Baby dies after home circumcision
 

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

God only knows what was in the parents' heads as their child was mutilated! :mad:

This sort of thing is barbaric!

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

So many things wrong with this story, I don't know where to begin. Nigerian parents don't know circumcision is on the NHS? Bet they knew full well about everything else on the NHS though.

I'm going to stop here and walk away before I make comments that get me banned.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

^ WTF?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

idiots.

RIP little 1.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I accept other cultures' beliefs and practises.
I often struggle to accept actions from other cultures.
This action on my home turf appals me.
May others learn from this.


Rest sweetly Little One.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Awful :(

And this woman was a nurse and a midwife? :confused:

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Unnecessary circumcision performed on an infant for no reason other than a belief in a religion, is child abuse and genital mutilation.

This is one of the wickedest things that otherwise good people do in the name of religion. The parents and the people that allow this abuse to happen should be utterly ashamed of what they are partaking in, but no, according to their "good" book, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

If only they could wait until their babies were old enough to make their own decisions concerning what religion, if any, they want to believe in.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Sadly, I dare say this sort of thing is still rife in certain places and it needs to be stamped out. If 3 children a month are being treated by a single hospital for the effects of botched circumcisions , I wonder what's being done about the 'parents' who organise and allow it?! Could it be that none of these people know about the NHS I wonder? :rolleyes:

I have a feeling that a blind eye has been being turned to this sort of thing and very much hope that any sentences imposed reflect the fact that this sort of thing will not be tolerated in the UK, whatever the reasons. 'Ignorance' should be no defence when it comes to such cruelty and this has to stop!

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

you are talking absolute rubbish. what does that have to do with anything? If this procedure is done properly, in a proper environment its safe and pain free. This is an isolated incident which was not done properly.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Exactly. Plus there are plenty of kids being circumcised properly for no religious reasons whatsoever.

Circumcision is not barbaric - if it was it wouldnt be available on the NHS. There are plenty of health/hygiene reasons advocating circumcision.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

It doesn't matter how well it's done, what does matter is that this horrible procedure is being forced on the innocent child. I'm all in favour of circumcision when it has to be done for medical reasons, but dead against it when done on a perfectly healthy boy or girl.

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 ----------

Just because it's available on the NHS, doesn't mean it's right. And just because a religion tells you it's a good thing, doesn't mean it is either.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Unless I've missed something the fact that 3 baby boys a month are treated at a single hospital for botched circumcisions would seem to indicate it's not quite as isolated as you think.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

You'd have to look at that in relation to how many muslim and jewish kids are born in the UK every year as both those religions advocate circumcison, and then look at it as a percentage.

Don't get me wrong, I think carrying out any form of surgical procedure at home, or without properly trained medical staff using proper equipment, is totally wrong. It's not something I would do, but I very much doubt that ,when you look at this as a percentage of actual birth rates, it will be a significant percentage.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

3 per month at ONE hospital, that's ok then? Then add in those which are botched, but not seriously enough to require hospital treatment.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I didnt say that was ok - I said that I would say it's not a significant amount of the newly born muslims and jewish boys that have circumcisions in proper surroundings.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Three questions....

Do the parents' rights to religious expression trump the rights of a child against "mutilation"

Could the procedure not be carried out after the age of 18 when the person can make informed choice?

If this is an act carried out by God fearing people, then why did God give boys a foreskin in the first place? :confused:

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I don't disagree with what you say and don't want this to turn into another cultural/relgious warfare thread ;)

My concern is not about slurring one religion or another and it's less about the thousands of boys who are treated with due care during this procedure than it is about rooting out the proportion who go about things in a thoroughly barbaric manner which I would consider as child abuse. It's also about the young girls who are subject to circumcision and genital mutilation which I feel cannot ever be justified.

That it's still going on in this country at all, should be a very grave concern for all of us irrespective of race/religion or indeed percentages.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Small point of order chaps ,Circumcision is NOT routinely free on the NHS unless for a medical condition

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Circumc...roduction.aspx


circumcision for religious purposes is wrong ,it is unnecessary, barbaric and has no place in a modern society .Parents who insist on having it done should save up a bit more and get it done at private hospitals or not at all

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

It's a sticky area this, but the way I saw it expressed once kind of sums it up for me: If someone's gonna lop off a part of my dick, they'd better make sure they have my permission first.

I'm all for freedom of religious expression, but I think genital mutilation of children without their consent really is taking it a bit too far.

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:23 ----------

Relatedly, and quite bizarre:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...cision-ritual/

Right. So he wants to suck a baby's dick after cutting part of it off and cites religious reasons. You really couldn't make it up.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

That is quite horrendous!

How could anyone defend that? :confused:

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

For the record: I only found that as I was wondering how common 'home circumcision' is. It's one of the top Google hits for 'circumcision' and 'rabbi'.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Not sticky at all if it's done by a trained professional instead of a religiously motivated butcher

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

look at the proportion. Look at how many Muslim and Jewish children born every month having this procedure done. and add that to the amount of children having it done who are not Muslim or Jewish.

how many of those 3 per month children have had it done in the incorrect environments like this child?

I for one got this done due to religious beliefs of my mother and im thankful for that.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I disagree. In my book, it's a form of genital mutilation, which should not be performed without the victim's consent, unless there are compelling health reasons for performing the act at a young age.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

so you want them to get consent from new born child to cut his fore skin off? :D

Hows that gona work?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I think the caveat "unless there are compelling health reasons" sort of covers that.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

It isn't :D

Which is why I would suggest they wait until the child is able to give his consent :angel:

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

obviously the child is going to say no as they'll be scared and they don't understand the benefits of it being done...

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

OH i agree ,just saying that if it must be allowed for religious reasons then it should be done by a trained professional not some knacker with a pair of scissors.

I want to know what the religious reasons are anyway

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Actually, I was thinking more like waiting until he's 18...

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

:tu:

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

Good thing I ducked :erm: :D

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

good job i deleted the post :LOL:

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

She was a sort of "trained professional", which makes even more scary for medical standards nowadays.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

The main reason given is cleanliness. It is essential that every Muslim washes before praying.

It is important that no urine is left on the body.

Muslims believe the removal of the foreksin makes it easier to keep the penis clean because urine can't get trapped there.
Supporters of circumcision also argue that excrements may collect under the foreskin which may lead to fatal diseases such as cancer.

Some Muslims see circumcision as a preventive measure against infection and diseases.

Another thing I wish to make clear is:

Circumcision is not compulsory in Islam but it is an important ritual aimed at improving cleanliness. It is strongly encouraged but not enforced.

Im not sure about the Jewish faith

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

so basically a load of hogswash

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Totally agree.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

IIRC Unless there is a specific urinary infection, urine is sterile. Urine in that sense is probably 'cleaner' that the water used for washing. If fact, there was a time when after being left for about 3 weeks, stale urine was used to clean clothes etc.

Circumcision pre-dates the ideas of infection and disease by centuries.

Islam isn't relevant in this case.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Describing any act as child abuse purely because it's a religious practice (religious practice, I note, you equate with 'no reason') is the kind of thought process that leads to genocide. Six million Jews were slaughtered on that sort of pretext.

I think you need to calm down and get off your self-righteous high horse.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

There is a difference between being against something where it is only performed because of religious practice, and being against it because it is a religious practice.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I think you're splitting hairs. The meaning in the post I quoted was quite clear. A simple operation that is performed quickly and safely under local anasthaesia countless times every day all over the world, if performed as a religious observance rather than as a medical treatment, is in his view "child abuse".

I am thankful that this view is shared only by a small-minded minority, because in times and places where large numbers of people have been persuaded that certain relgious beliefs and practices should be regarded as abusive, primitive, sub-human, etc etc etc, rather a lot of people have ended up being murdered.

There is clearly an issue with the way the circumcision was conducted in this specific case, and this case should be seen in that light and dealt with accordingly. But to use it as a pretext to condemn religious circumcision per se is just bone-headed.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Presumably then, you don't subscribe to the right to bodily integrity where there are no compelling medical reasons to the contrary?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Let's not generalise the particular, shall we?

Circumcision is a safe, widely practised religious ritual. There is no compelling reason to prevent it.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Circumcision pre-dates local anaesthesia by centuries, if not millennia. What proportion are performed under that level of medical supervision even nowadays. In this case, had local anaesthesia been used, it wouldn't have made any difference. as the death was caused by loss of blood.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I'm not sure what your point about anaesthesia is? The baby died because both the procedure and the after-care were done appallingly badly. That much is established fact. But proving that negligence reached the point of unlawful killing is an awfully high legal bar to attain and is what the current court case is about.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

The point of trying to excuse something on certain grounds(ie infection, disease, local anaesthetic) that didn't occur until centuries AFTER the practice started, doesn't really work as an argument as to why the practice began and is justified.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

You can criticise me and my views all you like Chris, it doesn't change the fact that babies are being mutilated in the name of religion.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

There, I corrected it for you. ;)

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

not at all no. studies show removing the foreskin reduces risk of HIV by up to 60%.

it reduces the risk of UTI and also reduces the risk of getting cancer in the penis. How is that rubbish?

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 18:05 ----------

you're going way over the top and trying to use the most harsh words possible don't don't properly reflect reality.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

We are not generalising the particular at all, or at least I'm not. I'm not concerned about the fact that this particular circumcision went wrong, because that was completely preventable.

What I'm talking about is that parents decide that it's right to remove part of the penis of their son (which let's face it is rather difficult to undo) without their son's permission when 1. There is no compelling medical reason to do so (at least at an early age), and 2. In the case of the muslim religion (but if I'm not mistaken not in the case of Judaism) there is not even a religious requirement to do it at an early age.

We're not talking ear piercings or inoculations here. We're talking about a part of a man's anatomy, and I don't think it's rather debatable whether it should be up to the parents to decide for their son whether or not he gets to keep it.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I'm really not sure babies need to worry about any of that TBH. If anyone wants to be circumcised for health reasons they can decide that when they're old enough to make that decision for themselves can't they?

As for HIV, I don't suppose that really enters into the equation for those whose motivation is religious or cultural since HIV has only been known about for a few decades.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I accept that there are some studies showing medical benefits to circumcision (in particular in warmer climates), but presumably, those benefits are hardly diminished if circumcision is carried out at a later age?

Also, (and I might be wrong here),but as I understand it can also lead to loss of sensation during intercourse, which I wouldn't quite class as a benefit? If true, is this a decision parents should be making for their children?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Your assumptions in the above would appear to be:

1. Only medical reasons can be compelling.

It's perhaps difficult for an atheist, agnostic or general non-adherent to understand, but religious practices and ordinances, to the devotee, are compelling in and of themselves. This is something that is recognised in law in this country and pretty much everywhere else. To object on lack of medical grounds is to miss the point entirely.

2. Parents should not conduct religious rituals on infants that can't 'give permission'.

Infants cannot, by definition, give permission. It is the parents' right and responsibility to decide these things for them. Again, atheists etc frequently argue for parents not to do all sorts of religious things on behalf of their children as if it is somehow possible, or desirable, to bring children up in a religious household and yet insulated from the beliefs and practices that go with it. Every family brings its children up in its own customs and practices. Arguing that non-harmful interventions like circumcision should be exempt is absurd - not least because there are arguably far worse things that children can be exposed to as they grow up by parents exercising their right to give their kids a poor diet or to have nothing to do with their education beyond ensuring they actually turn up at school.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

It still would be done, even if it increased the incidence of infection and disease. How many of those around the world that are practising it, have the faintest idea of any alleged benefits.:rolleyes:

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

The health benefits are a red herring. It is performed in Judaism because it is a specific religious requirement with specific religious meaning (I can't speak for Muslims or Nigerian Christians - it is most certainly not a requirement in the New Testament).

A religious ritual performed for religious reasons is either legitimate on the grounds that it is a religious observance, or not.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

What if the religion was to cut off the babies middle finger on its right hand?

I suppose because it's done as part of peoples beliefs, then all we can do is just tut at it.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Perhaps you could provide an example of a religion that actually does this, then we might have at least half a chance of an intelligent discussion?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I'm not arguing that non-harmful interventions should be exempt. I'm arguing that it's debatable whether non-reversible outwardly visible interventions should be exempt. The degree to which reasons in favour of something should be compelling should (to my mind) be proportional to the degree to which an intervention is reversible and visible. Giving a child a cross or star of David to wear on a chain is something else than tattooing one on their forehead, and I think it would be wise if parents gave their children a choice on what happens where their body is involved.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

That's an interesting approach to the subject, but it very much reflects your own cultural mores. It would be difficult indeed for you to show that a view from the outside such as this could be allowed to over-ride the rights of parents, exercised for millennia, to choose how to bring up their children.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

What about those that have(or had) human sacrifice as part of it. In theory you could create or modify one and those practices should be allowed because they are part of a person's beliefs.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

What if? its not though... its cutting off the foreskin due to health reasons.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

In whose theory?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

That is NOT the reason for it being done.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I wonder if this is the HIV study being referred to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4371384.stm

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

But the thing is, I'm just reading a forum where circumcised man are complaining about lack of sensation during sex. Why is it right for parents to make this decision for their sons? And why then, is it not right (i.e. specifically
forbidden in some countries) to perform a related procedure on females

The reality is that we are allowing some of these rituals for no reason other than that we always have, and if someone were to invent it now, we would call it mutilation, because that's what it is: mutilation of a child that has not not consented. Now, i'm not calling for a ban, because a ban would be unworkable and only cause resentment, but I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

No ,there is no definitive evidence either way so it's no good quoting medical reasons .The only reason why babies are routinely circumcised is for religious reasons .

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

If a practice HAS to be allowed, merely because it's a religious practice, then any religious practice must be allowed, Otherwise selected practices can indeed be banned.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

you cant compare any religious practice to circumcision...

why not? why is it such a bad thing?

well its a fact that it is defiantly cleaner

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

no it's not ,in Judaism it is a promise between Abraham and God no other reason.

---------- Post added at 18:51 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------

You calling me dirty ?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I'm not the best person to answer that, seeing as I've not argued that any practice must be allowed because it's religious.

Come to think of it, who did raise that?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

that's in Judaism... not in Islam.

What are we talking about here? Judaism? Islam? or general?

you need to all try to make your posts clear.

In Judaism the rabbi uses his mouth to draw blood after the cut apparently. Not in Islam.

Also in Judaism I think it needs to be done by their religious leader, not in Islam, it can be done by anyone as long as they are a professional, like a doctor and its performed in a professional place such as a hospital....

Circumcision is mandatory in Judaism, optional in Islam.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:55 ----------

Im not calling you dirty directly don't try to twist my words but I do know it is definitely cleaner then an uncircumcised penis. ;)

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Shall I put it in the back of the net then?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

There is no example because it's a what if. the circumcision could have been a what if too if they originally done the cutting off of the middle finger.

---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------

Is it?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Do you understand the reason why it is done? go and research why it is done in Islam and then come back and post your stupid "what if" ...

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Saying it shouldn't be banned or even criticised because it's a religious practice is EXACTLY the same as saying it should be allowed because it's a religious practice. You have been the one complaining when others consider it in principle to be 'barbaric'.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Why do I have to consider any religious beliefs. or the ins and outs of any religion. for me to have an opinion of circumcising a baby?

because you want it all to be about Islam?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

A brief goooooooogle reveals plenty of anecdotal evidence that the reduced sensation leads to better sex and at least one clinical study that backs that view. If you're attempting to form an argument against parental decisions that reduce their children's quality of life, then circumcision is not the best example to start with. As I said earlier, you would find a lot more to go on were you to concentrate on parents that exercise their right to feed their kids chips and chocolate 7 days a week.

Nevertheless, it is right for parents to make those decisions for their sons because they are the parents. The only alternative that I can see - the State - has ramifications that leave me deeply uncomfortable.

On the subject of female circumcision, it is expressly forbidden in Judaism and in Islam is variously discouraged if not outright condemned depending on which expression of that religion you look to.

I see no logical requirement for the allowance of male circumcision to therefore excuse female circumcision, the chopping off of middle fingers or human sacrifice. To suggest that the one mandates the rest is absurd and somewhat pointless. Rather than asking what must be permitted in the name of religion, it is a lot more useful to look at what religions actually require in the UK and take it from there.

Again, as an atheist you're having difficulty getting into a religious mindset. Religious practices are not just a list of things you decide to do. They are part of a way of life that helps define your relationship with God. And it is a fact of history that new religious practices that set the believers apart from wider society do result in conflict. Early Christians were thrown to the lions because their practices were at odds with Roman law (refusing to worship the emperor, mostly).

You're almost certainly right, if we lived in a sterile society where only what is scientifically valid and medically necessary may be done, then someone attempting to start a religious practice like circumcision would most likely be prevented from doing so. If circumcision were an absolute requirement of that religion, then the religion would either die out or go underground. Christianity went underground, literally, in 1st century Rome. Today, the version of Roman society that ruled Christian beliefs illegal has gone, and from a certain point of view Christianity has made Rome its capital city.

The reason I mention all this is to reinforce the point I made earlier. You're attempting to set your own very specific, early 21st century secular Western cultural mores against a practice that has survived around the world for millennia. When you say, "I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy," set against all the countless millions of people who have happily circumcised their boys as part of their religion, even under persecution, your demand for them to see things in your own terms, which are so narrow in both time and in culture, is just a bit small-minded.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:22 ----------

You're setting up a straw man ... if you would be so good as to indicate that you understand what I mean by that, then I'll happily discuss it further with you. Otherwise, please forgive me if I basically can't be bothered to re-state everything you couldn't be bothered to understand the first time round ...

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I am finding it hard to really connect to any of the religion arguments being made in it's favour, probably not a surprise as am I an atheist. However, I can't get past the notion that it involves making an irrevocable mutilation to a child who cannot consent and will live like that for the rest of their lives, regardless of any later decision they take regarding their faith.

I don't think it's especially oppressive to say that it's not allowed without the adult consent of the person being operated on.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

The fact it's survived around the world for millennia doesn't mean it should survive today. I don't think it's a fallacy to use our own moral norms to make decisions today, that's all we can really do. We shouldn't make decisions that go against them because of the past. Aren't these similar arguments made when some Muslims, some, use their religion and historical precedent to justice the role of women for example?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

It's extremely oppressive, because it runs counter to the fundamental principle that when children can't give consent - because they are children - then it is the parents' right and responsibility to give that consent.

Furthermore, you're trying to hide your prejudice behind reasonable-sounding arguments about adult consent. Perjorative words and phrases like 'mutilation' and 'live like that for the rest of their lives' are a gross misrepresentation of what a male circumcision is.

If removal of the foreskin is in any absolute sense a 'mutilation' of the body, then it would be mutilation even if it were carried out for medical reasons. Yet nobody, but nobody, refers to it in those terms. The physical appearance is barely more dramatic than a post-operative scar.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I suppose technically the child and later the adult cannot express any religious freedom because of the 'promise' made for him at 8 days old ,so unless he makes like joey in friends and breaks out the super glue and luncheon meat he's stuck with judaism or Christianity

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Your argument appears to be that it must be alright because it has survived, which frankly is utter bolleaux.

I'd be interested, seeing you suggested that not all rituals are acceptable, what you would suggest as a set of rules to determine if a ritual involving children is or is not acceptable. I'd be very surprised if this list did not involve some notion of harming a child. What's more: I'd be very surprised if many of the rituals that would be banned would be covered by existing legislation (i.e. banned by the state).

I think the only way in which you could conceivably justify allowing circumcision is on the basis of it being a long-established practice. Frankly, I'd say, that is a very thin reason.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Perhaps not, but neither is it right for something that has such a weight of heritage and religious and cultural significance to be banned simply because of the moral predilections of one specific culture at one specific point in time.

There is no medical reason to ban male circumcision; you yourself have formed an argument that is essentially moral in nature (the question of whether parents should decide such things for their children), yet when you talk of what 'should survive' it's difficult to see how you could determine what survives without resorting to legislation. And legislating for or against religious or moral observance is a very, very tricky road to go down.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Out of interest: whether you believe in Evolution or Intelligent Design, presumably there is a reason why men have foreskin, and presumably both chance and the watchmaker would frown upon removing it?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

This isn't a medically necessarily procedure. It's not a decision that has to be made so what it the harm in waiting until the child is older? I understand in the Jewish faith at least it needs to be done as a child, in which case I concede it would be the state interring in a religious matter.

Ok I take back mutilation. It's not prejudice though, I am perfectly happy for people to do what they want to themselves as long as they understand the ramifications and consent to it. I don't think that extends to parents making the choice for their child. None of us think that parents have a right to make all decisions for their child and we all just draw the line at a different place.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Again, like Nomadking earlier, in order to strengthen your argument against male circumcision you appear to want to push the argument on to other practices not under discussion, thereby clinching the argument by association with a neat little straw man.

As a matter of fact, I've not even made the argument 'it must be alright because it's survived' - what I've suggested is that it shows a crushing lack of perspective on your part to hope that millions of people down countless centuries would have behaved differently had they only chosen to think about things in your terms.

That said, what I do believe is that, while longevity does not automatically equate to rightness, longevity is most certainly a factor to be taken very seriously into consideration if you want to quite suddenly declare 'wrong' something which a lot of people have always considered 'right'.

---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

I addressed this point earlier in response to Dan, hope you don't mind if I just copy and paste it again:

Dinner beckons ...

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

I don't want it banned entirely. I just don't want children to have the operation unless it's medically necessary.

It may be tricky but the discussion can still take place.

There are some of these conflicts already, we don't allow some of the practises that seem more common place in countries where Sharia law is more prevalent. No one here would argue we should allow the stoning of women for adultery or that a man possesses a woman (Although, I am unsure of how much of that is actually rooted in the Islamic Faith and how much of it is more about a culture.) So we already have a notion that someone's rights don't extend to their right to impose their belief on a another individual.

So we're back to the central question, Does the parent have the right to make this decision for their child? My view is that as it's not medically necessary and is a permanent change to their body then maybe not.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

yes that is the reason. its what it says in Islam.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Which, as a matter of fact I've not suggested either, but hey, we were on the subject of straw men anyway. In fact, I've specifically said that I thought a ban would be wrong. I do think that there is a debate to be had over whether the practice of remove part of a male's anatomy without that male's consent when the intervention serves no medical purpose to speak of has any place in today's society.

I'm still interested in that list of criteria for what is and isn't acceptable. I'm sure it'll include a notion that the right to religious expression ends where the definition of common assault starts.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

of course I do. its being done in a Muslim or Jewish family, in the case of Islam because of cleanliness so of course it has to be about Islam. Its not like they are forcing other regions to have their foreskin cut off.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

no just helpless babies

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

why is this such a wrong thing if it may help in later life?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

From my perspective, becuase a. the benefits are debatable, b, they don't have a choice, c. if there are benefits there is no reason why the procedure can't be postponed until they can make an informed choice.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Well, if someone does get an infection due to not being circumcised, I'm sure a dose of antibiotics will fix it. Medicine has come on leaps and bounds in the past couple of thousand years.

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

later in life they can make their own decisions - im fully intact and fully functional just the way our species evolved to be , and might i add never had any problems with being just the way i popped out into the world .

Yes... They say SOME PPL DONT DESERVE CHILDREN... I think these idiots qualify for that!!!!


Poor baby https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2012/11/3.jpg

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

You never had vaccinations? Your wisdom teeth, tonsils or appendix removed?

I won't ask if you never shave or cut your hair and walk around the house in the nude. Your answer might give me a nightmare. :erm:

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

i was referring to my man tackle being intact not my teeth ,i still have tonsils and appendix :)

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

but you was saying the way we evolved to be, which is why he asked that question.

So do you make a big fuss when other parts of peoples bodies are removed?

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

Way to take a comment out of context Zee :rolleyes:

we remove tonsils and other body parts when they cease to function and cause illness ,the same with foreskins they are medical reasons not religious

"If thine eye offend thee , pluck the bugger out"

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

The implication of your post Marty is that for [medical] read [essential] while for [religious] read [hobby] .... Or pastime, or some other optional activity that when push comes to shove simply isn't that vital.

That's how you choose to order your life - fine. However that's not how a religious person sees it. If they take their faith seriously, then it doesn't sit on a shelf until [insert holy day here] and then have no implications beyond the hour you spend listening to the rabbi, vicar or imam or whoever.

To the religious, God is real, as in objectively real, not just a nice idea or "real to me", and that means his commandments are important. You will never seek to persuade a religious person by saying, "well, this is important because it's medical, but that's just religion".

Re: Baby dies after home circumcision
 

If it's religion. why didn't God do it already?

If it's medical, then God messed up.