German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:17

Moses said:
And how is circumcision best, objectively speaking? As already established, the safe sex part is baloney, as a) it's only lowers the risk, b) shouldn't be happening with kids who can't choose to get circumcised anyway (even if a tiny minority fall into that camp, safe sex >>>>>>> being circumcised). To help protect my kids against STIs, I'll just teach them about safe sex, rather than mutilating them... a far more effective option.

How is mutilating a child imposing/instilling decency/safety? Lowering the odds of contracting STIs isn't safety, nor is it 'decent', by any standard.

We've been over this back and forth, it's all ready been answered. Like i said earlier some people just don't want to see.

As already established, the safe sex part is baloney - Oh it has has it?

Like i said don't have your children circumcised, just don't force your opinion on us who do decide its worthy

Okay...

Im pretty

about this response. Not even sure your being serious?

You do realise children have sex with one another, like say two 12 year olds?

Spenty · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:23

Moses said:
It has categorically not been answered.

It's by no stretch of the imagination 'normal'. If you hold that view, you are literally insane, by definition.

It isn't normal here in the UK but that doesn't make it abnormal elsewhere in the world.

RDM · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:25

Craterloads said:
Because it is the parents responsibilty to whats best for his/her child. Who else is going to impose/instill decency and safety into thier child?

I suppose your like this woman then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-reveal-sex-gender-neutral-child-Sasha.html

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that parents should be able to do what the like with their children whilst at the same time having a go at a parent doing what they like with their child?

dirtychinchilla · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:25

Wow Castiel, that's pretty interesting stuff. The important thing that I took from it was about entering into a covenant, and to enter a covenant awareness of what you're taking on is required (or words to that effect), so in a biblical sense are Jews doing it wrong??

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:28

Moses said:
It has categorically not been answered.

It's by no stretch of the imagination 'normal'. If you hold that view, you are literally insane, by definition.

how can one debate with you? You are borderline delusional.

Eight out of 10 teenagers lose their virginity when they are drunk, feeling pressurised into having sex or are not using contraception, a survey has revealed.

One-quarter of girls have underage sex but fewer than one-third go to family planning clinics to get advice on contraception or sexually transmitted diseases, says a study.

This was from 2000, the issue has become worse i am led to believe.

from 2009

The latest disturbing statistics show that more than 60 per cent of girls have had sex under the age of 16

What planet are you living on?

Castiel · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:30

Spenty said:
It isn't normal here in the UK but that doesn't make it abnormal elsewhere in the world.

In Europe the age fo consent seems to vary between 13 (Spain) and 18 (Malta) with the majority sitting around 14-16......

Which is actually lower than most Asian and Muslim Countries....the only country I can find with an age of consent as low as 12 is Angola and even then if sex is between a 12 and a 16 year old that still constitutes sexual abuse....

UncleRuckus · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:33

Craterloads stop making strawmen. You are making yourself look foolish.

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:40

Moses said:
Teenager = 13-19. You were saying it's normal for kids 12-16, and sometimes below.

Also, from twelve years ago? Great.

Also, where's it from?

I've seen stats of 4/10 girls have underage sex, but that doesn't make it normal. And the way to make that safe isn't to circumcise everyone (something that doesn't stop STIs)... it's to teach about safe sex (basically, using condoms).

How is circumcision the way forward, when it merely improves a person's odds? Especially when it has downsides. Contraception's the way forward, no? Especially when condoms basically don't have downsides.

What are the downsides of circumcision? Dulling sensation? all ready been proved baloney.

Ok so 4/10 girls having underage sex isn't normal for you? Maybe i should have said common instead?

According to new research, 27% of young women, and 22% of men, had sex before the age of 16.

Health Survey for England 2011

Tombo · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:43

I want to know who all these children are with STDs, and not using a condom.

Sounds like a failure in education that circumcision isn't going to help.

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:43

RDM said:
So let me get this straight, you are arguing that parents should be able to do what the like with their children whilst at the same time having a go at a parent doing what they like with their child?

Castiel · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:45

dirtychinchilla said:
Wow Castiel, that's pretty interesting stuff. The important thing that I took from it was about entering into a covenant, and to enter a covenant awareness of what you're taking on is required (or words to that effect), so in a biblical sense are Jews doing it wrong??

It can certainly be argued that way, that the they are basically following a tradition and custom because of a politically motivated addition to the interpretation of the Torah during the Second Temple Period....and thus the original covenant did not require it and if you read the covenant based on the Yahwist or J text instead of the amalgamation of the J, P ,E and D texts you have the covenant being unconditional between God and Abraham..it can be argued that the conditional part of the covenant is inconsistent with the context of the passage....

It would take significantly more research on my part (and looking at the texts themselves in their totality) to present this as anything other than an opinion based on a cursory look at some of the evidence however......

I may give it more than the half an hour over the week if I have time...it's interesting if nothing more.

RDM · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:47

Craterloads said:

It smacks of hypocrisy. Your argument for circumcision seems to be "parents should be allowed to do what they feel is best for heir child even if it means cutting bits off them." whilst seemingly being against a parent that is doing what they feel is best for their child.

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:48

McGill researchers use videos, high-tech sensors to measure arousal

McGill researchers using the latest technology may have finally debunked the enduring belief that circumcised men experience reduced sexual sensation compared to those who are uncircumcised.

"It was interesting how well-accepted this notion was, despite the fact that there was no empirical basis for it," said Kimberly Payne, PhD, the article's principal author.

The study, published in the May issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine, consisted of genital sensory testing conducted on circumcised and uncircumcised volunteer participants between the ages of 18 and 45. Both groups were tested during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal, and results showed no difference between the two groups in genital sensitivity to touch or pain

and results showed no difference between the two groups in genital sensitivity to touch or pain

http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=26068

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:51

RDM said:
It smacks of hypocrisy. Your argument for circumcision seems to be "parents should be allowed to do what they feel is best for heir child even if it means cutting bits off them." whilst seemingly being against a parent that is doing what they feel is best for their child.

Maybe i did not put it down so well, the point i was trying to make was giving your child too much choice isnt a good thing as illustrated by that mother.

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:53

Moses said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Foreskin_sensitivity

I have all ready countered the dulling of sensation arguments, see below a second source.

McGill researchers use videos, high-tech sensors to measure arousal

McGill researchers using the latest technology may have finally debunked the enduring belief that circumcised men experience reduced sexual sensation compared to those who are uncircumcised.

"It was interesting how well-accepted this notion was, despite the fact that there was no empirical basis for it," said Kimberly Payne, PhD, the article's principal author.

The study, published in the May issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine, consisted of genital sensory testing conducted on circumcised and uncircumcised volunteer participants between the ages of 18 and 45. Both groups were tested during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal, and results showed no difference between the two groups in genital sensitivity to touch or pain

and results showed no difference between the two groups in genital sensitivity to touch or pain

http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=26068

Naffa · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:59

You're welcome to saw the end of your own penis off, but don't do it to young children. Thanks.

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:59

Moses said:
Posting a link that counters what someone else says doesn't mean you automatically 'win' . Two studies showed two things, great.

Fair point, there are conflicting results, do we agree?

Is it then fair to dismiss the "dulling" argument against circumcision as there is no "conclusive" evidence to suggest this.?

Tombo · 2 Jul 2012 at 18:59

Craterloads said:
Maybe i did not put it down so well, the point i was trying to make was giving your child too much choice isnt a good thing as illustrated by that mother.

There's a difference between letting your kids do whatever they want and deciding if they should have some of their penis skin cut off.

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 19:09

Moses said:
Let's throw the dulling of sensation stuff to the side - how can you justify mutilating a child's penis, before they can choose for themselves? I don't see the sexual health arguments as legitimate, for the aforementioned reasons (the fact circumcision doesn't protect, it just lowers odds... and the fact that safe sex + contraception is far, far more effective, and doesn't require mutilation).

You can't see them as legitimate but others do, that's just a difference of opinion.

Like in the study in Africa there was a significant decrease of the spreading of HIV among people that had been circumcised as children. Isn't that worth it alone?

For example let's say someone from a deprived area decides he want to circumcise his child to reduce the possible of their child contracting STDs when they are older. Maybe the area the parents are from have a high rate of pre 16 years having sex. As many parents will know it's difficult to control your children, when they get to that age. you can only hope how you have raised them will stop them from making these bad decisions for example using preotection and not having sex pre 16. But as an extra layer of protection you decide circumcision is a healthy option, then what is wrong with that?

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 19:45

Moses said:
It's fine for you to have a difference of opinion... but you still haven't justified imposing that differing opinion on a child. Is that because you cannot?.

Protecting your child against possible STD's is not imposing an opinion on them, is it?

Don't parents impose their opinion on their children all the time. Being raised as a Christian/Muslim/Jew is imposing your opinion on them. Not breast feeding is enforcing your opinion, choice of clothes, the school you choose, the food you provide, the morals you instil, the language you speak etc etc are all imposing you opinion on to your child. It's Not wrong to impose your opinion onto YOUR child. In fact i would says it's of benefit for the child.

Yes some of these you can change when you are of a consenting age but some you cant.

Circumcision isn't a realistic extra level of protection, if someone's having sex without a condom, with people who have STIs - it's not as though it lowers the odds of contracting STIs to a negligible level. To think so is madness. To use that as justification to mutilate is dishonestly exaggerating the effects of circumcision in order to justify a person opinion.

It is in fact an extra level of protection as shown by the studies, this is irrefutable.

No one said to a "negligible level"

38-66% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men

That's either 1/3 or 2/3, that is a hugely significant number! you cannot refute this?

I've only once had unprotected sex, that i regretted deeply, and that was when i was on holiday. I was drunk and stoned and decided it was a good idea having unprotected sex with let's just say a "questionable" woman. Weeks afterwards it would play on my mind, what if i have contracted something etc. Anyhow i had myself checked out a few weeks later and thankfully i was fine. Maybe given the fact i am circumcised it protected me from contracting something from this "questionable" woman, i may have been one of the 2/3 people from the statistic above.