So long the functions of organs are preserved only for Fertility,and done in a city hospital. is
By the way,how comes medical doctors are able to perform such "hygienic demands" in collision with well intended parents.
To me,children without body parts,arms,ears,fingers,etc done by no accident,are not to keep indifferent or take understanding of their ...Farinnelli parents.
2007-10-09 04:35:04 · 11 answers · asked by amleth 4 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
I am against all kinds of mutilation of a person's body without his/her explicit permission as an adult.
Those who have answered circumcision is OK, please confirm whether FGM is OK as well.
FGM is scientifically proven to have 128 times more medical benefits compared to MGM. This is because of the difference in the size of the openings of the genitals and due to the fact that female genitals always contain much more body fluids which act as breeding grounds for micro organisms.
The factor "Reduction in sexual pleasure" is also less prominent in females, because research has shown that more than the direct stimulation of the genitals, female orgasm always depend on psychological factors (size does not matter!...more foreplay... etc). Also about 30% of intact females never achieve orgasm by sexual stimulation of genitals.
MGM is also carried out without any anesthesia, at ages from 8 to 13 in various parts of the world and the number of such FGMs compared to the MGMs are negligible. Search webshots.com or photobucket.com with "operation tuli" to see pics posted by doctors and nurses doing circumcision.
2007-10-09 05:35:41 · answer #1 · answered by UseAnotherNickname 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you're talking about making permanent and largely cosmetic changes to someone else's body, then I say wait until the child is old enough to decide that. I don't have any sons so circumcision was never an issue but I do have daughters and I did not have their ears pierced when they were babies. I waited until they asked to get it done and by then I felt they were responsible enough to care for their ears by themselves.
2007-10-09 15:06:31 · answer #2 · answered by RoVale 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Seems to be asking if the parents' choice (a sacred cow) for circumcision takes precedence over the child's right to remain 'whole'.
Good question.
We do so much to kids before they are able to speak and think and decide for themselves.
Yeah, maybe it should be left up to the kid to decide...
2007-10-09 11:56:05 · answer #3 · answered by Bye for now... 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Circumcision, if it is to be done at all, needs to be done when the boy is a baby. I don’t think it would be a pleasant experience for most young men.
And UseAnotherNickname – I can understand why you’d be against male circumcision, but female circumcision is not done for any good reason. It’s only done to prevent women from enjoying sex.
2007-10-09 12:58:15 · answer #4 · answered by Rainbow 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Circumcision is a barbaric practice and should be stopped.
2007-10-09 18:13:44 · answer #5 · answered by merlin m 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Circumcision is nothing more than a 'blood ritual'.
2007-10-13 11:35:05 · answer #6 · answered by Ashleigh 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as far as i am aware surgical castration is not a legal procedure for parents to impose on their infant - even in the us.
....
[edit]
and rainbow: female circumcision is done for exactly the same reasons as male circumcision:- to follow cultural tradition and for hygienic and aesthetic reasons.
any culture which allows one but not the other is simply being racist.
2007-10-09 11:44:35 · answer #7 · answered by synopsis 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Circumcision? It's a parent's choice to do so.
2007-10-09 11:45:50 · answer #8 · answered by Done 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Circumcision is a requirement in the Jewish faith, a covenant with God. It is also healthier, as groups with high rates of circumcision amongst males have low rates of cervical cancer, penile cancer and HIV infection.
2007-10-09 11:37:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
This question makes no sense whatsoever.
2007-10-09 11:42:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋