No-one, absolutely no-one, has the right (outside of individual medical advice) to mutilate the genitals of a child. The fact that Male Genital Mutilation has been granted respectability by calling it 'circumcision' is totally irrelevant. It is nothing short of child abuse. That is to say it is an abuse of the childs inability to say "No, I don't want my penis mutilating".

Those who carry out this practice are living in the stone age. Even those of the Jewish faith, are at last beginning to see the light and the elders have now introduced an alternative 'naming ceremony' to carry out on the eighth day.

The suggestion that it is 'cleaner to be cut' is absolute balderdash.

The thing I don't understand is this; Why on earth don't the human rights activists push this forward?. Are they afraid of upsetting certain religious groups? In fact the European Courrt of Human Rights (relating to the Child) passed a resolution years ago defending the childs right to remain 'as nature intended' until the age of eighteen when that child could do whatever it wanted to its body.

It's time to end this abomination NOW.
freedom70 freedom70
4 Responses Nov 6, 2010

The reason human rights groups are not complaining is because this is a male problem and the cold-blooded truth of the matter is that in general, no one cares about us males. While the same thing is happening to females in some cultures everyone is up in arms about it. The sad truth is that not enough people have your mindset.

There's also female circumcision where they cut the clitoris off. Some even do that and then sow the vagina closed only leaving a small opening for urination and they need to cut it open right before having sex for the first time.

First, it has been proven that HIV and other STD's is NOT prevented by circumcision nor is it stalled. No-one would dream of not cleaning their teeth at least twice a day to prevent mouth disease, so what is the problem with genital hygiene?. <br />
<br />
Second. Smallpox was a killer and no amount of personal hygiene would have prevented it. Vaccination in any form has a variable risk and the case of smallpox the benefits outweighed the risks.<br />
<br />
Third. It is NOT the norm. Whereas in the latter half of the twentieth century, in the USA, where it was popularised by misguided biblical and victorian influences, almost 75% of males had to suffer the process. Now, in the USA the figure is down to less than 20%. In Europe the figures are slightly different but show the same trends. <br />
<br />
Fourth, Safety doesn't enter into the issue. It is safer to leave things be, as nature intended. If an individual wants it done after reaching eighteen years the process is no more dangerous than having a tattoo done.

Actually, male circumsission can be considered to be "cleaner" in some respects as it decreases the chance of transmission of certain diseases, such as HIV. Just saying. Also, the reason it is carried out on children as opposed to on adults is because it is much safer that way.