German Court rules circumcision as assault

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Hey son, I know you were just born and all, but my religion dictates that we remove your pinkie fingers. Do you consent to that? OWAIT, you can't because you were just born! So I'll just do it anyway.

Pinke fingers have function and removing them doesn't have health benefits.

[Geilinor]

Hey son, I know you were just born and all, but my religion dictates that we remove your pinkie fingers. Do you consent to that? OWAIT, you can't because you were just born! So I'll just do it anyway.

Pinke fingers have function and removing them doesn't have health benefits.

The only benefit of circumcision is that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, a cancer that is insanely rare.

[AETEN II]

Pinkie fingers have zero function, along with pinkie toes. The only time I ever use my pinkie fingers is when typing.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Pinke fingers have function and removing them doesn't have health benefits.

The only benefit of circumcision is that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, a cancer that is insanely rare.

Not just that.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21 ... n-07212011

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Pinkie fingers have zero function, along with pinkie toes. The only time I ever use my pinkie fingers is when typing.

That's a function. Slower typing speed? Also, grabbing things, that's less fingers.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

The only benefit of circumcision is that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, a cancer that is insanely rare.

Not just that.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21 ... n-07212011

So, instead of teaching people to use a condom we should just mutilate babies against their will? Why not just mandate sperm donations followed by removing the testicles? No testicular cancer!

[Geilinor]

The only benefit of circumcision is that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, a cancer that is insanely rare.

Not just that.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21 ... n-07212011

provides a cost-effective way to slow the pandemic

How is it more effective than protected sex?

[Fischistan]

Pinkie fingers have zero function, along with pinkie toes. The only time I ever use my pinkie fingers is when typing.

Not only that, but we can prevent cancer of the pinky! There are so many benefits!

[Geilinor]

Pinkie fingers have zero function, along with pinkie toes. The only time I ever use my pinkie fingers is when typing.

Not only that, but we can prevent cancer of the pinky! There are so many benefits!

Cutting anything off prevents that body part from getting diseased. Precisely because that part is gone.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Not just that.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21 ... n-07212011

provides a cost-effective way to slow the pandemic

How is it more effective than protected sex?

That sometimes fails, circumcision lowers the risk. It's a way to slow the pandemic in Africa because it's just a one time deal, rather than each time.

That's like saying we shouldn't remove tonsils because taking strep throat medication every week means you won't get a sore throat.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Not just that.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21 ... n-07212011

So, instead of teaching people to use a condom we should just mutilate babies against their will? Why not just mandate sperm donations followed by removing the testicles? No testicular cancer!

Against their will? I was out for my circumcision. I didn't have a will.

It's a decision with health benefits, same as a tonsilectomy or filling a cavity, parents should be allowed to do to their child. The child is not old enough, up until they are at least 16, to make a rational and informed decision.

[Gravlen]

The only benefit of circumcision is that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, a cancer that is insanely rare.

Not just that.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21 ... n-07212011

Note:

Using funds provided by international donors, physicians offered free circumcisions to all men over the age of 15 in the South African township of Orange Farm

[Page]

Against their will? I was out for my circumcision. I didn't have a will.

So rape is okay too if the victim is unconscious, got it.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

How is it more effective than protected sex?

That sometimes fails, circumcision lowers the risk. It's a way to slow the pandemic in Africa because it's just a one time deal, rather than each time.

That's like saying we shouldn't remove tonsils because taking strep throat medication every week means you won't get a sore throat.

1. Studies are thus far inconclusive, and many studies Such as this one so no statistically significant difference between HIV risks. The studies people often cite are ones that were done inconclusively and extrapolated. Someone else posted a journal article on that here, but I can't remember where.

2. So, again, telling them, "hey don't use a condom, just cut off part of an infants cock!" Newsflash: Condoms work FAR BETTER than circumcision, even if circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission. If a person is told, like you are trying to pull off, that you likely won't get HIV just because they re circumcised, then there is a high possibility that people not only get HIV more, but won't get tested because they are "sure" they don't have HIV. Teach them to use condoms and provide condoms for free. It's FAR more effective than circumcision, and it doesn't mutilate babies. Plus, less unplanned pregnancies, whoo!!!

3. We don't let parents remove the tonsils of infants just because they may get tonsillitis. We don't let them forcefully remove their appendix because they may get appendicitis. We don't let them remove the gall bladder because they may get gallstones. We remove those things when they become a problem.

4. Do you know how medicine works? You can't just constantly give them antibiotics, that makes them stop working and strengthens the virus. Penicillin today is far less effective than it once was, because of how much it was used, and not the viruses have evolved and we need stronger drugs.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Against their will? I was out for my circumcision. I didn't have a will.

So rape is okay too if the victim is unconscious, got it.

Rape=/=circumcision. I was also a baby, therefore unable to make a rational decision or really a decision at all.

Rape also, has no health benefits, and in fact is detrimental.

[Page]

So rape is okay too if the victim is unconscious, got it.

Rape=/=circumcision. I was also a baby, therefore unable to make a rational decision or really a decision at all.

Rape also, has no health benefits, and in fact is detrimental.

I am aware rape is different than male genital mutilation, I was just making the point that you have twice so far used the unawareness or inability to consent of a victim to justify something.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Against their will? I was out for my circumcision. I didn't have a will.

So rape is okay too if the victim is unconscious, got it.

Hey, if they can't say no, then it's a definite "maybe"!

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

That sometimes fails, circumcision lowers the risk. It's a way to slow the pandemic in Africa because it's just a one time deal, rather than each time.

That's like saying we shouldn't remove tonsils because taking strep throat medication every week means you won't get a sore throat.

1. Studies are thus far inconclusive, and many studies Such as this one so no statistically significant difference between HIV risks. The studies people often cite are ones that were done inconclusively and extrapolated. Someone else posted a journal article on that here, but I can't remember where.

2. So, again, telling them, "hey don't use a condom, just cut off part of an infants cock!" Newsflash: Condoms work FAR BETTER than circumcision, even if circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission. If a person is told, like you are trying to pull off, that you likely won't get HIV just because they re circumcised, then there is a high possibility that people not only get HIV more, but won't get tested because they are "sure" they don't have HIV. Teach them to use condoms and provide condoms for free. It's FAR more effective than circumcision, and it doesn't mutilate babies. Plus, less unplanned pregnancies, whoo!!!

3. We don't let parents remove the tonsils of infants just because they may get tonsillitis. We don't let them forcefully remove their appendix because they may get appendicitis. We don't let them remove the gall bladder because they may get gallstones. We remove those things when they become a problem.

4. Do you know how medicine works? You can't just constantly give them antibiotics, that makes them stop working and strengthens the virus. Penicillin today is far less effective than it once was, because of how much it was used, and not the viruses have evolved and we need stronger drugs.

And if my child legitimately wants to have children with someone, meaning condom can't work?

Protection+circumcision=less risk than just protection.

4. Do you know how medicine works? You can't just constantly give them antibiotics, that makes them stop working and strengthens the virus. Penicillin today is far less effective than it once was, because of how much it was used, and not the viruses have evolved and we need stronger drugs.

Wrong. Not taking the correct dosage makes them immune. Take what your doctor gives you.

3. We don't let parents remove the tonsils of infants just because they may get tonsillitis. We don't let them forcefully remove their appendix because they may get appendicitis. We don't let them remove the gall bladder because they may get gallstones. We remove those things when they become a problem.

We don't because the dangers are immense on a newborn. Newborns can't handle appendix surgery for sure. But you can remove tonsils in a 5 year old just fine, who is about as capable of making a rational informed decision or consenting.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

So rape is okay too if the victim is unconscious, got it.

Rape=/=circumcision. I was also a baby, therefore unable to make a rational decision or really a decision at all.

Rape also, has no health benefits, and in fact is detrimental.

So, we should be allowed to preform cosmetic surgery on infants if studies establish that having or not having certain features helps them? Because, hey, they can't make their own choice!

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Rape=/=circumcision. I was also a baby, therefore unable to make a rational decision or really a decision at all.

Rape also, has no health benefits, and in fact is detrimental.

So, we should be allowed to preform cosmetic surgery on infants if studies establish that having or not having certain features helps them? Because, hey, they can't make their own choice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_lip_and_palate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

We already do.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

1. Studies are thus far inconclusive, and many studies Such as this one so no statistically significant difference between HIV risks. The studies people often cite are ones that were done inconclusively and extrapolated. Someone else posted a journal article on that here, but I can't remember where.

2. So, again, telling them, "hey don't use a condom, just cut off part of an infants cock!" Newsflash: Condoms work FAR BETTER than circumcision, even if circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission. If a person is told, like you are trying to pull off, that you likely won't get HIV just because they re circumcised, then there is a high possibility that people not only get HIV more, but won't get tested because they are "sure" they don't have HIV. Teach them to use condoms and provide condoms for free. It's FAR more effective than circumcision, and it doesn't mutilate babies. Plus, less unplanned pregnancies, whoo!!!

3. We don't let parents remove the tonsils of infants just because they may get tonsillitis. We don't let them forcefully remove their appendix because they may get appendicitis. We don't let them remove the gall bladder because they may get gallstones. We remove those things when they become a problem.

4. Do you know how medicine works? You can't just constantly give them antibiotics, that makes them stop working and strengthens the virus. Penicillin today is far less effective than it once was, because of how much it was used, and not the viruses have evolved and we need stronger drugs.

And if my child legitimately wants to have children with someone, meaning condom can't work?

Protection+circumcision=less risk than just protection.

4. Do you know how medicine works? You can't just constantly give them antibiotics, that makes them stop working and strengthens the virus. Penicillin today is far less effective than it once was, because of how much it was used, and not the viruses have evolved and we need stronger drugs.

Wrong. Not taking the correct dosage makes them immune. Take what your doctor gives you.

3. We don't let parents remove the tonsils of infants just because they may get tonsillitis. We don't let them forcefully remove their appendix because they may get appendicitis. We don't let them remove the gall bladder because they may get gallstones. We remove those things when they become a problem.

We don't because the dangers are immense on a newborn. Newborns can't handle appendix surgery for sure. But you can remove tonsils in a 5 year old just fine, who is about as capable of making a rational informed decision or consenting.

If your child wants to have kids with an HIV positive person, then do you know what? They should probably be banned from having kids at all. Not that HIV positive people are immoral, but the high risk that an HIV positive person would pass it on the child yet they still want to risk it is immoral.

Again, you don't know how medicine works. Try again.

So should we forcibly remove the tonsils of a healthy child of 5?

[Tlaceceyaya]

So, we should be allowed to preform cosmetic surgery on infants if studies establish that having or not having certain features helps them? Because, hey, they can't make their own choice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_lip_and_palate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

We already do.

Polydactyly will get them ostracized, in most cases is nonfunctional, and can prevent them from doing many activities with their hands, such as wearing gloves, writing, typing and such things.
And on the page you yourself linked to for cleft lip and palate, here are the downsides: I need to start writing something other than clicky in my links.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

If your child wants to have kids with an HIV positive person, then do you know what? They should probably be banned from having kids at all. Not that HIV positive people are immoral, but the high risk that an HIV positive person would pass it on the child yet they still want to risk it is immoral.

Again, you don't know how medicine works. Try again.

So should we forcibly remove the tonsils of a healthy child of 5?

You preclude the possibility they are both unaware.

Very well, the point's irrelevant on medicine. They can take medicine when the first symptoms manifest. You'd do well to remember that strep is bacteria though. Why vaccinate for STDs at all? Abstinence is 100% effective. Why not just teach kids to be abstinent?

Forcibly? We do it all the time. It'd shouldn't be MANDATORY of all parents to, but parents do it all the time.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

So, we should be allowed to preform cosmetic surgery on infants if studies establish that having or not having certain features helps them? Because, hey, they can't make their own choice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_lip_and_palate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

We already do.

Nope, those are reparative surgeries to fix problems that would interfere with a normal life. Try again.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Polydactyly will get them ostracized, in most cases is nonfunctional, and can prevent them from doing many activities with their hands, such as wearing gloves, writing, typing and such things.
And on the page you yourself linked to for cleft lip and palate, here are the downsides: I need to start writing something other than clicky in my links.

Since it isn't life threatening, why not let the child decide if he'd rather have gloves than that nifty sixth finger? Why violate his bodily autonomy otherwise against his will as an infant?