A Baby's Human Rights

[naomi24]

Both Jews and Muslims lop bits off their young male children, not for medical reasons, but because their religions demand it, so a hypothetical question. If a case were brought before the European Court of Human Rights claiming that this practice is in violation of a human being's right to decide what happens to his body, what do you think the outcome would be?

[DaisyNonna]

The sexual mutilation of baby girls is stomach churningly disgusting. It is painful, dangerous and done only to ensure that a woman cannot enjoy sexual intercourse. Meaning that men still can and a woman has no need to stray because it gives her no pleasure. Perpetual rape?

[RATTER15]

I think it is a disgusting act to perform on male or female, especially for the female, purely for the sake of religion or culture!

How can cutting bits off of children be right in any way!!

SICK!!!!



SICK!!!!!!

[Clanad]

Chris, for an individual I've always respected on this open forum, you've, sadly, gotten your facts wrong, re: Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

The U.S. signed the Declaration: "... on February 16, 1995, the United States signed the Convention indicating the nation's intent to consider ratification.. but hasn't presented it to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by our Constitution." (Source: Amnesty International http://www.amnestyusa...rights-of-the-child-0 )

There are several problems inherent in the Declaration that are going to take a long time for it to wend it's way through the U.S. system for ratification.
The U.N. Declaration, for one, imposes requirements and restrictions on education. Fine... except in the U.S., for the Federal government to sign on to any sections of any treaty it first has to determine if the Federal government has the sole right to that power. In fact, the individual States (and even lower political subdivisions) are responsible for education funding, not the Federal government.

The Declaration also prohibits captial punishment or long terms of imprisonment for those "children" under the age of 18. Fine, again, except several States allow for captial punishment in extreme cases for "children 17 years old (or long terms of imprisonment).

So, the whole story is somewhat different that your report...

[jomifl]

Keyplus. if these omniscient and wise religions that knew everything before it was discovered by western science had bothered to impart a few lessons in personal hygiene on their devotees then 99% (probably) of circumcisions would not be necessary.

[jake-the-peg]

Seriously Clanad?

T

[jake-the-peg]

Typos damn it.

Still somewhat shocked that there are states that allow the execution of 17 years olds!

[jake-the-peg]

Oh no they don't - that's funny after criticizing Chris for getting his facts wrong Clanad is behind the times!

The US supreme court raised the age to 18 in 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

[Clanad]

Actually, jake, Roper vs. Simmons, found unconstitutional laws in those States that permitted the death penalty for persons who were under the age of 18 "at the time of the commission of the crime".

This, effectively, stopped all such executions. However, as I stated in my response to Chris, the laws in the individual States that had permitted this punishment, were only held in abeyance... not repealed, since that can only be done by the legislatures of the individual States.

[keyplus90]

Jomifl - Even if you talk about personal hygiene then you can't show a mirror to Muslims. Try offering five times prayer a day and see what the requirements are before that known as “Wuzu” or Wudhu”.

Clanad – Where I do agree with your facts and figures I must inform you that you are up against few people who believe in what scientists and their research says. But as long as that research agrees what they want to believe in otherwise it is classed as rubbish. That is the reason I say that for few people who always propagate about logic, sometimes logic does not go beyond their own nose.

Finally as for the female circumcision, it is to do completely with culture in few African countries and I do not think has anything to do with religion.

[tiggerblue10]

My parents and my side of the family want Little Tiggs to be circumcised but I am against it. Not for religious reasons but I just don't like the thought of putting him through unnecessary pain. If he chooses to have it done when he is older then that'll be up to him.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, Chris has answered the question. Circumcision is in contravention of the human rights of a child - and so it should be.

[boxtops]

Female circumcision has nothing to do with religion, it's a cultural practice in some parts of the world. If some who do this belong to a certain religion, that's a coincidence.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, I would add that you subject your children to it purely for religious reasons - so don't pretend otherwise.

[RATTER15]

tiggerblue, why do they want it done? I have two sons, neither of them needed it and neither did I and I certainly dont need it now.

I think it is barbaric to chop bits off of babies!!

They have stopped doing it to dogs in this country, why haven't they stopped doing it to children!

[tiggerblue10]

My family come from a Muslim (Turkish Cypriot) background Ratter. All males in my family are circumcised.

[RATTER15]

Please dont do it, totally not necessary, poor little might :(

[tiggerblue10]

Believe me it will not happen Ratter. He's my son and no one will bully me into doing it.

[RATTER15]

Good for you :-))

[tiggerblue10]

:o)