German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

dirtychinchilla · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:13

T345 said:
So parents don't have the right to 'do' anything for a child? Wow, so my parents have been braking the law when buying me gifts?

You're being childish because someone doesn't agree with you. Why do parents have the right to mutilate their children?

The Halk · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:14

T345 said:
So parents don't have the right to 'do' anything for a child? Wow, so my parents have been braking the law when buying me gifts?

You've misunderstood me - I hope not intentionally.

Parents do not have the right to do anything they want to children. I don't mean that anything they do is wrong, I mean that there are lots of things they cannot do. Your parents can't, for example, sell you, kill you, beat you senseless, mutilate you, have sex with you, force you to marry someone, neglect you, refuse to educate you, etc etc etc.

T345 · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:14

Robbo said:
Why is it?

That does nothing to change the fact that you can't properly understand the situation at the age of 8.

I was not a brainless child. I have a brain, I have common sense, I can speak English. As a matter of fact, I started working with computers at 9, and I am now 12.

Yas786 · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:14

Moses said:
Why do you feel it essential to mutilate a child, and impose your beliefs on them, based on what you think? What's wrong with leaving it until the child can give informed consent? If it's only a piece of skin, why the do certain religious people care?

Excuse me??. Where did i say its essential??...id appreciate it if you didnt put words into my mouth thanks.

Anyhow like i said earlier and i still stand by it, bad decision by the Germans. Smart move criminalising circumcision. Like i said it will just drive it underground.

Robbo · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:14

T345 said:
So parents don't have the right to 'do' anything for a child? Wow, so my parents have been braking the law when buying me gifts?

Irrelevant.

You can't compare a gift and irreversible bodily mutilation...

I'm sure you'll try though.

T345 said:
I was not a brainless child. I have a brain, I have common sense, I can speak English. As a matter of fact, I started working with computers at 9, and I am now 12.

Again, irrelevant. You still can't take responsibility for it at the age of 8.

You also haven't said why it's a good idea?

dirtychinchilla · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:15

T345 said:
I was not a brainless child. I have a brain, I have common sense, I can speak English. As a matter of fact, I started working with computers at 9, and I am now 12.

And do you think people should have the right to choose whether they are circumcised or not? Like you did?

Craterloads · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:15

dirtychinchilla said:
You're being childish because someone doesn't agree with you. Why do parents have the right to mutilate their children?

Personally i don't class it as mutilation, considering it's such a minor procedure, has very little to nil risk involved and does NOT hinder you in anyway. In fact in America it is common to have it done for health reasons.

T345 · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:16

dirtychinchilla said:
And do you think people should have the right to choose whether they are circumcised or not? Like you did?

If it's not medical or part of their religion.

SlyReaper · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:16

Craterloads said:
Do you feel the same way about piercings? If so do you advocate a ban?

People tend to get piercings when they're old enough to consent to have them done. If it's a child who is legally not able to consent to the procedure, then I would oppose that too.

Craig1981 · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:17

bitslice said:
This is fundamentally wrong as it infringes on the right of parents to decide what is best for their child, that includes what faith it will be taught.
Either there is freedom of religion or there isn't, and banning this is banning a central part of Jewish faith, it is a rite of passage for them.

Still, nothing like having a pop at people's beliefs if they don't match yours.

So if there was a religion that believed that arms were a sin, so they chopped off their babies arms at birth, you'd be ok with that yeah?

Cause its only accepting their beliefs....right???

dirtychinchilla · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:17

T345 said:
If it's not medical or part of their religion.

Why would your religion dictate whether or not you should be mutilated? I'm talking about whether you get to choose as a child whether you want it or not, not talking about saying "no one can ever be circumcised".

The Halk · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:18

T345 said:
I was not a brainless child. I have a brain, I have common sense, I can speak English. As a matter of fact, I started working with computers at 9, and I am now 12.

That's true - but you are still a child. You're clearly very intelligent, but at age 8 nobody has the maturity to choose.

Kenai · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:18

T345 said:
If it's not medical or part of their religion.

But if it's part of their religion (or perhaps more accurately their parents religion) then shouldn't have that right?

Yet more wonderfully backwards thinking from the world of religion.

Craterloads · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:19

SlyReaper said:
People tend to get piercings when they're old enough to consent to have them done. If it's a child who is legally not able to consent to the procedure, then I would oppose that too.

Isnt it very common to see children with pierced ears?

Now if you advocate having ear piercing made illegal to children, say under 16years old then we we have a fundemental difference of opinion.

T345 · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:19

The Halk said:
That's true - but you are still a child. You're clearly very intelligent, but at age 8 nobody has the maturity to choose.

Thanks, but please, believe me! I'm not a lier.

Dist · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:19

I have a question for the religious people here, what part of your religion is against waiting until the child is old enough to make the decision himself?

SlyReaper · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:19

Craterloads said:
Personally i don't class it as mutilation, considering it's such a minor procedure, has very little to nil risk involved and does NOT hinder you in anyway. In fact in America it is common to have it done for health reasons.

Oh well, if it's common in America, it must be fine.

The risk is not nil. There is ALWAYS a chance for something to go wrong. Some undiagnosed thing to rear its ugly head and cause complications. The risk is low, but it's not zero.

FutileBreadMachine · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:19

dirtychinchilla said:
Yeah I skyped into the show but I was a tiny bit too late...I think they were going to put me on except it took me too long to dig out my webcam! This thing about Jewish boys feeling alienated...well they can go and get it done, but it should be their own choice. That Jewish guy, although fairly moderate, was a bit of a moron.

Yeah that guy was an idiot. His argument was that it's the parent's decision how to raise their child, and parents often make decisions for their children, but the argument is flawed since this particular decision is not simply "we all grow beards/don't eat meat on sundays", it's a permanent alteration to their body. If they want to raise a child with a particular religion, that's their choice, but the child can decide to stop following that faith when they are older. They can't choose to regrow their foreskin though.

Also, a typical Jewish/Muslim man can't argue that having it cut off is fine and has not affected them, since they had it cut off at around 8 days old, so they didn't have a chance to live with a fully formed penis (and bang with it).

Robbo · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:19

T345 said:
If it's not medical or part of their religion.

You class medical reasons on par with religious reasons?! Madness.

I find any religion that forces bodily mutilation to be disturbed.

T345 said:
Thanks, but please, believe me! I'm not a lier.

Nobody will believe you because you are factually wrong.

Craterloads · 1 Jul 2012 at 16:21

Moses said:
Take out essential, replace it with defensible, then go again.

Piercings are different, because of the permanence of them... but I am against anything optional, like piercings/circumcision/etc, which aren't done for an objectively good reason. It's their body, let them decide (when they can - and by that I mean 16/18... the normal age of consent).

Theres no difference, you are mutilating a childs ear (body) without thier consent.

Would appearence be classed as a good reason?