German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Alowwvia]

Horseshit.

The most consistent and fundamental argument has been letting people make their own choices about their own bodies - personal sovereignty.

- "You're violating the freedom of religion and bodily integrity of another individual!"
- "Damn your appeals to emotion!"

Yeah... No.

You're implying that forcing a young child to conform to your religion by physically branding them and removing a part of them they can't grow back without their ability to realize what's going on, consent, or fight back, and then trying to brain wash them their whole lives that this is acceptable because your God created men with foreskin, then demanded they mutilate it off their children; is a-o-k because RELIGIOUS TRADITION.

[Black-and-White]

- "You're violating the freedom of religion and bodily integrity of another individual!"
- "Damn your appeals to emotion!"

Yeah... No.

You're implying that forcing a young child to conform to your religion by physically branding them and removing a part of them they can't grow back without their ability to realize what's going on, consent, or fight back, and then trying to brain wash them their whole lives that this is acceptable because your God created men with foreskin, then demanded they mutilate it off their children; is a-o-k because RELIGIOUS TRADITION.

I'm sorry if this is deemed inappropriate, but I am an atheist, I am not of Jewish descent, but I was adopted into a Jewish family when I was a baby and thus I was circumcised. I have no recollection of any pain of the 'horrid genital mutilation', it has not harmed me in any way, and thus no fucks are given by me over it. The same goes to other circumcised people I have discussed the issue with. It's my general consensus that us sad little victims of genital mutilation wish you people would just leave us alone and stop acting like it's such a bad thing.

[Alowwvia]

You're implying that forcing a young child to conform to your religion by physically branding them and removing a part of them they can't grow back without their ability to realize what's going on, consent, or fight back, and then trying to brain wash them their whole lives that this is acceptable because your God created men with foreskin, then demanded they mutilate it off their children; is a-o-k because RELIGIOUS TRADITION.

I'm sorry if this is deemed inappropriate, but I am an atheist, I am not of Jewish descent, but I was adopted into a Jewish family when I was a baby and thus I was circumcised. I have no recollection of any pain of the 'horrid genital mutilation', it has not harmed me in any way, and thus no fucks are given by me over it. The same goes to other circumcised people I have discussed the issue with. It's my general consensus that us sad little victims of genital mutilation wish you people would just leave us alone and stop acting like it's such a bad thing.

And us normal people wish you would stop forcing little kids to become like you 'for tradition'. Give the individual a say, for fuck's sake.

[Black-and-White]

I'm sorry if this is deemed inappropriate, but I am an atheist, I am not of Jewish descent, but I was adopted into a Jewish family when I was a baby and thus I was circumcised. I have no recollection of any pain of the 'horrid genital mutilation', it has not harmed me in any way, and thus no fucks are given by me over it. The same goes to other circumcised people I have discussed the issue with. It's my general consensus that us sad little victims of genital mutilation wish you people would just leave us alone and stop acting like it's such a bad thing.

And us normal people wish you would stop forcing little kids to become like you 'for tradition'. Give the individual a say, for fuck's sake.

Never said they should. I already said, I'm an atheist. It's not part of my tradition. Just be aware most circumcised people don't give a shit about the fact they're circumcised. It doesn't harm the individual beyond temporary pain you won't even remember, damn it, so stop acting like it's a miserable thing to have inflicted upon you. If you want to ban circumcision, that's all fine and dandy, just please keep the, "It's so terrible to have a small useless piece of skin chopped off :'(" B.S. out of it. If you don't do that, then go ahead and get it banned. Don't drag people like me into it.

[No Water No Moon]

You're implying that forcing a young child to conform to your religion by physically branding them and removing a part of them they can't grow back without their ability to realize what's going on, consent, or fight back, and then trying to brain wash them their whole lives that this is acceptable because your God created men with foreskin, then demanded they mutilate it off their children; is a-o-k because RELIGIOUS TRADITION.

I'm sorry if this is deemed inappropriate, but I am an atheist, I am not of Jewish descent, but I was adopted into a Jewish family when I was a baby and thus I was circumcised. I have no recollection of any pain of the 'horrid genital mutilation', it has not harmed me in any way, and thus no fucks are given by me over it. The same goes to other circumcised people I have discussed the issue with. ...

I'm a little surprised that there are groups of men out there that get together to talk about how their cocks make them feel.

I have to admit, it's never really come up in the circles I move in. So to speak.

[Absurd Ramblings]

I agree with this ruling.

I strongly believe that the law must not submit to religion, but religion submit to the law.

Now, attempting to slice someones genetalia against their concent would constitutute an armed assault. I see no reason if should be any different because the reasons are cultural, religious or tradition - OR because the victim is a helpless infant.

In fact, I would rather support a ban on all religions the texts of which are not in accordance with the law.

[Black-and-White]

I'm sorry if this is deemed inappropriate, but I am an atheist, I am not of Jewish descent, but I was adopted into a Jewish family when I was a baby and thus I was circumcised. I have no recollection of any pain of the 'horrid genital mutilation', it has not harmed me in any way, and thus no fucks are given by me over it. The same goes to other circumcised people I have discussed the issue with. ...

I'm a little surprised that there are groups of men out there that get together to talk about how their cocks make them feel.

I'm not afraid to talk about my genitals any more than I am to talk about my eyes or hair. Shame you are. The body is only as disgusting as you make it to be.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

And us normal people wish you would stop forcing little kids to become like you 'for tradition'. Give the individual a say, for fuck's sake.

Never said they should. I already said, I'm an atheist. It's not part of my tradition. Just be aware most circumcised people don't give a shit about the fact they're circumcised. It doesn't harm the individual beyond temporary pain you won't even remember, damn it, so stop acting like it's a miserable thing to have inflicted upon you. If you want to ban circumcision, that's all fine and dandy, just please keep the, "It's so terrible to have a small useless piece of skin chopped off :'(" B.S. out of it. If you don't do that, then go ahead and get it banned. Don't drag people like me into it.

Because most of them don't realize how awesome having an intact body is.
When they do, you get people like me who work on restoring it and such. c:

[No Water No Moon]

I'm a little surprised that there are groups of men out there that get together to talk about how their cocks make them feel.

I'm not afraid to talk about my genitals any more than I am to talk about my eyes or hair. Shame you are. The body is only as disgusting as you make it to be.

Afraid? Shame? Disgust? Apparently we're back deep in the heart of appeal to emotion territory.

Now me - i didn't mention any negative connotation. Just surprise.

[Black-and-White]

I'm not afraid to talk about my genitals any more than I am to talk about my eyes or hair. Shame you are. The body is only as disgusting as you make it to be.

Afraid? Shame? Disgust? Apparently we're back deep in the heart of appeal to emotion territory.

Now me - i didn't mention any negative connotation. Just surprise.

My apologies. I thought it was meant to be condescending or whatnot.

[Black-and-White]

Never said they should. I already said, I'm an atheist. It's not part of my tradition. Just be aware most circumcised people don't give a shit about the fact they're circumcised. It doesn't harm the individual beyond temporary pain you won't even remember, damn it, so stop acting like it's a miserable thing to have inflicted upon you. If you want to ban circumcision, that's all fine and dandy, just please keep the, "It's so terrible to have a small useless piece of skin chopped off :'(" B.S. out of it. If you don't do that, then go ahead and get it banned. Don't drag people like me into it.

Because most of them don't realize how awesome having an intact body is.
When they do, you get people like me who work on restoring it and such. c:

Yeah, I'm so out of tact, what with that small, useless piece of skin being gone.

By your logic people without appendixes are also out of tact.

[Fartsniffage]

Because most of them don't realize how awesome having an intact body is.
When they do, you get people like me who work on restoring it and such. c:

Yeah, I'm so out of tact, what with that small, useless piece of skin being gone.

By your logic people without appendixes are also out of tact.

We are. It's just that the option was having it removed or dying with a couple of days.

[Gravlen]

I don't think it's unfair to question a source. I think if you can show something that actually compromises the data, then it's a valid complaint

How much patience do you expect someone to show about demonstrating the falsehood line by line of claims made in a Holocaust denial or aggressively ignorant creationist site? I pointed out that your source was telling a lie, which you knew perfectly well to be a lie when you repeated it; and that it part of a tiresome pattern of spinning tales about the Jewish conspiracy running the world, which you personally haven't indulged in, although you have an ally going on and on about how the Jews are no better than animals.

But you're not showing compromised data. You're - in fact - not presenting anything here as a rebuttal except, the claim that some guy is a liar, and thus ANYTHING found on some site is automatically wrong.

I demonstrated the specific errors, as you can see in what is quoted.

The medical papers do distinguish invasive cancers (which give a choice between "mutilation", in the actual sense of that word, or death) and the kinds of growths variously referred to as "genital warts" or "papillomas" or "cancers in situ", which circumcision does not to be sure protect against, but do not have the same dire consequences; your site pretends they are the same.

A medical paper notes cases of penile cancer starting in "circumcision scars": now, circumcision properly performed does not leave any scars, which only result when part of the foreskin is damaged but left attached-- that is, in these cases also the cancer starts in the foreskin which is strongly against your case, although your site pretends that circumcision is the cause, rather than the failure to complete the circumcision. These things should not be difficult to understand, so I am thinking that you do understand, which is why you refuse to acknowledge that these things have even been pointed out to you.

Indeed. And in people that don't smoke, the statistics are even more significant.

No. Among the uncircumcised, if you search a population of 100,000 males for a year you may or may not get one case; the average rate (per 100,000 per year) goes down from a large fraction of 1 to a smaller fraction of 1 if they do not smoke, or if they maintain proper hygiene, etc.: this can reduce the rate by a factor of about two.

Among the infant-circumcised, you need to search a population of 100,000,000 males (the whole US) for almost a century (the records surveys went back to the 1920's) to find a total of 3 cases: that is reducing the rate by a factor of thousands.

The difference between two and thousands is the difference between the height of a basketball hoop and the height of Mt. Everest: you are, again, ridiculously claiming that the basketball hoop is "larger" than Mt. Everest.

And in people that never encounter any kind of penile trauma, more pronounced again.

Among the infant-circumcised who never encounter penile trauma, you cannot find ONE case in a population of 100,000,000 over a century. The rate reduction is impossible to distinguish from 100%: it is possible that there are some freakishly rare cases; I just can't find a report of one.

Since I don't find the "best case scenario" in favour of your argument as a particularly compelling one, I feel like my horse is running in a different race. But maybe, out of curiosity, you can explain something to me:

In 1997 Schoen claimed there were only 10 recorded cases - are you counting differently? He doesn't state that he differentiates between invasive cancers and carcinoma in situ. Does he not differentiate? Is the difference between your counting and his that you aren't counting in situ while he is, or are your numbers obsolete / modified by other factors?

Also, according to different sources, Maden et al. has documented 41 cases of cancer in neonatally circumcised males. Should this not be counted / is erroneous / is misleading because they didn't differentiate between invasive and in situ?

And for your perousal, here's an interesting report from 2008:

The common findings in all 3 men were neonatal circumcision, a history of penile condyloma acuminatum in early adult life and then the development of invasive penile cancer 20–25 years later. In each instance diagnosis was delayed for 6–18 months, presumably owing to the assumption that penile cancer is exceedingly rare in a circumcised penis. All 3 men were successfully treated, fortunately preserving penile function and morphology, using pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy.

We report 3 cases of invasive penile cancer occurring in neonatally circumcised men referred to our centre between 2002 and 2006.

Based on our cases and the literature, it is prudent to conclude that circumcision, even when performed neonatally, does not offer absolute protection against invasive penile cancer. Neonatal circumcision may still be one of the major protective factors against penile cancer, but it should not prevent the physicians from having a high index of suspicion when there is a nonhealing penile lesion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422896/

The good news is, they were treated successfully

[Black-and-White]

Yeah, I'm so out of tact, what with that small, useless piece of skin being gone.

By your logic people without appendixes are also out of tact.

We are. It's just that the option was having it removed or dying with a couple of days.

Yes, yes, bad choice of words on my part. I am out of tact, it just isn't any better or worse than someone who isn't.

[Lialoth]

Yeah, I'm so out of tact, what with that small, useless piece of skin being gone.

Small and useless? You'd be wrong on both counts.

[Gravlen]

- "You're violating the freedom of religion and bodily integrity of another individual!"
- "Damn your appeals to emotion!"

Yeah... No.

You're implying that forcing a young child to conform to your religion by physically branding them and removing a part of them they can't grow back without their ability to realize what's going on, consent, or fight back, and then trying to brain wash them their whole lives that this is acceptable because your God created men with foreskin, then demanded they mutilate it off their children; is a-o-k because RELIGIOUS TRADITION.

Damn, I wanted to poke fun at this post, but since it's like ly it came into existence because I was unclear I didn't have the heart. So to clarify:

- I agree with you.
- I was trying to illustrate that TomKirk was completely incorrect in his assertion that "The anti-circumcision doesn't seem to consist of anything except appeals to emotion, since arguing based on rights is not appeals to emotion.

[Gravlen]

It's not part of my tradition. Just be aware most circumcised people don't give a shit about the fact they're circumcised.

> implies that some people DO give a shit about the fact they're circumcised.

But the people who do give a shit about it, and who don't have it as a part of their faith or tradition, should just suck it up, right?

[Black-and-White]

Yeah, I'm so out of tact, what with that small, useless piece of skin being gone.

Small and useless? You'd be wrong on both counts.

Small relative to the rest of my body skin, useless other than physical things like keeping the glans sensitive or some shit and some unproven reports it makes you last longer in the bed. I don't care. I enjoy my life in the bedroom just fine, thank you very much, and as far as I'm concerned it's not your place to make me a victim of the horrid injustice that is circumcision.

[Black-and-White]

It's not part of my tradition. Just be aware most circumcised people don't give a shit about the fact they're circumcised.

> implies that some people DO give a shit about the fact they're circumcised.

But the people who do give a shit about it, and who don't have it as a part of their faith or tradition, should just suck it up, right?

What else can they do?

I myself think circumcision should stop simply for the minority that do give a shit, but I just don't want people making me a victim in the process. It's patronizing.

[Lialoth]

Small relative to the rest of my body skin, useless other than physical things like keeping the glans sensitive or some shit and some unproven reports it makes you last longer in the bed. I don't care. I enjoy my life in the bedroom just fine, thank you very much, and as far as I'm concerned it's not your place to make me a victim of the horrid injustice that is circumcision.

The foreskin in total is roughly the size of a 4"x5" index card. There's a lot of useful things that are small, size isn't really that relevant. As for usefulness? I've got a list.

What else can they do?

I myself think circumcision should stop simply for the minority that do give a shit, but I just don't want people making me a victim in the process. It's patronizing.

Routine infant circumcising should stop for the sake of human rights.

[AETEN II]

Boo-hoo. 1 in 10,000 chance of getting penile cancer, if not less. You're more likely to die in a car accident. Hardly worth it to get worked up with penile cancer.

[Lialoth]

Boo-hoo. 1 in 10,000 chance of getting penile cancer, if not less. You're more likely to die in a car accident. Hardly worth it to get worked up with penile cancer.

And this is why the people pushing circ eventually abandoned the "prevents cancer" argument in favour of something that actually occurs in numbers that are worth noting.

I'd actually like to point out one mistake I made with the numbers: It's almost completely unheard of for penile cancer to develop under the age of fifteen. At most you'll get one per hundred thousand. If you got any in the four year period.

The next tier up is under thirty, where you MIGHT get one or two per hundred thousand. The file I'm looking at now (Austria) doesn't get any until the 30-35 mark.

They don't really start to show up until 40+, where most of the cases are.

So it's not "70 years of risk". It's 30.

[Ceannairceach]

Meh, I'm no fan of circumcision and am certainly not sad to see it go in Germany, but this will likely piss off too many people to make it a good law. Shouts of antisemitism and whatnot, likely. Sad, really.

[Black-and-White]

Boo-hoo. 1 in 10,000 chance of getting penile cancer, if not less. You're more likely to die in a car accident. Hardly worth it to get worked up with penile cancer.

And this is why the people pushing circ eventually abandoned the "prevents cancer" argument in favour of something that actually occurs in numbers that are worth noting.

I'd actually like to point out one mistake I made with the numbers: It's almost completely unheard of for penile cancer to develop under the age of fifteen. At most you'll get one per hundred thousand. If you got any in the four year period.

The next tier up is under thirty, where you MIGHT get one or two per hundred thousand. The file I'm looking at now (Austria) doesn't get any until the 30-35 mark.

They don't really start to show up until 40+, where most of the cases are.

So it's not "70 years of risk". It's 30.

You still have yet to back up your words with sources.

[Lialoth]

Meh, I'm no fan of circumcision and am certainly not sad to see it go in Germany, but this will likely piss off too many people to make it a good law. Shouts of antisemitism and whatnot, likely. Sad, really.

Your right, opponents of the ruling will probably try to invoke cultural guilt to silence critics of an abusive procedure.

You still have yet to back up your words with sources.

Oh, it's the source I stole from whats-his-face. Give me a few, I need to find it again. I recommend against trying to look through it, his source is an absolute pain to use.