German Court rules circumcision as assault

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

What if it's done because the parent legitimately believes there are medical benefits?

Nobody has contested my urologist source and the one that was with it, by the way.

That's why it's good for it to be illegal perform on infants. To prevent stupid parents from violating their child's bodily autonomy for stupid reasons.

But there are medical benefits, even the small risk of penile cancer one which has been acknowledged.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Studies are inconclusive on that. Teach them to use a condom and you don't have to mutilate babies.

And abortion is murder.

No.
But routine infant circumcision is the mutilation of an infant's genitals against his will.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Studies are inconclusive on that. Teach them to use a condom and you don't have to mutilate babies.

And abortion is murder.

No, because abortion is performed on beings incapable of independent thought and it is the only way to remove them from a woman for the next several months. Cutting off a baby's foreskin permanently, on the other hand, is mutilation, as they will live with it for their entire life.

[Gravlen]

I would say it's pretty much the same if it's done for cultural reasons. If it's done for persuasive medical reasons, however, the picture can change.

I say "persuasive" because the arguments for routine circumcision so far in the thread aren't persuasive, since the medical benefits are both relatively minor, contested, and in most cases they can be reached through less invasive measures and/or the decision to get circumcised can wait until adulthood.

What if it's done because the parent legitimately believes there are medical benefits?

There should be objective medical benefits. Either there are persuasive medical reasons, or the parents have gotten bad information. Either way, it's up to medical personel to make sure they're properly informed.

Nobody has contested my urologist source and the one that was with it, by the way.

I don't know what source you're talking about. It's lost to the 130 pages of this thread.

[Gravlen]

That's why it's good for it to be illegal perform on infants. To prevent stupid parents from violating their child's bodily autonomy for stupid reasons.

But there are medical benefits, even the small risk of penile cancer one which has been acknowledged.

Key word is "small".

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

American Cancer Society

Circumcision

Circumcision is a small operation to remove part, or all, of the foreskin. Male babies may be circumcised at birth for hygiene or religious reasons. The age you are circumcised appears to affect the risk of penile cancer.

- Men who are circumcised as babies appear to be less likely to develop penile cancer
- Men who are circumcised in their teens seem to have some protection from penile cancer
- Circumcision in adulthood seems to make no difference to a man’s risk of penile cancer

However, it is important to remember that circumcision is only one risk factor for this type of cancer. Other risk factors such as smoking and HPV infection are more important.

CancerResearch UK

Circumcision status.
Circumcision may provide some protection from penile cancer because removing the foreskin helps keep the area clean. Epidermoid/squamous cell carcinoma of the penis almost never occurs in men who are circumcised. However, it is important to note that circumcision alone cannot prevent penile cancer.

American Society of Clinical Oncology

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

And abortion is murder.

No, because abortion is performed on beings incapable of independent thought and it is the only way to remove them from a woman for the next several months. Cutting off a baby's foreskin permanently, on the other hand, is mutilation, as they will live with it for their entire life.

Babies are also incapable of independent thought.

Liberals: Because killing a baby until its head passes through the birth canal is completely equitable, but afterwards, you can't remove vestigial skin from the nads.

[Ovisterra]

No, because abortion is performed on beings incapable of independent thought and it is the only way to remove them from a woman for the next several months. Cutting off a baby's foreskin permanently, on the other hand, is mutilation, as they will live with it for their entire life.

Babies are also incapable of independent thought.

Liberals: Because killing a baby until its head passes through the birth canal is completely equitable, but afterwards, you can't remove vestigial skin from the nads.

Conservatives: Because generalisations are fun and totally logical.

[Wamitoria]

No, because abortion is performed on beings incapable of independent thought and it is the only way to remove them from a woman for the next several months. Cutting off a baby's foreskin permanently, on the other hand, is mutilation, as they will live with it for their entire life.

Babies are also incapable of independent thought.

Liberals: Because killing a baby until its head passes through the birth canal is completely equitable, but afterwards, you can't remove vestigial skin from the nads.

In fairness, some of us are more consistent with the matter.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Circumcision may provide some protection from penile cancer because removing the foreskin helps keep the area clean. Epidermoid/squamous cell carcinoma of the penis almost never occurs in men who are circumcised. However, it is important to note that circumcision alone cannot prevent penile cancer.

There we go.

With MY child, any easily prevented risk is too much risk.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Babies are also incapable of independent thought.

Liberals: Because killing a baby until its head passes through the birth canal is completely equitable, but afterwards, you can't remove vestigial skin from the nads.

Conservatives: Because generalisations are fun and totally logical.

Obviously not all liberals, but it was liberals who got abortion instituted in the first place.

[Ovisterra]

Conservatives: Because generalisations are fun and totally logical.

Obviously not all liberals, but it was liberals who got abortion instituted in the first place.

And it was humans who started the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, but we don't blame genocide on humans as a whole.

[Tlaceceyaya]

No, because abortion is performed on beings incapable of independent thought and it is the only way to remove them from a woman for the next several months. Cutting off a baby's foreskin permanently, on the other hand, is mutilation, as they will live with it for their entire life.

Babies are also incapable of independent thought.

Liberals: Because killing a baby until its head passes through the birth canal is completely equitable, but afterwards, you can't remove vestigial skin from the nads.

Yes, babies are incapable of independent thought. But they can be given up for adoption if they are unwanted. With a fetus, the only way to get rid of it is to wait several months or abort it. And removing plainly non-vestigial skin (People have mentioned how it is not vestigial SEVERAL times) is not ending some sort of several-month waiting period. It's just cutting off tissue for insanely small medical benefits as well as violating the baby's bodily autonomy.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Obviously not all liberals, but it was liberals who got abortion instituted in the first place.

And it was humans who started the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, but we don't blame genocide on humans as a whole.

At any rate, death is more permanent than foreskin removal. How can you say something that has no ability to decide can be killed, but something with no ability to decide can't have its foreskin removed?

[Blakk Metal]

And abortion is murder.

No.
But routine infant circumcision is the mutilation of an infant's genitals against his will.

But abortion is the murder of a fetus against his will.

And abortion is murder.

No, because abortion is performed on beings incapable of independent thought and it is the only way to remove them from a woman for the next several months.

Not in the third trimester.

Cutting off a baby's foreskin permanently, on the other hand, is mutilation, as they will live with it for their entire life.

No analogy is perfect.

[Gravlen]

Circumcision may provide some protection from penile cancer because removing the foreskin helps keep the area clean. Epidermoid/squamous cell carcinoma of the penis almost never occurs in men who are circumcised. However, it is important to note that circumcision alone cannot prevent penile cancer.

There we go.

Hopefully you're not suffering from confirmation bias here...

With MY child, any easily prevented risk is too much risk.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

There we go.

Hopefully you're not suffering from confirmation bias here...

With MY child, any easily prevented risk is too much risk.

Keywords: easily prevented.

[Tlaceceyaya]

No.
But routine infant circumcision is the mutilation of an infant's genitals against his will.

But abortion is the murder of a fetus against his will.

The fetus doesn't have a will.

Not in the third trimester.

There's still a lot of time left in the third trimester, and if they have it, if they don't want it then they'll give it up to an overburdened system. Or they could just get an abortion and end it then.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

But abortion is the murder of a fetus against his will.

The fetus doesn't have a will.

Not in the third trimester.

There's still a lot of time left in the third trimester, and if they have it, if they don't want it then they'll give it up to an overburdened system. Or they could just get an abortion and end it then.

Neither does a baby.

[Blakk Metal]

But abortion is the murder of a fetus against his will.

The fetus doesn't have a will.

Neither does a baby.

[Unassuming Pacifists]

In my mind its simple. I'm Jewish, I was circumcised, and when I have children, I will want them to be included in the religion which I am part of.
I don't know if anyone here has actually attended a Jewish 'bris', but it is one of the most poignant and special ceremonies which exists.
It gives this baby the opportunity and right to practice Judaism fully when they are older, and they become part of a traceable chain of people who are proud of their Jewish roots stretching back 4-5 thousand years.
I don't see why a German court should have the right to break this chain.
I haven't even touched upon the hygiene benefits and the fact that it is the equivalent of removing one's tonsils or appendix, because frankly, that isn't the point.

[Tlaceceyaya]

The fetus doesn't have a will.

There's still a lot of time left in the third trimester, and if they have it, if they don't want it then they'll give it up to an overburdened system. Or they could just get an abortion and end it then.

Neither does a baby.

Ah, but you can get rid of a baby through non-fatal means.

[Ovisterra]

And it was humans who started the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, but we don't blame genocide on humans as a whole.

At any rate, death is more permanent than foreskin removal. How can you say something that has no ability to decide can be killed, but something with no ability to decide can't have its foreskin removed?

Because the issue is not how good at deciding they are when it comes to abortion.

[Tlaceceyaya]

In my mind its simple. I'm Jewish, I was circumcised, and when I have children, I will want them to be included in the religion which I am part of.
I don't know if anyone here has actually attended a Jewish 'bris', but it is one of the most poignant and special ceremonies which exists.
It gives this baby the opportunity and right to practice Judaism fully when they are older, and they become part of a traceable chain of people who are proud of their Jewish roots stretching back 4-5 thousand years.
I don't see why a German court should have the right to break this chain.
I haven't even touched upon the hygiene benefits and the fact that it is the equivalent of removing one's tonsils or appendix, because frankly, that isn't the point.

Apparently you haven't read this thread. The hygiene benefits... it takes two seconds to clean under the foreskin. And the foreskin DOES serve a purpose. It keeps the head of the penis moist. In fact, the foreskin also contributes to cleaning it. When you pee, the urine cleans the thing I can't remember the name of, and, upon leaving the penis, cleans the foreskin and penis. No urea is left behind. It just cleans it.
And children should have their bodily autonomy violated just so they can join a religion if they want to when they're older? It's the religion's fault that entering it requires a violation of bodily autonomy at a young age, and children should not be forced to comply with those rules on the chance that they will join it when older.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Neither does a baby.

Ah, but you can get rid of a baby through non-fatal means.

Doesn't matter.

[Gravlen]

Hopefully you're not suffering from confirmation bias here...

Keywords: easily prevented.

Keywords: Not recommended. May provide some protection. Only one risk factor. (I could add no confirmed causation.)

But I understand, it's probably easier for you to have your child go through surgery with the known risks that follows from a circumcision and feel better for having removed a potential albeit small risk factor. At least you wouldn't be violating his freedom of religion, since no ritual circumcision would take place.