Originally Posted by Dingdongler (Post 11347203)

Seen a few, you wouldn't want to know the details. Also seen a few surgical reversals of FGM in the Somalian population.

Originally Posted by alcazar (Post 11346872)

Male circumcision is occasionally necessary for medical reasons.

It has to be done carefully, since the remains of the foreskin have to remain attached at the underside, known, IIRC as the frenum. Cutting at that point would reduce sensation to the head of the penis.

A circumcised male is no different to an uncircumcised one as regards orgasm etc, except that he can often "go" for longer.......

Originally Posted by Lisawrx (Post 11347283)

I'm no expert in either, but if a child is being subjected to a 'procedure' that isn't medically necessary and done purely based on religious/cultural grounds, I don't think it's right.

Originally Posted by jods (Post 11350165)

His 23 yr old son. TWENTY THREE now has a house worth over £3.5 million.

It's a disgrace.

Originally Posted by tony de wonderful (Post 11350560)

Why can't you be happy for someone's success? :freak3:

He had the balls to enter the property market after all.

And if he rents it out he can heroically 'provide' someone with a home.

Originally Posted by tony de wonderful (Post 11350555)

All procedures are a 'choice'. There is no such thing as 'medically necessary' as in 'this is absolutely necessary'. It only begs the questions of what medicine 'says' is 'normal' and the way life should be. 'Medically necessary' is thoroughly normative.

Originally Posted by Lisawrx (Post 11350850)

So, if somebody has a burst appendix and if they don't have surgery to sort it out, they have a good chance of dying, it isn't necessary?

I suppose it's not really, if you're not bothered about dying....

Originally Posted by tony de wonderful (Post 11350863)

Medicine won't always say that keeping someone alive is necessary.

Saying it is necessary is implicitly conditional upon whether we say they should be alive or should be dead.

And anyway the boundary between dead and live is fuzzy and being redrawn all the time. It's as much legal as anything.

Originally Posted by tony de wonderful (Post 11350863)

Medicine won't always say that keeping someone alive is necessary.

Saying it is necessary is implicitly conditional upon whether we say they should be alive or should be dead.

And anyway the boundary between dead and live is fuzzy and being redrawn all the time. It's as much legal as anything.

Originally Posted by cster (Post 11351300)

I think this wank would look so much better translated into French - especially with the conditional conjugation.
Is there anyone on here who could do me this very small favour?

Originally Posted by markjmd (Post 11351306)

I could, but being honest, would you not prefer it if I gave TdW a good solid smack round the side of the head with a shovel instead ;):D

Originally Posted by markjmd (Post 11351306)

I could, but being honest, would you not prefer it if I gave TdW a good solid smack round the side of the head with a shovel instead ;):D

Originally Posted by ALi-B (Post 11347085)

Much like amputation of limbs or removal of teeth; A last resort that should be avoided and only done as a very last resort (unfortunately the medical world still prefers it as a first or second resort - based on outdated research). Now if someone chopped off your finger for sakes of religion, regardless of sex, you'd not be happy, and that's my whole point - for something like this to happen to anyone of any sex WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT is an abhorrent act. Its equally abhorrant for someone to be brainwashed into thinking it should be done and is ok, and I'll conceed there are limits to excusing a person's lack of autonomy for sakes of being part of the herd (i.e if you choose to have it done, then its your own silly fault if you then subsequently find out that you should have been left as evolution intended).

With regards to the practice in the UK and USA and other western countries, it has been common place where too much foreskin is removed, and the direct result of that is loss of sensitivity as well as other issues. Call it bad practice, call it bad training on those who perform it, or blame it on whatever religious nutjob who says that it should be like that. But because its accepted in our culture it is therefore all ok. Much like FGM is accepted in other countries.

And thats where I abhore the hypocrisy where UK culture condemns FGM whilst simultanely supporting and allowing amputation of parts of a baby male's genitalia for no medical reason.

Picking and choosing. Yes you are quite right UK cultures and religions does pick and choose what it thinks is acceptable. I've chosen, and condemn it outright for any sex, age or race, regardless of it bring considered more severe for one sex to the other - the measure of severity or personal impact shouldn't be used as a quantative excuse to say its allowable.


Its a pity that the majority subscribe to the social norms rather than apply cold logic on their own accord. But that's herd behaviour for you - c'est la vie.

Originally Posted by Devildog (Post 11351437)

Totally agree

From that BBC article:

Jews have pointed out that attacks on Jewish religious rituals have been an unfortunate part of European history since the Roman times, and say they are dismayed by the latest ban. One Russian rabbi in Berlin to discuss the ban called it "perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life in Europe since the Holocaust".

Get a grip rabbi ffs ...

Originally Posted by dpb (Post 11385558)

Probably won't make a blind bit of difference to attitudes across central Africa, but you can always hope I suppose

Originally Posted by dpb (Post 11385597)

They are tied into religion as support, this is probably one of the more difficult regions possible to make a living