Circumcision on the NHS

I see that doctors are succumbing to the mulitculti bollocks and recommending that circumcisions be carried out on the NHS to avoid botched operations.

Senior doctors have called for male circumcision to be offered by the NHS amid fears that unregulated operations are leading to serious injuries among Muslim boys.

A number of public health specialists have urged the health service to overturn its ban on such operations after an investigation into circumcisions performed at an Islamic school in Oxford found that 13 out of 32 boys who had the procedure – at an average age of six – ended up with medical problems.

This follows the story a few weeks back that girls should have their genitals “nicked” in order to comply with their parents’ primitive, barbaric belief systems.

This is the worst kind of moral relativism. Circumcision for any reason other than health grounds when carried out on a child, who is too young to give informed consent, is abhorrent. Religious hokum is not an acceptable excuse. If an adult wants to undergo the operation in order to appease some bronze age mythology, then fine, you won’t hear a word from me. But an infant is unable to give informed consent, therefore the operation is a violation of their body. Mutilation – and let’s be clear here, that is what we are talking about – carried out in such circumstances is violence against that individual.

When faced with the moral dilemma of botched operations carried out by unqualified religious leaders, you do not enable the practice by offering to carry out the mutilation yourself. What you do is vigorously prosecute those responsible and you keep doing it and sending these bastards to gaol until they get the message – Britain is a civilised country and ritual child mutilation is illegal – at least, it damned well should be.

———————————————————

Update: Mummy is also unimpressed.

———————————————————

For those who are interested, I wrote a more detailed post on this subject back in 2005. There are some interesting links on the matter – in particular relating to the practice in the USA, based on the Victorian obsession with masturbation. The current practice in the USA is about as medically sound as eugenics.

14 Comments

  1. And yet, note that when faced with intractable citizens pursing other aims of which the medical establishment disapprove – smoking, drinking, using tanning salons – the impulse isn’t ‘allow’ but ‘ramp up the ban’…

  2. Doing it to girls is against the law (sadly never enforced) but not doing it to boys.

    The law should apply equally to both. Both examples are assault.

    And yet, note that when faced with intractable citizens pursing other aims of which the medical establishment disapprove – smoking, drinking, using tanning salons – the impulse isn’t ‘allow’ but ‘ramp up the ban’…

    Something to do with those people not being ethnic minorities, I suspect.

  3. Careful now. Don’t want to be accused of anti-semitism do you?

    I see some strange bedfellows lining up….

  4. Agree with you 100 percent.

    Won’t be long before that is brought in then. Mustn’t offend the ethnics.

  5. Are we really saying the US (where the vast majority of boys are circumcised as infants) isn’t a civilised country? I’m sceptical.

  6. I’m well aware that the US has a propensity for this barbaric practise – and yes it is uncivilised, irrespective of other factors. Fortunately, there is a (albeit small) backlash against the practise. My comment about Britain apples equally to the USA, it is assault against a minor and should be prosecuted as such.

  7. If Muslims keep damaging the reproductive organs of their children, is there any chance that evolution will remove Islam from the gene pool?

  8. You cannot really circumcise a girl. What is normally meant by female ‘circumcision’ is clitorectomy which is an unecessary and vile practice. It often leads to infection and death in the barbaric cultures which allow it.

    Circumcision of boys though, on medical grounds by a surgeon is a good thing. Circumcision for religious reasons is plain daft though. Especially when conducted by some untrained tosser of a moyle or Imam.

  9. Circumcision for religious reasons is plain daft though.

    Actually, it is just as unnecessary and vile as female clitorectomy. Medical necessity is rare, though. Apart from the USA and the Abrahamic tribal religions, it is not routinely carried out and we haven’t all suffered as a consequence, which leads me to suspect that good old mother nature knows what she is doing.

  10. Interesting that the scum that want to ban the burqua aren’t so keen to ban forced circumcision on infants. Now that *should* be illegal. If adults wish to circumsized then that is their right. Parents do not have the right to mutilate their own children.

Comments are closed.