As We Septics Say "Only in San Francisco"

#5
It's not entirely legal over here, only for religious compliance (WTF circumcision has to do with religion is beyond all logical thinking), or medical requirement.
 
#6
#8
This will have great impact on San Francisco sweetcorn harvesting!
 
#11
Where's Jarrod when you need him? He strikes me as a chap who appreciates a good crop of sweetcorn:)
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
The main problem with any of this is that anything started by the so called PC SanFran SS tends to emigrate to this country where Cameron and his sycophant groupies will accept anything they are told by EU or USA regardless as to whether it is to the detriment of the UK.
 
#15
Then again given all the outcry by opponents of ritual female genital mutilation by followeres of Mohammed (pbuh) it seems only fair to afford the same protections to males.
 
#16
Quite agree with them. If someone over the age of 18 wants to get it done, then fine - it's their cock. A parent having it done to a small boy, however, should be illegal - in the majority of cases it's a wholly unnecessary medical procedure carried out on a child who has no way of providing informed consent. I'm actually surprised the BMA hasn't considered the ethical side of it here and banned it unless medically required.
 
#17
One aspect maybe financial. Docs and hospitals here get paid by health insurance and payment by insurance companies is almost always at a discounted rate. Circumcision is considered a cosmetic procedure (like nose jobs, boob jobs) so the doctor bills the parents and gets full payment. (of course they may get tips too)<snigger>

One cultural aspect is that the US has a numerically large Jewish population (more here than Israel I think) and they have a cultural predisposition to circumcision.
 
#18
Quite agree with them. If someone over the age of 18 wants to get it done, then fine - it's their cock. A parent having it done to a small boy, however, should be illegal - in the majority of cases it's a wholly unnecessary medical procedure carried out on a child who has no way of providing informed consent. I'm actually surprised the BMA hasn't considered the ethical side of it here and banned it unless medically required.
It is not available on the NHS either for religious or cosmetic reasons, and only as a last resort for medical reasons.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
Then again given all the outcry by opponents of ritual female genital mutilation by followeres of Mohammed (pbuh) it seems only fair to afford the same protections to males.
Cliterodectomy is not a specifically Muslim practice, indeed it is not even mentioned in the Koran, though it does crop up in a 14th Century fiqh and a discredited Hadith, although it is practiced by some groups of Muslims, it is also practiced by Christians. It is believed to have originated in Pharonic Egypt sometime before the 2nd Century BCE.

Famously practiced by the Kikuyu of Kenya, Missionary attempts to end the practice during the Colonial Period were percieved as an attack on Kikuyu identity contributing to the anger that gave rise to Mau Mau. The practice has even been advocated by Western doctors in the 20th Century, to prevent excessive masturbation.

With regard to Male Circumcision, the WHO have suggested compelling (sic) evidence that it can reduce the transmission of AIDS:

WHO | World Health Organization

Circumcision: A New Weapon for AIDS Prevention?

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top