The case that could end ritual male circumcision in the UK

[Techno-Druid]

Have you been reading the thread? There is clearly a large population that believes this is just a cosmetic procedure. Quotes from this very post.

Page 1 post 5 by Ryme "On the off chance you're serious: because it's a needless medical procedure for religious reasons performed on someone without their consent. This is so clearly against the values of every western nation I can think of that allows it."

Another on page 16 post 313 by Xhohosyu "The only ones who support this archaic barbaric custom is those who had it done to them themselves and they cant accept they had it done to them by parents who was conned into it by money grubbing unethical doctors wanting to charge another 500 dollars to there health insurance and by a culture where its the norm and if you dont have your child cut they will be bullied."

I can list many more, so to say no one is saying circumcision shouldn't be done is to deny more than a few opinions in this very thread.

We're saying it shouldn't be done to infants outside of situations where it's for medical reasons. Adults and even teens should also be able to consent to circumcisisons later in life where they're competent enough to exercise consent.

[Kelathos]

How is it permanently damaged when it's fully functional? It's also not disfigurement, they look better circumcised.

The glans dries out, and no longer has skin cover to provide gliding motion or to trap moisture for natural lube. Some function is most certainly lost.

[redwolfrain]

We're saying it shouldn't be done to infants outside of situations where it's for medical reasons. Adults and even teens should also be able to consent to circumcisisons later in life where they're competent enough to exercise consent.

A few are saying that, most are calling for it to be banned out right.

[Shadowferal]

It's a scientific fact, that you haven't heard about it is kinda irrelevant. Because you'll find a lot of American statements that it doesn't read this explanation.

And plenty of doctors organizations say differently:

American Academy of Family Physicians

American Urological Association

Most telling was the American Medical Association adopting a policy officially opposing any attempt to legally prohibit circumcision of infant boys. The resolution was sponsored by the AMA's California delegation and is in response to legislative initiatives recently proposed in California that would ban infant male circumcision and penalize physicians who performed it, according to the AMA.

In July, a judge ruled that a proposed circumcision ban in San Francisco was illegal and could not be put on the city's election ballot.
The California delegation said the medical reasons for circumcision are "compelling enough that many physicians and other health authorities feel the procedure is justified," and that prohibiting the practice would be an "intrusion into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients."

[Noradin]

As someone with phimosis who was not circumcised as a child I have to say that all these people who say it has no benefit need to educate yourself. I wish it would have been done as a child, I now have to undergo the procedure and endure a week at least of pain because someone didn't have the common sense to listen to their doctor when I was born.

However I do agree just doing the chop for no reason should be stopped, BUT it does have its uses.

You have to undergo a painful procedure because your parents failed to have a competent physician see you when you were a kid.
And if it was really necessary in your case then the ban wouldn't apply--but most of the time ther are other ways to deal with phimosis before it becomes a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you been reading the thread? There is clearly a large population that believes this is just a cosmetic procedure. Quotes from this very post.

Have you read the thread?
Or did you just guess?

- - - Updated - - -

A few are saying that, most are calling for it to be banned out right.

You seem to have a funny definition of "most".

[Velerios]

A few are saying that, most are calling for it to be banned out right.

This thread is not about circumcision on people who can decide on it. An adult person should decide what to do with their body whatever they like; heck, if they want to do any body modification they like, whatever.

It's about a case where a child got mutilated. It's about a doctor who did it WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE PARENT. And it's about the general issue that female circumcision is banned (and it's good that it is), but on boys it's ok, even through there are NO REAL MEDICAL REASON TO DO IT. It's far more risky to undergo a unnecessary surgery than simply clean under the foreskin too. Laziness should be no reason to mutilate a child.

If the child is old enough and know what happens, then, after it got asked without pressure by the parents by an independent youth office official, then they can do it.

Only exception should be for necessary medical reasons.

But not because a religion think that to practice their religion you need to cut off the skin of some infant.

- - - Updated - - -

As someone with phimosis who was not circumcised as a child I have to say that all these people who say it has no benefit need to educate yourself. I wish it would have been done as a child, I now have to undergo the procedure and endure a week at least of pain because someone didn't have the common sense to listen to their doctor when I was born.

However I do agree just doing the chop for no reason should be stopped, BUT it does have its uses.

Absolutely, and that's actually the difference. Yours is actually a necessary medical reason, it's provable and should have been done much sooner. And everyone who say that it should be generally forbidden is quite stupid, even through i don't believe that most people here say it. I think that most people are smart enough that they can differ between an adult (or even a teenager) who want to do it after they decide that they want it or an child or even an infant.

Circumcision is an necessary medical intervention. But not because it looks better or because a religion say that it should be so. Heck, some religion say that we should have female genital mutilation too, should we do it just because of religious freedom? Sorry but i can't see a difference here. I think that in general religious freedom is good, but even religion need limits.

1000-2000 years ago i could understand why it was done, because you couldn't clean every day as we can nowadays. But we are living in the 21st century. People should be more anxious of a child getting an antibiotic resistant bacteria from an unnecessary surgery then maybe getting an infection because nobody teach a child how to clean them self.