Why Are Doctors Performing Religious Mutilation?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-41898408
Surely this is ABH? even with consent.

[Islay]

Personally prefer without

[Sqad]

Islay ^^^^ without what?
Without foreskin or without circumcision LOL...?

[Prudie]

Accepting looks should never be the reason but definitely prefer without, they tend to have a 'fresher' air too.

[Islay]

As prudie states it just comes across as cleaner and neater

[naomi24]

This isn't about women's preferences - or neatness. It's about lopping bits of bodies off people who have no say in the matter - and for no justifiable reason. That simply cannot be right.

[fender62]

naomi24, i agree to a point..female mutilation yes, but for men not really, as it does not effect them in any negative way physically, if any thing its cleaner healthier.

[nailit]

Whether circumcision is healthier, cleaner, looks better (to the ladies at least) or has health benefits is neither nor there. Chopping bits of baby boys' genitals for religious reasons...without their consent...is barbaric and backward.
Ive seen this argument before on here from keyplus, stating all the 'benefits'. By default he is admitting that God made a mistake by giving males a foreskin.

[naomi24]

Fender, so does that mean that uncircumcised boys are unclean and unhealthy? I don't think so.

[nailit]

http://www.parenting.com/health-guide/circumcision/circumcision-risks
All the talk of health benefits? Take a look at the link above ^

[Ellipsis]

Patrick Stewart on not being circumcised ...

[fender62]

naomi24, im not saying that, aesthetics aside, my son had problems
and had to have his done, and other family members and friends children also, restricted or something along those lines, so again for health reasons i agree with it, as my son was in pain, i cannot speak for others.

[naomi24]

Fender. If it's necessary, yes obviously. If it isn't, no. We shouldn't be chopping bits off children's bodies just because we decide to.

[fender62]

naomi24, problem is it only became necessary and if i remember he was 4 or 5yrs old very traumatic for him at that age, so my thinking is
if it was done at birth all could have been avoided infections urinating problems etc, restriction i was told, try and explain that to a little boy.
as i said could have been prevented, some may never have problems.
example my brother in his then twenties had to have it done.

[atalanta]

I have discussed this problem with a number of men, some Jewish, some not, some circumcised, some not. They all agreed that they should have the choice themselves, and should not be at the mercy of their parents' choice or their ancestors' religion.

[mikey4444]

I've got a good idea....why not wait until the boy can decide for himself....16/18, whatever.

Then see how many people will accept circumcision.

[fender62]

mikey4444, problem with that is feeling embarrassment, men boys by their nature say nothing, but grin and bear it, if it's just done at birth, it saves them the pain and embarrassment, but i suppose it's not politically correct in some circles, their is a long term benefit, no smegma...0 restriction room to grow literally from birth to adulthood, full potential again i refer to being restricted.