Ban Male Genital Mutiliation, says European Council

[Souseiseki]

lol are you seriously going to say it's a goddamn central part?

1) believe in the lord our god
2) cut your babies penis
3) thou shalt not kill

Its a ritual which had been practiced for more than 2000 years, so yes. I am saying that.

you think length of time indicates how central it is?

i mean, i think we're having a serious disagreement over the meaning of the word "central". banning jesus would be a central fucking part of a religion.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm Christian, but really? You want to ban circumcision for babies? The ritual which is a central part of the religion of at least 6 million people in the world? Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation and, taking an argument from the pro-choicers, people are going to perform it anyway, especially if they believe that God wants them too. The only difference is that it will be in secret.

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

Also, at the risk of getting too detailed, it is possible to regrow that skin within monthes with simple procedures.

What about the rights of the child? Surely the rights of the child outweigh the religious rights of the parents.

Indeed. Which is why circumcision should remain as an option open to parents after they've been informed of its risks and benefits.

[Ifreann]

I'm Christian, but really? You want to ban circumcision for babies? The ritual which is a central part of the religion of at least 6 million people in the world? Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation

No it wouldn't. A right to practice one's religion does not include a right to violate other people's bodily sovereignty. That's why we don't let people go around stoning adulterers or sacrificing people to the Sun.

and, taking an argument from the pro-choicers, people are going to perform it anyway, especially if they believe that God wants them too. The only difference is that it will be in secret.

So we'll find them the same way we find other child abusers and put them in prison.

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

What you call it is beside the point. It is a clear violation of bodily sovereignty, and that is reason enough to ban it, even if there is no other harm suffered.

Also, at the risk of getting too detailed, it is possible to regrow that skin within monthes with simple procedures.

Irrelevant.

[Pandeeria]

What about the rights of the child? Surely the rights of the child outweigh the religious rights of the parents.

Indeed. Which is why circumcision should remain as an option open to parents after they've been informed of its risks and benefits.

No. It should remain an option for the actual child when he can consent.

[Lordieth]

Indeed. Which is why circumcision should remain as an option open to parents after they've been informed of its risks and benefits.

No. It should remain an option for the actual child when he can consent.

Precisely.

[The Serbian Empire]

When the general safety of everyone is at risk. It's the key of my views of the Non-Aggression Principle. That is, do not do if it may lead to harm to oneself and others from people who don't follow the principle.

The violation of the right to bodily sovereignty through non-medical circumcision is where the aggression is coming from, not the European Council.

The sovereignty of the body means nothing to fundamentalist Muslims and the harm of the law is actually going to appear when the proposed law is first carried out against a Muslim circumcising a child. One will not see the harm until it's too late to reverse course when the fundamentalist Muslims riot over secular laws.

[Siaos]

Its a ritual which had been practiced for more than 2000 years, so yes. I am saying that.

you think length of time indicates how central it is?

i mean, i think we're having a serious disagreement over the meaning of the word "central". banning jesus would be a central fucking part of a religion.

Circumcision in the Jewish religion is about equal to Baptism in the Christian religion. Baptism is a central part of Christianity, and people would be pretty upset if they banned that for babies.

[Ifreann]

What about the rights of the child? Surely the rights of the child outweigh the religious rights of the parents.

Indeed. Which is why circumcision should remain as an option open to parents after they've been informed of its risks and benefits.

And why parents who have unnecessary medical procedures performed on their children should be tried for abuse, as should anyone complicit in the procedure.

[Pandeeria]

you think length of time indicates how central it is?

i mean, i think we're having a serious disagreement over the meaning of the word "central". banning jesus would be a central fucking part of a religion.

Circumcision in the Jewish religion is about equal to Baptism in the Christian religion. Baptism is a central part of Christianity, and people would be pretty upset if they banned that for babies.

They should ban it because it invades the baby's basic right of bodily sovereignty.

[The Independent Isle of Wight]

This might amuse, It's French medical guidelines, I imagine in America the advice would be chop first, ask questions later:


Correcting phimosis
As a result of this discovery, it seemed logical to recommend that these patients practise conventional masturbation. Within a few weeks (three at the most) it was found that the preputial orifice became wider, thus correcting the phimosis.

The method is similar to the kinesitherapy of soft tissues and is remarkably simple. It is surprising that it has not been described before.

However, I have known some patients who have used their common sense and have themselves modified their practice of masturbation during adolescence. Furthermore, broaching the topic of masturbation helps to remove the guilt associated with a sexual practice that is widespread but often carried out shamefully because of the taboo attached to it, particularly in Western society.

Preserving sexual sensation
This medical treatment of adolescent phimosis seemed to be successful in all cases unless there was some pathological condition of the foreskin. As a result, the many problems caused by the amputation of the foreskin can be avoided.

The nerve supply of the foreskin and its role in sexual sensation are preserved and, more importantly, the mobility of the penile sheath that is necessary to prevent irritation of the partner's vaginal mucosa is preserved.

http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/beauge2/

[Siaos]

No. It should remain an option for the actual child when he can consent.

Precisely.

And how do you expect to catch those who don't follow the law? The only way you could do that is to pull down the shorts of all the children and "inspect" them.

[Souseiseki]

you think length of time indicates how central it is?

i mean, i think we're having a serious disagreement over the meaning of the word "central". banning jesus would be a central fucking part of a religion.

Circumcision in the Jewish religion is about equal to Baptism in the Christian religion. Baptism is a central part of Christianity, and people would be pretty upset if they banned that for babies.

consider this post an official jewbeacon for all jews to help me validate this post

bapitism: water
circumcision: a knife, amputation

do you see why these may be considered different

[Totalise]

Banning the practice of forcing unnecessary surgery on people who can't consent seems like human rights 101.

actually children have no rights. their parents have the right to concent for them in legal and medical matters.

[Souseiseki]

Precisely.

And how do you expect to catch those who don't follow the law? The only way you could do that is to pull down the shorts of all the children and "inspect" them.

on the spot cock checks and dickspections for all juden und muslime

[Occupied Deutschland]

Indeed. Which is why circumcision should remain as an option open to parents after they've been informed of its risks and benefits.

And why parents who have unnecessary medical procedures performed on their children should be tried for abuse, as should anyone complicit in the procedure.

Sure.
As soon as circumcision is shown as being unnecessary and not the slightly beneficial or neutral trade-off it is.

[Siaos]

Circumcision in the Jewish religion is about equal to Baptism in the Christian religion. Baptism is a central part of Christianity, and people would be pretty upset if they banned that for babies.

consider this post an official jewbeacon for all jews to help me validate this post

bapitism: water
circumcision: a knife, amputation

do you see why these may be considered different

Where did I say they are exactly the same? I said they are about equal.

[Ifreann]

you think length of time indicates how central it is?

i mean, i think we're having a serious disagreement over the meaning of the word "central". banning jesus would be a central fucking part of a religion.

Circumcision in the Jewish religion is about equal to Baptism in the Christian religion. Baptism is a central part of Christianity, and people would be pretty upset if they banned that for babies.

I'm sure they would. I'm equally sure that children's bodily sovereignty is rather more important than some people's attachment to religious tradition.

[Pandeeria]

Banning the practice of forcing unnecessary surgery on people who can't consent seems like human rights 101.

actually children have no rights. their parents have the right to concent for them in legal and medical matters.

They shouldn't have the right to modify and mutilate their children's body. And children do have basic human rights.

[The Independent Isle of Wight]

Precisely.

And how do you expect to catch those who don't follow the law? The only way you could do that is to pull down the shorts of all the children and "inspect" them.

No... That would be a ban on having been circumcised.

[Jamjai]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png

but it isn't really a requirement so the poll is wrong

[Nervium]

Banning the practice of forcing unnecessary surgery on people who can't consent seems like human rights 101.

actually children have no rights. their parents have the right to concent for them in legal and medical matters.

Religious circumcision is neither of those.
And, fuck yes, children have rights, they're not property.

[Gift-of-god]

Circumcision threads should be nipped in the bud.

[Pandeeria]

Precisely.

And how do you expect to catch those who don't follow the law? The only way you could do that is to pull down the shorts of all the children and "inspect" them.

We could educate the kids in sec ed class that if they look "different down there" to report it. I really have no clue, but that could actually work.

Circumcision threads should be nipped in the bud.

Why so?

[Lordieth]

Precisely.

And how do you expect to catch those who don't follow the law? The only way you could do that is to pull down the shorts of all the children and "inspect" them.

Well, unless people are performing circumcisions at home, or the child is otherwise forced into requesting, then the operation would proceed if both the parents and child consent. This may not always mean the child has a choice, but at least it gives the child a chance. What chance does a baby have? Children aren't born Christian, Muslim or Buddhists. They become. Children should have the right to participate or not to participate in any religious ceremonial practices they choose. Period.

[The Independent Isle of Wight]

The 'circumcision reduces sensetivity/pleasure' argument is unfounded bunk by unbiased standards. Bodily sovereignty is a much better argument.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/4d6486d017706e533d471000fd09403f/tumblr_mn9kvu0Una1qhno3uo1_1280.gif
Number 14 is the most sensitive part of my penis by a huge margin. (I've done a lot of hands-on research into the matter) If I had been mutilated I wouldn't have it.

I just really like talking to you about my penis...
I haven't named it yet, can't decide on a name yet, and once i've Christened it I don't want to change my mind.
It could be called John, then my balls would be George and Paul... Just 'cos Ringo's such a great name for an arsehole.