This week the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that a mother who was unhappy with the results of her sons circumcision cannot sue the hospital for malpractice.
Dawn and David Nelson claim that when their son was born in January 2000,a doctor removed "the most erogenous tissue" and they were not satisfied with the results.Apparently it did not "look right".
Their attorney,Zenas Baer claims they did not consent to the procedure but doctors at Unity Hospital in Fridley,Minnesota,say the Nelsons checked off a box on prenatal forms indicating they wanted a circumcision if the expected baby was male.The Nelsons already reached an undisclosed settlement in their suit against Dr.Steven Berestka for assault,battery and negligence but the suit against the hospital and its parent company was dismissed.Attorney Baer says that the Nelsons will appeal,and added that a second circumcision was performed on the child in question for "cosmetic reasons".
Apparently Zenas Baer has a thing about circumcision-his website proclaims that he "contributes substantial amounts of time to ending the barbaric practice of routine infant male circumcision worldwide, insuring genital integrity for all citizens of the world."HUH?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
IMO an un-circumsized penis is ugly. Not to mention the risk of infesction from having foreskin. "Foreskin" that even sounds nasty...lol...
ROFLMAO-
Up until I was older I thought they were all like that(circumcised)!!!!Truthfully,I have never seen a "live" uncut penis,only on movies or in magazines,lol and if I ever saw one up close I would probably run away from it because they just do not look right!LOL-Alot of pregnant women nowadays are encouraged to NOT circumcize their boys because they have been told it is "unnatural and barbaric" but to me it has hygenic and cosmetic value.Thankfully I have no sons so I never had to make that decision!The Jewish and some Muslims performed them years before the rest of the world caught up.
"Truthfully,I have never seen a "live" uncut penis,only on movies or in magazines,lol"
IN MOVIES HUH???!!!!
IN MAGAZINES HUH????!!!
YOU NASTY GIRL!!!! JUST KIDDING
Average Girl and blutojthetotmom.........
A naturally intact male has no more risk for an infection than does a woman. The key here is personal responsibility for ones Hygiene. If you don't wash your body it's not your body's fault. All men are born with a natural genitalia, but many here in the US are forced to undergo unnecessary surgery called circumcision. Eighty percent of the men in the world remain as god/nature created them.
Circumcision removes some of the most sensitive tissue from the male genitalia. Perhaps that's why tens of thousand of men are restoring their foreskins - they want to have sex as Nature intended for them to have...with an intact foreskin. I suggest you take a walk in the outdoors and learn to enjoy and respect all that nature/god created. Nothing is ugly - the ugliness is in you.
Anon...
Its nothing personal,its just a matter of what one is accustomed to ,I figure.I never had to make that decision so I dont know what I would choose.Not to get too risque but I am 36 and I have seen my share of "Johnsons"and have yet to see one au naturel so to me its unusual.There aren't any "bad" ones.....
Post a Comment