Going down the pan (Nile Pan?) again

Agree with that Atlas.

I agree with Atlas and UTD.

Shaza wrote:
"The Prophet Ibrahim circumcised himself when he was eighty years old and he circumcised himself with an axe."

I will now try to think about something completely different.

In my opinion it should be illegal unless it is required for medical reasons. I don't care if it upsets religious teachings or teachers, but it is child abuse. Once someone is 16years old then they can PAY for a private operation, unless again it is required for medical reasons.

Do you agree with me Hinch that circumcision for medical reasons, should only be allowed and thus provided for on the NHS, and if someone over the age of 16 wants it done they can pay for it privately?

Atlas wrote:

Shaza wrote:

Dalelad wrote:Who knows?!

One day it may be possible that this mutilation of infants is banned, as there is no physical need for it, only a perceived command from an unseen being.

Ibrahim is in the holy Bible as well so can someone tell me why it is not religious for all Christians as well.

Because Shaza some of those who I like to think are more 'enlightened' perceive that to assault a child either physically or mentally is an abuse. How may I ask does an eight year old child know whether he/she wishes to be submissive to a 'Gods' will when such a question to one so young and 'unenlightened' is nothing short of laughable? If you wish to move the age of circumcision up to say 16 then perhaps your explanation might make some sense. I would suggest until then it is an abuse of parental power which should be to protect ones children until such times as they are capable of protecting themselves and not subject them to the archaic beliefs of parents or preachers - from whatever religion.

That writing was the explination I found on line not mine own. We were always told it is Allah's will and is to be clean all over for him. I was not thinking it before about child abuse and now I have guilty thinkings it may be.

Surgical procedures for sound medical reasons (I was, my brother wasn't) I can live with. My book tells my reaction when I first pondered the difference and even then at the age of 9 or 10 I was pretty narked I can tell you. A young man's (perhaps misguided) attraction to having a 'complete' appendage is very important as regards looks and size etc etc - and for such things to happen at a time when he has no say in the matter (at that age I wouldn't know about circumcision or 'why') can be very disturbing. No doubt those of a religious bent would have it explained to them (hopefully) in a way that they would accept having already been inculcated into the religion of their parents choice and 'brain dead' thereafter to any other 'way' but for others whose parents wouldn't 'talk' about such things it is not such a simple matter. It's still physical abuse in my book regardless of 'others' wishes or beliefs. I think the above may give you a different slant on this particular topic.

If it's going to be done, there are far less problems when it is done to infants. Almost all Americans are circumcised (allegedly for health reasons) most Britons are not.

There is some research that shows AIDS is transmitted easier via circumcised men.

johnb wrote:
There is some research that shows AIDS is transmitted easier via circumcised men.

johnb: Wasn't this connected to the African pandemic?

19th International AIDS Conference: Three studies have shown a 60 percent reduction in risk to men of becoming infected with the AIDS virus, but as a public health strategy, it’s fraught with caveats.

There’s also evidence that some people seriously overestimate circumcision’s protective effects, being a potentially dangerous and unintended consequence of campaigns promoting it.

Fourteen African countries are targeted for increased circumcision efforts .... health agencies have set A goal of having 80 percent of males between ages 15 and 49 circumcised by 2015. That would require 20 million circumcisions !

Fair enough. The above, is to my mind, a 'sound' medical reason, always and providing the facts are proven - but for religious reasons - no. Absolutely and categorically NO.

UP THE DALE wrote:Do you agree with me Hinch that circumcision for medical reasons, should only be allowed and thus provided for on the NHS, and if someone over the age of 16 wants it done they can pay for it privately?

It is provided for under the NHS for the variety of reasons, yet 'back-street,' home-base and other locations continue to be used:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20503660

The baby boy’s parents are originally from Nigeria, where circumcision of newborns is religious tradition for Christian families as well.

The medic is on trial on a charge of manslaughter by gross negligence. It seems the parents have no culpability ?

They should be up on a murder charge as far as I am concerned. They would surely have known that their very dangerous actions could ultimately lead to death.

Goodluck was born on March 22, 2010, at Rochdale Infirmary and died on April 17, the day after the circumcision, aged 27-days-old.

A terribly sad story.

I agree, very sad. Are the parents not being charged with anything?

UP THE DALE wrote:They should be up on a murder charge as far as I am concerned. They would surely have known that their very dangerous actions could ultimately lead to death.

How on earth have you come to the conclusion the parents would have done this like this if they knew what the outcome would be? You do talk nonsense at times. I don't expect you to agree and you'll probably say that is my OPINION but, for goodness sake...

Something like 95% of American males are circumcised. Whether we agree or not the procedure is legitimate.

The problem lies squarely with someone acting as a nurse (who in the tribal culture of the people they work with) is by default competent and capable of carrying out the procedure safely.

In dry, western language, this is failure in the duty of care of the practitioner.

I didn't!!

When I said "they" I meant who ever carried out the procedure. Apparently this nurse, used scissors and surely she should have known that the consequences of something going wrong, COULD mean death. I understood, that someone could be charged with murder, if they knew that death was a possible outcome of their illegal act.

A couple of posts later on I asked If the parents are being charged with anything. The parents should have realised that doing what was in effect a back street circumcision could end up as a serious problem.

Looks like it's you who has talked nonsense this time

UP THE DALE wrote:I didn't!!

When I said "they" I meant who ever carried out the procedure. Apparently this nurse, used scissors and surely she should have known that the consequences of something going wrong, COULD mean death. I understood, that someone could be charged with murder, if they knew that death was a possible outcome of their illegal act.

A couple of posts later on I asked If the parents are being charged with anything. The parents should have realised that doing what was in effect a back street circumcision could end up as a serious problem.

Looks like it's you who has talked nonsense this time

Whatever. Mr A Right!

Dalelad you accused me of saying the parents of the dead baby should be charged with murder, when I didn't. You just got it wrong, but you are not decent enough to admit you got it wrong. I am not surprised. At least when I am wrong I admit it.

Charly wrote:Is it just me or what or does anyone else think its UTD who is sometimes wrong or is he really Mr Right (with the first name Always)

????????????

I am not always wrong but unlike you I will admit it when I am.