Psychology Today: The Case for Infant Circumcision is Weakening

    Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

    • Psychology Today: The Case for Infant Circumcision is Weakening

      Noam Shpancer Ph.D:

      Painful Cuts: The Case for Infant Circumcision is Weakening
      A popular US tradition is becoming harder to justify

      Noam Shpancer schrieb:

      However, most of that literature is written by US researchers, who tend to be circumcised males and culturally biased in favor of circumcision. Thus, studies are often undertaken with the explicit goal of verifying the supposed benefits of male circumcision (US researchers possess the opposite bias about female genital cutting, a topic for another day)
      Man kann es nicht oft genug und laut genug sagen.


      In sum, the best evidence suggests that in most cases in the US, the
      potential health benefits gained from neonatal circumcision can be
      achieved through non-surgical means or through performing the procedure,
      consensually, later. Neonatal circumcision involves the permanent
      removal of a healthy, functional bodily tissue without consent or
      medical necessity, which leaves the procedure standing on thin and
      slippery (and rapidly melting) ethical ice. No wonder that,
      increasingly, parents of boys are thinking twice before they choose to
      cut once.


      Noam Shpancer, Ph.D., is the author of the novel The Good Psychologist. He was born and raised on an Israeli kibbutz
      psychologytoday.com/ca/experts/noam-shpancer-phd
      Deutscher Bundestag 2013: "Mädchen sind toll, so wie sie sind. Und niemand hat das Recht ihnen weh zu tun und an ihrer Vulva etwas abzuschneiden"
      Deutscher Bundestag 2012: "Jungen sind nicht unbedingt toll, so wie sie sind. Und alle Eltern haben das Recht ihnen weh zu tun und an ihrem Penis etwas abzuschneiden"