Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Circumcision, an outdated and barbaric practice?


In a few hundred years I think we will look back with disgust at the practice of circumcision - both male and female.
It may sound obvious that taking a young baby and slicing the top of his penis off counts as bodily harm - but apparently, some still need it clarifying.
Cologne State court said the child’s right to physical integrity trumps freedom of religion and parents’ rights.
I applaud this court.
I have never understood the practice, there is no logic or sense to it as far as I am concerned.

I suspect it is probably just a twisted tradition handed down through years of religious nuttery.
Religious groups have long argued the vile procedure is performed on the grounds of hygiene - I think I’ll stick to my Dove cream bar, if it’s all the same to you, it seems to do the job just as well.
Supporters say it prevents infections and leads to a generally cleaner lifestyle.
I know there is an argument that says the foreskin can harbour the HPV virus which can lead to cervical cancer (I'm not going to draw a picture), but surely a good wash is all it takes?
You can just imagine the conversation between the first people to dream it up.
“It’s getting a bit whiffy down there, I’ll just have a quick scrub with ye olde palme olive.
“Actually, on second thoughts, pass us the bread knife, I think I’ll just have it away.”
Of course I jest - but to me any justification for mutilating young boys has either got to be the result of a severe and sinister delusion, or the result of wicked malice.
Today’s case involved a doctor accused of carrying out a circumcision on a four-year-old which led to medical complications.
I hate to say Doc, but I could probably have told you that would happen, bet you'll think twice the next time you feel a bit scissor happy.
He was acquitted of any wrong doing, and prosecutors say they won’t appeal.
But my sympathies lie with the boy who for the rest of his life will be scarred, and with complications caused by an outdated and barbaric practice which should have been outlawed with witch burnings.
The president of Germany's Central Council of Jews, Dieter Graumann, called the ruling "unprecedented and insensitive" .
He said  circumcision of newborn Jews has been practiced for thousands of years and "every country in the world respects this religious right".
“Religious right” - ah yes, that old chestnut. The right which trumps all others, which supersedes all boundaries of common sense and decency.
Never mind young boys are being maimed and traumatised, having their genitals interfered with and sliced off with a razor, as long as “religious right” isn’t compromised.
I happen to think it is time people started fighting back at these ridiculous religious rights.
There are many abhorrent things which go on under this untouchable veil.
I for one think this particular practice is a right too far, and believe it is high time it became a criminal offence, at least in the UK and for those who have not, or are too young, to give their consent.

3 comments:

  1. I absolutely agree with you, Nathan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ha you have and uncircumcised dick. Girls think that's revolting. I feel bad your mother did not make a better choice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Better choice? To deny a male the extra benefits of a foreskin is BETTER? I am 64 and Bi and I have to say that not one of my partners, male or female, has ever complained about that extra skin. It helps lubrication and increases the overall sensitivity of the penis head. I am whole, and proud of it... If God had wanted men to have no foreskin he would have left it off right from the start!

    ReplyDelete