Not a crime, because penis
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-39976018?SThisFB#
A doctor accused of circumcising a boy without his mother's consent should be prosecuted, a leading human rights lawyer has said.
The three-month-old boy was circumcised for religious reasons while staying with his paternal grandparents in 2013.
A police investigation was dropped but Saimo Chahal QC wants Nottinghamshire Police to take action against Dr Balvinder Mehat.
…......................
If this exact case had happened to a girl, it would be a crime.
Can the feminist cucks explain why feminists aren't screeching for equality on this?
-
Down votes but not discussion, typical liberal cowardice.
-
You know why Raph. Because men are worth less than women to most liberals. Sure plenty of them are shitheads, but plenty of women are dirty sluts. The reason the liberal idea is more popular is because of our ideas of our mothers. It's why the Pope can say "masturbation is a sin," and oh that evil patriarchy! We want sexual liberation! And then when they want to be liberated, grabbing their pussy (which all straight men do), is that horrible male patriarchy. It's hypocrisy, but it is the way it is because we don't want to believe or think about that our mothers got fucked to make us. It's a play on our mentality and what we want to hear. People who don't like country or rap, won't listen to it. People only listen to what they WANT to hear. People who like basketball don't want to hear about baseball, or football vs soccer. They're just not going to buy a ticket. And it's easy to manipulate people by segregating them through identity politics and then grouping them by other means and offering cookies to feel "a part" of something.
-
Can the feminist cucks explain why feminists aren't screeching for equality on this?
Perhaps because it's pretty common for males to get cut? It's not like chopping down a clit so you won't get much feminazi flamming.
On the other hand the worrying fact is the actual procedure without the parents consent, it's unprofessional and the grandparents should face the matter in legal terms, which in such case have to be a monetary contribution to the aftercare and vigilance of the child.
-
Female circumcision is pretty common outside the west.
How "common" something is, shouldn't be a factor in whether it should be allowed to be done.
Males deserve the same right to bodily integrity that women in the west enjoy.
-
Female circumcision is pretty common outside the west.
How "common" something is, shouldn't be a factor in whether it should be allowed to be done.
Males deserve the same right to bodily integrity that women in the west enjoy.
Pretty reasonable.
-
Female circumcision is pretty common outside the west.
How "common" something is, shouldn't be a factor in whether it should be allowed to be done.
Males deserve the same right to bodily integrity that women in the west enjoy.
Wait, are liberals petty little bitches or do they not believe that males should have the right to bodily integrity like females have?
Grow some balls and defend your down votes.
-
How "common" something is, shouldn't be a factor in whether it should be allowed to be done.
It's a recognized culture practice, so yes, it influences in whether it's allowed or not. Specially since it's not a genital mutilation but an optional procedure based on such concept or as an actual treatment for phimosis, which was not this case… However it doesn't ravish the male right to bodily integrity unlike some sorts of castrations, that are on level to female circumcision (As it's used to refer for cases of female genitalia mutilation).
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-39976018?SThisFB#
If this exact case had happened to a girl, it would be a crime.
Can the feminist cucks explain why feminists aren't screeching for equality on this?
There are two separate issues at play here:
- The right to bodily integrity of an individual who can't speak for himself
- Who may consent on behalf of an incompetent individual.
Here in the US our OB/Gyns and pediatricians are on record for routine neonatal circumcision for the small (ha, ha) but questionable health benefit it may impart. Their statements make plain that bodily integrity is, well, not at all a consideration in the judgement. Because who cares, it's just a piece of skin. Reasonable people may disagree on whether it is justifiable to expose the entire population to the risk of harm (losing your penis! in addition to other considerations) when engaging in a routine procedure with questionable benefits, but no one can argue that (male) circumcision is generally accepted to have no medical benefit. This is in sharp contradistinction to female genital mutilation where there is no claimed medical benefit. Yes, there is a political issue here, no doubt, but there is also a bright line between hand-waving, possible benefit (male) and absolutely no benefit (female) – that's the key difference.
HOWEVER, the grandparents in this case, in all likelihood, did not have the right to consent to a procedure for a baby. Therefore, not only are they possibly liable for assault and battery but the doctor who performed the operation is too, because he should have known that they were not legally responsible for the baby. This is a legal issue whether the operation was circumcision or a tonsillectomy. They simply didn't have the legal standing to do it.
-
Well, feminism is:
1 - For women rights.
2- For equality.Circuncision is not a female problem, so why they could fight against it?
Men should stop being lazy and fight for rights too. -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-39976018?SThisFB#
A doctor accused of circumcising a boy without his mother's consent should be prosecuted, a leading human rights lawyer has said.
The three-month-old boy was circumcised for religious reasons while staying with his paternal grandparents in 2013.
A police investigation was dropped but Saimo Chahal QC wants Nottinghamshire Police to take action against Dr Balvinder Mehat.
…......................
If this exact case had happened to a girl, it would be a crime.
Can the feminist cucks explain why feminists aren't screeching for equality on this?
Female circumscision is actually amputation of the clitoris intended to keep women from straying from their husbands by denying them sexual pleasure. Male circumscision is done for religious or hygenic reasons. Cynical observers note it is an extra revenue generator for pediatricians,
In any event the male and female procedures are not comparable at all. -
You guys need to learn about female circumcision, before you talk about it.
There are 3 categories of FC.
Category 1 is just a slight nick of the clit hood.
Category 2 is similar to male circumcision.
Category 3 is the extreme version.
We are NOT talking about procedures done solely because of medical need.
Also, it's bullshit to argue that male circumcision is cultural, since so is female circumcision.
It's funny how feminist cucks say that men need to fight for their own rights when feminists and their cucks hate people who support MRAs. Also, feminist also claim that everything can be fixed through feminism. The fact that boys can still be circumcised showed that feminists fought for special rights, not equality.
-
Well, feminism is:
1 - For women rights.
2- For equality.Circuncision is not a female problem, so why they could fight against it?
Men should stop being lazy and fight for rights too.Actually.. female Muslims ARE circumcised! All the sensitive tissue around their hole is removed so that they don't get any pleasure from sex.
-
You guys need to learn about female circumcision, before you talk about it.
There are 3 categories of FC.
No, there are not 3. FC = FGM, that's all there is about it. And FGM =/= MC, there is simply no comparison in these terms.
Also, it's bullshit to argue that male circumcision is cultural, since so is female circumcision.
Not quite, MC comes in both west and east culture, we could say it can/may be applied worldly, while FC is solely from east culture and Africa (Thinking about it, I never treated Africa as part of the west).
Well, as pgtrsea stated, the discussion is on the parents rights over their child vs the grandparents actions with their grandson, and the illegal incompetence from the doctor of course. Not on the level of feminists vs masculinists (Also I think those "feminist cucks" as you call 'em are actually misandrists and gynocentrists instead).
-
You need to educate yourself about FC. There are 3 categories, whether you like it or not.
You are a misandrist by justifying it happening to boys, but defending the western ban on it happening to girls.
I hate how feminist (women and their cucks) screech about equality, but ignore areas where females have special rights. They then get butt hurt that men fight for gender equality for men.
