German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

Morbius · 25 Jul 2012 at 12:12

Gackt said:
Plus ears look better without them.

And if you get them lopped off when you're young, you won't remember the pain.

zenf · 25 Jul 2012 at 12:35

To the religious guys defending circumcision... Why is it that religious people don't perform tonsillectomies on their new-borns? Surely if they want to protect against future health problems, they've got a much better chance of doing that by removing the tonsils, rather than the foreskin?

Haggisman · 25 Jul 2012 at 12:39

Morbius said:
But if you don't wash your earlobe, it'll get dirty! You're better off not having earlobes.

Gackt said:
Plus ears look better without them.

Morbius said:
And if you get them lopped off when you're young, you won't remember the pain.

I'm also sure there are more people with earlobes who have HIV than there are without earlobes!

SteveOBHave · 25 Jul 2012 at 13:45

zenf1 said:
To the religious guys defending circumcision... Why is it that religious people don't perform tonsillectomies on their new-borns? Surely if they want to protect against future health problems, they've got a much better chance of doing that by removing the tonsils, rather than the foreskin?

Because it's hard to masturbate with your tonsils... someone elses tonsels, not a problem, but it's far more difficult with your own.

zenf · 25 Jul 2012 at 14:39

SteveOBHave said:
Because it's hard to masturbate with your tonsils... someone elses tonsels, not a problem, but it's far more difficult with your own.

Heh, yeah, that's pretty much my thoughts on it but I'd be interested to hear what someone who agrees with circumcision thinks.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:03

SteveOBHave said:
With all 'due' respect. Nothing has been proven over the last couple of pages other than statistical likelihoods. There are no 'facts' being demonstrated here at all. As for only positives? Again, there are a whole host of negatives associated with it beginning from removing the childs choice and following up with inflicting an entirely un-needed invasive medical procedure on a child at their most vulnerable. The only reason they are perceived by you as not being negatives is because you have blinkers on and only see 'your' positives. (ironically displaying a bigoted attitude)

Exactly, nothing has been proven. The whole debate started off with people regurgitating the same rubbish over and over again on how it dulls the "sensitivity" how damaging it is etc. When that was proved to be rubbish, you needed a new angle of attack which was formed around giving the child "choice", which again doesnt hold water. Now its moved to just hating religion? and your prejudices :rolleyes:

Again, its clear you have prejudices against religion, there was NOTHING bigoted about my statement, i quote

Ahh so heres where we see what actualy is your issue, sorry not going to happen. I assume you also want US to raise OUR children as nor gay or straight or male or female? and let them decide at consenting age?

Ironically you have been diplaying your bigotry throughout your responses, with your anti religion agenda. Me highlighting you prejudices against religion and disagreeing with them only highlights your bigotry, not make me one :confused:

Not at all. You can hold your opinion also, even if it is not based on reasonably consideration, but I do not support your right to physically inflict that opinion on a child. You, through your action and that of the doctor/surgeon, remove that childs right for choice even before they are able to develop an informed opinion of their own.

Dressing a boy as a boy is not 'damaging', it is applying a social norm. There is a vast difference. In Samoa it is a social norm that if a family wanted a girl but have had nothing but boys then the youngest boy is raised as a girl, known as a Fafafini. This is a social norm. It is not damaging to the child to be bough up in this way because he is not subject to social ostracization because of difference. Your analogy is equally as flawed as you saying that by my parents not cutting off my foreskin they are 'mutilating' me. It's incorrect by definition and a clearly ill conceived analogy

No ones asking for your support, were just asking not to be descriminated against because you dont feel circumcision provides "worthy" medical benifits or is justifiable as a religious ceremony. Where we differ is i believe if a child is born into a christian/muslim/jewish family he/she is of that religion. As an Athiest (i assume) your hatred and intolerance towards certain religions, forms the opinion a child should be raised as a blank canvas and let it decide at consenting age, i guess as a way of stopping the spread of religion. Sorry you intolerance will not be tolerated.

Oh I agree, and I was bought up as a Catholic and later decided that it was not for me. Religion is something that I would not consider introducing my children to until later in life. I would never say to them, this is the way it is, I would give them as much information as possible and allow them to make informed decisions. If it's Catholicism or Buddhism or becoming a Hari Krishna, then as long as they have gone into it in an informed and free way, then that is their decision. Telling them that if they do bad they will go to hell, or if they are gay then they will go to hell etc etc, that is exactly what bigotry is. Yes you should impose your will, that is indeed your right at a parent, but only in as far as it does not harm the child.

Again thats the way you choose to raise your child, however bad parenting i think that is i respect your choice. All this give the child "choice & freedom" is just a bunch of limp fisted waffle, and i can gurantee to you you are hypocritical when you state that, in some form or another.

I would go as far as saying you are depriving your child of knowledge and information, by not introducing religion at all he will likely become an athiest like his father, ironically doing the exact same as you accuse others of doing by raising thier children into religion :rolleyes:

It is damaging if later on life he wants to be a girl, and will suffer from all sorts of psychological issues. If the "social norm" is being anti gay, would you support it? no. You cant have it one way and say you should raise your child as a blank canvas regarding religion, then on the other hand use "social norms" as an excuse when you are in return asked to raise yor child gender free and without sexual preference. In america duruing the 70s, 80s, 90s it was the "social norm" for boys to be circumcised, does that make it ok for you ?

Sooo, is your child going to Africa to be promiscuous with the lower socio-economic groups that are predominantly at risk of HIV infection? What do you think the infection rate might be if all these people were properly educated with the use of contraception and sexual health? Cutting of the foreskin as an anti HIV measure is a ridiculous reason. It's idiocy and the numbers are incomparable.

Do we not have these issues at home? pointing out the study was to illustrate the effectiveness of said treatment, which your are well aware of. Also as you are aware its not just HIV is it? there are a whole host of medical benifits which we have all ready been discussed.

Yes because they are all living in a first world country where the church has told them in no uncertain terms that contraception is bad and that abstinence is the answer to everything. Really? You're going to stick with such a spurious statistic?

Something is better than nothing, if that is the case with the church maybe this is the answer for them for the time being.

Just because it has a large representation, does not redefine it.

Mutilation: To disfigure by damaging irreparably, To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Using a defination to suit your cause can be done either side

Mutilation: To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple

Circumcision is not either of those

Like i said if it was such a bad debilatating mutilation as you like to incorrectly throw around, 37% of males worldwide would not be circumcised

No because it's unnatural, it is unnatural. Because it's done bereft of the childs input and choice makes it wrong. Because it has little scientific advantage other than percentages of very small percentages and yet this is still presented as reasoning makes it wrong.

Oh so its only somethings that are unnatural that you are against, when it suits your agenda? Hypocrite much... A child has no choice, its a CHILD. There are plenty of scientific advantages, just that YOU dont see them as valid "enough". What you see as "little advantage" others see as "worth while" advantage, get that into your head. How you percieve something is not the basis of decision making. Your all for giving the child "freedom and choice" yet are happy to give them scar inducing vaccine jabs, not trying to compare the benifits of these two as they are worlds apart, but the logic behind it. Many parents are happy to have piercings done to thier children yet have a fit when it comes to circumcision.

How are they Valid? For example - Statistically 99% of males have a perfectly retractable foreskin by the time they are 17. Your argument is then based around 37% of 1% of the population that could potentially suffer difficulties due to Phimosis. This makes no sense to me because even if there are issues, often it is entirely treatable by non invasive techniques. So you are carrying a preventative flame for such a small segment of society and yet you believe that all should be circumcised? Taking this in perspective. 97% of babies are born normally presenting their heads first. 3% are breech or some other complication. By your reasoning, all children should be born c-section, strictly as preventative you understand...

Singling out a single benifit, does not strengthen your argument. It has to be looked as collectively, i have posted a list pf 20+ differennt medical benifits and as a whole to me and many others provide a valid and justifiable means. if you dont see it is as valid, fair play, good for you i will not be intolerant towards your views.

Future King? I'm not suggesting that anyone be arrested. I'm suggesting that you be realistic about why you're getting it done. Medical reasons are as much as smoke and mirrors. They are not valid at all.

As far as im aware, Prince charles is niether jewish or muslim, why else would he have been circumcised? Holy smoke, maybe the Queen had it done for medical reason......

As for religion being a reason for doing anything? That is not even remotely close to being a valid reason for cutting part of a childs penis off. Just as much as it's not a reason for stoning an adulterer to death, or for protesting against gay marriage or for that matter for presenting women as less than men or a whole host of idiotic fallacies that are instilled by the church and religion.

All you have done is show off your prejudices against religion :rolleyes:

really bringing up stoning to death in a debate about circumcision, really?

Anyhow religion aside, as clearly you have issues their. What are your thoughts regarding circumcision in the united States, where the majority of men are circumcised for NON religious reasons? strictly from a nmedical standpoint. You know the only super power of the world, the most advanced country in the world and the majoirity of its men are circumcised for non religious reasons. You try to portray it as being solely done by religious nutjobs, and futilely defended, in your opinion, with inadequate medical advantages yet in the US it has been done by the majority for non religious reasons?

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:12

Haggisman said:
Care to provide any examples of these people who don't believe in it for religious reasons?

United States, where the majority of men have been circumcised for NON religious reasons? strictly from a medical standpoint. You know the only super power of the world, the most advanced country in the world and the majority of its men are circumcised for non religious reasons.

zenf · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:13

Craterloafs, why is it that people don't perform tonsillectomies on their new-borns? Surely if they want to protect against future health problems, they've got a much better chance of doing that by removing the tonsils, rather than the foreskin? Far more people end up needing tonsillectomies than circumcisions in later life.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:20

Zeng1, im not going to get dragged off into your nonsensicality hypotheticals. Next you will be asking why not chop off your left toe so you dont get toe cancer, is about the jist of your argument.

Woden · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:22

Craterloads said:
United States, where the majority of men have been circumcised for NON religious reasons? strictly from a nmedical standpoint. You know the only super power of the world, the most advanced country in the world and the majority of its men are circumcised for non religious reasons.

It is also the most capitalist nation in the world. You dpont see the conflict of interests in a Dr/practice/hospital that gets its money solely from patients? Overutilisation is a massive problem in america.

USA is 50th in the world for life expectancy according to their own data. The UK being 30th. So maybe not the best example eh?

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:25

Woden said:
USA is 50th in the world for life expectancy according to their own data. The UK being 30th. So maybe not the best example eh?

Yep and thats really relevant here :rolleyes:

Tefal · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:30

Craterloads said:
United States, where the majority of men have been circumcised for NON religious reasons? strictly from a medical standpoint. You know the only super power of the world, the most advanced country in the world and the majority of its men are circumcised for non religious reasons.

the country where nearly half the population believe that god made the earth in 6 days and that evolution is a lie....

Woden · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:35

Craterloads said:
Yep and thats really relevant here

Now forgive me if I am wrong, first time for everything.

Were talking about a medical use of circumsition, and I brought up the USA's life expectancy. How is that NOT related to medical practices?

Feel free to comment on the rest too, rather than cherry pick.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:41

Tefal said:
the country where nearly half the population believe that god made the earth in 6 days and that evolution is a lie....

Typical, paint them as thickos [goes here]

i was asked a question to name people/a country where it is done for non-religious reason, i did, the most advanced country in the world.

And all you do is try to **** them off, like that makes my answer to the asked question any less valid?

Tefal · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:48

that 78% believe that god had a hand in mans creation ,that around 30-40% believe in the literal creation myth of the bible ****es on the whole "oh they're so advanced and not religious".

Also i love how you go "typical paint them all as thickos" as you prattle on that their cultural decisions are somehow more relevant because they're "the most advanced country in the world" yet their health care system (the only thing that's relevant in this situation) is famously poor.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 18:58

Tefal said:
that 78% believe that god had a hand in mans creation ,that around 30-40% believe in the literal creation myth of the bible ****es on the whole "oh they're so advanced and not religious".

Also i love how you go "typical paint them all as thickos" as you prattle on that their cultural decisions are somehow more relevant because they're "the most advanced country in the world" yet their health care system (the only thing that's relevant in this situation) is famously poor.

.

Is circumcision a fundamental requirement in Christianity? in comparison to how it is fundamental in Judaism and Islam? No it isnt, case and point to question asked :confused:

Never said they are more relevant just pointing out their stature in the world, more to the point it isnt some little cruddy country which can be dismissed. And going into their health care system and its relevance to said topic is just a whole new can of worms which i cant be asked going into right now.

Woden · 25 Jul 2012 at 19:16

Craterloads said:
Is circumcision a fundamental requirement in Christianity? in comparison to how it is fundamental in Judaism and Islam? No it isnt, case and point to question asked

Never said they are more relevant just pointing out their stature in the world, more to the point it isnt some little cruddy country which can be dismissed. And going into their health care system and its relevance to said topic is just a whole new can of worms which i cant be asked going into right now.

so basically you are saying...

The americans are doing it for medical reasons ... but just take my word for it because I wont talk about their medical practices.

mmj_uk · 25 Jul 2012 at 19:20

Craterloads said:
United States, where the majority of men have been circumcised for NON religious reasons? strictly from a medical standpoint. You know the only super power of the world, the most advanced country in the world and the majority of its men are circumcised for non religious reasons.

They have a private healthcare industry, why wouldn't they 'sell' half of the population a circumcision? business is business and it's a good source of skin for grafts so it's win win for them surely?

Countries with universal health care don't do circumcisions because there is clearly no benefit, it doesn't matter to us what the US private healthcare industry says to 'market' it.

At best circumcision nothing more than cosmetic surgery, if circumcision is justified then why don't we start removing the breast tissue of teenage girls to prevent the risk of breast cancer later in life?

NXZT · 25 Jul 2012 at 19:43

I'm disappointed by that the German parliament is in the process of softening the decision of the Cologne regional court in the context of allowing religious freedom.

This is not in line with the German constitution and I believe and support the view that the freedom of parents to practice religion has to be be limited by a child's more important right to physical integrity.
The German constitution cannot be limited by a simple law, as parliament is currently trying to do.

Everything else opens just too many inconsistencies...and to me this remains a "black and white" decision.
I'm very interested to hear how the argumentation line should be in regards to female circumcision practices (where there seems to be a broader consensus that this is considered as "barbaric") when male circumcision is allowed in religious context??

Very curious how this will end...I assume the final decision will be a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 19:44

mmj_uk said:
They have a private healthcare industry, why wouldn't they 'sell' half of the population a circumcision? business is business and it's a good source of skin for grafts so it's win win for them surely?

My answer was simply to Haggisman questions: -

Care to provide any examples of these people who don't believe in it for religious reasons?

It is done for non religious reasons in the US, and is done for its medical benifits. Im not going to discuss weather you think its just a money making scheme etc, i give the doctors more credit that that. Anyhow thats besides the point, i have answered the question put forth by haggisman, and i assume he is duly satisfied with my answer.

At best circumcision nothing more than cosmetic surgery, if circumcision is justified then why don't we start removing the breast tissue of teenage girls to prevent the risk of breast cancer later in life?

Im not going to get dragged off into your nonsensicality hypotheticals. Next you will be asking why not chop off your left toe so you dont get toe cancer, is about the jist of your argument.