Wetsvoorstel: Het is verboden te snijden in kinderen die nog niet de leeftijd van 18 jaar hebben bereikt; medische situaties uitgezonderd.
Ben said "not including medical situations" so why bring up circumcision? I agree though, but this poll is not about that
-
-
I do think circumcision is part of it though, because 99% of the cases it's a religious things, not something that is medically needed. You're not allowed to cut in girls' genitals, but we allow it for boys? WHY?
-
Regardless of the reason, it is still a medical procedure. If the reason is "Cuz God told us to cut baby penises" then it is horribly wrong
-
Only a small percentage of circumcisions have a medical reason as intended by Ben, most are based on either religion or tradition.
-
Yes, I know. But the foreskin removing surgery is still a medical procedure. I may have misunderstood the point of the tweet then, I apologize
-
It can have medical reasons, but mostly foreskin removal is religiously inspired. And that in my view is mutilation fo children. Regardless if the procedure is done professionally.
-
I agree with that
-
There was an article in a Dutch newspaper that talked of FGM. It was the inspiration for the tweet. I can't believe we as humans are still talking about circamstances in which it is acceptable to cut children with a knive.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I agree, as in it should be illegal under 18 unless it is necessary.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I interpreted it as meaning situations where it is medically necessary.
-
Yea i get it now
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.