German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

[dowie]

I am saying that as children get older they are less likely to be indoctrinated into a specific position....especially religion as in today's society particularly they are exposed to so many opposing views and ideologies that they, as a rule, choose their own position when they are in a position to do so.

I think this depends on the religion to an extent - I'd be inclined to agree with you with regards to Christianity in general in this country whether Catholic or Protestant - lots of people will retain the traditions so far as celebrating Easter/Christmas but won't necessarily be regular Church goers and often be quite ambivalent to the whole thing.... either becoming atheist/agnostic or just sort of believe in something...

I'm not sure the same is true about other faiths... some people are quite proud of their traditions and I really can't see any of my Sikh or Muslim friends ever not being say Sikh or Muslim - conversion between the two faiths is rather rare and I can remember there being a lot of fights between the two groups at school. They're Sikh or Muslim as a result of their parents being Sikh or Muslim and they're rather unlikely to switch or adopt another faith - in fact many would be disowned by their family/community if they did so.

 

[Twirlywoos]

I find it funny that the "modern" Christians always want to butt kick into other religions affairs when there own institution is like watching an episode of the wombles.

Judiasm- it's laws, culture and rituals will prosper regardless of the Germans, Athiests and those who call themselves "Christians".

 

[Craterloads]

It doesn't properly protect them from STDs, and requires mutilation. Condoms do properly protect, and don't require mutilation. Which option is obviously vastly better?

Again throwing the term "mutilation" around does not strengthen you case, just shows how weak it is. We have all ready established that the "dulling sensation" theory is not to be used, as there is no conclusive evidence.

The definition for mutilation is:

To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple

Now considering the "dulling sensation" argument is not do be used, there's no crippling being done here? The function of the penis remains the same. In fact as pointed out there are actual benefits.

None of the above includes mutilation.

Not to beat a dead horse but as mentioned in this thread, ear piercing and vaccine jabs etc could be classed as mutilation going off your criteria. I have answered above regarding the term "mutilation" which by the way you have used 4 times in a single post

Yes, it would improve the odds. But if someone was having sex with a partner with HIV, being circumcised wouldn't be a legitimate defence against contracting it. It'd be like putting a bit of tarp up, in preparation for a full-on hurricane. Does the tarp give added protection? Well, yes... undeniably... but it's basically pointless. That slight improvement in odds isn't a justification for permanent mutilation, when vastly better alternatives exist (condoms).

It's not pointless as all ready proven. Yes its best to use a condom, but sometimes people don't, forget or are caught up in the moment. Surely that extra level of protection , however minute it is (although its in fact not minute - 33% -66%) is worth having?

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Just a quick reminder about personal attacks guys - keep it civil please

 

[CaptainRAVE]

It would be unwise to continue this personal argument beyond my warning.

 

[RDM]

The definition for mutilation is:

Actually, sorry to be pedantic here, but that is "A" definition of mutilation, not "The" definition of mutilation. If we really want to play the definition game we can, but lets be honest we will be able to find definitions that match our personal point of view.

It's not pointless as all ready proven. Yes its best to use a condom, but sometimes people don't, forget or are caught up in the moment. Surely that extra level of protection , however minute it is (although its in fact not minute - 33% -66%) is worth having?

As with senstivity you seem to be only reading (or perhaps referencing) studies that agree with your stance. Possibly because you are getting your information from a pro-circumcision website? The jury is still out as to what impact circumcision has on HIV transmission and very little real research has been done on its impact on other STDs.

That aside, I feel that you may be being somewhat intellectually dishonest with this line of argument anyway. I doubt your parents circumcised you due to the possible (and highly dubious) health benefits and I doubt you would circumsize your own child for the health benefits.

If you really want to argue health benefits then on one side you have a range of dubious benefits which are currently unproven and actually don't really help all that much (are you really willing to just halve your chances of catching HIV?) against the actual and known complications that can arise from the procedure?

The only real justification that can be used is "It is religious/cultural", of course you can't actually use that argument because there is really no defense against the counter argument of "Surely then it can wait until the child can make an informed decision?"

 

[Craterloads]

Actually, sorry to be pedantic here, but that is "A" definition of mutilation, not "The" definition of mutilation. If we really want to play the definition game we can, but lets be honest we will be able to find definitions that match our personal point of view.

Fair point, thats what google's top answers were showing me and most of them follow the same theme.

As with senstivity you seem to be only reading (or perhaps referencing) studies that agree with your stance. Possibly because you are getting your information from a pro-circumcision website?

Hence why i stated its not an argument to be used. The same can be said about others who have used sources that agreed with their stances.

The jury is still out as to what impact circumcision has on HIV transmission and very little real research has been done on its impact on other STDs.

We can only go off the information that is currently available. Whilst i take them with a pinch of salt, there are obvious health/prevention benefits that are hard to dismiss?

That aside, I feel that you may be being somewhat intellectually dishonest with this line of argument anyway. I doubt your parents circumcised you due to the possible (and highly dubious) health benefits and I doubt you would circumsize your own child for the health benefits.

No they didn't and i didnt say otherwise, but I'm glad they did given the current information available. And i wasn't being dishonest as my replies were geared towards the questions being asked by certain posters. The guys who were asking questions like "what health benefits" etc which influenced my replies.

If you really want to argue health benefits then on one side you have a range of dubious benefits which are currently unproven and actually don't really help all that much (are you really willing to just halve your chances of catching HIV?) against the actual and known complications that can arise from the procedure?

The complications are minute though? What percentage have complications especially when conducted by a medical professional in a clean and sterile environment? And halving the chance of contracting HIV is significant surely?

 

[V4NT0M]

Best thing that ever happened to me.

 

[Craterloads]

As RDM said, that's not the definition of mutilation. As you later said the top Google definition... the top Google response is actually,

In fact i said "google's top answers" Please if you are going to quote me do it correctly.

The oxford definitions are

inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on:

or

inflict serious damage on:

Which niether meet the criteria of classing circumcision as mutilation.

As I said earlier, we can put the sensation argument aside, if you so wish. Because aside from that, there's still no reason to mutilate - you talk about the medical reasons, but they're minor (if they were so significant, everyone would be getting circumcised, when they turned 16/18)... and the small decrease in the likelihood of getting STIs when circumcised pales in comparison when compared to how condoms stop transmission of STIs (so condoms > circumcision, and don't require mutilation). Thus the medical argument doesn't stack up (circumcision doesn't stop STIs, whilst condoms do... with the former requiring mutilation, and the latter not).

It may be too late by the time they are 16-18, as illustrated earlier.

A lot of people do get circumcised though? As mentioned earlier its common in American and not for religious purposes.

Data from a national survey conducted from 1999 to 2002 found that the overall prevalence of male circumcision in the United States was 79%.[20] 91% of men born in the 1970s, and 83% of boys born in the 1980s were circumcised.[20] An earlier survey, conducted in 1992, found a circumcision prevalence of 77% in US-born men, born from 1932–1974, including 81% of non-Hispanic White men, 65% of Black men, and 54% of Hispanic men, vs. 42% of non U.S. born men who were circumcised.[21]

No one's doubting the effectiveness of condoms? As mentioned sometimes condoms are not used for various reason, heck sometimes condoms split! However effective condoms are doesn't take away from the benefits of circumcision.

Again and again I've said I'm also against ear piercing and suchlike. However, vaccinations provide an extremely significant protection against serious things (contrasted with circumcision, which doesn't protect against serious things, as it merely reduces odds... but reduces them in a small way, so as to not be a robust defence against STIs).

In your opinion, some people would say the benefits are huge, some little.

Off current information 33% to 66% is not insignificant, its huge!

Like i mentioned eelier i have a large scar from my vaccination, that logic is the same regardless of how important you think the treatments are.

No, it's not, at the cost of being mutilated, without their consent, as a child. Evidenced by how adults don't all go and get circumcised as soon as it's their choice.

In your opinion, some like me disagree. Any one of the health benefits mentioned is enough for me. I listed about 11 in my earlier post. plus when of consenting age its a bigger decision, no one wants to get the "chop" as an adult.

 

[Pighardia]

We often see religious threads going round in circles with no progress being made, but this is on another level!

 

[Gackt]

We often see religious threads going round in circles with no progress being made, but this is on another level!

This. It's not going to end. You have two sides that will not back down.

a) Believe in child mutilation, the choice of a parent to be able to mutilate their child, don't actually believe cutting off parts of children amounts to mutilation, or use their quasi-religious hoo-haw to justify their insanity.

and

b) Who are vehemently against child mutilation, child abuse or anything that indoctrinates or forces something unnatural upon a child, support circumcision only in medically necessary cases or as an adult through informed choice, or who believe that cult rituals have no place in the upbringing of children - especially ones with high risk and negligible benefits.

This debate will go nowhere.

 

[Craterloads]

Google 'define: mutilation'.

This is getting pathetic now Google "mutilation definition" as it is what typed. 1st clickable result - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilate

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_n....,cf.osb&fp=1d633261c2cc3a3f&biw=1920&bih=966

Not if practising safe sex. Whilst circumcising won't magically protect.

Like it's been said over and over again, sometimes safe sex is not practiced, for whatever reasons! get that into your skull. And when this circumstance arises you will have a significant better chance of avoiding STD's if circumcised

How many chose to get circumcised as an adult, though. That's the point. When they can choose to, after knowing the benefits, who does?

It's too big of a decision at this stage, like i said who wants to get the "chop" as an adult. Ask most people who had the "chop" as an adult and they will tell you they wished they had it as an infant. Plus like I said it may be too late by then. As an example the earlier poster who said he was too embarrassed to tell anyone he was circumcised as an adult, only one or two people know.

There are undeniable 'benefits', but they're not significant enough to impose mutilation on a child. These 'benefits' merely reduce the risk the point where the risk is still stupidly high. It's like covering yourself in water and running through fire - great, the water offers some protection, but the odds of getting burned are still make it a retarded thing to do... with the sensible choice being to either not run through fire, or to wear the proper equipment!

Like i said it's called "circumcision" the more you keep saying mutilation the more pathetic your reasoning becomes. How many times have you said it so far in this thread? pathetic really.

And like i said just because you don't think the benefits are worthy enough to warrant circumcision, other do - Deal with it. All the benefits that have been mentioned and you still ignore them, as i have stated in this thread some people do not wish to see even if its staring them in the face.

The number's big, congrats. The point is that the remaining risk is still huge, though, and means that circumcision doesn't offer realistic protection, if engaging in sexual intercourse. Condoms do.

Again your making it out if we're/i am denying condoms use. Please understand, condoms are great but sometimes they are not used. The numbers and benefits speak for themselves, just because you're so hell bent on being "right" your completely ignoring them or playing them down like they are insignificant. Yes the risks are still significant but any improvement from such a minor procedure, that has been proven un-harmful (as it stands) is worth it.

No. Vaccinations are basically essential/are vitally important. Circumscion, on the other hand, is completely unnessecary (condoms offer complete protection, without mutilation... compared with circumcision poor protection, with mutilation).

As above and in your opinion. Vaccinations are life savers and in some cases so is circumcision.

Great, you have an opinion. Why do you have the right to impose that on a child? That's the point that still remains unanswered. Again.

Its been aswered over and over again. For the childs benifit, as any loving caring parent wishes their child to live a healthy risk free life. Its not an opinion when there are actual proven medical benifits.

The only opinion here is you dont see them as worthy.

 

[olivier renault]

If I post again, euthanise me!

Deal!

 

[Robbo]

This. It's not going to end. You have two sides that will not back down.

a) Believe in child mutilation, the choice of a parent to be able to mutilate their child, don't actually believe cutting off parts of children amounts to mutilation, or use their quasi-religious hoo-haw to justify their insanity.

and

b) Who are vehemently against child mutilation, child abuse or anything that indoctrinates or forces something unnatural upon a child, support circumcision only in medically necessary cases or as an adult through informed choice, or who believe that cult rituals have no place in the upbringing of children - especially ones with high risk and negligible benefits.

This debate will go nowhere.

Well put. Thankfully most people are sensible and are in camp B.

 

[RDM]

Hence why i stated its not an argument to be used. The same can be said about others who have used sources that agreed with their stances.

I think you misunderstand, the advantages of circumcision with regards to HIV are also in doubt, studies have also shown a possible increase in the chance of infection and no impact at all.

The complications are minute though? What percentage have complications especially when conducted by a medical professional in a clean and sterile environment? And halving the chance of contracting HIV is significant surely?

You don't know all that much about HIV infection rates do you? In a developed country the transmission chance from a HIV+ woman to a man is thought to be somewhere around 0.04%, so circumcision will reduce this to 0.02% (if it reduces it at all). Not exactly a massive benefit. Bearing in mind of course if it is a 1 in 2500 or 1 in 5000 you only need to be unlucky once. Condom use however works much better, reducing the risk to pretty much zero if used correctly.

As for the rate of complications only figures I could find suggest about a 1.5% chance for infants circumcised in a medical facility, much higher when done ritually.

 

[Mickie]

if jews want to continue doing it, its upto them, not upto germany imo

they do it to keep it clean down there as they obviously dont know how to shower properly

 

[MooMoo444]

Only takes a discussion on penises to get people posting.

 

[Zodar]

Well put. Thankfully most people are sensible and are in camp B.

Maybe here, but not generally, or we would not put up with it. The Germans have said no, when will the English?

It's simple really. You go cut up innocents without their consent, you lose the right to your own body's integrity.

 

[Craterloads]

I think you misunderstand, the advantages of circumcision with regards to HIV are also in doubt, studies have also shown a possible increase in the chance of infection and no impact at all.

Source, im going of info from the NHS and others, which i am inclined to believe as it stands now.

You don't know all that much about HIV infection rates do you? In a developed country the transmission chance from a HIV+ woman to a man is thought to be somewhere around 0.04%, so circumcision will reduce this to 0.02% (if it reduces it at all). Not exactly a massive benefit. Bearing in mind of course if it is a 1 in 2500 or 1 in 5000 you only need to be unlucky once. Condom use however works much better, reducing the risk to pretty much zero if used correctly.

I was in fact talking about the minor procedure of circumcision. I don't know how you have calculated your figures but im going off the NHS website.

Research in Africa found that heterosexual circumcised men are 38-66% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men.

And it's not just HIV, there are many other benefits, which have been mentioned.

And no ones doubting the effectiveness of condoms.

As for the rate of complications only figures I could find suggest about a 1.5% chance for infants circumcised in a medical facility, much higher when done ritually.

Case and point, all this rule is going to do and drive it underground resulting in more complications.

 

[Zodar]

if jews want to continue doing it, its upto them, not upto germany imo

they do it to keep it clean down there as they obviously dont know how to shower properly

With that logic I might as well come and amputate your little fingers. You don't really "need" them, do well enough without them, and I have cultural and religious reasons to do without your consent.