German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

zenf · 25 Jul 2012 at 19:46

Craterloads said:
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.

You know full well that my argument is more than that. People are far, far more likely to need a tonsillectomy for health reasons than a circumcision. The only nonsensical thing here is your 'medical reasons' argument, demonstrably.

Mind you, I knew you wouldn't be able to address it as your argument for 'medical reasons' has been completely destroyed, so I'm not surprised by your response. Bit disappointed though.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 19:52

zenf1 said:
You know full well that my argument is more than that. People are far, far more likely to need a tonsillectomy for health reasons than a circumcision. The only nonsensical thing here is your 'medical reasons' argument, demonstrably.

Mind you, I knew you wouldn't be able to address it as your argument for 'medical reasons' has been completely destroyed, so I'm not surprised by your response. Bit disappointed though.

Sure, your line of questioning was the topic of debate 10 pages back ...yawn

You have completely "destroyed" me and my arguments,

you genius

What next, why not remove the breasts so a child doesnt get breast cancer? oops i think someone all ready gone there above, same lame argument as yours :rolleyes:

Moothead2 · 25 Jul 2012 at 19:57

Craterloads said:
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.

You keep saying this and never answer the question. Dodging a question you can't answer with a sarcastic remark makes you look worse than you already do.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:02

Moothead2 said:
You keep saying this and never answer the question. Dodging a question you can't answer with a sarcastic remark makes you look worse than you already do.

Yawn, you speaking for everyone again i see?

zenf · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:06

Moothead2 said:
You keep saying this and never answer the question. Dodging a question you can't answer with a sarcastic remark makes you look worse than you already do.

Indeed. I'll have one last attempt though.

Craterloads, a tonsillectomy is a bit different from removing breasts or toes - there are many, many people who will have tonsillectomies for medical reasons. There aren't many needing to have breasts or toes removed, or to an extent, circumcisions.

If the idea is to prevent possible medical problems that may arise in the future, it would make sense for babies to be given tonsillectomies, due to the relative likelihood of them needing it in the future. Do you not agree?

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:10

Moothead2 said:
You keep saying this and never answer the question. Dodging a question you can't answer with a sarcastic remark makes you look worse than you already do.

There are some "possible" health benefits mainly with regards to reducing (but not eliminating) the transmission of HIV. Best case is your chance of getting HIV goes from 1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000 (not odds I would personally rely on if it were my child, I would prefer the much more useful precaution of teaching them to use a condom). This reasoning of course doesn't explain why it needs to be forced on to a child, if you really wanted to use it as a (really poor) method of STD control then it could easily wait until the child is more than old enough to give informed consent.

Other than that the reasoning is pretty much "Because a 1400 year old book says I have to do it."

Moothead2 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:15

RDM said:
There are some "possible" health benefits mainly with regards to reducing (but not eliminating) the transmission of HIV. Best case is your chance of getting HIV goes from 1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000 (not odds I would personally rely on if it were my child, I would prefer the much more useful precaution of teaching them to use a condom). This reasoning of course doesn't explain why it needs to be forced on to a child, if you really wanted to use it as a (really poor) method of STD control then it could easily wait until the child is more than old enough to give informed consent.

Other than that the reasoning is pretty much "Because a 1400 year old book says I have to do it."

Yup, and a Condom will reduce the likelihood of getting HIV a lot more than than the reduced chances of getting it via the snip.

T345 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:16

I think this thread has run it's coarse, you guys keep repeating what has been said :rolleyes:

Moothead2 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:17

T345 said:
I think this thread has run it's coarse, you guys keep repeating what has been said

Because Craterloads keeps dodging the questions.

T345 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:20

Funny you say that, both sides are saying the same things...

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:22

Zenb1 & moothead2

Aids kill people yo..
Tonsils dont

Seriously i think removing tonsils is a much more painful and major operation compared to a 30 sec snip for circumcisions. Tonsillitis is a minor thing in the scope of illnesses, but lets say for example both parents had really bad cases of tonsillitis at what ever age. They fear thier child is genetically more likely to suffer from severe tonsillitis given both his/her parents suffered from it and decide to save him/her from the agony as an child/adult, then who am i to complain, although i may not agree with it.

Only issue i would have with that is i dont know what role the tonsils play in the development of a child, are they there to protect you? etc. I know as an adult they are useless, but who knows they might be there for a reason when you are a child. Tonsils and foreskin are two complete different things, hence my reluctance to diverge down this path.

Foreskin on the other hand does not have no benifits which is proven as a child or adult, hence the 37% of people worlwide living perfectly normal lives without a foreskin. And circumcision has multiple actual medical benifits,.

StriderX · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:22

This thread is eww.

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:24

T345 said:
Funny you say that, both sides are saying the same things...

What questions have I been dodging? I have acknowledged the possible health benefits (small, much better using contraception, doesn't stop it waiting until the child can consent).

The real problem seems to be that those arguing for non-medical circumcision seem to be doing it somewhat dishonestly and trying to promote spurious or limited health benefits as the reason to get it done. As opposed to being honest and saying that the reason to get it done is because a 1400 year old book tells them to mutilate their child.

T345 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:25

RDM said:
What questions have I been dodging? I have acknowledged the possible health benefits (small, much better using contraception, doesn't stop it waiting until the child can consent).

The real problem seems to be that those arguing for non-medical circumcision seem to be doing it somewhat dishonestly and trying to promote spurious or limited health benefits as the reason to get it done. As opposed to being honest and saying that the reason to get it done is because a 1400 year old book tells them to mutilate their child.

just because my religion says that does not give you the right of telling me to stop carrying on my tradition

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:26

Craterloads said:
Aids kill people yo..

And if you rely on circumcision to protect you from getting HIV then you are retarded.

Craterloads said:
And circumcision has multiple actual medical benifits,.

Haven't we been over this? There are a few "possible" medical benefits, the majority of which would be just as effective if we waited until the child could give informed consent.

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:28

T345 said:
Just shut up, because my religion says that does not give you the right of telling me to stop carrying on my tradition

Actually it does. One of the benefits of living in the UK is that we can challange things that we feel are stupid. Cutting bits off a childs penis because a 1400 year old book says we should is stupid. In this your religion is wrong (as well as its treatment of women and attitdues towards homosexuality).

Moothead2 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:29

Craterloads said:
Zenb1 & moothead2

Aids kill people yo..
Tonsils dont

Foreskin on the other hand does not have no benifits which is proven as a child or adult, hence the 37% of people worlwide living perfectly normal lives without a foreskin. And circumcision has multiple actual medical benifits,.

And those 63% of men with foreskins don't all have HIV. You're not FULLY protected from HIV just by having it cut, you could still easily get HIV even with a circumcision. A much simpler way of avoiding HIV is to simply wear a condom, much better than irreversibility cutting part of the body off.

T345 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:29

RDM said:
Actually it does. One of the benefits of living in the UK is that we can challange things that we feel are stupid. Cutting bits off a childs penis because a 1400 year old book says we should is stupid. In this your religion is wrong (as well as its treatment of women and attitdues towards homosexuality).

It's not your religion, the bible (before it was changed) said that women had no souls. I can accept anyone, why shouldn't I?

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:32

T345 said:
It's not your religion, the bible (before it was changed) said that women had no souls. I can accept anyone, why shouldn't I?

And what exactly would my religion be? Are you sure you want to get in to a theological argument with me?

zenf · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:32

After reading up a bit more on the purpose of the tonsils, yeah, it's not the best example, but I still think it's pretty obvious that forcing a circumcision on a baby for protection against very, very unlikely problems, when they could wait and allow the child to reach an age to decide for themselves, is abhorrent.

Not quite as abhorrent as doing it because an old book says so, though.