RootsBooster Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Male circumcision at least serves a purpose and is better for hygiene, also its been linked with helping hold off the spread of the aids virus. Women's circumcision serves no purpose what so ever and no one can justify doing it. What purpose does cutting the forskin off serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Condoms would do a better job. But very interesting. Why would circumcision decrease a man's risk of contracting AIDS? Yeh its worth considering having done At least there is a benefit and an argument for men having it done. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 21:52 ---------- What purpose does cutting the forskin off serve? Look at the link, I was going to find one but was beaten to it Its harder for the virus to be absorbed into the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Yeh its worth considering having done At least there is a benefit and an argument for men having it done. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 21:52 ---------- Look at the link, I was going to find one but was beaten to it Its harder for the virus to be absorbed into the body. So you're saying that people have their babies circumcised because it might help prevent them getting aids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 So you're saying that people have their babies circumcised because it might help prevent them getting aids? Maybe not babies, but before they are sexually active, unless its better to have it done really young as Mafya says ? I just read what you put properly, No, they won't be having it done because of that now because this research is recent and no one will have known it help cut down the spread of aids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Maybe not babies, but before they are sexually active, unless its better to have it done really young as Mafya says ? I just read what you put properly, No, they won't be having it done because of that now because this research is recent and no one will have known it help cut down the spread of aids. Apart from God, but then God will have created the aids virus in the first place, and made the foreskin susceptible to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Maybe not babies, but before they are sexually active, unless its better to have it done really young as Mafya says ? I just read what you put properly, No, they won't be having it done because of that now because this research is recent and no one will have known it help cut down the spread of aids. Just to clarify, I'm talking about unnecessary, infant circumcision, to which the victim cannot consent. It's a direct violation of several human and children's human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Just to clarify, I'm talking about unnecessary, infant circumcision, to which the victim cannot consent. It's a direct violation of several human and children's human rights. We pump stuff into our children all the time when we inoculate them, some kids it makes sick and may never need what we put into them but we do it for its future benefit. Maybe one day this will be the norm as well, at least in some countries ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 We pump stuff into our children all the time when we inoculate them, some kids it makes sick and may never need what we put into them but we do it for its future benefit. Maybe one day this will be the norm as well, at least in some countries ? True, we add stuff to them. I'd never take a piece of them away though if it wasn't necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 True, we add stuff to them. I'd never take a piece of them away though if it wasn't necessary. If you have ever had to take your kids to have a few teeth out you will know how much of an ordeal that is, we have to do that in western countries due to the diets we give our kids, maybe the Africans are looking at us gone out and saying the same thing you say about this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) If you have ever had to take your kids to have a few teeth out you will know how much of an ordeal that is, we have to do that in western countries due to the diets we give our kids, maybe the Africans are looking at us gone out and saying the same thing you say about this ? Have you ever had your kid's teeth removed unnecessarily? We can use coincidental advantages or disadvantages as arguments 'til the cows come home, although most "for" arguments are easily countered, all are irrelevant if the reason for the removal was purely for traditional/aesthetic/cultural/ritual or religious motives. In that respect, it's no better than FGM. It remains a direct violation of human rights. Edited March 25, 2014 by RootsBooster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now