German Court rules circumcision as assault

[The Godly Nations]

Nope. The the burden lies on the opponents of the procedure, because when you're going against the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.

Wait, wait, hold on. Last I checked, babies are not born without foreskin.

Last time I checked, the bloody parents should decide what is best for their child.

[Neutraligon]

Any surgery offers complications, hell birth offers complications. By ruling this way, the judge makes it all the more likely that complications will occur since the process will go underground. Circumcision is a very important part of the Jewish religion, whether you agree with it or not, by making it illegal, people will do what they have done in the past when such an important part of the religion was not permitted...do it anyway.

At which point, by gods, I wont have a problem calling the parents involved "bad parents". If the status of the child's foreskin, because of what their religion says, is more important than the health and well being of their child... well, they probably shouldn't have a child.

It is the same thing I feel about those parents who decide to "pray away" a life threatening illness rather than use modern medicine that can treat it incredibly safely and successfully.

Show that circumcision normally causes harm. Until you do you have no reason to claim they are "bad parents." Your religion doesn't agree with it. Fine, but since it doesn't cause harm there is no reason to legislate against it, especially since such legislation will probably cause more harm, not less.

[The Godly Nations]

Nope. The the burden lies on the opponents of the procedure, because when you're going against the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.

I completely disagree; the status quo may be relevant practically, but morally and scientifically speaking it means nothing in the face of evidence of long-term physical or psychological harm.

Morally speaking- why deprive parents their liberty to raise their child as they will?

Scientifically speaking- what harm?

[Tlaceceyaya]

Wait, wait, hold on. Last I checked, babies are not born without foreskin.

Last time I checked, the bloody parents should decide what is best for their child.

Why? The child doesn't need the foreskin removed and, upon reaching the age of consent, would likely not get it removed.

[The Godly Nations]

Any surgery offers complications, hell birth offers complications. By ruling this way, the judge makes it all the more likely that complications will occur since the process will go underground. Circumcision is a very important part of the Jewish religion, whether you agree with it or not, by making it illegal, people will do what they have done in the past when such an important part of the religion was not permitted...do it anyway.

At which point, by gods, I wont have a problem calling the parents involved "bad parents". If the status of the child's foreskin, because of what their religion says, is more important than the health and well being of their child... well, they probably shouldn't have a child.

It is the same thing I feel about those parents who decide to "pray away" a life threatening illness rather than use modern medicine that can treat it incredibly safely and successfully.

except circumcision doesn't affect the health or well-being of a child.

[Neutraligon]

I completely disagree; the status quo may be relevant practically, but morally and scientifically speaking it means nothing in the face of evidence of long-term physical or psychological harm.

Morally speaking- why deprive parents their liberty to raise their child as they will?

Scientifically speaking- what harm?

The burden of proof still lies with those trying to make the claim that circumcision causes harm. they must disprove the null hypothesis, which is that circumcision either does not affect or positively affects the medical outcome of the child.

[Earth Empire]

Wait, so the parents can't decide to chop off a little skin but they can decide to kill it?
No logic what so ever.

[The Godly Nations]

Last time I checked, the bloody parents should decide what is best for their child.

Why? The child doesn't need the foreskin removed and, upon reaching the age of consent, would likely not get it removed.

The Child doesn't need the foreskin at all to develop properly, and if I think that removing it would be best for the child's development, and since snipping doesn't adversely affect the development of a child, then I bloody well think I can make that decision for my child, just as I can decide whether he should be vaccinated.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Wait, so the parents can't decide to chop off a little skin but they can decide to kill it?
No logic what so ever.

No, they can't decide to kill their child. They can decide that they don't want it and have an abortion before it's born (as that is the only option other than waiting it out for several months) or let it be born and put it into The System.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Why? The child doesn't need the foreskin removed and, upon reaching the age of consent, would likely not get it removed.

The Child doesn't need the foreskin at all to develop properly, and if I think that removing it would be best for the child's development, and since snipping doesn't adversely affect the development of a child, then I bloody well think I can make that decision for my child, just as I can decide whether he should be vaccinated.

So if I think that my child would develop best with a tattoo of my face on his left butt cheek, I have the right to do that?

[Xerberos]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is pain involved in circumcision. More pain than you would feel as an adult, actually.

SOURCE we have given sources that say it is more painful as an adult, and most likely will be remembered, unlike with a child.

You haven't though. You've given sources that say it's more risky, but not that it's more painful. It's certainly more likely to be remembered as an adult, but I don't see how that's relevant.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2009/Fea ... 054083.htm
http://www.circumcision.org/advocates.htm
http://www.circumcision.org/harmswomen.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17475991

But circumcision has harmed people. It offers benefits in the form of increased protection from chafing, etc and it gives you more sensation.

First, Circumcision has not been conclusively shown to deteriorate any person's life. There is also nothing conclusive on the sexual benefits of having a foreskin either. All of that, then, is bullshit.

Second, the foreskin is also a breeding ground for germs, and can be linked to the spread of certain STDs. In addition, to have a foreskin is to increase you chances of Phimosis, for obvious reasons.

It has been shown to deteriorate people's lives. There was a poster earlier in this thread that has a worse life because he was circumcised. Some people are not negatively impacted, but some people are, and to claim that it hasn't been shown to deteriorate any person's life is just misleading and wrong. Similarly, more people report loss of sensation upon circumcision than report a gain, which indicates that it does have a sexual benefit. It has also been shown to cause trauma even later in life. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Alexithymia-circu ... B0065EJCOK

Mob rule certainly is bad. However, it's also exactly what you're doing by automatically circumcising male babies; you (the "mob") is putting your religious beliefs onto an individual who cannot choose his own.

Parent's can make medical decisions for their children. Is this mob rule. Children are forced to go to school, is this mob rule?

In the case of religious reasons for circumcision, it's not just the parents; it's the culture behind it, which is mob rule.

1 in 500 is not non-existent. It has harmed people. It has to have harmed people for 1 in 500 people to have suffered complications from it.



But it isn't. It sometimes is harmless, and other times isn't. The fact of the matter is that it's the child's choice to make, not yours, since it's not a medically necessary procedure.

1 in 500 means that you have a 0.002% chance of getting complication from it, and of these few, most are relatively minor and can be treated immediately and effectively. But, say that you are right, that even rarity of complication is enough to ban it altogether, let's ban vaccines then- complications in vaccines, rare as it is, is not entirely unheard of.

Vaccines provide a definitive public health benefit, as well as possessing definitive health benefits to the person receiving it. 1 in 500 is also a 0.2% chance, not 0.002%.

So you're saying that because of nine cases in the history of the US, it should be legal? And even in the other countries in the source you provided, it was just in the hundreds? I'm sorry, that's not a legitimate reason.

WHAT???
You seem to be completely misunderstanding the argument. My assertion was that infant circumcision absolutely prevents the conditions which require penile amputation, that the foreskin causes all such problems, and delaying removal of the foreskin past infancy can result in tragic cases like the German boy in the video I linked to. Last time we went around and around on this, I was called to task for claiming that circumcision was 100% preventative; surely, it was argued, nothing is 100%. Well, this is as about as close to 100% as you ever get in such cases: out of a population of hundred of millions over the course of a couple centuries, there are only nine circumcised cases, six of which were adult circumcisions-- that is, the foreskin had already manifested some diseased condition that required removal; so, infant circumcision would have prevented all but three. Among non-circumcised populations, there are hundreds of cases per million males per year; a low chance, but I am happy to know that in my personal case, the chance is ZERO.

I'm not misunderstanding the argument at all. You're saying that circumcision absolutely prevents cases of penile cancer. I'm saying that even assuming that's the case, it can be done when the person is an adult and undergoes the procedure voluntarily, not when it's forced upon them as a child.

[Shofercia]

Nope. The the burden lies on the opponents of the procedure, because when you're going against the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.

Wait, wait, hold on. Last I checked, babies are not born without foreskin.

If you're challenging a millennia long cultural tradition, you should at least be able to meet the burden of proof that shows that your suggested changes would do more good than harm.

Do you not see the inherent logical fallacy there?

"Jim Crow Laws unfairly target blacks!"
"Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!"

Really? That's the argument you're making?

No, that's the argument you're making.

No, I'm using Jim Crow Laws to show the fallacy of your rebuttal, because saying that "Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!" isn't a valid rebuttal to anything, much less a coherent argument that someone else was making.

Nope. The the burden lies on the opponents of the procedure, because when you're going against the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.

I completely disagree; the status quo may be relevant practically, but morally and scientifically speaking it means nothing in the face of evidence of long-term physical or psychological harm.

Morally? So now you're questioning a religion's morality based on an inconclusive study?

[The Godly Nations]

Wait, so the parents can't decide to chop off a little skin but they can decide to kill it?
No logic what so ever.

No, they can't decide to kill their child. They can decide that they don't want it and have an abortion before it's born (as that is the only option other than waiting it out for several months) or let it be born and put it into The System.

To use a pro-life argument, and essentially the same drivel you have been repeating- why shouldn't the unborn foetus have a choice in the matter? Shouldn't it have a chance to life as a baby should a chance to a foreskin, and, if it doesn't want to live latter in life, it can undergo a procedure known as suicide.

[Crogach]

I completely disagree; the status quo may be relevant practically, but morally and scientifically speaking it means nothing in the face of evidence of long-term physical or psychological harm.

Morally speaking- why deprive parents their liberty to raise their child as they will?

Scientifically speaking- what harm?

Scientifically speaking, check the study I linked to on the previous page; they found a number of long-term physical and psychological effects. While there does exist the possibility of overemphasis due to selection issues and there need to be several long-term studies that follow cadres of infants from birth through circumcision (or not, in the case of the control group) to manhood and attempt to get a greater body of evidence, what's there is still enough to justify at least some sort of moratorium until we know a lot more.

Morally speaking, we already do that. You can't beat your kids (well, you probably can in certain places but that's more because child services agencies are woefully understaffed and underfunded), and were you to sign your tot up for involuntary gender reassignment or a gratuitous nose job I doubt that would go down particularly well either. You may raise your kids as you wish so long as you do not inflict physical or long-term psychological harm, but there are lines.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Wait, wait, hold on. Last I checked, babies are not born without foreskin.

If you're challenging a millennia long cultural tradition, you should at least be able to meet the burden of proof that shows that your suggested changes would do more good than harm.

No, that's the argument you're making.

No, I'm using Jim Crow Laws to show the fallacy of your rebuttal, because saying that "Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!" isn't a valid rebuttal to anything, much less a coherent argument that someone else was making.

I completely disagree; the status quo may be relevant practically, but morally and scientifically speaking it means nothing in the face of evidence of long-term physical or psychological harm.

Morally? So now you're questioning a religion's morality based on an inconclusive study?

1: The burden of proof is not on the one opposing the status quo. It is on the one saying that something does something. The burden of proof is on pro-circumcision people to prove that circumcision is good, as a boy left alone will still have a foreskin.

[Fischistan]

For those who wanted a source about infant circumcision being more painful: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/worse.htm

[Neutraligon]

The Child doesn't need the foreskin at all to develop properly, and if I think that removing it would be best for the child's development, and since snipping doesn't adversely affect the development of a child, then I bloody well think I can make that decision for my child, just as I can decide whether he should be vaccinated.

So if I think that my child would develop best with a tattoo of my face on his left butt cheek, I have the right to do that?

IF you believe so and it causes no harm, why not. I doubt you could get any tattoo artist to agree to such a procedure.

[Wonggilo]

Agreed with the ruling.

This.

[Earth Empire]

Wait, so the parents can't decide to chop off a little skin but they can decide to kill it?
No logic what so ever.

No, they can't decide to kill their child. They can decide that they don't want it and have an abortion before it's born (as that is the only option other than waiting it out for several months) or let it be born and put it into The System.

Same damn thing. The baby is even less defended in abortion because it has idiot parents.
Anti-life people talk like babies are like animals and can just be "tossed aside".

[The Godly Nations]

The Child doesn't need the foreskin at all to develop properly, and if I think that removing it would be best for the child's development, and since snipping doesn't adversely affect the development of a child, then I bloody well think I can make that decision for my child, just as I can decide whether he should be vaccinated.

So if I think that my child would develop best with a tattoo of my face on his left butt cheek, I have the right to do that?

I don't see why he shouldn't if it doesn't adversely affect his health, but tattoos aren't exactly safe for children.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So if I think that my child would develop best with a tattoo of my face on his left butt cheek, I have the right to do that?

IF you believe so and it causes no harm, why not. I doubt you could get any tattoo artist to agree to such a procedure.

What of the child's bodily sovereignty? I am causing irreparable changes to it without its consent and without a medical reason.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

Or you can throw it on the doorstep of a firehouse, or in front of any federal building... Or a church. Or really, throw it anywhere at all. Abandon the shit out of it as long as you don't touch that foreskin!

Once you pop it out you are fully responsible for its welfare, and may transfer that responsibility to other people or institutions as long as the aforementioned institutions can be reasonably expected to manage that responsibility. You don't get to cut up its dong any more than you get to shake it to shut it up (which does cause brain damage, Google "shaken baby syndrome" for more) or give it a knuckle sandwich when it pisses you off.

Yeah, you "transfer that responsibility" by dumping it at a doorstep anyonmously and in the small hours of the night like some garbage, or an unwanted puppy. No problem, but don't touch that tip! It's a lovely world we live in.

[The Godly Nations]

For those who wanted a source about infant circumcision being more painful: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/worse.htm

So, to prove your statement, you decide to bring in a partisan sight. I think I might prove that Jews are to be blamed for everything by bringing in statements from Jew-watch of the BNP site.

[Fischistan]

So if I think that my child would develop best with a tattoo of my face on his left butt cheek, I have the right to do that?

I don't see why he shouldn't if it doesn't adversely affect his health, but tattoos aren't exactly safe for children.

Tatoos won't adversely affect the health of a child, do you think we should be allowed to tattoo our infants?

[The Godly Nations]

IF you believe so and it causes no harm, why not. I doubt you could get any tattoo artist to agree to such a procedure.

What of the child's bodily sovereignty? I am causing irreparable changes to it without its consent and without a medical reason.

What of it? It doesn't adversely affect the child's development, and you are already causing irreparable change to the child- proof, he's existing, and you cause him to exist.