German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

[estebanrey]

You are getting confused with the technical definition of secularism and the colloquial usage.

A pure secular state would be one free of religion entirely, but as that doesn't and has never really existed we tend to use it to describe countries like ours that self proclaim as affording it's citizens freedom of religion.

However the separation of church and state is purely a political notion, secularism is not.

 

[Castiel]

You are getting confused with the technical definition of secularism and the colloquial usage.

A pure secular state would be one free of religion entirely, but as that doesn't and has never really existed we tend to use it to describe countries like ours that self proclaim as affording it's citizens freedom of religion.

However the separation of church and state is purely a political notion, secularism is not.

I am not confusing anything.....you are again attempting to obfuscate your mistake by redefining the meaning or context of the use of terminology.

You can use the word Secular in reference to non religious concepts, for example Secular basis in Finance or Secular phenomena in Astronomy (Then the word Secular refers to a time period, usually a century or more) and has nothing to do with religion....however they are not to be confused with Secularism or Secular State (which is the term you used) as they relate to a separation and not the removal of religion from Society. Neither are those terms to be confused with Secularity in the broader sense, as again, this relates to separation from religion or not having religious affinity, not the removal of religion.

A purely secular state is one that has total freedom of religion, not as you say one free from religion.

Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief.

In any case StriderX and I were talking about Politics and the State, so your post saying that the use of the word Secular to describe a Society without any religion is false, which is precisely what I pointed out.

Anyway this is waaay of topic, so I have said all I need to say on this, you do not have to agree of course, but I think the thread has just about lived out it's usefulness so I am leaving it, pick this up another time I suspect, one where the context is more befitting the thread topic.

I leave you with the words of the person who coined and defined the term Secularism:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:

(1) The improvement of this life by material means.

(2) That science is the available Providence of man.

(3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.

 

[estebanrey]

I am not confusing anything.....you are again attempting to obfuscate your mistake by redefining the meaning or context of the use of terminology.

Obfuscate my mistake? Like how you've completely ignored your mistake which triggered this semantic debate in the first place, ergo you confusing atheism as being mutually exclusive from religion?

I''ve given you the dictionary definition of what secular is, and yet you're still arguing it's a synonym for separation of church and state.

I don't know what else I can do really if you're going to argue against the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

[Castiel]

Obfuscate my mistake? Like how you've completely ignored your mistake which triggered this semantic debate in the first place, ergo you confusing atheism as being mutually exclusive from religion?

I made no such mistake as the context (as in the State) in which the term was used was clear.....and I also explained it succinctly in answer to you in disputing the commonly held misconception that Buddhism is non-theist (The Deva for example). You either ignored it, didn't understand it, or missed it.

Buddhism would not fit into any recognised form of State Atheism as it doesn't deny the existence of the divine, it simply finds it is an unnecessary barrier to enlightenment (depending on the form of Buddhism being practised)

I''ve given you the dictionary definition of what secular is, and yet you're still arguing it's a synonym for separation of church and state.

I don't know what else I can do really if you're going to argue against the Oxford English Dictionary.

I'm not arguing with the Oxford Dictionary, I am disputing your understanding of the terminology and the context in which it was used....quoting without understanding doesn't make you right, quite the contrary it highlights your misunderstanding.

You can try to hide behind sematics all you like, however you said this:

You could say non-religious, but 'secular' would probably be the word you were looking for.

in relation to a non-religious society....when that is not what Secularism is......Secularism is defined by indifference, not by active opposition. Whereas StriderX and I were discussing a irreligious state as opposed to a religious one. A Secular State would in fact be the middle ground as opposed to an Atheist State or a Theocracy.

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.

I have also edited the offending original posts just to make it clear what the context was and how the use of the terminology should be applied.

I hope that clears that up.

 

[SteveOBHave]

But won't you think of the children!

Wow didn't this thread get off topic in a big way! Whilst I understand the correlation between religion and circumcision this neither clarifies the religious justification nor the medical arguments...

 

[Castiel]

Wow didn't this thread get off topic in a big way! Whilst I understand the correlation between religion and circumcision this neither clarifies the religious justification nor the medical arguments...

Indeed.

As far as the reasons for circumcision go, there is no real reason why the practice cannot be deferred until the Child is of an age as to make an informed decision himself. This is especially true of Islam, and with regard to the stipulations in the Abraham Covenant, it is not unheard of to replace such literal practices with a symbolic alternative.

There is simply no justification for the continuance of infant circumcision that outweighs the reasons against, particularly in light of historical precedent as I explained earlier.

 

[SteveOBHave]

I have to agree, but it's the argument from the pro side that I am interested in, especially in light of the information that is available. At some stage you have to stop attempting to justify it with medical reasoning and admit the the reason you're doing it is a) Entirely religiously founded and b) irresponsible when placed in context with the risks.

 

[Craterloads]

You aren't going to like this but here we go.

With regards to complications following surgery, there is around a 1-3% incidence of complications following circumcision. There a 0.5% infection rate occasionally leading to sepsis or blood poisoning, 1% haemorrhage rate, issues with adhesion between the head of the penis and the remaining skin and a large number of repeat visits due to displeasure from a cosmetic perspective. It has been found that in modern facilities that there is a return/revisiting of the surgery in 22% of all cases. Now this is in 1st world surgeries where there is the technology and cleanliness to take care of the infant.

Youve not posted anything new, i am aware of these as was discussed earlier in the thread.

These are COMPLICATIONS of surgery and not what i was reffering to when i stated "very little risk". I was pointing out to negatives of circumcision, the likes of "loss of sensitivity" claims and the rest, which have been proven to be a myth or inconclusive.

There are complications to many treatments, including immunisations which can result in death, and many other complications. Again whilst im not trying to compare the benifits of each, im just pointing out complications are a possible in any form of treatment.

Whilst taking your 1-3% figure as legit (you havent provided any sources) of complications, it is actually very low risk. Especially when you take into consideration and break down the 2% (average) of how many of them are to something minor like excessive bleeding? you can remove a tooth and have excessive bleeding, its not even really a complication. The serious complication from these is the sepsis or blood poisoning, which is 0.5%! and again how many of these are not easily fixed or can be prevented with due care after surgery. These figures are miniscule in the scale of this and the figure will be even smaller for how many of these suffer from any long lasting issues into adulthood.

In 3rd world countries such as Africa this number raises significantly from 1-3% to 20.2% and includes botched jobs resulting in excessive bleeding, infections, long term pain and insufficient removal of foreskin require revisiting of the surgery. There are even recorded cases of having the glans inadvertently removed!

Exactlly "botched" jobs in third world countries, quite irrelavent here considering "botched" anything is likely to be bad. Quite hyprocritical of you using these figures from Africa, whilst complaining of me using relevant statistics of HIV infection reduction in Africa?

To Quote: Source?

I'm sorry but faced with a 1-3 in 100 chance of putting my child through pain and distress, repeated surgery and the off chance that they might cut his todger off!!! Sod that for a laugh. The more I research this, the more disturbing the whole thing becomes. The risks FAR FAR outweigh any advantages. The more I understand and the more educated I get on this subject the less I accept that there is ANY basis for this procedure.

You have posted some information above claiming circumcision is unnecessary, with no source or indication of the bias of the source? if its anthing like the source from below, it is a joke. Maybe the doctor making the statement has issues with circumcision, i dont know his bias or reasons. Regardless of that if i take it at face value, i can post dozens of articles/research claiming contrary, disagreeing with what this doctor has said. Where does that leave us? I have already posted research done in the early part of the thread, which is claiming the opposite of your source. You can find information supporting or conflicting you claims, if you look hard enough, so not really much i can say.

As mentioned above, when we take the 1-3 figure, and actually look at it on 0.5% suffer any serious issues of which many are easily preventable and many have no longstanding isssues into adulthood. There were 18 baby deaths from immunization in just 4 years as reported here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-18-child-deaths-following-vaccinations.html

And from your reactionary statement of "any chance of putting my child through pain and distress" i assume you will will not have your children immunised? no is probably the answer.

Here is something that I had to chuckle at, despite it being a rather sad outcome of circumcision. Apparently there are incidences of 'hairy shaft' where the childs growth has resulted in the pubic hair being pulled along the shaft of the penis causing painful intercourse.


So we have as a direct result of circumcision (an entirely un-needed procedure)
Aesthetic Damage
Penile Adhesion
Phimosis
Hairy Shaft
Wound Dehiscence
De-Gloving (yes it is as awful as it sounds)
Haemorrhages
Meatal Stenosis or Ulcers
Urethrocuteneous Fistula
Ongoing Infection leading to blood poisoning
Scalded Skin Syndrome
Bladder Infections
Neuroma
Urethra Blockage
Buried Penis Syndrome
Penioscrotal Webbing
Deformity
Necrotising Faciitis
Priapism
Gastric Rupture
Plastibell Ring Injury
LOSS OF THE GLANS!!!
Worse - Loss of the penis
Brain Damage and Clamp injuries, Coma and finally Death.

In Africa during the period of 2001-2005 from 1748 admissions there were 107 mutilations and 177 deaths. Sorry dude but there is no arguing back from this one.

Please feel free to read up on the anecdotal evidence: http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news-cont.html

Really? you posted "facts" from a website call "circumstitions" and you expect me to take anything from there seriously? What percentages are we talking from the 2% here for each of these, (if they arent complete bull especially given the source and given the author has made his bias/thoughts clear "an entirely un-needed procedure"), like 0.01%


Again posting from Africa, a 3rd world country with basic to no healthcare facilities? especially after complaining i was using relevant statistics from there. How many deaths have there been in the UK, conducted by medical professionals? All the reported cases i can find have either been done by rabbis or some cowboys and were more to do with human error in the after care.

The issue is that so often it is not a choice, it is an expectation and if the woman 'chooses' to not then they are osctricised. Nothing is 'wrong' with curly sideburns but it is a requirement for the religion. Why? How does that make you more or less holy? If we have prison then why do we need hell?

Again thats men abusing religion, or people abusing religion, how can you condem something when anything and everything can be abused?

How does that concern you if its a requirement for thier religion to have curly sideburns? this is really getting pathetic if this is actually a problem for you Why? Maybe its to identify themselves as jewish or to be more like Moses or many other reasons. Why do you have to wear a shirt and trousers to work? why do you shave? why do you not have curly sideburns?

If you believe in an afterlife dont we need a "prison" type thing there? Why do we need prision here? to punish those who do bad things.

In the absence of god in my life, I am still a good person, I still treat others well and help people in need. I choose to do these things because it is good not because I live in fear of going to hell and there is no ritual that makes me feel more or less worthy of doing these good things.

Thats great for YOU and i am happy for you that you dont need god and follow an athiest path/view of thinking. Some dont feel the same as you, are you really going to stop them because you feel differently? Im sorry but it just seems intolerant of you and looks like you have prejudices against religion or peole who believe in god. Regarding choice, you have the choice to do anything you want, as proven by yourself, raised catholic but choose to become an athiest. Theres always choice, i cant see why you are trying to argue otherwise.

My own feelings after spending a lengthy time in this thread is many actually dont giive a dam about the health of the child and its just their prejudice against religion which is angering them. To raise your child as a blank canvas etc without any form of religion, which you seem to be advocating is just wrong on so many levels i dont even know where to begin.

 

[SteveOBHave]

OK you know what - I'm going to bow out of this one because you are being wilfully obtuse.

It's called Circumstitions because it's a play on words smart guy... Circumcision... Superstition... *sigh*

Complications are not mitigated by your definition, they are only willfully ignored by you attempting to define them away. You still can't accept that statistically your child is more than 100x more likely to develop a 'complication' due to the surgery than they are to actually benefit from losing their foreskin. 1-3 in 100 is not minuscule. 25% of all patients in Africa having problems is not minuscule. Your grasp of numbers and real world application is not awesome.

The simple point is that you are a) hurting your child without need and b)putting your child at an immediate risk of danger again without need.

1-3 in 100 risk of direct illness and discomfort for your child including the risk of penile removal and/or death
VS. 1 in 5000 chance of preventing your child from getting HIV from unprotected sex which is rendered to almost nil by use of contraception.

How is it that you can't see this?

References for the information: http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html - every single one of the statistics and every single one of the quotes are referenced. http://www.circumstitions.com/References.html - knock yourself out. And for the record, if you feel that these facts are so wrong - go disprove them. All your 'earlier arguments' have been entirely dis-proven.

Africa? You provided that as the basis for argument - I have handed you the information that tells you in no uncertain terms that your 'argument' is seriously flawed.

I'm not going to keep attempting to convince you when you are so wilfully blind to the facts and when your semantic argument is so horrendously poor as to be laughable. If you feel that you have justification for putting your child through risky un-needed surgery then knock yourself out. But if I were you, I would not be sleeping soundly, I'd be worrying like hell that I have put my child needlessly in harms way. And as for immunisation - yeah that is the same as permanently removing part of an infants body.

 

[Craterloads]

OK you know what - I'm going to bow out of this one because you are being wilfully obtuse.

It's called Circumstitions because it's a play on words smart guy... Circumcision... Superstition... *sigh*

Complications are not mitigated by your definition, they are only willfully ignored by you attempting to define them away. You still can't accept that statistically your child is more than 100x more likely to develop a 'complication' due to the surgery than they are to actually benefit from losing their foreskin. 1-3 in 100 is not minuscule. 25% of all patients in Africa having problems is not minuscule. Your grasp of numbers and real world application is not awesome.

The simple point is that you are a) hurting your child without need and b)putting your child at an immediate risk of danger again without need.

1-3 in 100 risk of direct illness and discomfort for your child including the risk of penile removal and/or death
1 in 5000 chance of preventing your child from getting HIV from unprotected sex which is rendered to almost nil by use of contraception.

How is it that you can't see this?

References for the information: http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html - every single one of the statistics and every single one of the quotes are referenced. http://www.circumstitions.com/References.html - knock yourself out. And for the record, if you feel that these facts are so wrong - go disprove them. All your 'earlier arguments' have been entirely dis-proven.

Africa? You provided that as the basis for argument - I have handed you the information that tells you in no uncertain terms that your 'argument' is seriously flawed.

I'm not going to keep attempting to convince you when you are so wilfully blind to the facts and when your semantic argument is so horrendously poor as to be laughable. If you feel that you have justification for putting your child through risky un-needed surgery then knock yourself out. But if I were you, I would not be sleeping soundly, I'd be worrying like hell that I have put my child needlessly in harms way. And as for immunisation - yeah that is the same as permanently removing part of an infants body.

Like i said its laughable your using statistics from a website called "circumstitions", if you cannot fathom that there is obvious bias from that website, you have issues, especially giving the author stating "(an entirely un-needed procedure)" of the bat I can provide information contrary to them claims, where does that leave us? Like i said its not difficult finding information to suit your agenda, which is what you are doing, i can and have done the same.

I have not tried to mitigate anything, pointing out that the all ready slim chance of 1-3, lets say 2 out of 100 for arguments sake is not quite clear cut as you disingenuously apply, considering this encompasses ALL types of complications, with some of them being minor. Like getting gas from eating a certain pill, is that too hard for you to understand?

What benifit does posting statistics from AFRICA considering the woefully poor heatlh system, it does not strengthen your case. At least my figures were relevant considering Africa is a hot bed for aids and is an IDEAL location to carry out such a study. Poor practice is poor practice, try getting cosmetic surgery in Africa and view what your chances are of something going wrong compared to that of the chances of the same happening in the UK. Its dishonest of you to try to present these figures as a basis to your argument considering all of the above, but i guess that is all you have to go on as i have rubbished all your other claims.

Now you are willfully ignoring statistics, claiming "hurting your child without need" when you are all ready aware of the benifits HOWEVER miniscule you find them. Like i said earlier there were 18 baby deaths because of immunziation, but i guess thats ok right.

What is there to see, is anyone suggesting otherwise that there are no complications because of surgery? you are aware i have not said this here or anywhere else and its disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. The whole case you have forwarded is flawed, considering there are complications in any type of surgery. Its only OPINION if YOU dont see the risk reward as worthy. There are plenty of people who refuse immunisation because of the small risks involved yet you dont hear me judging them, as you appear to be doing.

You have not disproven anything apart from show your inability to see what you are saying is your opinion, the facts and figures speak for themselves. I have attempted to use reputable sources, like the NHS and such whilst it appears you have just googled the first anti circumcission website in the form of a website called "circumstitions". I have even attempted to ignore the obvious bias and broken down yor figures form the 22 complications (if to be taken at face value) you listed and applied them to the innitial 2% which works out to be about 0.1%.

Contary, i have rubbished your figures of 25% and have explained to you why they are irrelevant given the state of the health care in africa, jesus they are not even using surgical equipment, what do you expect?

You have absolutley no argument, which based on there are comlications involved, which everyone is aware of. you are persistently ignore any benifits and highligh dubious claims of mispractice from africa to support you argument.

Fundelmentaly your objections breed from your intolerance and irrational fear of religion. You have demonstrated why you find it difficult to see things objectively and undermined your own arguement by displaying obtuse views such as your objections to parents raising thier children into religion, instead advocate raising them as athiest, something you believe in. How can one reason and rationalise with someone with views like that?

Yep and if your child happens to be one of the 18 dead in four years i wouldnt worry about a missing foreskin

Peace and out

 

[SteveOBHave]

No - I've never objected to religion, merely to imposing it on other people and suggesting that it's the only way forward. My argument has always been give all the information and allow the choice. I am not advocating forcing atheism at all. I take offence at the suggestion that my objections to circumcision are anything to do with religion. Religion has no logical bearing on the discussion at all.

You are right the facts and figures do speak for themselves, but you are displaying a clear inability to understand them. Do the research, and I don't mean by selectively taking excerpts from favourable religious based references, I mean genuine medical papers that are backed up by statistical fact.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://www.circinfo.org/
http://www.circinfo.org/ethics.html
http://www.circumcision.org/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/circumcision1.shtml
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx
http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full
http://www.healthychildren.org/engl...000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR:+No+local+token
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990302063210.htm
http://familydoctor.org/familydocto...ng-for-newborns/infant-care/circumcision.html


Read and you tell me if anywhere in recognised and respected medical literature do they say, as a net outlook with all arguments balanced, that the advantages of circumcision outweigh the risks? Aside from that, can you tell me why there is a steady reduction in people getting circumcision around the world, why many countries are banning it and why many states in the US have removed any and all funding from getting it done. If the parents want it then they have to foot the bill and even then many doctors now refuse to do it on the grounds that it is unnecessary and risky?

My 'opinion' is worth nothing, the facts, the numbers and the widely represented medical opinion puts all of your arguments to bed.

 

[Craterloads]

No - I've never objected to religion, merely to imposing it on other people and suggesting that it's the only way forward. My argument has always been give all the information and allow the choice. I am not advocating forcing atheism at all. I take offence at the suggestion that my objections to circumcision are anything to do with religion. Religion has no logical bearing on the discussion at all.

You are right the facts and figures do speak for themselves, but you are displaying a clear inability to understand them. Do the research, and I don't mean by selectively taking excerpts from favourable religious based references, I mean genuine medical papers that are backed up by statistical fact.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://www.circinfo.org/
http://www.circinfo.org/ethics.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/circumcision1.shtml
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx

Read and you tell me if anywhere in recognise and respected medical literature do they say, as a gross outlook with all arguments balanced, that the advantages of circumcision outweigh the risks? Aside from that, can you tell me why there is a steady reduction in people getting circumcision around the world, why many countries are banning it and why many states in the US have removed any and all funding from getting it done. If the parents want it then they have to foot the bill and even then many doctors now refuse to do it on the grounds that it is unnecessary and risky?

My 'opinion' is worth nothing, the facts, the numbers and the widely represented medical opinion puts all of your arguments to bed.

By advocating religion should not be taught to children by parents you are infact, wether you are aware or not, imposing your religion/views atheism on them. Like i said earlier statistically these blank canvasses will more than likely become athiests as adults.

Do you really want me to go down this route again, by posting up links contrary to yours? Its been done all ready 20 pages back with another poster and we came to the conclusion there are conflicting results.

I am very well aware of the small risks involved and how small the actual benifits are, i weigh these risk and benifits and listen to what the "experts" say and use my OWN judgemnt. If after all this my judgement as a parent differs from yours, so be it, its not my concern what your judgement is. After all i would like to think all parents are only doing what they feel is best for thier child, i like to believe no parent wishes unnecessary harm upon thier child. I feel after viewing all material the risks are so small, especially when carried out by medical professionals that the 30 second procedure is worth it.

I also came across this article regarding a new procedure which eliminates all risk. http://www.mirror.co.uk/authors/miriam-stoppad/miriam-stoppard-on-adult-male-circumcision-1148211

What are your thoughts on this? Are you still opposed as the risk is now gone?

A new and surprisingly simple device is now on trial, having been given the US Food and Drug Administration’s seal of approval.

PrePex was invented by four Israelis and in trials it’s proved faster, less painful and more bloodless than other methods of circumcision, as it relies on an elastic band.

Yes, an elastic band – not too tight and not too slack. The band compresses the foreskin, which dies within hours and drops off a week later.

It’s done with anaesthetic cream and none of the 590 men tested became infected

 

[SteveOBHave]

No, to impose an atheist opinion would be to tell them to not believe in God or any other deity. I am advocating the middle ground and allowing them to make their own decision. There is a difference. Can you tell me why the 'blank canvasses' are more likely to become atheists?

As a procedure - I have no issues with it - it makes a great deal more sense than letting someone hack away at a childs penis, however it still does not address the exclusion of choice from that child. Interesting though that the target of the article is advocating the circumcision of adult men. I have no issues with that - they have full faculty to make that decision on their own.

If you eliminate both yours and my opinions, can you honestly tell me that the vast opinion is to the pro circumcision opinion amongst the medical fraternity?

 

[hurfdurf]

No, to impose an atheist opinion would be to tell them to not believe in God or any other deity. I am advocating the middle ground and allowing them to make their own decision. There is a difference. Can you tell me why the 'blank canvasses' are more likely to become atheists?

Because its harder to brainwash an adult than it is a small child with fairy tails probably.

Crush religion like any religion would try to crush other faiths and opposing viewpoints, like it attempted to in the past when it had the power, only do it with facts and science, not brainwashing, torture and genocide like Religion has to use.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Brainwashing, torture and genocide are not the soul domain of religions, they are part of humanity. It is the flaws of humanity that makes religion dangerous and misused and it is those same flaws that make guns and bombs and all other harmful things dangerous.

Religion is not the bad thing, it's the people that practice it and use it to bend the more susceptible to their will. Saying religion is harmful is like saying movies or computer games or dragons or fairies are harmful.

 

[hurfdurf]

Brainwashing, torture and genocide are not the soul domain of religions, they are part of humanity. It is the flaws of humanity that makes religion dangerous and misused and it is those same flaws that make guns and bombs and all other harmful things dangerous.

Religion is not the bad thing, it's the people that practice it and use it to bend the more susceptible to their will. Saying religion is harmful is like saying movies or computer games or dragons or fairies are harmful.

For evil men to do bad things takes nothing, for good men to do bad things, it takes religion.

 

[SteveOBHave]

I'm not sure that makes sense. In fact I'm pretty sure that doesn't make sense.

 

[Craterloads]

No, to impose an atheist opinion would be to tell them to not believe in God or any other deity. I am advocating the middle ground and allowing them to make their own decision. There is a difference. Can you tell me why the 'blank canvasses' are more likely to become atheists?

As a procedure - I have no issues with it - it makes a great deal more sense than letting someone hack away at a childs penis, however it still does not address the exclusion of choice from that child. Interesting though that the target of the article is advocating the circumcision of adult men. I have no issues with that - they have full faculty to make that decision on their own.

If you eliminate both yours and my opinions, can you honestly tell me that the vast opinion is to the pro circumcision opinion amongst the medical fraternity?

If they are not aware of god you are essentially doing the same, unless you suggest we teach them of the 20 plus religions, plus athiesm or other variants? This whole choice thing just doesnt make any sense and is contradictory on so many levels its mind numbing. If you sit down to think about all the decisions you make for your child you will see. A child cannot make its own decisions, it is a child. Of coarse if you are raised as a blank canvas you will more than likeley become an athiest, what you learn as a child is the most important things that will last with you forever. its perfectly reasonable to suggest if you are raised devoid of god, you will see no need for him as an adult.

Using your logic what can we actually do with a child? can i bring in extra tutors for him to learn biology, physics or chemistry on a weekend. Will this increase his chances of following that path as an adult? quite possibly yes. What you learn as a child is the most critical time you can learn. You would infact me harming your child by not teaching it as a child, that goes for religion. Why is it you only single out religion not be taught to children, why are you discriminating against it? Why not apply your logic to everything and anything, raise your child in wilderness and let him make is own choices as an adult? You said earlier these things are important and improve humanity, well so does religion.

A: its not hacking away at a childs penis. Thats just childish of you to suggest otherwise and i expect better from you.

B) As i stated earlier to you, i dont believe there is a choice. You are born to Jewish parent, you are Jewish etc. And as i have stated above. Or your parents use thier judgement and decide they want to do circumcission for the medical benifits stated (lets not go into that again )

The new procedure at the moment is for adults hence the article, BUT baby sizes are being develeoped and are soon to be released. See you were 1st arguing its harmful yada ya, now this PrePex is available or soon to be, which removes the harm, but you are still against it? Hence me stating that earlier a lot of people dont really care about the child health, its just a platform to be anti religion.

I dont know, ive not delved that deep into it. I can tell you there are plenty of medical proffesionals that are for it and plently that are against it. Considering 37% of the worldwide male population are circumcised i would say there is a healthy amount who are for it.

 

[Kenai]

I'm not sure that makes sense. In fact I'm pretty sure that doesn't make sense.

It makes sense

 

[Morbius]

These are COMPLICATIONS of surgery and not what i was reffering to when i stated "very little risk". I was pointing out to negatives of circumcision, the likes of "loss of sensitivity" claims and the rest, which have been proven to be a myth or inconclusive.

Circumcision is still unnecessary. My post from earlier still stands.

Cleanliness is solved more effectively by bathing than by circumcision.
STDs are prevented more effectively by a condom than by circumcision.

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that there are slight benefits in terms of hygiene and preventing STDs, circumcision is still rendered completely unnecessary by the fact that greater benefits can be had by simpler, non-surgical means.