islamic scripture has been copied.
Have you ever asked yourself, “Why does my religion demand that all foreskins be removed from all male babies?”. Doesn't it strike you as an odd thing to do? To slice off a piece of skin that God has put there specifically? Didn't God create man in His own image?
Regardless, the tradition of genital mutilation of males (in the Abrahamic faiths at least) is derived from – wouldn't you just know it – the Old Testament. That old Hebrew book from which so much Islamic scripture has been copied.
Latest Posts
Nigel Farage Making An Emergency...
News2 mins ago
Are Gemany's Politicians Finally Getting...
News10 mins ago
Is The Oft Repeated Canard That Labour...
News15 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
