German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

No1newts · 2 Jul 2012 at 22:15

Gackt said:
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.

Nice way to present two even choices and not weight it :rolleyes:

Also it's probably been pointed out but I have to say it.,, the Germans are persecuting the Jews?!?! Never!

Ok I'll leave now

Apok · 2 Jul 2012 at 22:19

I was circumcised as a youngish child for medical reasons which i won't go into, and whilst i personally wouldn't want to be uncircumcised doesn't mean i find it and acceptable practice for children to be mutilated for religious reasons.

Good on germany for teh ban.

Xordium · 2 Jul 2012 at 22:28

A good ruling about a practice that has no place in society unless indicated for medical reasons.

RDM · 2 Jul 2012 at 22:30

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

Would that be because it supports your view?

Anyway, have a read of the wiki page, lots of conflicting information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

Craterloads said:
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.

I calculated my figures by halving the chance of transmission. :confused:

Having sex with a woman that has HIV has a relatively low risk of transmission so halving it gives you half a relatively low risk of transmission. I was using the figure you supplied for the effect of circumsion and applying it to the figures for HIV transmission rates. So you go from a 1 in 2500 chance to a 1 in 5000 chance of catching HIV.

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

Which is a completely different argument again and similar to the one Castiel made earlier. But as it isn't an excuse we allow for the various cultures that practice female genital circumcision I am not sure exactly why we should use it for male circumcision. Obviously an outright immediate ban is probably not the correct way of going about it but a ban is probably going to be necessary eventually.

It may be that Germany banning it a good start towards the practice starting to become socially unacceptable and start the discourse that can lead to it dying out as a practice.

Craterloads · 2 Jul 2012 at 22:38

RDM said:
Would that be because it supports your view?

Anyway, have a read of the wiki page, lots of conflicting information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

No because its a source that everyone can live with.

I calculated my figures by halving the chance of transmission.

Having sex with a woman that has HIV has a relatively low risk of transmission so halving it gives you half a relatively low risk of transmission. I was using the figure you supplied for the effect of circumsion and applying it to the figures for HIV transmission rates. So you go from a 1 in 2500 chance to a 1 in 5000 chance of catching HIV.

So in essence after all that, twice as better odds.

Which is a completely different argument again and similar to the one Castiel made earlier. But as it isn't an excuse we allow for the various cultures that practice female genital circumcision I am not sure exactly why we should use it for male circumcision. Obviously an outright immediate ban is probably not the correct way of going about it but a ban is probably going to be necessary eventually.

An additional point. I wouldn't class female genital mutilation with male circumcision though, any logical person wouldn't..

It may be that Germany banning it a good start towards the practice starting to become socially unacceptable and start the discourse that can lead to it dying out as a practice.

In your opinion, billions disagree with you. You make it out as if its conclusively the "right" thing to do.

Castiel · 2 Jul 2012 at 22:49

All these arguments justifying it by providing medical reasons are only valid if there is no other less invasive way of accomplishing the same or greater results......and as there are a myriad of alternatives to circumcision for every one of those so far mentioned, many of which are also far more effective and non-permanent I think it is increasingly pointless to continue that line of justification.......particularly as religious circumcision in Judaism at least, is based almost exclusively on an interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture and not on a cultural necessity based on medical benefits.

Xordium · 2 Jul 2012 at 22:49

There are multiple forms of female and male circumcision. It is common for the apologists to present the most severe form of the female and compare it to the most mild form of the male.

There is no religious obligation or origin for male circumcision the origin is ethnic and specific to regions.

The benefits to men from having circumcision are rather small unless there is a intrinsic personal need for a variety of reasons eg unresolved phimosis by the early teens. The benefit is more pronounced for potential partners. However, to justify harming someone to achieve a "greater good" eg beneficence vs non-maleficence then there has to be a marked interest for the person being harmed. This is not the case. Therefore, there is no ethical reason to justify male circumcision.

It is also quite interesting to see traditionally that the most eminent paediatric urologists who have advocated this procedure have primarily been male and Jewish in origin. In recent times as this has changed we can see a marked change in practice away from circumcision because it is not seen as a trivial or minor procedure but one with inherent risks, causing a great deal of pain and discomfort and most likely not medically indicated with our current level of knowledge.

Castiel · 2 Jul 2012 at 22:54

Xordium said:
There is no religious obligation or origin for male circumcision the origin is ethnic and specific to regions..

I beg to differ....Judaism exclusively refer to a specific passage in Genesis and one in Levitcus that refers to the condition of the Abraham Covenant....this is the primary justification for the Brit Milah and as such is definitively a religious obligation, at least in mainstream Judaism.

The historical origins are not known, but there are several hypotheses, some of which I touched on briefly in an earlier post.

The rest of your post is not my balliwick and I bow to your greater knowledge.

Xordium · 2 Jul 2012 at 23:04

Castiel said:
I beg to differ....Judaism exclusively refer to a specific passage in Genesis that refers to the condition of the Abraham Covenant....this is the primary justification for the Brit Milah and as such is definitively a relogious obligation, at least in mainstream Judaism.

The historical origins are not known, but there are several hypotheses, some of which I touched on briefly in an earlier post.

The rest of your post is not my balliwick and I bow to your greater knowledge.

Yes it is detailed but the practice was performed as a cultural practice before Judaism. Poorly phrased there by me.

cheets64 · 2 Jul 2012 at 23:15

Someone people in this thread are mental.

Like I said, I was done at an early age, its hardly the end of the world.

Castiel · 2 Jul 2012 at 23:15

Xordium said:
Yes it is detailed but the practice was performed as a cultural practice before Judaism. Poorly phrased there by me.

So far it appears that the general feeling is it originated with the Egyptians and spread through the surrounding Semitic Tribes as the Egyptian Culture gained primacy......I posted something along these lines earlier...also mentioning there is some evidence that indicates the practice of full circumcision is relatively recent within Judaism (coming during the Second Temple Period) and has its roots in politics rather than cultural heritage.

Xordium · 3 Jul 2012 at 11:04

cheets64 said:
Someone people in this thread are mental.

Like I said, I was done at an early age, its hardly the end of the world.

No it is not for you but for others who have suffered damage then yes it was the end of the world for those people. Damage that was wholly unnecessary and unwarranted or even substantiated by any reliable evidence we have to hand that is not easily refuted by public-health initiatives to achieve the same goal.

Castiel said:
So far it appears that the general feeling is it originated with the Egyptians and spread through the surrounding Semitic Tribes as the Egyptian Culture gained primacy......I posted something along these lines earlier...also mentioning there is some evidence that indicates the practice of full circumcision is relatively recent within Judaism (coming during the Second Temple Period) and has its roots in politics rather than cultural heritage.

Yes, but which Egyptians all of them ... no it was not ... indications are the practice was more to do with subjugation than any public health initiative.

Castiel · 3 Jul 2012 at 11:12

Xordium said:
Yes, but which Egyptians all of them ... no it was not ... indications are the practice was more to do with subjugation than any public health initiative.

That depends on who you listen to. A common belief was that circumcision was part of the identification of slave races in Egypt, but many modern Egyptologists point to evidence that suggests it was primarily an affectation of the Nobility (although not all) that then spread down to the masses. It was under Alexander the Great and the Hellenist abhorrence of the practice that changed that in Ptolemaic Egypt.

The point is that we really do not know the origin of the practice and there are several hypotheses that are currently doing the rounds.

Xordium · 3 Jul 2012 at 11:23

Castiel said:
That depends on who you listen to. A common belief was that circumcision was part of the identification of slave races in Egypt, but many modern Egyptologists point to evidence that suggests it was primarily an affectation of the Nobility (although not all) that then spread down to the masses. It was under Alexander the Great and the Hellenist abhorrence of the practice that changed that in Ptolemaic Egypt.

Well we will never answer that one emphatically as there is ample evidence either way. What we can categorically show is that religious demands that do not fit into the modern world have been discarded time and time again as they have been shown to be outdated and unethical by any modern criteria. This is a practice that fits that definition and should go out of the window. There is no reason to do it unless by not doing it you are causing greater physical harm and if that greater physical harm is being caused by rejection due to non-adherence then it those who would reject who should be challenged. Besides if someone makes a conscious choice later in life to have it done for religious then that is their right and I believe the scriptures cover the conversion and the requirements etc. It comes down to the fundamental fact that you are not born religious it has to be conscious choice and therefore all stipulations made on a child are stupid as a child and moreover an eight day old baby does not have sufficient capacity to make a leap of faith to believe in something that there can be no possible evidence for.

Castiel · 3 Jul 2012 at 11:25

Xordium said:
Well we will never answer that one emphatically as there is ample evidence either way. What we can categorically show is that religious demands that do not fit into the modern world have been discarded time and time again as they have been shown to be outdated and unethical by any modern criteria. This is a practice that fits that definition and should go out of the window. There is no reason to do it unless by not doing it you are causing greater physical harm and if that greater physical harm is being caused by rejection due to non-adherence then it those who would reject who should be challenged. Besides if someone makes a conscious choice later in life to have it done for religious then that is their right and I believe the scriptures cover the conversion and the requirements etc. It comes down to the fundamental fact that you are not born religious it has to be conscious choice and therefore all stipulations made on a child are stupid as a child and moreover an eight day old baby does not have sufficient capacity to make a leap of faith to believe in something that there can be no possible evidence for.

I agree, and this is something I explained earlier, specifically referring to Judaism and the nature of the covenant itself.

Pate · 3 Jul 2012 at 11:29

When you see the damage that can be done, you'd be a nutter to advocate it unless its necessary.

It's a mutilation of a child, taking away his right to chose and subjecting him to risks. Its abhorrent and I do honestly question those that support it.

The sooner the uk bans it with exceptions being for medical reasons and adults consenting, the better.

Haggisman · 3 Jul 2012 at 12:32

Craterloads said:
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.

What if a parent felt it was in the best interest of the child to slap them about a bit as punishment?

Do you think that would be acceptable? After all:

Craterloads said:
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?

There's nothing different about circumcision, except that it's advocated by religion.

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

Did you even read that link you posted?

Definition 2: "To disfigure by damaging irreparably"

Describes circumcision perfectly

Craterloads said:
no one wants to get the "chop" as an adult.

Perhaps there's a reason for that?

Perhaps it's a reason which should be considered before forcing it on a child?

Moses said:
Circumcision doesn't stop STIs... condoms do. Teach safe sex, don't mutilate!

Educate, not mutilate!

Craterloads · 13 Jul 2012 at 21:32

The German government says Jewish and Muslim communities should be able to continue the practice of circumcision, after a regional court ruled it amounted to bodily harm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145

Seems common sense has prevailed.

Gackt · 13 Jul 2012 at 22:07

Craterloads said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145

Seems common sense has prevailed.

Clearly not. Unless you support Child Abuse.

diamount · 13 Jul 2012 at 22:10

Should always be the boys choice once he reaches the age to make such decisions for himself. Cosmetic/hygienic reasons aside, forcing such a thing on your child is just immoral.