German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Page]

The candy is not part of my body that just got cut off.

If there was a child that had six fingers on each hand and the parents wanted to remove them, would you be objecting to that? Scratch that.

If there was a large-ass benign tumor on the child that was causing no harm at all, would you object to it being removed? It's not causing any harm at all to the child and the parents want it removed. Would you let them?

If every single child born had the same benign tumor, and that benign tumor's existence was encoded into their genetics, then yes.

[Norstal]

That's not harmful. You experience the loss of rights everyday when you were a kid, e.g you didn't get the candy you want.

The candy is not part of my body that just got cut off.

So it's not about children rights then. It's about the loss of body parts, a useless one at that. It's no different than shaving.

[Southern Patriots]

I love how my home decides something that disagrees with Jewish ideology and we are automatically anti-Semitic.

Don't issue a ruling essentially calling my people barbarians and nobody will call you antisemitic.

Don't act like barbarians and no one will essentially call you one.

[Galla-]

And culture is part of that integrity of a human being. You have to remember the Jewish faith is not just a mere religion, it is a culture, the very foundation of their ethnicity.

Note that I said physical integrity (which doesn't intend to dismiss the culture part, but I still see it higher on the value scale).

I'm not very acquainted with Jewish culture, but I think I have an idea to reconcile:

Can the circumcision mark be, say, restored, with surgery, in the case someone circumcised decides they no longer want to bear that mark?

You can get a flap of skin that looks like a foreskin, but lacks the nerves and stuff.

[Genivaria]

The candy is not part of my body that just got cut off.

If there was a child that had six fingers on each hand and the parents wanted to remove them, would you be objecting to that? Scratch that.

If there was a large-ass benign tumor on the child that was causing no harm at all, would you object to it being removed? It's not causing any harm at all to the child and the parents want it removed. Would you let them?

I've never heard of a benign tumor just being left in someone, although I'm not a doctor so idk.
I find it hard to believe that there is no harm whatsoever in leaving it there, ultimately I'd follow the doctor's wisdom.

[Aeronos]

Good, uncircumcised penises are better at sex =D </justsayin>

In seriousness though, good. The very fact that circumcision is still tolerated in the West pretty much confirmed what Steven Weinberg said all along: to make a good person do a digusting and wicked act takes religion.

[Norstal]

When it's harmful. What part of "circumcision is not harmful" did you not get?

You have not proven that it isn't harmful to my satisfaction. The proof I have seen that it is constitutes going way past PG13, so I cannot post it here.

TG it to me then.

[Shard_Head]

Glad to hear it. It's always struck me as odd that the medical and legal communities have turned a blind eye to the practice. Fortunate that it's not particularly popular in the UK and that the Royal College of Paediatricians is against it.

[Genivaria]

The candy is not part of my body that just got cut off.

So it's not about children rights then. It's about the loss of body parts, a useless one at that. It's no different than shaving.

It most certainly IS about their rights.

[Person012345]

The candy is not part of my body that just got cut off.

So it's not about children rights then. It's about the loss of body parts, a useless one at that. It's no different than shaving.

But what if someone doesn't want to shave? Is it OK to force them to shave?

[North Calaveras]

Sucks for them, aim atheist but glad that im circumcised

besides you can't remember being circumcised lol

[Farnhamia]

You may think it's reasonable, 'Koku-san, but I believe Jewish parents have a command from Yahweh himself to have the circumcision performed within eight days (Leviticus 12:3). The court should know that, and knowing that, their statement about waiting is an amazing bit of disingenuous dissembling. If they don't know that, they are collectively an ass.

The problem is that the physical integrity of a human being is, I believe, higher in the value scale than religion. So it leaves little margin to solve the problem.

Yes, it leaves exactly no room. Devout Jews have no room for maneuver on this issue, in terms of their relationship with God. Muslims seem to have some, as Wiki tells me that Muslim boys are traditionally circumcised between the ages of six and eleven, so there is some room, but I daresay that religious teachings make it next to impossible that a Muslim boy will refuse or, if he does refuse, that he will not be ostracised. Again, that German court knows perfectly well at whom this ruling strikes and I am surprised.

[Narrow Path]

This may be the best thing Ive heard all day. Yes, it can be argued its a bit anti semetic but this is the 21st century so perhaps we should begin moving away from barbaric self mutilation.

Well you can if you want to, just leave others alone.

[Norstal]

That's not harmful. You experience the loss of rights everyday when you were a kid, e.g you didn't get the candy you want.

The equivalent in this case would be a parent being able to permanently remove the child's ability to eat sweets.

Except sugar is vital to your body, so that's harmful.

It most certainly IS about their rights.

Then how come you have no quips about the children's rights being violated when they can't get the candy they want, but when it's circumcision, you have a problem with it?

[SD_Film Artists]

Glad to hear it. It's always struck me as odd that the medical and legal communities have turned a blind eye to the practice. Fortunate that it's not particularly popular in the UK and that the Royal College of Paediatricians is against it.

This ^

[Person012345]

So it's not about children rights then. It's about the loss of body parts, a useless one at that. It's no different than shaving.

But what if someone doesn't want to shave? Is it OK to force them to shave?

Perhaps a better analogy - is it OK to force someone to get an appendectomy without their consent and for no reason?

[Page]

The problem is that the physical integrity of a human being is, I believe, higher in the value scale than religion. So it leaves little margin to solve the problem.

Yes, it leaves exactly no room. Devout Jews have no room for maneuver on this issue, in terms of their relationship with God. Muslims seem to have some, as Wiki tells me that Muslim boys are traditionally circumcised between the ages of six and eleven, so there is some room, but I daresay that religious teachings make it next to impossible that a Muslim boy will refuse or, if he does refuse, that he will not be ostracised. Again, that German court knows perfectly well at whom this ruling strikes and I am surprised.

So would you support banning secular circumcision then? Like, if a Christian or atheist parent in the USA wants to circumcise their kid because of nothing but a lifetime of indoctrination to make genital mutilation sound normal?

[Britcan]

Either they are helping to stop people abusing their children or they are just trying to get rid of the Jews in a more covert way...

[Genivaria]

The equivalent in this case would be a parent being able to permanently remove the child's ability to eat sweets.

Except sugar is vital to your body, so that's harmful.

It most certainly IS about their rights.

Then how come you have no quips about the children's rights being violated when they can't get the candy they want, but when it's circumcision, you have a problem with it?

I find it very sad that you don't see the difference.
1 is simply not giving the child something and the other is causing direct bodily harm.
Its more like forcing a child to get a piercing or tattoo then 'not giving them candy'.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

So it's not about children rights then. It's about the loss of body parts, a useless one at that. It's no different than shaving.

It's not about the utility of what's being removed - it's about an irreversible change to an individual's body without their consent.
If I shave, it comes back. If I'm denied sweets, I can get them later. This is permanent, and that's the issue.

[Person012345]

The equivalent in this case would be a parent being able to permanently remove the child's ability to eat sweets.

Except sugar is vital to your body, so that's harmful.

It most certainly IS about their rights.

Then how come you have no quips about the children's rights being violated when they can't get the candy they want, but when it's circumcision, you have a problem with it?

Does a child have some sort of right to get the candy they want? I wasn't aware that was considered a fundamental human right by most people.

[Narrow Path]

This may be the best thing Ive heard all day. Yes, it can be argued its a bit anti semetic but this is the 21st century so perhaps we should begin moving away from barbaric self mutilation of minors.

Fixed that for you.

Again, I say good for you. Just leave others to their business. It's not for you or any artificial court to decide how they raise their children.

[Narrow Path]

This may be the best thing Ive heard all day. Yes, it can be argued its a bit anti semetic but this is the 21st century so perhaps we should begin moving away from barbaric self mutilation of minors.

Fixed that for you.

Again, I say good for you. Just leave others to their business. It's not for you or any artificial court to decide how they raise their children.

[Narrow Path]

This may be the best thing Ive heard all day. Yes, it can be argued its a bit anti semetic but this is the 21st century so perhaps we should begin moving away from barbaric self mutilation of minors.

Fixed that for you.

Again, I say good for you. Just leave others to their business. It's not for you or any artificial court to decide how they raise their children.

[Samuraikoku]

You can get a flap of skin that looks like a foreskin, but lacks the nerves and stuff.

So in this case, I say make this surgery free. Granted, this would require a law, but I believe it would be a good way to solve the problem in the case an affected circumcised person feels their rights have been violated.

And since it seems that circumcision does not cause damage other than to the skin, the assault charges could be dismissed in this way.