E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBERLIN - Jewish and Muslim groups protested on Wednesday after a German court banned the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, Reuters reported. The ban applies to the Cologne region of Germany.
The court in the western city of Cologne handed down the decision on Tuesday in the case of a doctor who was prosecuted for circumcising a four-year-old Muslim boy.
The doctor circumcised the boy in November 2010 and gave him four stitches, the Guardian reported. When the boy started bleeding two days later, his parents took him to Cologne's University hospital, where officials called police. The doctor was ultimately acquitted on the grounds that he had not broken a law.
The court ruled that involuntary religious circumcision should be made illegal because it could inflict serious bodily harm on people who had not consented to it. Male circumcision is part of Jewish and Muslim religious tradition.
The ruling said boys who consciously decided to be circumcised could have the operation. No age restriction was given, or any more specific details.
The Central Council of Jews in Germany called the ruling an "unprecedented and dramatic intrusion" of the right to religious freedom and an "outrageous and insensitive" act.
"Circumcision for young boys is a solid component of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for millennia. This religious right is respected in every country around the world," President Dieter Graumann said in a statement.
Fewer than 20 percent of boys are circumcised in Germany; by contrast, 56 percent of male newborns in the United States were circumcised in 2005, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
In the U.S., circumcision rates vary by region. In the West, fewer than one-third of newborn boys are circumcised; in the Northeast, nearly two-thirds of newborn boys are circumcised.
Parents who choose to circumcise their boys have said they did so because they believe it improves hygiene and can reduce the risk of the spread of disease, HIV in particular.
"Fatal to the freedom of religion"
According to the court ruling, "the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents."
But the Central Council of Muslims in Germany called the sentence a "blatant and inadmissible interference" in the rights of parents.
Rabbi Aryeh Goldberg called the ruling “fatal to the freedom of religion,” the Guardian reported. He told Haaretz that it went against the European Union’s convention on human rights.
"The child's body is permanently and irreparably changed by the circumcision. This change runs counter to the interests of the child, who can decide his religious affiliation himself later in life," it said.
Germany is home to about four million Muslims and 120,000 Jews. In Judaism, 8-day-old boys are circumcised to recall the covenant established between God and the Hebrew patriarch Abraham.
The time for Muslim circumcision varies according to family, region and country.
Concerned the ruling could be followed in other parts of the country and that it could prevent doctors carrying out circumcisions for fear of prosecution, the Central Council of Jews urged the German parliament "to provide legal clarity in order to prevent attacks on religious freedom."
Reuters and msnbc.com's Isolde Raftery contributed to this story.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Reflecting on queen's historic meeting with ex-IRA commander
- Scantily clad women: It's your fault if you're harassed
- A special series: What the world thinks of US
- Ex-colleagues: Egypt's Morsi was conservative, open-minded student
- One man's mission: Promote Chinese patriotism in face of Western onslaught
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
I have been saying that circumcision is wrong for years - my daughter is 28, but even all those years ago I had already made the decision, albeit against my then husband's wishes, to not circumsize if our child was a boy. As pointed out by others in this forum, it is illegal to do it to females, and actually thought of as a horrific practice. So why is it ok then for male babies to have to undego genital mutilation? I don't think the religious argument is valid because, as also mentioned , many parents of various faiths have been doing it for years. Doctors have actually almost forced parents to have this done to babies, because we all know you should never argue with a doctor since they are though of by many (and certainly themselves) as right next to God in wisdon and power and likewise must be obeyed! Although raised Jewish and Christian, I have always been convinced this was something made up long ago, not by God, but by misguided ethnic (Jewish and later Muslims) pride as an identifier.
Cynthia, agreed. As a circumcised American man that believe my forced infant circumcision has compromised my long-term sexual function, I spared my son, and daughter, the indignity. I nearly yelled at the persitent nurses in the maternity ward that tried their best to get me to sign the circumcision form for my son, pre-highlighted in orange marker. I was too polite to them at the time, though it appeared they were working on circumcision $$$ commission Foreskins fetch top collar in the female facial cosmetics industry.
The whole Jewish circumcision thing is BS any ways. Jews as a whole do not get circumcised.
This is true. In many countries, Jewish boys are not circumcised because they do not want to be identified as different only because of the appearance of their penis. With the modern US 33% circumcision rate, the minority of circumcised boys will be identified as "pink mushroom" freaks.
ROFL , ya because were always comparing penis appearance. Get real. Always have to spin something to make it victimization, the fact is most people including Jews no it is medically worthless and completely a ridiculous practice mainly performed on Innocent children who can not logically make the choice.
but don't we need/use the circumcised skin to grow sheets of skin grafts for burn victims ??
Maybe we can figure out a way to pull the skin up top, into a mohawk-- or down into an Abe Lincoln beard sort of thing... a lizards "fighting hood" maybe??
i should have just avoided this story.
This is just one of the remnants of the barbaric desert culture where the religions of Abraham were born. People were filthy, bathing was rare and this appeared to be the only defense.
In the days of running water and liquid soap, this is another abomination from that time being passed on without thought.
The circumcision story was added by a Jewish priest, not God, to continue an ailing theocracy. You'd think an intelligent leader would come up with something better than infant penis-cutting to keep a religion going.
The Jews have been mutilating their male children since their beginning. It's time for it to stop. Religious fanaticism is not a justification for bodily mutilation.
Agreed completely. It's sad if you look up the history of Circumcision in just the US. It started with religious reasons however the world of science has only worked to try to support this tradition. They try to spread it to people who do not even hold the beliefs of the Jewish and Muslim people. The reasons given today are about as stretched and fake as one of the old reasonings of "it prevents tuberculosis!"
Their poor excuses only make me frustrated and it's even more sad that people can continually hide behind the flag of "religion" like cowards. Stand up and say you like mutilating your children because you know full well they wouldn't choose to have it done themselves when they grow up.
One of the main reasons I've heard from males who are circumcised that say they'd rather have it done as a child than adult, is that it would hurt too much. If an adult wouldn't have it done during adulthood because it would hurt too much, why would you do it to a child? Oh right, they can't say no, can they? Just because they're a child doesn't mean they don't feel pain. Just watch a video of a child being circumcised. Listen to the screams. They don't put them "under", they only use a pathetic general anesthetic SOMETIMES. People should look at the studies done of the chemical balance in a child just after circumcision. It is the same chemical balance as in adults who have been tortured. The only difference is that the child is still growing and forming, so the chemical balance is damaging to development in general as well.
People are just too used to circumcisions being done that it frustrates me when they don't get that it's wrong. There is research out there showing closer to a full extent of the damage done by this and yet most people will sit there in the hospital (who by the way gets an excellent chunk of cash for doing circumcisions) and listen to the one doctor say that it will be good. I'm just glad I was born female. I do wish my BF weren't cut as a child though, but I can't change that. I still love him just the same. Sorry for my rant. I get a little worked up on this subject because of the amount of stupidity around it.
In the US, breakfast cereal magnate Kellogg, a major proponent of circumcision for both boys and girls, wrote :
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." ~Dr. John Harvey Kellogg
Kellog was a fruitcake...but I do like the cerial.
It's a shame that Germany is again trying to take over the freedoms of the Jewish people. I guess the hatred and bigotry that was so prevelant during Hitler's reign carries on. This is the same type of persecution that existed in the 300's CE when the anti-Messiah church (ie: Catholic), declared observance of the Sabbath a crime punishable by death. Satan will do everything in his power to stop the Torah from being observed. Luckily God has other ideas and this, like all other unholy schemes will not stop the will of God Almighty. Germany needs to back off from trying to impose manmade ideals and laws on people while taking away their religious freedoms. If Germany's leaders choose to live an unholy, un Godly life, that is there choice but stop forcing others to join them; but of course we have the same unholy leadership here in the USA. After all, since this current world system is run by Satan and ALL world governments are run by him we should not expect anything other than worthless leaders.
"After all, since this current world system is run by Satan and ALL world governments are run by him we should not expect anything other than worthless leaders."
The anti-infant circumcision law applies to all German males. Many non-Jewish and Non-Muslim male infants get circumcised in Germany. I read your entire comment, incredulous that someone would think as you do, until coming across your final sentence, which "explains" your mental outlook. I can assure you that your fanatical, paranoid, hate filled and bigoted views, if imposed on others, would do as much damage to the world as did those espoused by Hitler. Religion, like politics, can be used for good or ill, but a nut case is always a nut case.
Maxxx-T
Quote from a Death Camp Wall, " If there is a God, He will have to beg my forgiveness."
Your God is doing a piss poor job of taking care of the Chosen People. I suggest you worship an apple tree as it at least will give you fruit.
Use the fruit to make a cake....
The government of Cologne is protecting children, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, and giving them the choice to decide if they want a whole body or one that has been scarred by a blood ritual.
oh, if there were only some er group out there to interpret what babies most WANT? There is? lawyers and uh, people with names and pictures of uncertain gender...
Maxx T, please seek help, quickly.
I have to admit to very mixed feelings regarding this discussion, but that may be largely due to the indoctrinated American prejudice of the "Freedom of Religion" commanding us to be (mostly) hands-off on matters of belief. I am largely anti-religious (although pro-spirituality) because of their primeaval use of indoctrination-from-birth. I am also rather individualistic and think that the minimum should be done to another's body without their explicit consent. Reviewing the medical pros and cons of circumcision, I find the "conclusion(s)" are still ambiguous.
All that being said, I have to lean toward agreement with this German court decision.
Your mixed feelings have to do with the acceptance of male, but not female, infant genital cutting.
Ian Blokesworth-2490368
And I said that... where? Note that I "lean toward agreement with this German court decision," i.e. against involuntary male circumcision.
Read twice, comment once!
I see NO ONE protest infant ear piercing! Why! It can lead to many complications and infections. Yet you find male circumcision abhorant? Are you so proud of that slimy piece of skin? Really?
Ears are not genitalia. People are more protective of this because it is a more sensitive subject. People would be in an uproar over molestation as well. If an adult simply shakes hands with a child, nobody says anything though. If that helps explain it a bit.
Haime52-2105923
As I told a little olde lady who asked where my infant daughter's earrings were, I gently told her she can have them when she decides she wants them.
Haime wrote "Are you so proud of that slimy piece of skin? Really?"
Do women really need their smegma-collecting clitoral hoods and labia minor?
Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of mutilating boys?
No one should be cut OR pierced OR pricked until they are old enough to give informed consent.
more cartoons and less vegetables, too.! Can U repsent me and my little brotha?
Leave it to MSNBC to have a headline that's intentionally misleading. The German court has not banned male circumcision. It's banned infant male circumcision. Yesterday we read a headline saying "Queen shakes hands with IRA commander". He was an ex-IRA commander.
Human beings in the 21st century believe Yahweh still needs thousands upon thousands of foreskins to be happy.
Stop the planet, I want to get off.
I don't see what the big deal is. Parents make decisions that permanently affect their kids all the time - that's why we call them parents, because they assume responsibility and guidance for the kid until he's able to do so himself. Circumcision is hardly the evil its adversaries make it out to be. We know a circumcised penis, regardless of the personal hygiene of its possessor, is less conducive to bacterial and viral propagation than an uncircumcised one. We know that there's no evidence for reduced sexual satisfaction among circumcised men. We know that this circumcision stuff is a fairly painful procedure you would preferably have done before your penis has matured and the evident trauma of the procedure becomes more...memorable.
Where is the league of circumcised men complaining about the "trauma" of not having a "full penis?"
Where is the society of "circumcised men" complaining about not enjoying sex because of circumcision? Where is the outcry from women complaining that circumcision reduces a man's libido? Except for a few die-hard activists ready to make any outlandish claim provided it furthers their personal cause (the end justifies the means kind of deal), I don't see any great societal evil that needs to be rectified here.
The liberals all have the same disease - they're always trying to save something, and when there's no one left to be saved they'll just create new victims.
Yes I support infant male circumcision, no, it has nothing to do with religion. I'm an Atheist.
Baldman wrote ". We know a circumcised penis, regardless of the personal hygiene of its possessor, is less conducive to bacterial and viral propagation than an uncircumcised one."
This applies to cutting female genitalia.
"Where is the league of circumcised men complaining about the "trauma" of not having a "full penis?" "
Did you miss the verdict of the German court? Every anti-circumcision article written by a male is this opposition, including myself, an American male circumcised at birth for no immediate medical justification. I spared my son (and daughter) the indignity of infant genital cutting.
If you want to play the numbers game, the number of circumcised men in favor of circumcision overwhelmingly outnumbers those against it. It just so happens that most of us aren't activists for or against circumcision since we're too busy living our lives. I don't dispute that there are sometimes complications in the procedure which may make those it is intended to benefit later come to regret ever having it done, but these happen so infrequently that it's not really the great cause for concern anti-circumcision activists would have us believe. They use words like "disfigurement" and "mutilation" to describe a procedure with a lower rate of serious complications than routine childhood vaccinations. Yep, try having an intellectually honest debate with people like that.
No sir, it does not. What the data shows is that female circumcision actually predisposes them to MORE infections, not less, whereas the opposite holds true for males. I can find you numerous research papers highlighting the reduced infection prevalence in circumcised males, but I challenge you to find me just ONE that shows the same in circumcised females.
Quite some primitive thoughts there balddude.
The most recent info indicates that a cut penis is actually less clean. A new study found that natural boys have natural bacteria (the same as girls) and cut boys have different invasive bacteria. It is now known that cut males have much more foreign bacteria. Many people posting have primitive ideas about Hygiene and a misunderstanding of good and foreign bacteria issues and bacteria balance.
In any case, a cut up penis is not cleaner, that is just silly nonsense.
Female and male circumcision have always been pushed for the same reasons, religion, to dull sexual pleasure, for crazy ideas about being clean and for LOOKS. There are several studies that claim female circumcision lowers HIV in cut women.
Baldman, men are hitting 40 or 50 in the US and are complaining quite a bit about NUMB dick. Cut men in the US and Isreal are the ones that consume most of the VIAGRA. Cut men are over 4 times as likely to get ED. Read up a bit before you spout.
I like how you're using "natural" to imply harmless, a classic fallacy. Anyone who's taken microbiology understands that a so called "natural" bacteria that gets somewhere it's not supposed to be will cause an infection. I don't see how the bacteria on the skin of my penis is invasive while the one on the skin of my forearm is natural; it looks like this is a new classification you've invented all by yourself. You sound like you have no scientific background at all and have absolutely no clue what the heck you're talking about. I'm a medical student, so you probably shouldn't expend too much of your energy trying to impress me with your pseudo-scientific jargon.
What we know from research is that circumcised men are less likely to transmit STD's to their partners. What we know from research is that the foreskin provides a conducive atmosphere for bacterial growth. What we know from research is that the HIV virus more easily attaches to the cells in that area. What we know from research is that the link between erectile dysfunction and circumcision is not conclusive, with some studies reporting a lower risk of ED in circumcised men.
I am well read on the matter thank you, probably much more so than you.
"What we know from research is that circumcised men are less likely to transmit STD's"
No, what we know from reality is that men and women who limit their sexual partners and don't cheat are less likely to transmit STDs. If someone doesn't want STD's he or she can limit their partners to people who are take a test and share the results. If they are too stupid to make that common practice, infants and children should not have to pay the price.
Baldman, cleanliness and prevention of STDs are obsolete as justifications for male circumcision, when one considers two things:
1) Practicing safe and protected sex, or sex with a trusted partner known to be infection-free, are both far more effective means of STD prevention, and neither alternative entails permanent changes to one's genitalia.
2) As for cleanliness.....perhaps you have heard of that wonderfully effective breakthrough in personal hygiene known as......soap?
It never ceases to amuse me, how those who cough up the cleanliness argument in favor of male circumcision speak as though the uncircumcised are somehow unaware of the concept of personal hygiene.
Finally, you spoke of logical fallacy, yet I observe your use of argumentum ad populum : "the number of circumcised men in favor of circumcision overwhelmingly outnumbers those against it". So whose logic is flawed here?
Simply because this has been going on forever doesn't mean it's right or it's an acceptable excuse to continue doing so. It's called a logical fallacy.
If there is a religious motive to mutilate ones genitals, then the child's right to freedom of religion is being violated when someone else chooses for them. Just because one is brought up in a Muslim or Jewish house doesn't mean they will be Jewish or Muslim when they turn 18 years of age, or for that matter while still growing up. Circumcision is NOT the same as choosing which school to have the child attend. This is a permanent physical disfigurement done to a child that will affect them for the rest of their lives. It should have been outlawed in many more countries before now.
Religious rights mean you have the right to practice your religion yourself. You do NOT have the right to force it on someone else. Having your child circumcised IS forcing your religion on your child. This is the root of the issue. Children are NOT property. They are separate entities after birth (no longer attached to their mothers by cord or inside them) and have their own rights.
This is precisely the realization that has religious groups and authorities scared stiff, because as more and more people realize this, religion can count on less and less influence.
If the foreskin isn't pulled back and cleaned #1 bacteria will develop. #2 the foreskin will become tight around the end of the penis and will not be loose enough to pull back when needed eventually. While working in a nursing home men would come in with foreskin and it would be so tight around the end of the penis it would be painful to pull back to clean.
If the penis isn't cleaned daily after each toileting bacterial grows and then when it is inserted into a woman (or man) the bacteria lodged under it will be introduced in the vaginal passage and cause a whole host of problems for the woman. I suppose it really doesn't matter if there was anal sex since the anal passage is so full of bacteria that it is transferred in different ways. That is why if women have anal sex they should never let it enter the vagina.(Use a condom). Even more problems. Sex is a beautiful thing but can cause a lot of problems if the penis isn't kept clean. I prefer my man to be circumcised especially when oral pleasure is the order of the day. Most women will clean themselves well with douches etc before sex.
So it really is best for the guy to be circumcised.
This is by no means an argument I'm making here, but your post reminded me of what a female friend of mine said about her lack of willingness to perform oral sex on men with uncircumcised penis because it looks "nasty," and I'm quoting here. I suppose there are women who are indifferent to how the penis looks, so to them it probably doesn't matter much.
I suppose that European and Japanese men get no head from European and Japanese ladies, irrespectively.
"If the foreskin isn't pulled back and cleaned #1 bacteria will develop. #2 the foreskin will become tight around the end of the penis and will not be loose enough to pull back when needed eventually. While working in a nursing home men would come in with foreskin and it would be so tight around the end of the penis it would be painful to pull back to clean."
I guess that your experience changing catheters and cleaning bedpans makes you an expert and we should all mutilate our sons because some senile old man had a tight foreskin.
Most women douche before sex? Really? I would think that by now most women know that that isn't necessary (or healthy).
Hey, if you enjoy the taste of sweat, piss, and cesspools of bacteria properly baked under the foreskin as you roll it back to perform oral sex then more power to you. Guys are notorious for having excellent hygiene anyway, so I don't see why this is a big deal (sarcasm). Just leave us guys with "mutilated" penises alone to enjoy it for ourselves and with our wives, and leave us alone to pass on this "mutilation" to our son who will also appreciate it as we have. Mind your own business and go look for other victims please.
The presence or lack of a foreskin is not a reason to choose a man. A general disregard for hygiene is. You sound like you have personal experience Baldman. My experience has not been the same, perhaps because I associate with a better class of men.
Funny...
No, I have no personal experience on the matter but these women do... I'm merely passing forth their concerns. Take a look for yourself.
http://www.blogrotica.ca/blog/2010/01/the-hygiene-of-circumcised-vs-uncircumcised/
As I've always said, it's a personal issue. If it doesn't bother you, fine; if the men you've associated with somehow managed to reach and clean all the gunk from under their hood, fine (although I highly doubt this assertion given the plethora of complaints from women - even the most compulsively hygienic man has a difficult time getting all the gunk from under there out). My contention is simply to dismiss the arrogance and idiocy of those pushing to ban it by using words like "mutilation" and "disfigurement" to describe a medical procedure with lower rates of serious complications than routine childhood vaccinations. Only lawyers try to win arguments by mischaracterizing their adversaries' vewpoints, the rest of society ought to know better.
"Most women douche before sex? Really?"
I can't imagine being with a woman who douches. It sounds like a sign of the inability to educate oneself. Who in their right mind wants a woman who smells and tasted like vinegar or an air freshener? I guess I shouldn't be surprised if there is an endless supply of ignorant men who think a woman who never douches is "nasty".
Baldman, If you're not uncircumcised, please spare us all of the BS stories about the "gunk" that unmutilated men have to contend with. How many intact penises have you inspected up close?
Never have seen a smidgeon of gunk Baldman. Not one speck. And it fits the definition of mutilation, so it is mutilation.
Bodily disfigurement for religious causes is a backward practice usually found in third-world regions, not civilized countries. It's good to see a nation like Germany stand up for reason and progress.
They banned INVOLUNTARY circumcision. A very misleading headline. Looks like MSNBC is just trying to stir the pot (as usual).
Only reason for this procedure is keeping clean! Period! That said it is the individual man's right to choose. Therefore this procedure should not be allowed until a man is an adult! Religion has no business, and it is big business, making that decision. With medicine being as advanced as it is now, this operation should be perfectly safe--we men all hope the Dr is competant--many are not. Choose wisely.
This is about religion and ones faith in God. Let no man stand before it or render it.
Catholics also circumcise regularly. We believe in the practice, and we plan to continue with or without permission from government.
Separation from church and state. Separation of the foreskin is a separation that is not decided by state but by two loving wedded parents.
Bruce,
If you decide to gnaw off the foreskin with your teeth like a rat and you called it "religious freedom" do you think the state should not get involved?
As a Catholic, do you still believe in burning people as witches?
Do you still believe that you can pay the church money on the way to commit a sin and still be forgiven?
Do you believe that it is ok to casterate little boys so that they can sing higher in the choir?
I would bet no, YET these were practices of the Catholics. Maybe you should step out of the dark ages just a bit more?
Bruce-917111 wrote "Catholics also circumcise regularly"
Hippie mother in the 1960's also circumcised their sons because doctors made more money from male births with an additional surgery and the sale of the foreskin to the female facial cosmetics industry. US Circumcision is most prevalent in the MidWest, but not for religious reasons. If I'm wrong, are you able to cite a religious justification for Catholic male, but not female, circumcision?
Bruce, Circumcision is not part of Christian sects in any way. In theory it is a violation of Catholic doctrine to circumcise (hurt the natural form). There is actually an old papal ruling that says it is a sin to do this unless medically required. Mutilation, which circumcision clearly is (it is a removal of healthy erogenous tissue), is abhorrent to Western Civilization (abhorrent from the legacy of Greek and Roman empire : West -- latin based cultures and Eastern - Greek based cultures). It may be noted that the traditions of Western Civilization may well have rejected the message of Love of JC if it was also a requirement to harm your child. Paul picked up on that and his view prevailed. Western culture looks at circumcision as harm to the natural form, harm to a defenseless baby and therefore at odds with the Christian message of love your neighbor.
And I thought all these "anti-circumcision" crazies were just in San Francisco. Sheesh.
No. The Anti-circumcision crazies are merely the hoardes of men that had their penises cut for no medical reason during the US mass circumcision program of the 1960-80s. Luckily, the Information Age has provided modern parents, including circumcised Ian Blokesworth, the information needed to reject infant penis cutting.
OR, to accept it. Why the F can't you worry about your own d ick?
I've never met anyone who is unhappy about being circumsized. I've met PLENTY of men who wish they'd had it done when they were infants. There is no reason not to do it.
Homy, meet Ian Blokesworth.
Sorry to offend.
I wish everyone peace.
Yes, genitals become dirty..........................A genius recently suggested a solution: Wash them.
But...but...if you wash them, you MIGHT get unholy thoughts and go the hell!!
God, why did you curse us with BS religions?
Buller? Buller?
Dr. Dean Edell
"It's only mean America that cling to this out-moded belief, we squeaky clean Americans who have sudzed the world. We have cleansed it with our products and out anti-baterial jihad.
The hygiene issue is hysterical. It goes something like this. This is dirty. So let's cut it off. If indeed a foreskin is dirty, then the vagina is
dirty. If indeed an excuse for circumcision is that the foreskin is dirty, then we have an even better excuse to circumcise females. Soap and water is the solution."
This is a BRUTAL, UNNECESSART ACT! It continues only because of tradition. It is long past time to give boys the same protection from mutilation that we give girls! 'Nuff said!
OH bull, I was circumcised and remember nothing of it.
To all of you that think that male circumcision is a sane practice that is a private family matter. Please let us know when you are willing to offer the same defense to those who feel it is very important to have their daughter's clitoral hood and/or labia minora removed.
Until then, please keep your hypocrisy to yourselves.
Kris: your picture and name reminds me of a Saturday night live skit. Could you, er... Wait. I know. Do you have a favorite football team? or...which is your favorite retail outlet to buy shoes? I'll get to the bottom of this yeat!
I don't like sports or shopping unless its for food, sorry.
For those of you ranting and raving about circumcision being some sick, outdated, regligious practice - various studies have shown that circumcision does have healthy advantages.
There's lots of stuff in the bible about health, cleanliness, diet, etc. And much of it's good advice. The ancients weren't just a bunch of blithering idiots that made up religious practices for no reason. No matter your religious beliefs, there are lots of sound health recommendations in ancient religious texts - especially the bible.
By this "logic" pulling out all one's teeth would make sense as one would then never suffer from cavities. Selfmutilation is practised and promoted by primitive, ignorant people.
"various studies have shown that circumcision does have healthy advantages."
Like what? Reduced transmission of HIV? If so, why does the US have higher rates than many European countries and others with very low rates of circumcision and less access to education?
With the low circ rates and longer life expectancies that other countries like Japan, Australia, Canada and those throughout Europe all have in common, it must be like a sentence to suffer extra years with a foreskin and all of the maladies that it brings.
Kris, the longer life expectancies aren't tied to circumcision in those countries... it's tied to universal health care that they have and we don't.
Bob Bobarino wrote " various studies have shown that circumcision does have healthy advantages."
Which studies? The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does NOT recommend routine infant circumcision.
"There's lots of stuff in the bible about health, cleanliness, diet, etc. And much of it's good advice."
The Bible predates anti-biotics. Surely, you don't reject anti-biotics for infections.
"Kris, the longer life expectancies aren't tied to circumcision in those countries... it's tied to universal health care that they have and we don't."
My point was that being uncircumcised doesn't seem to have taken any toll on their health. If there were any real medical benefits, national health care systems would encourage circumcision since it would eliminate the risk of needing costlier treatments.