German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

You can't have a discussion at all.

You've avoided every single question and keep peddling the same nonsense that has been shown to be factually incorrect. :confused:



What, you and a 12 year old child who doesn't know any better and couldn't answer some simple questions either? :confused:

Again robbo just because you ignore things and class them as nonsense doesnt make your ight. I have answered all questions put my way, well as much as i could keep up to "the questions". It is usually how you debate, dismis everything others have to say?
 
Craterloads, I'm not dismissing anything you say just because my opinion differs. Please, can you explain factually what the hygiene benefits are? All you've said so far is based on your opinion which, although just as important as everyone elses in it's own right, is actually based on things that are not true.
 
Again robbo just because you ignore things and class them as nonsense doesnt make your ight. I have answered all questions put my way, well as much as i could keep up to "the questions". It is usually how you debate, dismis everything others have to say?

What are you talking about?! :confused:

You've provided one reason, which has been shown to be factually wrong - nothing to do with my opinion.

You've effectively stuck your head in the sand and answered nothing. The fact your children may suffer because of this just makes it even more tragic. :(

For the last time, and you'll probably ignore this again - explain to me why circumcision is a good idea?
 
Again robbo just because you ignore things and class them as nonsense doesnt make your ight. I have answered all questions put my way, well as much as i could keep up to "the questions". It is usually how you debate, dismis everything others have to say?

They are classed as nonsense because you just spouted complete fiction that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Are you genuinely this stupid? You're either a very good troll or incredibly dumb.
 
The thing is that this is a cultural and religious affectation, it isn't done for medical reasons...at least not in the modern world anyway.

Like I said earlier, on a personal level I see why people are opposed to it, I am opposed to it personally, I think it is something that no longer has a religious justification.....but objectively we need to consider that this is not new, it has been going on for thousands of years, over 1/3 of the worlds men are reported to be circumcised and while modern ideas on personal freedom are important, it should also be considered in the wider context of cultural differences and the rights we have to impose one cultures set of values upon another culture and it should be mentioned that while some individual medical professionals are vocally opposed, the BMA and GMC are not.

The important thing here is too make sure that those who are circumcised are done so in proper clinical environments and every care is taken to ensure there are no complications....and if we can encourage and persuade people to alter their traditional views on their own terms then all the better....banning it will only create more problems and put more children at risk as other less reliable sources are sought to do the procedure.
 
Seriously, if you shower every day like a normal person, having a foreskin isn't exactly An Impediment That Must Be Cut Off.

If you weren't supposed to have a foreskin, it would have gone over the ages via evolutionary feedback. This whole smegma thing is absolute nonsense. If you have issues with smegma to the extent that you feel you need to argue til you're blue in the face for the removal of foreskin, then I suggest you get a shower immediately and stop stinking this forum up.
 
The thing is that this is a cultural and religious affectation, it isn't done for medical reasons...at least not in the modern world anyway.

Like I said earlier, on a personal level I see why people are opposed to it, I am opposed to it personally, I think it is something that no longer has a religious justification.....but objectively we need to consider that this is not new, it has been going on for thousands of years, over 1/3 of the worlds men are reported to be circumcised and while modern ideas on personal freedom are important, it should also be considered in the wider context of cultural differences and the rights we have to impose one cultures set of values upon another culture and it should be mentioned that while some individual medical professionals are vocally opposed, the BMA and GMC are not.

The important thing here is too make sure that those who are circumcised are done so in proper clinical environments and every care is taken to ensure there are no complications....and if we can encourage and persuade people to alter their traditional views on their own terms then all the better....banning it will only create more problems and put more children at risk as other less reliable sources are sought to do the procedure.

We can't permit something just in case people do it illegally.

Are you going to have child rape centres where condoms and proper hygiene are practised to prevent children getting STDs or pregnant?

Are you going to have council run dog fighting pits and invite all the bookies there, run a bar etc just to stop the illegal ones?
 
Anyone who believes having a foreskin is unhygienic has to be just a genuinely unhygienic person full stop. Anyone who actually washes themselves on a regular basis understands it isn't.
 
People come across as stupid because they are starting from a position they are sure is correct, and then work backwards, trying to match the facts to fit.

In my mind, infant circumcision (for non-medical reasons) is wrong. Parents do have to make decisions for their child before they are old enough to consent, but permanently cutting a bit off a child's body goes too far in my mind. If the child really wants it, they can choose for themselves when they are older. Surprised there hasn't been a legal case before tbh.
 
Last edited:
We can't permit something just in case people do it illegally.

Are you going to have child rape centres where condoms and proper hygiene are practised to prevent children getting STDs or pregnant?

Are you going to have council run dog fighting pits and invite all the bookies there, run a bar etc just to stop the illegal ones?

I think we need to separate the idea that circumcision is comparable to child rape, dog fighting or any other irrelevant comparison and actually discuss it objectively and sensibly. Silly and outrageous comparisons simply devalue the discussion and turn it into a slanging match.

The biggest issue here is the welfare of the child, and you do not change thousands of years of tradition and cultural adherence within Judaism and to a lesser extent Islam by simply imposing legal bindings on them.....

It is a gradual and slow process of persuasion and cultural change, imposing legal restraint will simply adversely affect the relationship between the religions hierarchies and the State as well as impact the safety and welfare of the children. This is a decision that needs to be dealt with in way that is respectful of the beliefs of those involved and also at the same time works toward ultimately discontinuing the practice.
 
Last edited:
We don't make it easy for people to say "You know something. I've changed my mind, I've read what you had to say and it doesn't match what I thought so I now agree with you. Thanks for the effort" because the forum tends to hit back with personal attacks as a response to that.

wrong.jpg


That's what I mean.
 
I think we need to separate the idea that circumcision is comparable to child rape, dog fighting or any other irrelevant comparison and actually discuss it objectively and sensibly. Silly and outrageous comparisons simply devalue the discussion and turn it into a slanging match.

A comparison can most certainly be made - it is however nothing like as serious - but is the difference that stark? Imagine a 25 year old who needs counselling because his parents invited people to mutilate him in a ceremony when he was a child?

The point is though that it's a vile practice, it should be made illegal and refusing to make it illegal because some people will do it anyway is not a good reason.
 
We don't make it easy for people to say "You know something. I've changed my mind, I've read what you had to say and it doesn't match what I thought so I now agree with you. Thanks for the effort" because the forum tends to hit back with personal attacks as a response to that.

[IM]http://halk.onyx.feralhosting.com/wrong.jpg[/IMG]

That's what I mean.

Craterloads is free to admit he's wrong. He must know by now that he is.

Unfortunately as the change to his body is a permanent one, it must be extra difficult to come to terms with for him.
 
A comparison can most certainly be made - it is however nothing like as serious - but is the difference that stark? Imagine a 25 year old who needs counselling because his parents invited people to mutilate him in a ceremony when he was a child?

The point is though that it's a vile practice, it should be made illegal and refusing to make it illegal because some people will do it anyway is not a good reason.

I disagree...all it does is devalues your argument as you need to rely on extreme comparison to make your point.

And the welfare of the child is the most important thing, and the consequences of an outright, immediate ban should be considered when judging the relative harm in each decision, rather than knee jerk reactions based on outrage and differences in cultural beliefs.

If there was an immediate and proven danger to children's health then you may have a point, however as 1/3 of men are thought to be circumsised the relative harm of driving the practice underground or abroad should certainly influence our decision making regarding the welfare and best interests of the child in the circumstances presented.....As is the reality of whether the banning of the practice outright would actually be an effective way of halting the practice.

That is not an acceptance of the practice, but an objective consideration of the issues and relative harm surrounding the practice and the most effective way of ensuring the welfare of the children are maintained while attempting to change people's attitudes.
 
Last edited:
I'll admit I'm wrong when it turns out I am actually wrong. And I have done so in the past.

Me too. I do this all the time! I actually like being proved wrong about something - note... PROVED wrong - because it makes me feel like I'm now a little bit more right through being educated in the matter.
 
Me too. I do this all the time! I actually like being proved wrong about something - note... PROVED wrong - because it makes me feel like I'm now a little bit more right through being educated in the matter.

Not to mention that if you establish a reputation of being The Guy Who Admits When He's Wrong, then when you actually stand your ground on something, people are more likely to listen to you.
 
So, Craterloads... do you have any defense against the explanation that your assumptions about human biology are incorrect?
 
I disagree...all it does is devalues your argument as you need to rely on extreme comparison to make your point.

And the welfare of the child is the most important thing, and the consequences of an outright, immediate ban should be considered when judging the relative harm in each decision, rather than knee jerk reactions based on outrage and differences in cultural beliefs.

If there was an immediate and proven danger to children's health then you may have a point, however as 1/3 of men are thought to be circumsised the relative harm of driving the practice underground or abroad should certainly influence our decision making regarding the welfare and best interests of the child in the circumstances presented.....As is the reality of whether the banning of the practice outright would actually be an effective way of halting the practice.

That is not an acceptance of the practice, but an objective consideration of the issues and relative harm surrounding the practice and the most effective way of ensuring the welfare of the children are maintained while attempting to change people's attitudes.

I understand what you're saying, however, surely it should be the child's decision. The practice is archaic and serves no purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom