German Court rules circumcision as assault

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

I wouldve objected to my jackass parents having me circumcised, but I was less than a month old, can a male less than a month old object? I couldnt even talk! And the legal system uses that to let parents voice consent on they're son's behalf.

I'm not sure that the constitution actually mandates a legal system, you might want to check up on that.

Right to a free trial? Also more countries have circumcision than just the USA.

[Jocabia]

It doesn't, many societies allowed ownership of the slave for a period of several years. It does not imply permanent ownership.

That isn't slavery. That's shitty translation

2:Assualt is attacking an innocent person, cutting off part of a young male's penis against his will doesnt count?

What is assault on an adult is not assault on your child.

Are you arguing against yourself? No one put that word in your mouth. You said that the parent/child relationship is a owner/property relationship. Shall I quote you again?

I said 'kinda'.

If you'd like to correct yourself, admit you were wrong and give us a better explanation of the relationship? Do parents temporarily own other people?

Sort of. It's quite complicated.

We have time, go ahead. Explain. Exactly how do parents kind of own their children and therefore get to cut of healthy, normal body parts? I'm all ears.

Also, so we're clear, the reason children's interactions with adults are held to a different standard than interactions with adults is due to capacity, not ownership or some version of ownership. Children have rights, just like adults. Children do not have the capacity to exercise those rights so much like a guardian for someone in a coma, we are allowed to exercise their rights for them. We are expected to do so in limited ways to protect the interests of the child or where it is necessary in order to reasonably exercise your role as guardian. Parents do not have cart blanch to treat their children as property, not even temporary property.

However, if you have a better explanation for the role of a parent than the exactly identical role of guardian, then, please, I'm all ears.

[Lialoth]

Right to a free trial? Also more countries have circumcision than just the USA.

Routine circumcision for non-religious reasons is almost entirely an American thing.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

That isn't slavery. That's shitty translation

What is assault on an adult is not assault on your child.

I said 'kinda'.

Sort of. It's quite complicated.

We have time, go ahead. Explain. Exactly how do parents kind of own their children and therefore get to cut of healthy, normal body parts? I'm all ears.

I know! Because they came out of their mothers vagina! That makes it hers! Yeah lets keep those little slaves under parental control! That was sarcasm. But some people actually belive that.

[Tmutarakhan]

I missed this post, which does help to explain your own level of emotion.

Emotion?

I haven't made any emotional posts.

All of your posts have struck me as motivated purely by emotion.

...which is that you are quite capable of talking rationally on some topics, but on this one, er, not so much.

Ironically, since I've seen you argue rationally in other threads even while this one was ongoing, I'd actually written this off as the one topic YOU can't deal with rationally.

Apparently, we've each reached the same conclusions about the other.

I have not always managed to keep calm while repeating the same facts over and over and over, but I have at least adhered to the facts.

Your position, that the benefits do not exist at all, is found only among the ill-informed.

I didn't say that was my position.

You have spent pages and pages lambasting me for patiently repeating that the benefits definitely do exist. Are you now conceding the point?

If I ever have a son than I am not forcing him to go through what I have had to.

What, exactly, have you "had to go through"? You would never have noticed any difference, because it doesn't make any difference. You are the purest example we have seen on this thread of baseless neurosis. Now, Jocabia, whose glans was injured, does have some genuine reason to wish circumcision had not been performed; although not as strong as the reason Tim (the German boy who lost his penis at 12) has for wishing that it had been performed. You? Nothing has happened to you; you haven't had Jocabia's problem, and perhaps you would have instead had Tim's problem but have been spared it.

Would my foreskin grow until I could no longer function so the need to trim it back was clear?

Yes, that does happen sometimes. When the foreskin starts growing explosively, it invades the glans first, then the erectile tissues, then the nodes in the groin, and then invades the rest of the body. The trimming that is required is quite severe. This doesn't happen often, but I am glad to have no chance of this happening to me.

Unfortunately, in the US we've continued the myth that there are medical benefits

It's not a myth. It's a fact. It is also a fact that there are risks. Weighing the trade-off between risk and benefit is a judgment call.

Rational people would look at the fact that we have far worse outcomes than countries that no longer practice routine circumcision

That's not the fact. If you want to look at the data, we can look at the data.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Right to a free trial? Also more countries have circumcision than just the USA.

Routine circumcision for non-religious reasons is almost entirely an American thing.

Well you know my circumcision wasnt for religious reasons. My mother, Leslie, is a Pagan. My father, William or usually called Jeff, is a non praticing Christian who I just recently got to come with me to church on sundays. But you dont have to be American to be circumcised for reasons other than religion.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

That isn't slavery. That's shitty translation

What is assault on an adult is not assault on your child.

I said 'kinda'.

Sort of. It's quite complicated.

We have time, go ahead. Explain. Exactly how do parents kind of own their children and therefore get to cut of healthy, normal body parts? I'm all ears.

Naw, you don't get to keep your ears.
c; It's not harmful and there won't ever be a build up of ear wax.
It's all for your health, you see![/sarcasm]

[NMaa942]

All of your posts have struck me as motivated purely by emotion.

Most people with normal thinking consider it alright to sometimes be motivated purely by emotion in some circumstances. In response to rape, for example.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

We have time, go ahead. Explain. Exactly how do parents kind of own their children and therefore get to cut of healthy, normal body parts? I'm all ears.

Naw, you don't get to keep your ears.
c; It's not harmful and there won't ever be a build up of ear wax.
It's all for your health, you see![/sarcasm]

Oh and your eyeballs! They can get diesesed so lets pluck them out! Its for your own good son. Sarcasm.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Hygiene with regards to the fingernails. Any doctor that puts an infant completely under for circumcision is stupid. Local anesthetics are enough

And local anesthetics are still dangerous, doc.

I mean, you must be a doctor, because you are willing to have a surgery conducted on your children that can kill them and you defend it by pointing out that it can prevent diseases better addressed with hygiene, that are easily treated without surgery and are less of a risk than the surgery is.

Ah, but you could prevent those 100 deaths. Please, tell us exactly how you'd go about preventing surgical complications. I promise to give you credit when you publish the paper that saves 1000s of lives (since if you can prevent circumcision deaths, then you can prevent deaths in all sorts of surgeries involving local anesthesia). I wait with bated breath.

Or did you not realize this is actually a surgery, as opposed to say, cutting one's fingernails? Did you not realize that it involves ripping the foreskin away from the glans because the surgery is done before the foreskin naturally detaches from the glans? Did you not realize that the cutting occurs after the foreskin is torn away from the glans and the exposed and raw glans AND the wound from the cutting both have a risk of infection that is mitigated by but not eliminated by hygiene? Did you not realize that in addition to infection and complications from anesthesia there are several other complications that go with pretty much any surgical procedure, several of which result in the need for additional surgeries and can have severe repercussions, including the loss of the penis and death?

Nah, of course you knew all this, because you're wouldn't hastily defend a surgical procedure you haven't fully examined all the risks of would you? I mean, there is no way that you'd ignorantly compare minor surgery to cutting one's nails without having a great deal of knowledge about complications? Nah, you're way to rational of a guy to do something so classically and embarrassingly ignorant.

It's a lot harder to screw up local anathesia. More children die from riding the school bus, which is completely elective. Let's ban that too! More children die in the bathtub! NO BATHING BABIES! Gotta use dem showers.

Fact is, if you're being responsible, the child will be fine. In bathing, in driving, in circumcision (in this case, finding a well qualified doctor with many recommendations and credentials to his name).

[Lialoth]

Fact is, if you're being responsible, the child will be fine. In bathing, in driving, in circumcision (in this case, finding a well qualified doctor with many recommendations and credentials to his name).

Yes, but it's still more dangerous than the alternative (leaving the child intact).

[Jocabia]

We have time, go ahead. Explain. Exactly how do parents kind of own their children and therefore get to cut of healthy, normal body parts? I'm all ears.

Naw, you don't get to keep your ears.
c; It's not harmful and there won't ever be a build up of ear wax.
It's all for your health, you see![/sarcasm]

I've heard that once your ears are cut of there is zero chance of ear pimples.

Heck, I say we just cut off any extra skin we can find. Someone prove to me we need earlobes. Now, dammit!

[Blakk Metal]

Naw, you don't get to keep your ears.
c; It's not harmful and there won't ever be a build up of ear wax.
It's all for your health, you see![/sarcasm]

Oh and your eyeballs! They can get diesesed so lets pluck them out! Its for your own good son. Sarcasm.

Red Herring

[Blakk Metal]

Naw, you don't get to keep your ears.
c; It's not harmful and there won't ever be a build up of ear wax.
It's all for your health, you see![/sarcasm]

I've heard that once your ears are cut of there is zero chance of ear pimples.

Heck, I say we just cut off any extra skin we can find. Someone prove to me we need earlobes. Now, dammit!

Legal =/= Good idea

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Fact is, if you're being responsible, the child will be fine. In bathing, in driving, in circumcision (in this case, finding a well qualified doctor with many recommendations and credentials to his name).

Yes, but it's still more dangerous than the alternative (leaving the child intact).

With HIV and penile cancer considered? Not really. Bathing a baby is a lot more dangerous than holding them in a shower, significantly moreso than circumcision vs intact. Let's ban bathing babies!

[Tmutarakhan]

Oh and the difference between skinning ones knee and losing their leg is that the leg does not grow back and the skin on the knee does.

Not in my case actually, I have a patch of scar tissue by my knee instead. Big whoop.

Can we also stop comparing it to skinning one's knees, cutting of hair and nails, or various other things. It's removed. It's not coming back. It's a purposeful removal of a part of a child's body.

The comparison I made was to appendectomy. The appendix is removed. It's not coming back. GOOD. The appendix does harm. If it were on the surface, rather than buried deep in the gut, it would be a reasonable practice to remove it at birth, but there are always considerations of surgical risk.

All of your posts have struck me as motivated purely by emotion.

Most people with normal thinking consider it alright to sometimes be motivated purely by emotion in some circumstances. In response to rape, for example.

Most people with normal thinking would not consider rape a sane comparison here.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Naw, you don't get to keep your ears.
c; It's not harmful and there won't ever be a build up of ear wax.
It's all for your health, you see![/sarcasm]

I've heard that once your ears are cut of there is zero chance of ear pimples.

Heck, I say we just cut off any extra skin we can find. Someone prove to me we need earlobes. Now, dammit!

Oh and we cant prove that legs are needed! Lets legalise cutting off legs!

[NMaa942]

Most people with normal thinking would not consider rape a sane comparison here.

I don't actually claim to have normal thinking. That's what makes me such a good judge.

[Blakk Metal]

Delete this post

[Lialoth]

Most people with normal thinking would not consider rape a sane comparison here.

Actually both involve the violation of another person's bodily sovereignty rights and an open disregard for the consent clause.

It's the same type of rights violation.

[Tmutarakhan]

Naw, you don't get to keep your ears.
c; It's not harmful and there won't ever be a build up of ear wax.
It's all for your health, you see![/sarcasm]

I've heard that once your ears are cut of there is zero chance of ear pimples.

Whereas, if your ears are not cut off, you can hear. If your foreskin is left intact, you can enjoy sex-- oh wait, if your foreskin is gone, you can still do that, just the same.

Heck, I say we just cut off any extra skin we can find. Someone prove to me we need earlobes. Now, dammit!

Prove to me that earlobes cause damage.
But, you know, there are some cultures where parents pierce their children's ears and put earrings in there, before the children know about it. I would not consider that much of an outrage. I wouldn't compare it to rape, say.

[Blakk Metal]

Most people with normal thinking would not consider rape a sane comparison here.

Actually both involve the violation of another person's bodily sovereignty rights and an open disregard for the consent clause.

It's the same type of rights violation.

Not even close.

[Tmutarakhan]

Most people with normal thinking would not consider rape a sane comparison here.

I don't actually claim to have normal thinking. That's what makes me such a good judge.

No, it's what makes you a terrible judge.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Oh and we cant prove that legs are needed! Lets legalise cutting off legs!

Sigged for fail.

...Jerk...

[Lialoth]

Not even close.

So you're saying that rape isn't bad because it's a violation of a person's bodily sovereignty and is in open violation of the consent clause?

What, pray tell, is it then?