German Court rules circumcision as assault

[The Godly Nations]

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?

Why not?

[Transhuman Proteus]

First off, the Child, being a blank slate, does not have the capacity to make the best choice for themselves, this is why we have parents. It is the liberty of the parents to do what they think is best for the child, so long as the child is not harm, as this is the natural laws between a child and his parents, as deduced by the our ancient sages, the former offering his obedience and his reverence, and the latter, love and care. Now circumcision does not harm the child, it doesn't even adversely affect the child's development, and, as another sage noted, that our body is essentially our parents, so to must they have the right to dispose of it so long as they do not harm the child.

Natural laws. Right. Our ancient sages. Uh huh.

Modern law in this arena go beyond those simple notions. Bodily integrity and autonomy were not as high on significant conceptually to the ancient sages. It is one of the reasons individual and human rights are significantly better today than they were a thousand years ago.

In addition, to say that Children should have the right to choose their schooling and their enviorment is to say that Children should have the right to make these decisions for themselves, yet, all considering, how can Children make these decision for themselves unless they were properly educated, and how can they be educated without first being enrolled in a school to learn. In addition, you also ask that the Children should have the right to choose their parents and their environment, and, assuming these can be changed, who raised them to show what is good and bad- they do not choose for themselves, their minds are empty at birth and what they learn is what their parents instill in them. Thus, it again becomes circular. Therefore, it is necessary for the government leave everything at the hands of the parent- to devolve its authority, if you will.

Exactly. Hence why I didn't say I wanted to see it become reality because I recognize we aren't there yet in behaviorists and mental rights (mental determination as it were). Kids are sponges and most parents do their best for the children. Or at least what they think is best. Plenty of kids end up screwed up true, or whatever other negative thing, because of that, but plenty don't and there is always the potential to change ones mind (though it can be difficult).

My bias is simple - "and what they learn is what their parents instill in them" - alas there are many parents that are full of crap, and so they fill their children with it as well, and alas that child never had a choice but to suck it up. The most important thing in that case is that children are also provided with the necessary knowledge to make their own decisions eventually and approach the world rationally. Alas sometimes they aren't which makes it so much harder (since they end up being sent to a fundamental religious school or something like that).

In addition, I also feel that the extension of government to the parent's liberty is unjustified, not only in its targeting of certain ethnic groups, but in the idea that the government should interfere with how a person chooses to raise their child- so long as they are not harmed, what, then, should the government care?

The government has a duty of care to the citizens who elect it and to the state as a whole. Individual rights, like bodily integrity, are something it should concern itself with. The whole concept of "well it isn't broke so badly it isn't working anymore" is junk. As are appeals to "tradition". Conceptually the idea that a parents rights extend to making permanent cosmetic alterations to their children doesn't really gel with the concept of bodily autonomy and integrity.

[Shofercia]

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, 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.




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.

Again, when you're challenging a millennia old cultural tradition, you need something more than an inconclusive study for the challenge to succeed. "Something doing something" is too broad a standard, and can be argued both ways. For instance, by telling the parents and the doctors to not perform the procedure, something, (the court,) is doing something (telling the parents and the doctors how to act,) so is the burden of proof on them? Because in most cases, the doctors would be ok with performing the procedures, so the courts would be intervening to stop said procedures.

[Neutraligon]

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

I see little proof the the things they claim. The part about seperation from the glans is not backed up since I have no idea where that information came from. Further it makes the assumption that they are either not anesthetized, or done so with a shot, neither of which is necessarily true. Many of the claims are not sourced. Further it makes no mention of the beneficial affects. I see no references for what is claimed in What exactly is circumcision and what is it not? Also, Considering the group I am not sure I trust anything coming from them.

[The Godly Nations]

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

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

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 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%.

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.

And circumcision is shown, conclusively, to help prevent the attainment of HIV.

It is low risk, as vaccines, and you may never encounter the diseases you have been vaccinated for, and the nature of those complications at 0.2% are mostly minor.

[Xerberos]

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.

But it does cause harm in a significant number of cases. See my last post.

[Fischistan]

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

Why not?

Because it's fucking permanent. What if, when the child grown up, he doesn't want the tattoo?

[Magmia]

Well, I see this as a shame personally. I was circumcised shortly after I was born (for non-religious reasons), and I love my parents for doing so. Parents make decisions on their child's behalf all the time, and circumcision is just one of those things. Making it a crime is just another way of limiting liberty.

And I'm sorry, I gotta say it; of all the countries this had to have happened, it had to be Germany. Coincidence? You decide......

[The Godly Nations]

Why not?

Because it's fucking permanent. What if, when the child grown up, he doesn't want the tattoo?

1- You can remove tattoos.
2- If you can't, so what, it doesn't adversely affect the child's living, and if you think it was for his benefit, then by all means, do it. You are the parent, and who am I to tell you how to raise your kids.

[Neutraligon]

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.

But it does cause harm in a significant number of cases. See my last post.

ANd there are studies that show id does not, when performed correctly. The problem is is that studies contradict one another, so there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. More than that the previous poster could not show that it was the circumcision that made his life worse.

[Fischistan]

Because it's fucking permanent. What if, when the child grown up, he doesn't want the tattoo?

1- You can remove tattoos.
2- If you can't, so what, it doesn't adversely affect the child's living, and, if he grows up, he would probably have been used to it, you know, having for the greater part of his life.

Tattoo removals are extremely painful, and don;t always work.

He shouldn't be tattooed against his will. You don't really believe what you are saying, do you?

[Neutraligon]

1- You can remove tattoos.
2- If you can't, so what, it doesn't adversely affect the child's living, and, if he grows up, he would probably have been used to it, you know, having for the greater part of his life.

Tattoo removals are extremely painful, and don;t always work.

He shouldn't be tattooed against his will. You don't really believe what you are saying, do you?

I do, especially since it is such a major part of my religion. I have yet to see conclusive proof it causes harm when done correctly. As I have said before considering it is such a major part of certain religions, this ruling will simply force it underground. Furthermore considering the country that decided this, and the history it has, I cannot think this is a good decision.

[Xerberos]

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



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



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



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%.



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.

And circumcision is shown, conclusively, to help prevent the attainment of HIV.

It is low risk, as vaccines, and you may never encounter the diseases you have been vaccinated for, and the nature of those complications at 0.2% are mostly minor.

Indeed, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of contracting HIV. However, condoms are far more successful in that regard. Furthermore, if you're making the argument that 0.2% is minor, what's the chance of contracting HIV from a person in Germany? Not to mention you not addressing the other points of the post; specifically, several studies that showed both increased pain in babies compared to adults and lasting psychological trauma in circumcised people. Another study showed loss of sensation in circumcised people versus non-circumcised people.

I have no problem with the procedure being voluntarily chosen by a consenting adult, or even someone who is old enough to responsibly make their own decisions (which may not be the legal age of adulthood). However, as a parent, you do not have the right to do permanent medical procedures on your child unless they are medically necessary. Most infant circumcisions are not. I understand that you disagree with that statement. Is there any way you will change your mind? Otherwise, we're both just wasting our time.

[Transhuman Proteus]

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".

If it was a baby you'd have a point. The stage at which most abortions are performed it is naught but a clutch of cells. Human cells yes, but not a person (much like a finger is a bunch of human cells but not a person).

A clutch of cells that are naturally aborted quite frequently by the human body anyway, with out any outside help.

And anti-life. So silly. Unless you are Darkseid.

[Xerberos]

But it does cause harm in a significant number of cases. See my last post.

ANd there are studies that show id does not, when performed correctly. The problem is is that studies contradict one another, so there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. More than that the previous poster could not show that it was the circumcision that made his life worse.

Ah, but the studies I quoted gave evidence of lasting psychological harm. To my knowledge, there are no opposing studies. The studies showing physical harm are more ambiguous, but the one I sourced had a fairly large control group, while the others I've seen have been smaller.

The previous poster could not show that the circumcision was directly related to his current medical problems, true. However, he feels that it made his life worse in other ways, and wishes it had not been done to him.

[The Godly Nations]

1- You can remove tattoos.
2- If you can't, so what, it doesn't adversely affect the child's living, and, if he grows up, he would probably have been used to it, you know, having for the greater part of his life.

Tattoo removals are extremely painful, and don;t always work.

He shouldn't be tattooed against his will. You don't really believe what you are saying, do you?

1. He wanted to remove it.

2. An infant does not have a will, because to have a will one must be conscious, and so able to do something deliberately for a want. Now, infants are creatures entirely of instincts, a tabula rasa if you will. That is why we have parents, so then they can raise the child in such a way as they think benefits them- the child didn't will to live in so and so neighbourhood or go to so and so school, or be brought up in so and so religion. These things often affect the child more than simple snipping of a minor skin, or a tattoo, and yet, no one objects to it. And rightly so, for who is to tell someone the best way to raise their child- so long as the child is not harm, it is no skin off my nose, nor should it be a skin off anybody's nose, including the government.

[Neutraligon]

And circumcision is shown, conclusively, to help prevent the attainment of HIV.

It is low risk, as vaccines, and you may never encounter the diseases you have been vaccinated for, and the nature of those complications at 0.2% are mostly minor.

Indeed, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of contracting HIV. However, condoms are far more successful in that regard. Furthermore, if you're making the argument that 0.2% is minor, what's the chance of contracting HIV from a person in Germany? Not to mention you not addressing the other points of the post; specifically, several studies that showed both increased pain in babies compared to adults and lasting psychological trauma in circumcised people. Another study showed loss of sensation in circumcised people versus non-circumcised people.

I have no problem with the procedure being voluntarily chosen by a consenting adult, or even someone who is old enough to responsibly make their own decisions (which may not be the legal age of adulthood). However, as a parent, you do not have the right to do permanent medical procedures on your child unless they are medically necessary. Most infant circumcisions are not. I understand that you disagree with that statement. Is there any way you will change your mind? Otherwise, we're both just wasting our time.

And those studies have also be contradicted, and most of them are not conclusive. I can understand your reasoning, but please also understand that this is a slap in the face for many people for whom such a procedure is intrinsic to their religion. So intrinsic that the law WILL NOT STOP THEM. They will continue to perform circumcisions, and now that it is illegal, the procedure will probably become more risky, not less. Furthermore such a decision will raise resentment towards the German government, and can quit easily be seen as antisemitic, especially considering the history of that country. I would have a problem if this were decided in any country, but the fact that it is happening in Germany makes it worse.

I do not contradict that babies feel pain, but they are given anesthesia, and pain medication after.

Unfortunately I can not access the studies, and the other parts are not sourced in paper so I cannot look at them.

[The Godly Nations]

And circumcision is shown, conclusively, to help prevent the attainment of HIV.

It is low risk, as vaccines, and you may never encounter the diseases you have been vaccinated for, and the nature of those complications at 0.2% are mostly minor.

Indeed, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of contracting HIV. However, condoms are far more successful in that regard. Furthermore, if you're making the argument that 0.2% is minor, what's the chance of contracting HIV from a person in Germany? Not to mention you not addressing the other points of the post; specifically, several studies that showed both increased pain in babies compared to adults and lasting psychological trauma in circumcised people. Another study showed loss of sensation in circumcised people versus non-circumcised people.

I have no problem with the procedure being voluntarily chosen by a consenting adult, or even someone who is old enough to responsibly make their own decisions (which may not be the legal age of adulthood). However, as a parent, you do not have the right to do permanent medical procedures on your child unless they are medically necessary. Most infant circumcisions are not. I understand that you disagree with that statement. Is there any way you will change your mind? Otherwise, we're both just wasting our time.

1. Many people like unprotected sex, circumcision offers protection from HIV in those instances.
2. I said that 0.2% is minor, and there is no excuse to ban it because there is 0.2% chance of something happening (and of these 0.2%, it should be reminded that the majority are minor things that are usually taken care of almost immediately without any other complication or side effects).
3. No, that's bullshit. The results are inconclusive in that regards. How can anyone possible attain trauma if they have no recollection of any sort of pain. Remember, this is before a child develops consciousness. In addition, anaesthetics are used to prevent pain from occuring in the first place.
4. As I parent, I bloody well do have the right, because it doesn't 1. adversely affect the child and 2. It is in what I believe to be for the benefit of the child. I choose to send my child to school, and I think what ever he picks up there is far more important to his development than a minor piece of skin. Unless you want to extend this 'consent' to other areas, such as mental development or religious development, then your position will remain incoherent and an unjustified abridgment of my rights as a parent and as a religionist.

[Xerberos]

Indeed, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of contracting HIV. However, condoms are far more successful in that regard. Furthermore, if you're making the argument that 0.2% is minor, what's the chance of contracting HIV from a person in Germany? Not to mention you not addressing the other points of the post; specifically, several studies that showed both increased pain in babies compared to adults and lasting psychological trauma in circumcised people. Another study showed loss of sensation in circumcised people versus non-circumcised people.

I have no problem with the procedure being voluntarily chosen by a consenting adult, or even someone who is old enough to responsibly make their own decisions (which may not be the legal age of adulthood). However, as a parent, you do not have the right to do permanent medical procedures on your child unless they are medically necessary. Most infant circumcisions are not. I understand that you disagree with that statement. Is there any way you will change your mind? Otherwise, we're both just wasting our time.

And those studies have also be contradicted, and most of them are not conclusive. I can understand your reasoning, but please also understand that this is a slap in the face for many people for whom such a procedure is intrinsic to their religion. So intrinsic that the law WILL NOT STOP THEM. They will continue to perform circumcisions, and now that it is illegal, the procedure will probably become more risky, not less. Furthermore such a decision will raise resentment towards the German government, and can quit easily be seen as antisemitic, especially considering the history of that country. I would have a problem if theis were decided in any country, but the fact that it is happening in Germany makes it worse.

Some of them have been contradicted, while others haven't (to my knowledge). I understand that some people view it as a slap to the face. However, and this is just me being curious, why is it such a big deal? Certainly, it's in the Torah, and I believe it's Leviticus specifically. However, Leviticus 19:27 says that you can't cut the hair at the sides of your head, nor can you trim your beard. Why are those taken less seriously?

It's possible that the procedure will be more risky. On the other hand, this only applies in the city where the case originated, and it's typically not hard to travel to another EU country to get the procedure done, if you really feel like you have to. However, I don't feel like it's the government's job to make sure that illegal things aren't risky by making them not illegal; heroin use is very risky, in part because it's illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be legalized. Similarly, some people do view this as anti-Semitic. I don't know that that's a problem; sometimes, unpopular decisions must be made, as the Eurozone crisis is showing.

[The Godly Nations]

And those studies have also be contradicted, and most of them are not conclusive. I can understand your reasoning, but please also understand that this is a slap in the face for many people for whom such a procedure is intrinsic to their religion. So intrinsic that the law WILL NOT STOP THEM. They will continue to perform circumcisions, and now that it is illegal, the procedure will probably become more risky, not less. Furthermore such a decision will raise resentment towards the German government, and can quit easily be seen as antisemitic, especially considering the history of that country. I would have a problem if theis were decided in any country, but the fact that it is happening in Germany makes it worse.

Some of them have been contradicted, while others haven't (to my knowledge). I understand that some people view it as a slap to the face. However, and this is just me being curious, why is it such a big deal? Certainly, it's in the Torah, and I believe it's Leviticus specifically. However, Leviticus 19:27 says that you can't cut the hair at the sides of your head, nor can you trim your beard. Why are those taken less seriously?

It's possible that the procedure will be more risky. On the other hand, this only applies in the city where the case originated, and it's typically not hard to travel to another EU country to get the procedure done, if you really feel like you have to. However, I don't feel like it's the government's job to make sure that illegal things aren't risky by making them not illegal; heroin use is very risky, in part because it's illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be legalized. Similarly, some people do view this as anti-Semitic. I don't know that that's a problem; sometimes, unpopular decisions must be made, as the Eurozone crisis is showing.

For God's sake, we've been over this, Circumcision is not risky.

Likewise, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews (and, I think, Conservative Jews) do follow the whole beard thing. As for Reformed Jews:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Reform-Judai ... beards.htm

[Neutraligon]

And those studies have also be contradicted, and most of them are not conclusive. I can understand your reasoning, but please also understand that this is a slap in the face for many people for whom such a procedure is intrinsic to their religion. So intrinsic that the law WILL NOT STOP THEM. They will continue to perform circumcisions, and now that it is illegal, the procedure will probably become more risky, not less. Furthermore such a decision will raise resentment towards the German government, and can quit easily be seen as antisemitic, especially considering the history of that country. I would have a problem if theis were decided in any country, but the fact that it is happening in Germany makes it worse.

Some of them have been contradicted, while others haven't (to my knowledge). I understand that some people view it as a slap to the face. However, and this is just me being curious, why is it such a big deal? Certainly, it's in the Torah, and I believe it's Leviticus specifically. However, Leviticus 19:27 says that you can't cut the hair at the sides of your head, nor can you trim your beard. Why are those taken less seriously?

It's possible that the procedure will be more risky. On the other hand, this only applies in the city where the case originated, and it's typically not hard to travel to another EU country to get the procedure done, if you really feel like you have to. However, I don't feel like it's the government's job to make sure that illegal things aren't risky by making them not illegal; heroin use is very risky, in part because it's illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be legalized. Similarly, some people do view this as anti-Semitic. I don't know that that's a problem; sometimes, unpopular decisions must be made, as the Eurozone crisis is showing.

They aren't look at any orthodox Jew and you will see they have long sideburns and beard. Traveling to another EU country takes money, something many people do not have. If the procedure will be done despite making it illegal, what is the point of making it illegal when it causes more harm not less. The same reasoning is used by those who support legal abortion, that by making a procedure that will occur no matter what illegal, the only affect they are having is making the procedure more dangerous. It is in affect a dangerous law. In addition it is not simply that the decision is unpopular, it denies people their religious freedom in a case that has not conclusively shown to cause harm. As I said before I can't see some of the articles you have sited so I cannot refute them. This is not a highly very risky procedure.

[Xerberos]

Indeed, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of contracting HIV. However, condoms are far more successful in that regard. Furthermore, if you're making the argument that 0.2% is minor, what's the chance of contracting HIV from a person in Germany? Not to mention you not addressing the other points of the post; specifically, several studies that showed both increased pain in babies compared to adults and lasting psychological trauma in circumcised people. Another study showed loss of sensation in circumcised people versus non-circumcised people.

I have no problem with the procedure being voluntarily chosen by a consenting adult, or even someone who is old enough to responsibly make their own decisions (which may not be the legal age of adulthood). However, as a parent, you do not have the right to do permanent medical procedures on your child unless they are medically necessary. Most infant circumcisions are not. I understand that you disagree with that statement. Is there any way you will change your mind? Otherwise, we're both just wasting our time.

1. Many people like unprotected sex, circumcision offers protection from HIV in those instances.
2. I said that 0.2% is minor, and there is no excuse to ban it because there is 0.2% chance of something happening (and of these 0.2%, it should be reminded that the majority are minor things that are usually taken care of almost immediately without any other complication or side effects).
3. No, that's bullshit. The results are inconclusive in that regards. How can anyone possible attain trauma if they have no recollection of any sort of pain. Remember, this is before a child develops consciousness. In addition, anaesthetics are used to prevent pain from occuring in the first place.
4. As I parent, I bloody well do have the right, because it doesn't 1. adversely affect the child and 2. It is in what I believe to be for the benefit of the child. I choose to send my child to school, and I think what ever he picks up there is far more important to his development than a minor piece of skin. Unless you want to extend this 'consent' to other areas, such as mental development or religious development, then your position will remain incoherent and an unjustified abridgment of my rights as a parent and as a religionist.

1. By the time they're having unprotected sex, they can get the procedure done for themselves.
2. Your argument has been that it's harmless. I've shown that it isn't.
3. Just because there is no conscious recollection of pain doesn't mean that it's not still remembered. How do you know it's before a child develops consciousness? Some of the sources I cited said that anaesthetics aren't always effective in circumcision.
4. But it does adversely affect the child. Even if it didn't, they have a right to bodily integrity. They are not your property. Your rights to practice your own religion are your rights; I'm not interested in taking away your right to practice your own religion. However, you practicing your right means you make choices about yourself, not about anyone else.

I repeat my last question: is there any way this ends in a constructive debate, or are we just saying things and there's no chance of eventual agreement?

[Xerberos]

Some of them have been contradicted, while others haven't (to my knowledge). I understand that some people view it as a slap to the face. However, and this is just me being curious, why is it such a big deal? Certainly, it's in the Torah, and I believe it's Leviticus specifically. However, Leviticus 19:27 says that you can't cut the hair at the sides of your head, nor can you trim your beard. Why are those taken less seriously?

It's possible that the procedure will be more risky. On the other hand, this only applies in the city where the case originated, and it's typically not hard to travel to another EU country to get the procedure done, if you really feel like you have to. However, I don't feel like it's the government's job to make sure that illegal things aren't risky by making them not illegal; heroin use is very risky, in part because it's illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be legalized. Similarly, some people do view this as anti-Semitic. I don't know that that's a problem; sometimes, unpopular decisions must be made, as the Eurozone crisis is showing.

For God's sake, we've been over this, Circumcision is not risky.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Reform-Judai ... beards.htm

I wasn't the one who said it would be more risky then. That was Neutraligon.

Some of them have been contradicted, while others haven't (to my knowledge). I understand that some people view it as a slap to the face. However, and this is just me being curious, why is it such a big deal? Certainly, it's in the Torah, and I believe it's Leviticus specifically. However, Leviticus 19:27 says that you can't cut the hair at the sides of your head, nor can you trim your beard. Why are those taken less seriously?

It's possible that the procedure will be more risky. On the other hand, this only applies in the city where the case originated, and it's typically not hard to travel to another EU country to get the procedure done, if you really feel like you have to. However, I don't feel like it's the government's job to make sure that illegal things aren't risky by making them not illegal; heroin use is very risky, in part because it's illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be legalized. Similarly, some people do view this as anti-Semitic. I don't know that that's a problem; sometimes, unpopular decisions must be made, as the Eurozone crisis is showing.

They aren't look at any orthodox Jew and you will see they have long sideburns and beard. Traveling to another EU country takes money, something many people do not have. If the procedure will be done despite making it illegal, what is the point of making it illegal when it causes more harm not less. The same reasoning is used by those who support legal abortion, that by making a procedure that will occur no matter what illegal, the only affect they are having is making the procedure more dangerous. It is in affect a dangerous law. In addition it is not simply that the decision is unpopular, it denies people their religious freedom in a case that has not conclusively shown to cause harm. As I said before I can't see some of the articles you have sited so I cannot refute them. This is not a highly very risky procedure.

Orthodox Jews, certainly. However, as I understand it, even non-Orthodox Jews view circumcision as major, but not the restrictions on haircuts.

Traveling does cost money. If it's that important to you (literally a rule from an omnipotent being) then you should find the money. You just had a child, which in and of itself requires a lot of money.

The point of making it illegal is to punish the people who do it despite the risks. Similarly, your religious freedoms are yours to exercise; they do not permit you to force a religiously-motivated procedure on your children. Your children may not have the same beliefs as you when they are old enough to have beliefs.

[The Godly Nations]

1. Many people like unprotected sex, circumcision offers protection from HIV in those instances.
2. I said that 0.2% is minor, and there is no excuse to ban it because there is 0.2% chance of something happening (and of these 0.2%, it should be reminded that the majority are minor things that are usually taken care of almost immediately without any other complication or side effects).
3. No, that's bullshit. The results are inconclusive in that regards. How can anyone possible attain trauma if they have no recollection of any sort of pain. Remember, this is before a child develops consciousness. In addition, anaesthetics are used to prevent pain from occuring in the first place.
4. As I parent, I bloody well do have the right, because it doesn't 1. adversely affect the child and 2. It is in what I believe to be for the benefit of the child. I choose to send my child to school, and I think what ever he picks up there is far more important to his development than a minor piece of skin. Unless you want to extend this 'consent' to other areas, such as mental development or religious development, then your position will remain incoherent and an unjustified abridgment of my rights as a parent and as a religionist.

1. By the time they're having unprotected sex, they can get the procedure done for themselves.
2. Your argument has been that it's harmless. I've shown that it isn't.
3. Just because there is no conscious recollection of pain doesn't mean that it's not still remembered. How do you know it's before a child develops consciousness? Some of the sources I cited said that anaesthetics aren't always effective in circumcision.
4. But it does adversely affect the child. Even if it didn't, they have a right to bodily integrity. They are not your property. Your rights to practice your own religion are your rights; I'm not interested in taking away your right to practice your own religion. However, you practicing your right means you make choices about yourself, not about anyone else.

I repeat my last question: is there any way this ends in a constructive debate, or are we just saying things and there's no chance of eventual agreement?

As I am getting tire of this ( there is nothing new to rebut in your statements), I shall treat each briefly:

1. This is about HIV and condoms, not about age and consent.
2. It is harmless- you have yet to show anything to contradict this.
3. As the other person said, its not conclusive, and therefore not definite proof.
4. It does not adversely affect the Child's development. The parent is the guardian of the Child, and entrusted to make the choices that they think is best for the development of the child- if I think that circumcising my child is for its benefit, and as this procedure is not shown to adversely affect the child physically or mentally, then I should bloody well be able to do so.
5. You are restricting my ability to practice my religion if my religion commands me to circumcise my son eight days after its birth.
To answer the final question:
No, unless you concede that you over-state the risk as well as abridging my rights as both a parent and a religionist, then we can go no where.

[The Godly Nations]

1. Many people like unprotected sex, circumcision offers protection from HIV in those instances.
2. I said that 0.2% is minor, and there is no excuse to ban it because there is 0.2% chance of something happening (and of these 0.2%, it should be reminded that the majority are minor things that are usually taken care of almost immediately without any other complication or side effects).
3. No, that's bullshit. The results are inconclusive in that regards. How can anyone possible attain trauma if they have no recollection of any sort of pain. Remember, this is before a child develops consciousness. In addition, anaesthetics are used to prevent pain from occuring in the first place.
4. As I parent, I bloody well do have the right, because it doesn't 1. adversely affect the child and 2. It is in what I believe to be for the benefit of the child. I choose to send my child to school, and I think what ever he picks up there is far more important to his development than a minor piece of skin. Unless you want to extend this 'consent' to other areas, such as mental development or religious development, then your position will remain incoherent and an unjustified abridgment of my rights as a parent and as a religionist.

1. By the time they're having unprotected sex, they can get the procedure done for themselves.
2. Your argument has been that it's harmless. I've shown that it isn't.
3. Just because there is no conscious recollection of pain doesn't mean that it's not still remembered. How do you know it's before a child develops consciousness? Some of the sources I cited said that anaesthetics aren't always effective in circumcision.
4. But it does adversely affect the child. Even if it didn't, they have a right to bodily integrity. They are not your property. Your rights to practice your own religion are your rights; I'm not interested in taking away your right to practice your own religion. However, you practicing your right means you make choices about yourself, not about anyone else.

I repeat my last question: is there any way this ends in a constructive debate, or are we just saying things and there's no chance of eventual agreement?

As I am getting tire of this ( there is nothing new to rebut in your statements), I shall treat each briefly:

1. This is about HIV and condoms, not about age and consent.
2. It is harmless- you have yet to show anything to contradict this.
3. As the other person said, its not conclusive, and therefore not definite proof.
4. It does not adversely affect the Child's development. The parent is the guardian of the Child, and entrusted to make the choices that they think is best for the development of the child- if I think that circumcising my child is for its benefit, and as this procedure is not shown to adversely affect the child physically or mentally, then I should bloody well be able to do so.
5. You are restricting my ability to practice my religion if my religion commands me to circumcise my son eight days after its birth.
To answer the final question:
No, unless you concede that you over-state the risk as well as abridging my rights as both a parent and a religionist, then we can go no where.