German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Kazomal]

Honestly, when we roll back all the cultural baggage - Jews and Muslims vs. certain parts of Africa - it's the same thing whether we're talking about boys or girls:

"Person X should have operation Y performed on them by their parents at a young age to fit in with culture Z!"
"Y is intrusive and unnecessary genital mutilation, and shouldn't be under parents' control!"

The only real non-cultural differences are in the larger variety of types of female genital mutilation [including some more substantial ones] as compared to the types of male genital mutilation [which honestly don't seem to be very broad]; it's really the same basic issue on the fundamentals of whose rights belong to whom (parents vs. infants).

The culture out of it. The issue is whether or not male circumcision at birth a legitimate medical procedure, and a lot of doctors seem to think it is, seeing as it is the safest and best time to perform the procedure, and causes the least apparent pain to the subject. If this is the case, then it should rest with the parents' prerogative, like other potentially risky medical care. I have yet to see a compelling argument in the other direction, but you generally seem to have well-sourced views, care to enlighten me?

[The Godly Nations]

Circumcision at birth provides almost no benefits at all.

It's not clear whether there really are any medical [as opposed to cultural] benefits from circumcision at birth; and with any procedure like that, there's a clear risk of medical complications arising immediately out of that.

YOu do know that complications are at around one in five hundred right- that's even less than umbilical cord problems.

[Fischistan]

Then that would be horrible.

Except that this law is not unjust.

It is, it targets, indirectly, Jews and Moslems.

Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!

[Neutraligon]

No, I think they are fucking busy bodies who should let parents raise their own child as they see fit.

身體髮膚，受之父母

If I think that routinely, savagely beating my child for stepping out of line is how I want to raise my kid, should the gov't let me do that?

If it causes harm to the child, and that includes emotional harm, then no. Circumcision, especially if performed so early the child doesn't remember it normally does not cause harm, either emotional or physical. The beating probably will.

[Artanili Datium]

Honestly, when we roll back all the cultural baggage - Jews and Muslims vs. certain parts of Africa - it's the same thing whether we're talking about boys or girls:

"Person X should have operation Y performed on them by their parents at a young age to fit in with culture Z!"
"Y is intrusive and unnecessary genital mutilation, and shouldn't be under parents' control!"

The only real non-cultural differences are in the larger variety of types of female genital mutilation [including some more substantial ones] as compared to the types of male genital mutilation [which honestly don't seem to be very broad]; it's really the same basic issue on the fundamentals of whose rights belong to whom (parents vs. infants).

The issue is whether or not male circumcision at birth a legitimate medical procedure, and a lot of doctors seem to think it is, seeing as it is the safest and best time to perform the procedure, and causes the least apparent pain to the subject. I have yet to see a compelling argument in the other direction, but you generally seem to have well-sourced views, care to enlighten me?

But, what if the child doesn't want it later in his life. What then?

[The Godly Nations]

It is, it targets, indirectly, Jews and Moslems.

Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!

1. Circumcision is not murder. It doesn't even harm the development of the child, and is sanctioned in their religion with very specific guidelines, guidelines that are incompatible with the law.
2. Do you mean to imply that Jews and Moslems are murderers?

[Fischistan]

Honestly, when we roll back all the cultural baggage - Jews and Muslims vs. certain parts of Africa - it's the same thing whether we're talking about boys or girls:

"Person X should have operation Y performed on them by their parents at a young age to fit in with culture Z!"
"Y is intrusive and unnecessary genital mutilation, and shouldn't be under parents' control!"

The only real non-cultural differences are in the larger variety of types of female genital mutilation [including some more substantial ones] as compared to the types of male genital mutilation [which honestly don't seem to be very broad]; it's really the same basic issue on the fundamentals of whose rights belong to whom (parents vs. infants).

As I said earlier, the problem with circumcision, is that by the time you wait until the age of consent - it's too late, and the operation's more complicated. Most of the people that were circumcised, that I know IRL, liked it and were thankful for it, even the ones that were no longer Jewish. Also, Y isn't genital mutilation - you're lopping off skin, not a vital body part.

Earlobes are not a vital body part. If you chop off them, that is mutilation.

And Circumcision is less painful as an adult.

[Neutraligon]

It is, it targets, indirectly, Jews and Moslems.

Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!

except murderers have done something to deprive others of their own rights, circumcision does not, as parents are allowed to make medical decisions for their children.

[Tmutarakhan]

It eliminates the chances of gangrenes and cancers that can require penile amputation. This guy would not consider that negligible.

Source?

I gave you direct testimony. If you are asking for a source on penile cancer, here is where you can dowload the world's data (search for code C60); the data was discussed at wearying length on this thread, but in sum, there are ZERO cases per year (none, zip, zilch, nada) in countries where circumcision is universal; the handful of cases in Muslim countries are attributable to small minorities that do not circumcise (some of the Copts in Egypt do not, so they get 2 instead of 0; some of the Gulf emirates have East Asian migrants). To find any cases in circumcised men, you need to look at a large nation over a span of centuries: in the history of the United States, there have been nine-- six of these being adult circumcisions, where evidently the cancer started in the foreskin as usual and had already spread to the glans before the diseased was removed; the other three cases involved unusual trauma to the penis. Penile gangrene, similarly, just does not occur (except perhaps with freakish rarity) if circumcision is performed in infancy (although I do not know a central source for world data like the International Cancer Registry). The foreskin also harbors various viral infections (it is known to be a reservoir for the HIV virus, but there are others as well).

[Neutraligon]

The issue is whether or not male circumcision at birth a legitimate medical procedure, and a lot of doctors seem to think it is, seeing as it is the safest and best time to perform the procedure, and causes the least apparent pain to the subject. I have yet to see a compelling argument in the other direction, but you generally seem to have well-sourced views, care to enlighten me?

But, what if the child doesn't want it later in his life. What then?

As far as I can tell most children who have been circumcised don't give a damn later in life. It is not something that affects them in any big way, if it isn't for religious reasons. If it is doen for religious reasons normally they would understand why it happened.

[Narrow Path]

x.

[Artanili Datium]

But, what if the child doesn't want it later in his life. What then?

As far as I can tell most children who have been circumcised don't give a damn later in life. It is not something that affects them in any big way, if it isn't for religious reasons. If it is doen for religious reasons normally they would understand why it happened.

Keyword Most.

[Crogach]

Hell, I don't remember my hospitalization either, but that doesn't mean that it didn't take well over a decade to put to rest a bevy of PTSD-esque phobias and neuroses as a result of the aforementioned hospitalization. While I will give you that the psychological aftereffects due to what happened to me are much more serious than those your average circumcised boy can expect to deal with there's still no reason to traumatize an infant unless medically speaking there's no other choice. I honestly don't care what consenting adults do to their penises, even having it lopped off as part of a gender reassignment procedure, but this isn't about what people can and can't do to each other with consent, but rather what people can and can't do to people who are unable to give consent.

As a matter of practicality certain medical decisions will have to be made for those who can't make the call for themselves (young children, the severely mentally ill, coma patients, etc.), but as far as I'm concerned the line needs to be drawn at acute medical need. Circumcision (except in cases where intervention is physically necessary and all less invasive approaches have failed, such as severe phimosis) is no more medically necessary than preemptive tonsillectomy or preemptive appendectomy, and we don't routinely do those anymore either.

Again how can it cause a phobia if there is no way a child would remember it, in any way shape or form. Parents do have the right to make decisions for their children. Circumcision is neither medically necessary, but it is also not something that would harm the child if done correctly. As such it is something that can and should be left up to the parent. You have no right to prevent something that causes no harm due to your morals.

Like I said, you don't necessary have to maintain and be able to recall discrete memories of the experience for it to cause trauma; I remember exactly jack shit before the age of 3-5, and half of what I remember from the earlier years is most likely a fabricated image assembled from fragments of actual memory and things I've been told. Doesn't mean I didn't have to be sat on to get blood drawn until I was 10-11. Doesn't mean I didn't freak out and try to run away from blue doors until I was in first or second grade. Doesn't mean I don't still have a hell of a time being alone in quiet rooms.

As far as parents' rights to make decisions for their children, with that right comes the responsibility to select the options that do the least harm (physical, mental, or emotional) to the child, and failure to do so beyond certain margins is legitimate grounds for termination of that right. Gratuitous surgery of dubious actual benefit is certainly not a reasonable choice to make, and as far as I'm concerned circumcision falls into that category.

[The Godly Nations]

No, I think they are fucking busy bodies who should let parents raise their own child as they see fit.

身體髮膚，受之父母

If I think that routinely, savagely beating my child for stepping out of line is how I want to raise my kid, should the gov't let me do that?

The implicit provision is so long as it does not adversely affect the child's development, one which I made explicit several times. Savagely beating my child does adversely affect the child development. Circumcision doesn't.

[Artanili Datium]

Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!

except murderers have done something to deprive others of their own rights, circumcision does not, as parents are allowed to make medical decisions for their children.

Infant circumcision deprives infants of their right to bodily sovereignty.

[Neutraligon]

As I said earlier, the problem with circumcision, is that by the time you wait until the age of consent - it's too late, and the operation's more complicated. Most of the people that were circumcised, that I know IRL, liked it and were thankful for it, even the ones that were no longer Jewish. Also, Y isn't genital mutilation - you're lopping off skin, not a vital body part.

Earlobes are not a vital body part. If you chop off them, that is mutilation.

And Circumcision is less painful as an adult.

...Source for the second, especially as an infant would not remember the pain, and adult would. To the person cutting off the earlobe, it would not be mutilation. Again who are you to legislate against a procedure that does not affect you due to your morals, or just because you find it icky.

[Neutraligon]

except murderers have done something to deprive others of their own rights, circumcision does not, as parents are allowed to make medical decisions for their children.

Infant circumcision deprives infants of their right to bodily sovereignty.

Parents have the right to make medical decisions for their child.

[Shofercia]

And Circumcision is less painful as an adult.

Can I get a valid source for that? Cause the expert source I provided says the exact opposite: http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/ ... rcumcision

Circumcision is usually performed on the first or second day after birth. (Among the Jewish population, circumcision is performed on the eighth day.) The procedure becomes more complicated and riskier in older babies, children, and men.

[Narrow Path]

x

[Mosasauria]

Hells yeah! *Pats Germany on the head*

[Neutraligon]

Again how can it cause a phobia if there is no way a child would remember it, in any way shape or form. Parents do have the right to make decisions for their children. Circumcision is neither medically necessary, but it is also not something that would harm the child if done correctly. As such it is something that can and should be left up to the parent. You have no right to prevent something that causes no harm due to your morals.

Like I said, you don't necessary have to maintain and be able to recall discrete memories of the experience for it to cause trauma; I remember exactly jack shit before the age of 3-5, and half of what I remember from the earlier years is most likely a fabricated image assembled from fragments of actual memory and things I've been told. Doesn't mean I didn't have to be sat on to get blood drawn until I was 10-11. Doesn't mean I didn't freak out and try to run away from blue doors until I was in first or second grade. Doesn't mean I don't still have a hell of a time being alone in quiet rooms.

As far as parents' rights to make decisions for their children, with that right comes the responsibility to select the options that do the least harm (physical, mental, or emotional) to the child, and failure to do so beyond certain margins is legitimate grounds for termination of that right. Gratuitous surgery of dubious actual benefit is certainly not a reasonable choice to make, and as far as I'm concerned circumcision falls into that category.

I think you might be the first person I ever met who had a phobia form from something that happened when they were 8, please show that this happens more than once, and is not a result of circumstances. Most children have to be sat on when drawing blood, and many hate being alone in a quiet room. Prove to me these where the result of the surgery.

Secondly again, circumcision if done correctly does no harm either then or in the future.

[The Godly Nations]

So, something as minor as circumcision gets people into a frenzied debate, how about something that actually affects a child's development, you know, like whether the parents are allowed to raise their child in a strict Calvinistic environment, or send them to Catholic School and learn all about Popery, or send them to a public school in a predominately conservative neighbourhood? Shouldn't the Child have a say in these things too- they do, after all, form a more important part of a child's development than the ownership of a foreskin.

[Xerberos]

Please actually address what people are saying to you. Explain how it is okay for you to mutilate your newborn baby because of tradition. And read some other recent posts in this thread about tradition.

One, it is justification because:

1. It does not fucking harm the child

2. This tradition is instituted in someone's personal religious belief- therefore to go against that would be to persecute the religion.

1. It can, and has, harmed people. Read the thread.

2. Someone's religious beliefs do not extend to forcing surgery on others.

[Shofercia]

It is, it targets, indirectly, Jews and Moslems.

Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!

Do you not see the inherent logical fallacy there?

"Jim Crow Laws unfairly target blacks!"
"Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!"

Really? That's the argument you're making?

[Artanili Datium]

Infant circumcision deprives infants of their right to bodily sovereignty.

Parents have the right to make medical decisions for their child.

Parents have the right to make necessary decisions for their children, not to invoke unnecessary operations that damage bodily sovereignty.