German Court rules circumcision as assault

[The Godly Nations]

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.

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.

I read what he wrote, and you misrepresent it completely- he is basically saying what Pro-choice people have been saying of abortion, if you outlaw it, people will still do it, but they would do it underground, which is usually dodgy and dangerous.

[Neutraligon]

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.

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.

Since when did I say it was risky. I said that any surgery has its risks. Indeed, just as Christians pick and choose which practices to follow, so do Jews. Circumcision has continued to remain important to Jews, as it is part of the covenant with God. And children are forced through religiously-motivated procedures, what do you call baptism. Not everyone can find the money. A child requires a lot of money, as you said, and parents might not be able to afford the trip and raising the child.

Furthermore it is not up to you to determine what laws a Jew can/should follow. The fact of the matter is simple, it is an important part of the Jewish culture whether you agree to it or not. It does not need to make sense to outsiders, nor does which parts of the torah we continue to follow need to be justified.

[Lialoth]

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.

Time for some basic logic.

1. Don't care, next.
2. Don't care, next.
3. Don't care, next.
4. Don't care, next.
5. "My right to punch ends at your face" - "My right to religion ends at your body". You have your right to your religion. The child has the right to their body. This is pretty simple stuff, if you can't get it there's no point in continuing this conversation.

I don't care about the "risks" for a relatively neutral procedure. As for your "rights" as a parent and religious follower? You don't have the right to take away another person's right.

[No Water No Moon]

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.

That seems like it would be hard to support, if we're talking about (Jewish) religious circumcision - theoretically, the father is supposed to perform the ritual circumcision. If they don't, a mohel should perform it - and they're not all doctors.

[Tmutarakhan]

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.

It absolutely prevents the conditions that sometimes require penile amputation.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Time for some basic logic.

1. Don't care, next.
2. Don't care, next.
3. Don't care, next.
4. Don't care, next.
5. "My right to punch ends at your face" - "My right to religion ends at your body". You have your right to your religion. The child has the right to their body. This is pretty simple stuff, if you can't get it there's no point in continuing this conversation.

I don't care about the "risks" for a relatively neutral procedure. As for your "rights" as a parent and religious follower? You don't have the right to take away another person's right.

Parents do have rights to determine medical procedures for their children, unless you don't agree that parents should vaccinate their children?

[Lialoth]

Parents do have rights to determine medical procedures for their children, unless you don't agree that parents should vaccinate their children?

You're comparing a demonstrably positive procedure with one who's "benefits" are shaky and in doubt. Please don't do so.

Circumcision can be medically necessary (in very rare, relatively unheard of cases) but there's no compelling reason to do it religiously, or by default.

[Tlaceceyaya]

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.

It absolutely prevents the conditions that sometimes require penile amputation.

Do you advocate removing the appendixes of infants, too?

[Tmutarakhan]

I have no problem with the procedure being voluntarily chosen by a consenting adult

It does not have the same effect in adulthood.

[The Godly Nations]

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.

Time for some basic logic.

1. Don't care, next.
2. Don't care, next.
3. Don't care, next.
4. Don't care, next.
5. "My right to punch ends at your face" - "My right to religion ends at your body". You have your right to your religion. The child has the right to their body. This is pretty simple stuff, if you can't get it there's no point in continuing this conversation.

I don't care about the "risks" for a relatively neutral procedure. As for your "rights" as a parent and religious follower? You don't have the right to take away another person's right.

Does not apply to circumcision- I am a parent, and if I decide that this harmless procedure it is best for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't? I can send my Child to a Catholic School or a Snobbish Private School, or decide to vaccinate them, and they have no right to consent- yet somehow this right does apply to a minor bit of skin?

[Tmutarakhan]

It absolutely prevents the conditions that sometimes require penile amputation.

Do you advocate removing the appendixes of infants, too?

That is a more complicated operation. If it were simple, like vaccination or circumcision, then yes, I would say it should be routine, but that is not the case.

[Neutraligon]

Parents do have rights to determine medical procedures for their children, unless you don't agree that parents should vaccinate their children?

You're comparing a demonstrably positive procedure with one who's "benefits" are shaky and in doubt. Please don't do so.

Circumcision can be medically necessary (in very rare, relatively unheard of cases) but there's no compelling reason to do it religiously, or by default.

There is also no compelling reason not to do so. Religion is a reason as well as the fact as I have said previously that people will continue to perform circumcision despite the law.

[The Godly Nations]

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.

That seems like it would be hard to support, if we're talking about (Jewish) religious circumcision - theoretically, the father is supposed to perform the ritual circumcision. If they don't, a mohel should perform it - and they're not all doctors.

But they all specialise in circumcising. They don't just give some random bloke a knife and tell him to cut, Mohels are trained especially for the purpose of ritual circumcision.

[Lialoth]

Does not apply to circumcision- I am a parent, and if I decide that this harmless procedure it is best for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't?

Someone who cares about the rights of your child. You can get yourself circumcised. You can pay to have another consenting adult circumcised. I'm okay with this. I'm so okay it's fine. But once you attempt to force it on another non-consenting person, I will fight against it tooth, claw and large wooden beam.

I can send my Child to a Catholic School or a Snobbish Private School, and they have no right to consent- yet somehow this right does apply to a minor bit of skin?

You're comparing source of education to an unnecessary, medically advised-against procedure. Please don't do this.

Religion is a reason as well as the fact as I have said previously that people will continue to perform circumcision despite the law.

So arrest them as criminals. Just because people will do something whether the law is there or not isn't an argument against the law! Yeesh.

[Xerberos]

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.

1. My point is that your point about HIV is irrelevant to the discussion about child circumcision, as adult circumcision is still an option.
2. I have, and you haven't shown conclusive proof to say that it is harmless.
3. See point 2.
4. See point 2. If the procedure hadn't been shown to have consequences, it is still a permanent procedure that you're doing for your own reasons.
5. I can see your point there, but I'll raise you the precedence of not stoning people because they had premarital sex. Your right to exercise your religion is not more important than someone else's right to bodily integrity or life.

What's the source on the 1 in 500 figure, anyway? From what I've seen, that's an understatement.
If the procedure was not permanent and conclusively not harmful, then I would agree that you had every right to do it.

Furthermore it is not up to you to determine what laws a Jew can/should follow. The fact of the matter is simple, it is an important part of the Jewish culture whether you agree to it or not. It does not need to make sense to outsiders, nor does which parts of the torah we continue to follow need to be justified.

On the contrary, I have every right to say that some Jewish laws cannot be followed. Stoning people, for instance. And I'm not asking you to justify it to me; I was being curious. You should justify it to yourselves though.

I have no problem with the procedure being voluntarily chosen by a consenting adult

It does not have the same effect in adulthood.

That's a dubious claim, if you're talking about medical effects.

[Neutraligon]

Does not apply to circumcision- I am a parent, and if I decide that this harmless procedure it is best for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't?

Someone who cares about the rights of your child. You can get yourself circumcised. You can pay to have another consenting adult circumcised. I'm okay with this. I'm so okay it's fine. But once you attempt to force it on another non-consenting person, I will fight against it tooth, claw and large wooden beam.

I can send my Child to a Catholic School or a Snobbish Private School, and they have no right to consent- yet somehow this right does apply to a minor bit of skin?

You're comparing source of education to an unnecessary, medically advised-against procedure. Please don't do this.

Again it is the parents choice, and you have no right to prevent a procedure that has not been proven to do harm. Your morals so no, my morals say yes, who are you to interfere.

[Der Landstreicher]

Now this is just music to my ears, hey Germany who's awesome? YOUR awesome!

You're*

[Neutraligon]

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.

1. My point is that your point about HIV is irrelevant to the discussion about child circumcision, as adult circumcision is still an option.
2. I have, and you haven't shown conclusive proof to say that it is harmless.
3. See point 2.
4. See point 2. If the procedure hadn't been shown to have consequences, it is still a permanent procedure that you're doing for your own reasons.
5. I can see your point there, but I'll raise you the precedence of not stoning people because they had premarital sex. Your right to exercise your religion is not more important than someone else's right to bodily integrity or life.

What's the source on the 1 in 500 figure, anyway? From what I've seen, that's an understatement.
If the procedure was not permanent and conclusively not harmful, then I would agree that you had every right to do it.

Furthermore it is not up to you to determine what laws a Jew can/should follow. The fact of the matter is simple, it is an important part of the Jewish culture whether you agree to it or not. It does not need to make sense to outsiders, nor does which parts of the torah we continue to follow need to be justified.

On the contrary, I have every right to say that some Jewish laws cannot be followed. Stoning people, for instance. And I'm not asking you to justify it to me; I was being curious. You should justify it to yourselves though.

It does not have the same effect in adulthood.

That's a dubious claim, if you're talking about medical effects.

If you haven't noticed, Jews do not stone people. We do not follow all the dictates of the torah, but we hold to those we do follow, and there is no reason parents should not have the right to make this medical decision. You have no right to intervene because your morals say so. The simplest way is to regulate it and make sure it is done in a clean sterile situation. That would make more sense to me than this law, since it will happen anyway.

[Lialoth]

Again it is the parents choice, and you have no right to prevent a procedure that has not been proven to do harm. Your morals so no, my morals say yes, who are you to interfere.

Someone who says that you should keep your morals/beliefs/religion off of another person's body. I don't care if your dad said to do it, "god", or the strange man named Frank who lives down the street. You don't have the right to trespass on one of the most basic rights of another person.

[Gideus]

It isn't damage. And if he gave a damn about a flap of skin, he'd go find a wangapedian to stitch someones forehead down under.

When did people start giving a shit about this, is foreskin important now? Do we have groups of circumcised people crying for vengeance?

It IS damage. It is the cutting off of tissue which will not grow back. I had a disclaimer there about the definition of damage, but did not feel it necessary. In addition, since it cannot grow back, the loss of pleasure will last forever.

...You fool. YOU FOOL.

That is talking about ADULT circumcision. Not 8 day old baby circumcision. I don't know the medical science but I severely doubt the nerves that relate to SEXUAL PLEASURE are present in the foreskin of a newborn. WHAT BIOLOGICAL PURPOSE WOULD THAT SERVE?

[Gideus]

Again it is the parents choice, and you have no right to prevent a procedure that has not been proven to do harm. Your morals so no, my morals say yes, who are you to interfere.

Someone who says that you should keep your morals/beliefs/religion off of another person's body. I don't care if your dad said to do it, "god", or the strange man named Frank who lives down the street. You don't have the right to trespass on one of the most basic rights of another person.

A child, especially at such a young age, as much as I hate to say it, essentially has their rights governed by their parent. While there are some basic ones that the parent can't do anything about, getting the circumcision surgery done is something they can elect to do. It's like a parent choosing to or not to give their kid vaccinations. At least, I see it that way.

[No Water No Moon]

That seems like it would be hard to support, if we're talking about (Jewish) religious circumcision - theoretically, the father is supposed to perform the ritual circumcision. If they don't, a mohel should perform it - and they're not all doctors.

But they all specialise in circumcising. They don't just give some random bloke a knife and tell him to cut, Mohels are trained especially for the purpose of ritual circumcision.

Trained for a ritual, sure. Being able to perform what amounts to a minor surgery, based on whether you're well acquainted with the theology involved would not fly in another respect.

[Neutraligon]

Again it is the parents choice, and you have no right to prevent a procedure that has not been proven to do harm. Your morals so no, my morals say yes, who are you to interfere.

Someone who says that you should keep your morals/beliefs/religion off of another person's body. I don't care if your dad said to do it, "god", or the strange man named Frank who lives down the street. You don't have the right to trespass on one of the most basic rights of another person.

Parents have the right to make religious and medical choices for their children. Parents already trespass on the rights of their children by doing so. And again, circumcision will happen, but by legislating against it they are making it more dangerous for the child not less. You have no right to tell a parent which religious teaching they can follow, as long as they do no harm. Since it has not conclusively been shown to cause harm, and since parents already make decisions for their children there is no reason this should be illegal. Enough, neither of us is going to agree, this is pointless...

[No Water No Moon]

1. My point is that your point about HIV is irrelevant to the discussion about child circumcision, as adult circumcision is still an option.
2. I have, and you haven't shown conclusive proof to say that it is harmless.
3. See point 2.
4. See point 2. If the procedure hadn't been shown to have consequences, it is still a permanent procedure that you're doing for your own reasons.
5. I can see your point there, but I'll raise you the precedence of not stoning people because they had premarital sex. Your right to exercise your religion is not more important than someone else's right to bodily integrity or life.

What's the source on the 1 in 500 figure, anyway? From what I've seen, that's an understatement.
If the procedure was not permanent and conclusively not harmful, then I would agree that you had every right to do it.



On the contrary, I have every right to say that some Jewish laws cannot be followed. Stoning people, for instance. And I'm not asking you to justify it to me; I was being curious. You should justify it to yourselves though.



That's a dubious claim, if you're talking about medical effects.

If you haven't noticed, Jews do not stone people. We do not follow all the dictates of the torah, but we hold to those we do follow, and there is no reason parents should not have the right to make this medical decision. You have no right to intervene because your morals say so. The simplest way is to regulate it and make sure it is done in a clean sterile situation. That would make more sense to me than this law, since it will happen anyway.

We don't follow all the rules, but you have to oblige me on this one?

Can you not see why that's not compelling?

[Tmutarakhan]

Parents do have rights to determine medical procedures for their children, unless you don't agree that parents should vaccinate their children?

You're comparing a demonstrably positive procedure with one who's "benefits" are shaky and in doubt. Please don't do so.

The benefit of circumcision in absolutely preventing conditions that require penile amputation have been perfectly well known for thousands of years.

Circumcision can be medically necessary (in very rare, relatively unheard of cases) but there's no compelling reason to do it religiously, or by default.

The conditions are not rare enough, and circumcision at that point is too late to prevent all the damage.

What's the source on the 1 in 500 figure, anyway?

I cited earlier to a thread where the global data and tons of studies on all aspects of the question were presented ad nauseam.

It does not have the same effect in adulthood.

That's a dubious claim, if you're talking about medical effects.

Enervation (growth of nerve tissue) during puberty causes the outer surface of the penis to be become very sensitive. If circumcision is performed in infancy, the nerves grow to wherever they have to stop; but if circumcision is performed in adulthood, removal of the foreskin removes a lot of the nerve endings.