http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40420511
A woman in Nottingham, U.K., left her 3-month-old baby with his Muslim grandparents. When she came back, they had circumcised him. After three years, the police have finally arrested the butchers. The circumcision was carried out without permission, which makes it totally illegal. And it was botched, so the poor kid is still having health problems.
WARNING: There are some disturbing pictures in this BBC story, including a picture of a screaming infant being held down ready for slashing.
The U.K. has strong laws against child abuse, yet the authorities are reluctant to act on this vile religious perversion.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
This shit is disgusting. Genital Mutilation should be a capital offense everywhere.
His mother should try to get him a corrective surgery of some sort. I heard they are working on using stem cell therapy or the victims of this.
This procedure is commonly done without anesthetic and in unsanitary conditions by religious shitheads. Because of the pain and humiliation involved, I believe it violates the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (commonly known as the United Nations Convention against Torture). Under this convention, which has been signed by just about every country in world, governments are required to make all forms of torture illegal, and to create laws allowing victims to claim compensation from perpetrators.
Genital mutilation is torture of children. Shame on the Muslims. Shame on the Jews. Shame on parents who stand by while their infants are tortured and mutiltated. Shame on every government that lets it happen.
I'm hoping the Jewish communities are starting to change their tunes. I know an orthodox rabbi who does not care if his male congregants are circumcised or not. Still very unusual, especially for an orthodox rabbi, but certainly a step in the right direction.
Interesting topic thats not brought up much, or at least not that I am aware. I can't say I'm for or against it, as I likewise cannot say I'm familiar with all the details on the matter. I know it originated as a Jewish tradition, and that supposedly reduces the risk of infection. Being circumcised, I can not say I know what it's like to not be circumcised. I assume the opposite must also be true for others. I mean in the end, every still works, and works quite well, so perhaps someone could fill me in a bit on the details of this issue?
It should be a matter of choice for consenting adults, but in practice it's commonly done to babies, who cannot make such decisions. So it's a violation of their basic human rights. I can't see how a surgical operation performed by amateurs in unsterile conditions contributes much to the reduction of infection risk. There are conflicting views on the medical and sexual benefits/harms, which is why the operation should never be performed without informed consent as an adult.
To cut a baby of either sex for the sake of religious superstition is utterly barbaric.
Ok. I agree that doing it in unsterile conditions is wrong in a variety of ways. Now, I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate, as I'm just curious to see some of the ideas and thoughts on the matter. In a medical setting, say a hospital, the issues of amateurs and unsterile conditions are drastically reduced. Also, I'd be certain if you gave a baby or even a small child the option as to whether or not they'd want to receive a vaccine they would refuse. So it could be argued that giving vaccines would be a violation of their human rights, even though it benefits them in the long run. So with the potential harm or benefit unknown of circumcision, can we really say it's a bad thing?
The removal of the penis foreskin removes a bunch of the most sensitive nerve endings, on the penis making sex less pleasurable for the male.
There are multiple theories to the origin of the practice of circumcision but it is thought that people noticed those that had more foreskin were more prone to infection and disease than others with less. in a time that did not understand infection, viruses and bacteria plus modern medicine any infection could be fatal. Then religion jumped on the idea of circumsion wanting to claim credit.
If you practice basic hygiene, shower at least once a week, there is zero reason to remove foreskin for 99+ percent of the population in this modern age. Skipping a painful and potentially traumatic surgery on a very small child.
I see no equivalence between circumcision and vaccination. First, vaccination does not cause permanent mutilation. Second, vaccination provides protection against disease for the individual and the population. Circumcision provides no proven benefits. Third, to wait until adulthood for vaccination would expose the child and others to extreme risk. Parents have a duty to protect children from risks, not to expose them to aditional ones. To postpone circumcision until adulthood would not cause any risk at all.
I know about the risks cited by anti-vaxxers, such as the alleged link with autism. None have been proven.
Injecting a child with mercury is questionable to say the least, but vaccination in of itself is only a preventative measure for certain illnesses. It prompts the creation of antibodies. MGM is the act of disfiguring a persons genirals and claiming it has health benefits to excuse it.
@Harry Truman: "Injecting a child with mercury is questionable"
So is injecting them with infected vaccines. There is a tiny amount of ethylmercury (thimerosal) in some vaccines as a preservative. It breaks down very quickly and is flushed out the body, unlike methylmercury, which accumulates. In any case, I think thimerosal has mostly been phased out for children's vaccines. There is no evidence of any link between thimerosal and development disorders, etc. I wonder if the parents who fret about thimerosal give their children fish to eat.
I agree with what you say about MGM. It's a cruel torture ritual based on vile religious crap.
Correct, the harmless mercury in vax shots has been phased out for over 20 years, at least in the US that I know of.
Interesting remarks. And I apologise for the miscommunication. My analogy with vaccines was intended more a long the lines of consent than harm. It's still odd though, as from my perspective, it's all I've ever known, and likely will know. If and when I have kids, it won't be done to them though.