German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:32

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.
."

Its not just aids is it? there are a whole host of potential benifits.

Like how you break it down to 1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000 as to diminish its significance, its ultimately 50% still how ever you like to put it lol.

Informed consent is what 16/18, too late for many. And as others have pointed out who had been circumcised later in life, they wish they were circumcised as a child.

T345 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:33

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

I never said you were Christian, how am I supposed to know your faith, but you are complaining about your attitude, when there is a lot of other more important things to complain about.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:35

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

The only thing retarded is you thinking i actully said this :rolleyes:

Remove your head from you anus for a change and yo will see i have never said this

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.

In your opinion, and the list is 20 + by the way.

Moothead2 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:35

Craterloads said:
Its not just aids is it? there are a whole host of potential benifits.

Like how you break it down to 1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000 as to diminish its significance, its ultimately 50% still how ever you like to put it lol.

Informed consent is what 16/18, too late for many. And as others have pointed out who had been circumcised later in life, they wish they were circumcised as a child.

Then simply get him to wear a condom every time he sticks his todger in :confused:

? If you're even a remotely decent parent you'll tell your child this. Even if he decides not to, there's still a high chance of not getting HIV and a very small chance of getting HIV circumcision or not.

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:37

Craterloads said:
Its not just aids is it? there are a whole host of potential benifits.

But there weren't. We went over them and most of them were either unproven or just plain false.

Craterloads said:
Like how you break it down to 1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000 as to diminish its significance, its ultimately 50% still how ever you like to put it lol.

Because knowing the actual odds is a much more honest way of doing it. Just using the "50% increase" is a pretty tabloid way of doing it. Giving specifics shows just how insignificant the increase actually is in real terms.

Craterloads said:
Informed consent is what 16/18, too late for many.

Not at all. Informed consent is when the child can fully understand the consequences of the medical procedure. It varies from child to child.

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:37

zenf1 said:
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 whether for themselves, is abhorrent.

Hence why i stated "Im not going to get dragged off into your nonsensicality hypotheticals" Glad you realised that too now.

Woden · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:39

Craterloads said:
Its not just aids is it? there are a whole host of potential benifits.

Like how you break it down to 1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000 as to diminish its significance, its ultimately 50% still how ever you like to put it lol.

Informed consent is what 16/18, too late for many. And as others have pointed out who had been circumcised later in life, they wish they were circumcised as a child.

So far the main medical reasons put forward boils down to not bathing properly and not using a condom. :confused:

StriderX · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:40

I believe the only viable reason is for phimosis and other such unfortunately's.

Other than that, its comparable to giving your baby a tattoo.

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:42

T345 said:
I never said you were Christian, how am I supposed to know your faith, but you are complaining about your attitude, when there is a lot of other more important things to complain about.

You mentioned the Bible. Which is specifically the holy book of Christianity. The "more important things to complain about" argument is pathetic too. I am not so simple minded I can only focus on one thing at a time.

Infant circumcision for anything other than medical reasons is wrong. Feel free to try and come up with a convincing argument as to why it isn't.

zenf · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:43

Craterloads said:
Hence why i stated "Im not going to get dragged off into your nonsensicality hypotheticals" Glad you realised that too now.

Yeah, I don't mind admitting if I'm wrong about something. What about you?

T345 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:43

RDM said:
You mentioned the Bible. Which is specifically the holy book of Christianity. The "more important things to complain about" argument is pathetic too. I am not so simple minded I can only focus on one thing at a time.

Infant circumcision for anything other than medical reasons is wrong. Feel free to try and come up with a convincing argument as to why it isn't.

Religion, you may not beleive, but almost 2 billion do

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:44

Craterloads said:
The only thing retarded is you thinking i actully said this Remove your head from you anus for a change and yo will see i have never said this

In your opinion, and the list is 20 + by the way.

Well you do seem to be suggesting the health benefits are the major reason for getting it done rather than being somewhat more honest about it and just saying "God tells us to do it".

Craterloads · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:44

RDM said:
But there weren't. We went over them and most of them were either unproven or just plain false.

in your opinion, i posted a list of 20+ medical benifits. Singularly you could argue its not worth it, collectively you cant.

Because knowing the actual odds is a much more honest way of doing it. Just using the "50% increase" is a pretty tabloid way of doing it. Giving specifics shows just how insignificant the increase actually is in real terms.

I would say the exact same thing regarding your statement, your putting a tobloid/political spin on it. I wasnt as i just posted the exact the figures from the source, cant rememeber but i think it was the NHS. Ultimately you have just said in a long winded fashion 50%, which is not different to what i said.

Not at all. Informed consent is when the child can fully understand the consequences of the medical procedure. It varies from child to child.

Thats just a mine field in it self, some would argue informed consent is at 16/18 or what ever the law says it is in that paticular country hence 16/18 for the UK, which for many may be too late.

T345 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:45

you will obviously try your best to combat our points, since you are probably anti-Islam

estebanrey · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:45

RDM said:
You mentioned the Bible. Which is specifically the holy book of Christianity.

Wanna tell that to a Jew or a Catholic?

StriderX · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:46

estebanrey said:
Wanna tell that to a Jew or a Catholic?

Jewish folk read the Torah and Catholics do in fact read the Bible.

RDM · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:47

T345 said:
Religion, you may not beleive, but almost 2 billion do

Surely you mean "Islam, you may not believe, but almost 2 billion (people) do."? Many more people that 2 billion believe in one of the worlds numerous religions.

Regardless the number of people that believe in Islam is pretty much immaterial. It just means more people are wrong when it comes to cutting bits off a child's penis.

If you want to play the numbers game though, more people believe in religions (or no religion) where you don't have to cut bits of an infant's penis.

T345 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:48

StriderX said:
Jewish folk read the Torah and Catholics do in fact read the Bible.

Old Testiment (Jewish)

Moothead2 · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:48

Craterloads said:
Thats just a mine field in it self, some would argue informed consent is at 16/18 or what ever the law says it is in that paticular country hence 16/18 for the UK, which for many may be too late.

Yet-a-******-gain, any half decent parent will inform their children to use a condom which will basically bring the already slim chances of getting HIV down to 0%. It's only too late if you're a **** parent or your child is an idiot.

spoffle · 25 Jul 2012 at 20:48

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

As I pointed out earlier, but craterloads purposefully misunderstood:

The notion of circumcisions being mandatory for Muslims is the implication that God's design for men was some how at fault.

I thought it was an obligation for a Muslim to believe and accept every action of god is perfect and without fault.