German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Milks Empire]

Can I ask you, out of curiosity, if you also oppose forced genital reconstruction on intersex babies with ambiguous genitalia which do not threaten their health? I just wanted to know if you were consistent.

Not sure I understand.

It's rare, but some babies are born with genitals that don't look quite male and don't look quite female. Page is asking you if you oppose surgery to change that to something more obviously one or the other.

Permanently lopping off a part of the body of someone who is given no say whatsoever is an infringement of that person's human rights, barring a legitimate medical shit-hitting-the-fan situation. If he wants it done later, when he can speak for himself, it's then his personal business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... _sensation
There are only mixed and conflicting reports about circumcision. There are is no conclusive proof there is medical harm. Therefore, it doesn't cause harm.
And no, circumcision is part of the Jewish culture. This is a disgusting breach of culture comparable to the Christian converters and missionaries in Asia and third world countries. Parents should have the right to include their children in their own culture in order to propagate it.

So if I belong to a religion that says I have to lop a kidney out of my kid, that's A-OK? Where does it stop?

I see circumcision the same way as I see piercing a babies ears, you don't own them they are a human and altering their body without permission makes you scum. I don't care if it's insensitive to any religion who would listen to a god "who said hey...... cut this part of your penis off"?! That sounds like the behavior of a schizophrenic person. I can see getting cut by your own choice when your older but not when you can't fight back.

Finally, another who sees reason.

[Genivaria]

Its an infringement upon the child's rights.

That's not harmful. You experience the loss of rights everyday when you were a kid, e.g you didn't get the candy you want.

The candy is not part of my body that just got cut off.

[The Black Forrest]

Because removing the foreskin in no way impedes a person's ability to function.

Prove it.

ok? How? I have children. I go to the bathroom......

[The Greater German Nation]

Antisemitism my ass! Because a government does not want people to mutilate their children that's antisemitism? What if it was Jewish Custom that when the baby was born to cut off their middle finger? And a government banned the practice because it was viewed as being inhumane and as assault. Granted that is not the case but in a way it is much the same principle.

[Aquophia]

Anti-semitism from germany who is suprised.

Not sure if serious.

Seems serious to me. The only reason I could think of for this would be anti-semitism as well. We all know that uncircumcised penises are completely hideous and that most women find them to be sexually unattractive. They obviously don't want the jews to reproduce.

[Norstal]

You may think it's reasonable, 'Koku-san, but I believe Jewish parents have a command from Yahweh himself to have the circumcision performed within eight days (Leviticus 12:3). The court should know that, and knowing that, their statement about waiting is an amazing bit of disingenuous dissembling. If they don't know that, they are collectively an ass.

The problem is that the physical integrity of a human being is, I believe, higher in the value scale than religion. So it leaves little margin to solve the problem.

And culture is part of that integrity of a human being. You have to remember the Jewish faith is not just a mere religion, it is a culture, the very foundation of their ethnicity.

[Page]

Neither does removing a clitoris.

Now we have hyperbolic nonsense comparisons with FGM. Yep, this is a circumcision debate alright.

The only reason female genital mutilation has more complications than male genital mutilation is because it is not state-sanctioned. Therefore, one takes place in a dirty hut in the bush and one takes place in a sterilized hospital room by a surgeon's hand.

Could you surgically remove a girl's clitoris and not cause any health problems to her? Sure. Does that make it right?

[Forntag]

I love how my home decides something that disagrees with Jewish ideology and we are automatically anti-Semitic.

I support the court's decision because the child has no say in the matter. Religion does not take precedence over human bodily harm. The child may not even want to be in his parents' religion, or take part in its practices.

However, I think if you did get circumcised, you'd want it to be as an infant where you can not remember it.

I am conflicted.

[Norstal]

So if I belong to a religion that says I have to lop a kidney out of my kid, that's A-OK? Where does it stop?

When it's harmful. What part of "circumcision is not harmful" did you not get?

[Yammata]

Not sure I understand.

Usually when a baby is born intersex a doctor says to the parents "so what gender do you want to make it?" Should this be legal or not? I believe that is just as wrong, if not much worse than circumcision.

Thank you for saying this I forgot about it completely.

[Wamitoria]

Because removing the foreskin in no way impedes a person's ability to function.

Prove it.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2 ... 69_eng.pdf

[Southern Patriots]

Its an infringement upon the child's rights.

That's not harmful. You experience the loss of rights everyday when you were a kid, e.g you didn't get the candy you want.

Pointless surgery to appease the whims of a mythical being in the sky seems a tad more serious than not getting the sweet you wanted.

[Purple Fraction]

One's right to practice a religion ends where permanently altering the structure of another's body begins. This court made the right call.

[The Republic of Lanos]

That's not harmful. You experience the loss of rights everyday when you were a kid, e.g you didn't get the candy you want.

The candy is not part of my body that just got cut off.

If there was a child that had six fingers on each hand and the parents wanted to remove them, would you be objecting to that? Scratch that.

If there was a large-ass benign tumor on the child that was causing no harm at all, would you object to it being removed? It's not causing any harm at all to the child and the parents want it removed. Would you let them?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

That's not harmful. You experience the loss of rights everyday when you were a kid, e.g you didn't get the candy you want.

The equivalent in this case would be a parent being able to permanently remove the child's ability to eat sweets.

[Milks Empire]

So if I belong to a religion that says I have to lop a kidney out of my kid, that's A-OK? Where does it stop?

When it's harmful. What part of "circumcision is not harmful" did you not get?

You have not proven that it isn't harmful to my satisfaction. The proof I have seen that it is constitutes going way past PG13, so I cannot post it here.

[Atheimsa]

You know that this ruling was made because a doctor was ordered to circumcise a child of muslims and yet I havent hear'oh it is islamophobic'
Fact is that this cologne court(a city in germany , not the federal court) places personal well being above religious freedom and I think this is fully alright. It doesnt mean that other courts pick this up too- but it sends a signal.

[Chetssaland]

Meh I could care less. I don't give a flying fuck about the Jews being upset and I don't give a flying fuck about my long lost foreskin that was taken away as a baby. I guess in a situation when I'm neutral, the tie goes to not making something illegal.

[Samuraikoku]

And culture is part of that integrity of a human being. You have to remember the Jewish faith is not just a mere religion, it is a culture, the very foundation of their ethnicity.

Note that I said physical integrity (which doesn't intend to dismiss the culture part, but I still see it higher on the value scale).

I'm not very acquainted with Jewish culture, but I think I have an idea to reconcile:

Can the circumcision mark be, say, restored, with surgery, in the case someone circumcised decides they no longer want to bear that mark?

[Person012345]

In fact, as far as I'm concerned, as long as I live under my parent's house their rights as parents trump mine as their child any day (I'm 21 btw).

So you think that sexual and physical abuse is A-OK so long as the child is living in it's parents house?

[Stedicules]

they're still trying to keep the jews down. dang.

[Wamitoria]

I love how my home decides something that disagrees with Jewish ideology and we are automatically anti-Semitic.

Don't issue a ruling essentially calling my people barbarians and nobody will call you antisemitic.

[Milks Empire]

The candy is not part of my body that just got cut off.

If there was a child that had six fingers on each hand and the parents wanted to remove them, would you be objecting to that? Scratch that.
If there was a large-ass benign tumor on the child that was causing no harm at all, would you object to it being removed? It's not causing any harm at all to the child and the parents want it removed. Would you let them?

If the tumor is causing no problems whatsoever, then it's not the parents' call.

[Yammata]

I can't believe I'm saying this but the people with a pony flag have a point.

[Wamitoria]

When it's harmful. What part of "circumcision is not harmful" did you not get?

You have not proven that it isn't harmful to my satisfaction. The proof I have seen that it is constitutes going way past PG13, so I cannot post it here.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2 ... 69_eng.pdf