I find the fact that parents are mutilating their baby’s genitals at an age in which they cannot affiliate themselves to a particular religion for religious purposes as a sort of “branding” technique as reprehensible, and I’m circumcised.
For those who say it is “hygienic” or beneficial to have such an operation performed ; it is also hypothetically beneficial in a medical sense, to cut off a female infant’s nipples – breast cancer can be avoided this way, and the damage is merely “superficial”. Would you like it if parents were allowed that option for their female babies? How about removing a kidney, as that reduces the chances for kidney cancer by 50%?
Categorized | Featured Articles
Why Is Male Circumcision Still Legal In The U.s.?
Posted on June 2, 2013.
Freedom of religion.
It’s nasty looking anyways
Did you miss your medication this morning?
Because religious barbarians are still in control of the government.
being circumcised during adulthood is not to much fun and has more potential of healing the wrong way causing prolonged discomfort, like forever or for years to come.
In a sense, it is torture to circumcise a baby. The pain is substantial and often, pain reducers are necessary. It is most likely unethical to circumcise a baby because it violates their ability to make that decision themselves and subjects them to severe pain that a newborn infant should not experience. That being said, I’m going to contradict every rational thing I’ve said and say, I have no regrets being circumcised as a baby, because my cut meat is pretty hot. Thank you, have a nice day.
I am not cut and girls say my dick is amazing. then again the skin doesn’t hang over the tip like an anteater lol. So much for circumsicion. Enjoy your ED at age 50 when your cockskin is all dried out and the nerves dont respond.
How do you fight the Jewish lobby? They are wealthy, no matter what the cause.
Because the rights of infants apearantly are no longer valid once they are out of their mothers womb.
Because its ok to mutilate your child for religious reasons.
Because its the only thing women have to hang on to when they think about how theyre otherwise second-class citizens… Because at least female genital mutilation is not legal but male genital mutiliation is encouraged. Its revenge for being blamed for getting raped etc.
first off, no where in the bible does it say female castration is a commandment of God.
those who contrives such heresies are false teacher, absolutely.
and religion and freedom and freedom of speeach are intended to keep government out of the affairs of the church. to fight against God is death because a person becomes an enemy of God. and knowing that Jesus himself sanctioned the men who created the constitution, i would say if you fight against the constittuion that also makes one an enemy of God.
as for circumcision, you are wrong, circumcision has been extolled as a healthy medical procedure.
and really no baby ever remember the pain.
as for religious foundations, it is purely a religious commandment of God, but then again not all people are required to be such. this covenant is with the jews.
this actually promotes health (helps stop infection and other problems)
…let’s just say for someone that does not shower often
do you support abortion? (yes/ no)
just wondering
since you bring up the child having no say in this
post back on this thread your answer,,,
this for religious purposes (is wrong)
to promote health (its fine)
ask any medical Dr…..http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/08/…
there are to be no more blood lettings (ceremonial rituals)
the last that was lawful was shed upon THE CROSS
<><
– It causes no harm whatsoever to the baby.
– It prevents the collection of smegma under the foreskin.
– It improves overall hygiene of the genitals and so reduces the risk of infections.
– The parents have the choice to decide for the baby, just like they have the choice to decide whether to have an abortion or not.
– It reduces the risk of cancer. (For this reason many non-religious families choose to circumcise their baby sons)
– Circumcised male genitals appear the same when erect.
So since the circumcision carries no risk or harm for the baby boy, why make it illegal? Does it even matter whether they are circumcised or not?
Why worry about it? The US Government has more serious things to think about.
not sure. The religious freedom thing doesn’t really cut it because a lot of religious practices are illegal even when done between consenting adults. And only about 5% of circumcisions are done for religious reasons.
Tattooing babies is a HUGE big deal to a lot of tribes in Africa, but when they come here they’re not allowed to tattoo babies. I don’t really have as strong an opinion on that as I’m supposed to (you know, being all shocked and horrified etc) because I know how getting tattoo’d feels although not on skin that’s in particularly sensitive areas, so while I get it’s great they can’t tattoo baby’s faces etc, I really don’t care about a lot of it. But the reason is that on top of the infection risk (far lower than circumcision risks), pain (far less than circumcision pain and trauma) etc comes back to the fact it’s permanent and not the baby’s choice. Like circumcision at the parent’s request is??? I know for a fact I’d much rather walk around with a tattoo somewhere on my body than have lost the most sensitive parts of my genitalia.
The whole “religious freedom” thing is just an excuse. Imagine if they banned it but made exceptions for religious reasons – do you think it would go down well with the public in America? Of course not. All we’d hear about for months is parent’s rights, health “benefits” (never mind that they’re bogus – there really are some people out there who want to believe it has to have a benefit) etc. Oh, and my favorite – “but, but, but I prefers cut genitals for my sex”. While those people are far from the majority, there are enough of them to make it sound like it – just like with any other vocal minority. Basically it’s identical to the FGM fight. Except there’s one difference I see – while they’re quick to emphasise the health detriments of FGC they’re very quick to silence talk of the health detriments of MGC.
I’d really like it to be banned in the US if for no other reason – so other countries and states can ban it without Americans jumping down our throats. One country couldn’t even make a court ruling of it being greivous bodily harm after it killed a baby let alone banning it without Americans getting all hostile and making them back down. Do they really not realize case after case has ruled it greivous bodily harm, not in the best interests of a child, a violation of bodily autonomy etc and doctors have had their licenses to practice medicine stripped over them? If they don’t and that’s the only reason why we can then I’m kind of glad. But still, I’d love for it to be able to just be banned outright.
Freedom of religion. Female circumcision is also legal, but must be done in a clinical setting.