On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:02:45 +0100, "Bill Wright"
 wrote:

>
>"Bill (Adopt)"  wrote in message 
>news:4fd9d66470adopt@billsimpson.com...
>>> For instance, circumcising babies should be classed as GBH and
>>> the parents prosecuted.
>>
>> Not so sure about this one in all cases  ..it's a
>> customary practise in more than one culture, being
>> thought grounded in health as much as religious
>> codes ..although within those cultures that generally
>> circumcise it seems normally agreed as only suitable
>> for males.  Perhaps a matter for a generation or so
>> of re-education prior to legislation..
>
>Yes they used to do it for health reasons because people didn't used to keep 
>themselves clean. Nowadays most of us wash our willys periodically.
>
>Now look here, you can't go chopping off parts of people's bodies because of 
>your religion. It isn't the baby's religion, because babies can't think 
>clearly enough to have a religion. No-one has any right to multilate a 
>child, even the parents. They should have to wait until the child is 18 and 
>then ask it if it wants to be circumcised for religious reasons.
>
>Never mind about it being a 'customary practice'. That doesn't make it 
>right. It used to be customary to send children up chimneys, spit in the 
>street, flog the mentally subnormal, and allow the lord of the manor to 
>deflower your daughter if he felt like it.

It is strange that mutilation of an infant is allowed especially after
this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7584446.stm

-- 
brightside S9