German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

Moothead2 · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:34

Craterloads said:
See what above? So effectively no body or barely anybody is complaining apart for non circumcised people, which effectively you have just confirmed?

What are circumcised people missing out on that they should complain? apart from not being able to urinate in a straight line

A single person who hates the fact their parents got them circumcised is enough to warrant a ban on baby circumcisions. It's not the fact they're missing out on anything it's the fact you're cutting off part of a babies body for no reason other than because God said so.

You also failed to address the point about no sex before marriage in a comprehensible fashion.

Craterloads · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:37

Moothead2 said:
A single person who hates the fact their parents got them circumcised is enough to warrant a ban on baby circumcisions. It's not the fact they're missing out on anything it's the fact you're cutting off part of a babies body for no reason other than because God said so.

A single person like me who has a large scar from his vaccination, then warrants the stopping of all vaccisnations? No it does not (regardless of the benifits of each respectively)

You have been shown its not just because god said so :rolleyes:

America has all ready been mentioned as a case point if you missed it.

estebanrey · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:40

Craterloads said:
Thats your opinion and i respect it, but like i answered your yesterdays post, raising your child as an athiest is doing the exact same as people raising their children into religion. Your chiild will likely be athiest because you deprived him of religion.

Eh? Children are born atheists. It requires brainwashing to convert them. If you had been born in isolation with no human contact like Mogley from the Jungle Book do you think you'd have an inherent knowledge of Christianity or Islam (whatever your religion is)?

The whole 'atheist' is just another religion argument is just asinine. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a god, there is no doctrine or rules to follow it just requires one thing, as absence in a belief on one particular subject.

Atheism isn't even the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. And likewise you can rise your child as a theist but not subscribe to any particular religion or religious rule set.

You don't raise a child as an atheist anymore than you raise a white child as a 'non-black child', atheism is the default position.

spoffle · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:41

Craterloads said:
And? Fruits taste better than vegetables.

Okay...

So all people who have diseases are dirty? Anyone whos cought an STD is dirty?

You said it. I said people who don't wash are dirty, it's pretty straight forward.

Your prejudices against religion are not my concern You potential athiest kids would more likely not be athiests if you had taught them religion?

I'm not prejudiced against religion, and who says I'm an atheist? Looks like you're the one who's prejudiced if I can't criticise things you're saying without trying to label me as an atheist. You're undermining your own arguments by acting like that.

Missed the point (facepalm)

Yeah, no. The point you made was that foreskin = not being able to pee in a straight line.

SteveOBHave · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:42

Craterloads said:
Again this is just your opinion, let be clear on that. Circumcision also protects those around you, by limiting the spread of various diseases, women in general would benifit from male circumcision. Its not though, such a minor 30 sec procedure can be compared to others, as i discussed with zenf1 earlier regarding tonsils.

Just so that I am completely clear. You have a full understanding of the very small statistical advantages of circumcision, coupled with an understanding that you are putting your child at a statistical risk of death through unnecessary (i.e. it will not harm the child either way to either have the foreskin or not) invasive surgery? You entirely understand that the reasoning is based on a very (VERY) small advantage that could or could not be relevant in later life and yet still support the decision?

Quite a lot actally, my mate had his done in his teens as he was born with a heart condition and wasnt safe to do it then. It was the talk of the town then. my point being 37% of the entire male population are circumcised, where are the millions that are complaining? there are no poles or anything to suggest this, no evidence apart from a handful of isolated cases. Its only non circumcised people who have an issue

You can't say that as all. You have no evidence whatsoever to state that it is only non circumcised people that have the issues. Please feel free to Google "i wish i hadn't been circumcised" or "I didn't want to be circumcised". I understand the spurious nature of custom Google searches but it does represent a point that not all people are happy about it and I'm not sure that the numbers support "a handful of isolated cases".

I meant for hygiene whan i stated medical benfits. The rest of yor statement is factually incorrect, so no point even discussing.

But this is what I am trying to understand. If it is factually incorrect then by all means address it and correct it. There is every point in discussing it as it is central to your reasoning for circumcision. If there is actual evidence for a historical Islam medical argument, please present it. If my interpretation of the origins of Islamic Circumcision is incorrect then please correct it.

Thats your opinion and i respect it, but like i answered your yesterdays post, raising your child as an athiest is doing the exact same as people raising their children into religion. Your chiild will likely be athiest because you deprived him of religion.

Whats more personal than your family/children?

I'm not depriving them of anything. I would give them all the information and let them understand that some people believe this, some people believe that. This is what I believe and you are free to believe what you will, as long as it doesn't negatively effect other people. It is not the exact same as raising a child in religion because religion doesn't allow for the scope of seeing other religions as valid or legitimate. There are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Islamic, 950 Million Hindus, 480 million Buddhists and 1 billion non religious people. Who is right? Who's religion is the most valid, who's god is the real god?

Woden · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:43

Craterloads said:
Again this is just your opinion, let be clear on that. Circumcision also protects those around you, by limiting the spread of various diseases, women in general would benifit from male circumcision. Its not though, such a minor 30 sec procedure cant be compared to others, as i discussed with zenf1 earlier regarding tonsils.

If you were truly religious you wouldn't be having extra-marital, non-procreational sex. So STDs are a total non-issue.
Personally I just use a condom. Of course circumsition is still an option should I change my mind and decide to want one.

Craterloads said:
Quite a lot actally, my mate had his done in his teens as he was born with a heart condition and wasnt safe to do it then. It was the talk of the town then. my point being 37% of the entire male population are circumcised, where are the millions that are complaining? there are no poles or anything to suggest this, no evidence apart from a handful of isolated cases. Its only non circumcised people who have an issue

This has been explained to you already, but feel free to keep ignoring it

Craterloads said:
I meant for hygiene whan i stated medical benfits. The rest of yor statement is factually incorrect, so no point even discussing.

I bathe daily. It really isn't a hygine issue. If anything circumsition is less hygenic. The stuff I wash from under my forskin ... you just let it rub around your kecks and then onto other parts of your body while my forskin keeps it where nature intended.

Craterloads said:
Thats your opinion and i respect it, but like i answered your yesterdays post, raising your child as an athiest is doing the exact same as people raising their children into religion. Your chiild will likely be athiest because you deprived him of religion.

Whats more personal than your family/children?

My parents are catholic, I went to a catholic school. Yet I am aetheist. Aethism is rising drastically, this can't be down purely to aethist parents raising aethist children.

spoffle · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:44

estebanrey said:
Eh? Children are born atheists. It requires brainwashing to convert them. If you had been born in isolation with no human contact like Mogley from the Jungle Book do you think you'd have an inherent knowledge of Christianity or Islam (whatever your religion is)?

The whole 'atheist' is just another religion argument is just asinine. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a god, there is no doctrine or rules to follow it just requires one thing, as absence in a belief on one particular subject.

Atheism isn't even the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. And likewise you can rise your child as a theist but not subscribe to any particular religion or religious rule set.

You don't raise a child as an atheist anymore than you raise a white child as a 'non-black child', atheism is the default position.

Children are born without beliefs, it doesn't make them an atheist.

Atheism is realistically a form of religion, as it's a belief system that centres around the notion that god doesn't exist, which is a faith based position.

estebanrey · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:44

Craterloads said:
jesus, you have issues If you cant fathom why thats a stupid question then you athiests (although i doubt your views are respective) have issues.

No I can't think why it's a stupid question, enlighten me.

Because atm it just seems like you are avoiding the question via ad hominems.

Craterloads said:
What are you going to ask next, if god told you to become a vampire and stuff cheese into your ears?

Difference being there's nothing in the Bible that comes close to God requiring that, there's plenty of infanticide however.

Moothead2 · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:44

Craterloads said:
A single person like me who has a large scar from his vaccination, then warrants the stopping of all vaccisnations? No it does not (regardless of the benifits of each respectively)

You have been shown its not just because god said so America has all ready been mentioned as a case point if you missed it.

There's a difference between diseases that can be spread quickly and are hard to protect yourself against without a vaccination than something like HIV which can be easily prevented by wearing a condom and whereby having a circumcision doesn't completely protect you from the disease.

But it's the reason most people who are circumcised are so. It's also been stated in this thread that since it's all private healthcare in the US Doctors will advise parents to get their child circumcised to squeeze more cash out of people.

StriderX · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:45

Woden said:
If you were truly religious you wouldn't be having extra-marital, non-procreational sex. So STDs are a total non-issue.
Personally I just use a condom. Of course circumsition is still an option should I change my mind and decide to want one.

This has been explained to you already, but feel free to keep ignoring it

I bathe daily. It really isn't a hygine issue. If anything circumsition is less hygenic. The stuff I wash from under my forskin ... you just let it rub around your kecks and then onto other parts of your body while my forskin keeps it where nature intended.

My parents are catholic, I went to a catholic school. Yet I am aetheist. Aethism is rising drastically, this can't be down purely to aethist parents raising aethist children.

Atheist*

Sorry but you did it so many times, it just had to be said.

Craterloads · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:47

estebanrey said:
Eh? Children are born atheists. It requires brainwashing to convert them. If you had been born in isolation with no human contact like Mogley from the Jungle Book do you think you'd have an inherent knowledge of Christianity or Islam (whatever your religion is)?

The whole 'atheist' is just another religion argument is just asinine. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a god, there is no doctrine or rules to follow it just requires one thing, as absence in a belief on one particular subject.

Atheism isn't even the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. And likewise you can rise your child as a theist but not subscribe to any particular religion or religious rule set.

You don't raise a child as an atheist anymore than you raise a white child as a 'non-black child', atheism is the default position.

If you were born in isolation with no human contact, what would seperate you from animals? apart from physical appearance.

Again this is a personal opinion, i respect your decision to raise your child as an athiest, non believer of religion or what ever. the decision to remove religion from a childs up bringing will statistically make that child more likely to become an athiest.

Like i said your prejudices against religion are not my concern. I choose how to raise my children and you choose how to raise yours.

Moothead2 · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:48

Craterloads said:
Again this is a personal opinion, i respect your decision to raise your child as an athiest, non believer of religion or what ever. the decision to remove religion from a childs up bringing will statistically make that child more likely to become an athiest.

Ever wonder why this is :rolleyes:

?

Craterloads · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:49

estebanrey said:
No I can't think why it's a stupid question, enlighten me.

Because atm it just seems like you are avoiding the question via ad hominems.

Difference being there's nothing in the Bible that comes close to God requiring that, there's plenty of infanticide however.

I dont care what the bible says, it does not concern me. I dont believe my god would say or do that, thats why its a stupid question.

SteveOBHave · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:49

Craterloads said:
If you were born in isolation with no human contact, what would seperate you from animals? apart from physical appearance.

Again this is a personal opinion, i respect your decision to raise your child as an athiest, non believer of religion or what ever. the decision to remove religion from a childs up bringing will statistically make that child more likely to become an athiest.

Like i said your prejudices against religion are not my concern. I choose how to raise my children and you choose how to raise yours.

But he's not 'removing' anything... Religion is adding something that wasn't there to start with...

Woden · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:49

StriderX said:
Atheist*

Sorry but you did it so many times, it just had to be said.

Its not my fault. The crabbies made me do it! (alcoholiv ginger ale.)

estebanrey · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:51

spoffle said:
Children are born without beliefs, it doesn't make them an atheist.

Then you don't know what the word atheist means. By definition if you don't have a belief in god, regardless of whether you've heard of him or not, you are an atheist.

It seems you think to be an atheist you have to be like Richard Dawkins and go on crusades against religion.

spoffle said:
Atheism is realistically a form of religion, as it's a belief system that centres around the notion that god doesn't exist, which is a faith based position.

No it's not, a religion requires a doctrine and set of beliefs further than just a belief in God.

Nor is being an atheist a faith based position as faith is believing in something with no evidence. Atheism is the exact opposite of that.

You can be a theist (believe in God) and not be religious, conversely you can be an atheist and be religious (like Buddhists for example). Atheism covers one question, religion covers behavior and life style.

StriderX · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:53

I think people need to stop confusing Anti-theism (which can be a thought of a religion) with Atheism.

spoffle · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:56

Atheism is generally the rejection of belief in god or deities, or a belief that they don't exist.

What you're describing is agnosticism.

StriderX · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:57

Agnosticism is not comparable, one can be an agnostic (Unsure) atheist or theist, just as one can be a gnostic (sure as Pi) atheist or theist.

Of course you already knew that, oh well this can just be here.

estebanrey · 26 Jul 2012 at 00:58

StriderX said:
I think people need to stop confusing Anti-theism (which can be a thought of a religion) with Atheism.

Quite, but I still wouldn't call anti-theism as a religion either. If by anti-theism you mean Christopher Hitchens' definition that he is against the idea of anyone believing in a god it's still an opinion one one subject whereas religions cover more than just the question of God and extend to most areas of life.

Anti-theism is an ideology though (whereas atheism by definition isn't)