German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Mosasauria]

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.

I'm pretty sure they would give a damn.

[Neutraligon]

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.

It can and does, and any surgery can go wrong.

[Nabat]

There are so many fallicies and outrageous comparisons floating about here, so let's clean up the conversation quickly.

-Circumcision has health gains. They are not enough to justify wholesale mandatory circumcision of the population, but they are enough to justify it as a medical procedure. (HIV, Penile Cancer, UTI, Smega to start)

-Circumcision does not constitute mutilation, because there is no detriment. The foreskin is vestigial. It is not a life threatening procedure. The occurence or risk of harm to the function of the penis is minimal (This particular case is rare. Complications from cricumcision are rare)

-Both on a medical and religious level, it is erroneous to say, 'they can be circumcised at the age of consent'. Adult circumcision have significantly more health complications as the foreskin has changed by adulthood.

-Female and male circumcision are not comparable. The foreskin is a flap of skin with zero function except to serve as underwear for the helmet of the penis. The clitoris on the other hand is an essential part of female sexuality, and its removal represents a horrific defilement and hatred for female sexuality.

I understand the position of those in support of the Gernman courts. You believe that circumcision represents an unessecary medical operation that irreperably harms a childs penis. That is a fine position.
Please though, don't argue as though 60% of America no longer have a penis, or were raped as children. Be reasonable and fair. If the facts support your reason, then it'll be evident without hyperbole, emotion or fiction

[Vitius]

I don't think what this German court did was right.

However, I don't think it's antisemitism. If circumcision is something that we should not do to a child because they may not consent, we may as well prevent shots, surgeries and those little painful band aid ripoffs as well.

Er..Point is, why make a special case for this type of body modification? The others (well, perhaps the last one) may have rare side-effects as well.

[Neutraligon]

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.

I'm pretty sure they would give a damn.

he sexual effects of circumcision are the subject of some debate notice this key sentence.

[The Godly Nations]

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.

No it doesn't. Complications are rar5e (at 1 in 500), and, when done correctly, as it is usually done, it does not adversely affect the Child's development.

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

I should think so, if the surgery is harmless, as Circumcision is.

[Xerberos]

Religious freedom does not extend to performing permanent surgery on others, especially those who cannot give consent.

What about other medical decisions? Are these out of a parents hands, too? The ruling explicitly allowed circumcisions done for medical reasons, I just choose to have my medical circumcision done at home by a licensed rabbi or imam, with my spiritual community in attendance.

Parents have the right to approve medically necessary procedures.

False equivalence. Vaccines provide definitive health benefits to the individual and the public at large, are much less risky, and do not permanently degrade quality of sex.

You're a medical professional, eh? Most circumcisions in the US is done for medical reasons on the recommendation of a doctor. Not saying that I come down on one side or another of this debate, but a lot of people who's opinion I give more weight to than I do to Random NS Poster's seem to consider male circumcision at birth to be a perfectly valid medical procedure.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_an ... anizations

[Narrow Path]

x

[Xerberos]

Because what is done to said minor piece of skin is not the decision of the parents, but the person whom the piece of skin belongs to.

Yes it is. That minor piece of skin is the parents, because its the parent's job to decide what is best for the child, so long as they do not harm him. If they think that it is best to get rid of a minor piece of skin- a skin that, by the way, has not been shown to offer any benefits to the child- I think it is their bloody right. After all, "Your physical person with its hair and skin are received from your parents", and "It is filial piety that is the root of all virtue, and whence education itself is born", therefore, it is natural law that the parents should decide how it is best to dispose of this minor piece of skin so long as 1. It does not harm the child (circumcision doesn't) 2. It is what the parent think is best for the development of the child.

But circumcision has harmed people. It offers benefits in the form of increased protection from chafing, etc and it gives you more sensation.

[The Godly Nations]

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.

I'm pretty sure they would give a damn.

Some people also get circumcised.

Also, if you read the article, you would find that the results are inconclusive.

[Shofercia]

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.

I'm pretty sure they would give a damn.

Did you read your own source? It says that there are contradicting studies on the matter, with some saying that it helps sexual drive, and some saying that it hurts sexual drive. As the source you provided, admits: Those reviewing the literature have reached differing conclusions, meaning that circumcision affects different people in different ways, and that neither side has been able to show, conclusively, that circumcision is harmful.

[Xerberos]

You're cutting off part of their penis. Of course it harms the, it's torture!

It's torture if there is pain involve- there is no pain involve in circumcision. It does not adversely affect the child's development or life, nor is it important just because it is part of the penis.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is pain involved in circumcision. More pain than you would feel as an adult, actually.

[Neutraligon]

Prove that your law of your god is true and that his is flawed or it holds no merit.

Whether or not my law is true has no bearing. We should be allowed to live by our own law if we wish, so long as we keep the jurisdiction within our own territory. Even if I were to prove it to you, you wouldn't accept the proof because you and others like you have already made up your minds about the issue.

Agreed, he does not have to live by our laws. It does not affect him. We are not insisting that everyone get circumcised, only that we be allowed to practice our religion in peace without outside interference when we are doing something that normally does no harm.

Why should anyone be allowed to legislate on this by preventing on it simply because of their morals or because they find it icky...sounds like something I have heard before.

[Tlaceceyaya]

You do realize that Nazism is no longer the driving ideology of Germany, right? They're banning circumcision because it is unnecessary, irreversible and can cause health problems. Not to jab at the jews.

Doesn't matter, Jews will see it as an attack on their religion, and then look at the history. Germans still have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I was unaware that the majority of Germans personally murdered Jews.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I agree with this. I fully support morphological freedom, and the concept of bodily integrity is vital to that. A permanent alteration to an individuals body is something they, fundamentally, should consent to.

I have no problem with adults seeking such an option out for themselves, however saddens me that so many parents see no issue with seeing a knife taken to their children for no good scientific reason. Outside of religious tradition (and the occasional, rare medical condition) it is purely cosmetic or based on ignorance about the "benefits" of have it performed.

Exactly. Why should you circumcise your babies if you don't even care?

If I am the parent, I should think I have some bloody right as to what I think is best for my child.

You do, but at the same time the rights of the child (and by extension the rights of the adult they can become) must be respected. The idea your rights as a parent trumps the right of your child's bodily integrity and self determination is worrying.

Parents shouldn't be able to permanently alter their child's body without their consent. And the big question - why exactly would you think it is "best" for your child? Circumcision has no proven scientific value. There is a number of potential risks (as exists in any surgical procedure - in this case they are rare, but the risk still exists).

[Neutraligon]

It's torture if there is pain involve- there is no pain involve in circumcision. It does not adversely affect the child's development or life, nor is it important just because it is part of the penis.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is pain involved in circumcision. More pain than you would feel as an adult, actually.

SOURCE we have given sources that say it is more painful as an adult, and most likely will be remembered, unlike with a child.

[Xerberos]

In Africa where HIV is an epidemic...but not in the western world where HIV is not a main concern.

So, because HIV is not as prevalent in the west as in Africa, we should therefore take no care to prevent our attaining of it, simply because it is unlikely.

You know what's better at preventing HIV transmission than getting circumcised? Using condoms.

[The Godly Nations]

Yes it is. That minor piece of skin is the parents, because its the parent's job to decide what is best for the child, so long as they do not harm him. If they think that it is best to get rid of a minor piece of skin- a skin that, by the way, has not been shown to offer any benefits to the child- I think it is their bloody right. After all, "Your physical person with its hair and skin are received from your parents", and "It is filial piety that is the root of all virtue, and whence education itself is born", therefore, it is natural law that the parents should decide how it is best to dispose of this minor piece of skin so long as 1. It does not harm the child (circumcision doesn't) 2. It is what the parent think is best for the development of the child.

But circumcision has harmed people. It offers benefits in the form of increased protection from chafing, etc and it gives you more sensation.

First, Circumcision has not been conclusively shown to deteriorate any person's life. There is also nothing conclusive on the sexual benefits of having a foreskin either. All of that, then, is bullshit.

Second, the foreskin is also a breeding ground for germs, and can be linked to the spread of certain STDs. In addition, to have a foreskin is to increase you chances of Phimosis, for obvious reasons.

[Neutraligon]

Doesn't matter, Jews will see it as an attack on their religion, and then look at the history. Germans still have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I was unaware that the majority of Germans personally murdered Jews.

Still doesn't matter, that is how it will be seen. Right or wrong, Germany as a whole has been blamed for some of the worst acts of antisemitism and torture, and this will be seen as continuing in that line.

[Wellfleet]

I wonder how many of you arguing against circumcision because the infant can't choose also argue for abortion. *ducks for cover*

[Neutraligon]

I agree with this. I fully support morphological freedom, and the concept of bodily integrity is vital to that. A permanent alteration to an individuals body is something they, fundamentally, should consent to.

I have no problem with adults seeking such an option out for themselves, however saddens me that so many parents see no issue with seeing a knife taken to their children for no good scientific reason. Outside of religious tradition (and the occasional, rare medical condition) it is purely cosmetic or based on ignorance about the "benefits" of have it performed.

If I am the parent, I should think I have some bloody right as to what I think is best for my child.

You do, but at the same time the rights of the child (and by extension the rights of the adult they can become) must be respected. The idea your rights as a parent trumps the right of your child's bodily integrity and self determination is worrying.

Parents shouldn't be able to permanently alter their child's body without their consent. And the big question - why exactly would you think it is "best" for your child? Circumcision has no proven scientific value. There is a number of potential risks (as exists in any surgical procedure - in this case they are rare, but the risk still exists).

Tje problem is this isn't allowing for religious reasons.

[Shofercia]

It's torture if there is pain involve- there is no pain involve in circumcision. It does not adversely affect the child's development or life, nor is it important just because it is part of the penis.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is pain involved in circumcision. More pain than you would feel as an adult, actually.

I always enjoy responding by copy-pasting my earlier quotes, it's just so much easier:

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.

[The Godly Nations]

So, because HIV is not as prevalent in the west as in Africa, we should therefore take no care to prevent our attaining of it, simply because it is unlikely.

You know what's better at preventing HIV transmission than getting circumcised? Using condoms.

You know what- Sex with Circumcision is just as good as sex without it, and, guess what, both feels way better than using a Condom. That doesn't mean that circumcision is better than condoms, or that that is a good excuse, it is just how people behave.

[Crogach]

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.

I have here a study indicating a 51% incidence of circumcision-related PTSD among those who were medically circumcised in the Philippines; while you may be able to argue that the Filipino protocol is particularly traumatic for a number of reasons (and I will partially agree) a rate that high indicates that the procedure itself has lasting traumatic impact, part of which manifests as an ardent defense of procedure and denigration of those who say otherwise. The link is here: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=hss_pubs

Incidentally, the PTSD rate for returning veterans from Iraq was 6% according to a 2006 Military Medicine study; thus, even if the situation in the Philippines is eight times more likely to cause serious psychological damage than that in the States you'd still be looking at circumcised boys having higher rates of PTSD and related mental health issues than Iraq veterans. I'm sorry, but something of that sort had damn well better be necessary or it ought to be banned.

[Shofercia]

I wonder how many of you arguing against circumcision because the infant can't choose also argue for abortion. *ducks for cover*

*gets popcorn*

I'm so not taking sides in this debate