It's About Time. Germany Rules Religious Circumcision on Boys is Assault

reply to post by Crakeur


Wow, I would have expected better than that from someone such as yourself.

webbed feet, hemangioma on their face, Teeth problems.......But these ARE FAULTS, being born with a foreskin is totally normal.......Your argument is back to front.

reply to post by ken10


roughly 50% of all hemangiomas go away on their own. many of them are in locations that are not visible or are not blatant, such as the one on my daughter's ear lobe. still, doctors suggest laser treatment. For those not in the know, the treatment consists of weekly (or more) visits, lasting months, or more, (depending on the size), where the doctor zaps the hemangioma with a laser. from what I've been told, by two doctors who specialize in this treatment, it feels like you are being "snapped with a rubberband." each treatment takes 15-30 minutes (or more, depending on the doctor)

so, they usually go away on their own, it hurts like hell to get it removed and, yet, you think that doing this, over the course of several months, is ok but a 3 second procedure, that doesn't hurt for more than a few seconds, that heals in a couple of days and has many benefits and only one negative and the one negative is a slim risk of infection, is not ok.

makes sense.

Some see the foreskin as a fault. who are you to determine what I think is a fault?
What's next? Germany decides that anyone with curly hair, brown hair, brown eyes etc isn't as good as the blonde hair, blue eyed purebred German? Do they offer up trains to help resolve the solution of relocation?


Regardless, the only reason Germany outlawed the practice is due to it being a Jewish and Muslim tradition.
They should outlaw piercing a child's ears until they can approve. They should outlaw orthodonture until a child is mature enough to approve. they should outlaw any and all cosmetic procedures, such as nose jobs, until a child is old enough to make that decision on their own.

and they will outlaw them all, if they are deemed to be jewish or muslim traditions because Germany has decided to embrace their past.

Big Smile Germany.

reply to post by Crakeur

makes sense.

No it doesn't, you are comparing a defect to a non defect !

And Germany are bringing in this law TO PROTECT THE CHILD from mutilation......Otherwise by the same logic as yours it must be ok to circumcise little girls too !!!

reply to post by MeesterB


I prefer a circumcised man. God had the Jews do it to mark them as HIS PEOPLE and also for CLEANLINESS..
A uncircumcised man looks unclean and unattractive to me.I don't want to go near one.

Now doing it to girls I think is wrong. That is just to take away their pleasure.I do not believe that God ordered that. That is man's doing.

God told them not to eat pork cuz it was a dirty animal. That was supposed to end with Christ ending the old ways, but natch the Jews rebelled.
They need to accept their Jewish Messiah Jesus...I know off topic but I'm just saying!

reply to post by Patoote

A uncircumcised man looks unclean and unattractive to me.I don't want to go near one.

I'm totally confused, How to you ascertain if a man is circumcised or not before dating him

Or do you just stick to jewish men who you believe adhere to their traditions ?

Oh boy.. where to start...

Ok Ladies.. hald of you have no understanding between Circumcised and Uncircumcised... Uncircumcised can be like circumcised when erect, its just hidden beneath the foreskin for protection. You can pull back if you want it.. think of it like a hoodie...i guess you assume it stays hidden like that during sex?

Ok next, all of you finding biased opinion and bashing others idea, to tell you the truth, both Cirum/Uncirum can get infected in different ways. Its part of the body, it can get infected, just like any other skin on you body.

Now, the guys who are circumcised and have not seen a uncircumcised penis, well, you are just like some of the ladies in this thread... there is no urine build up inside...why? because the foreskin surrounds the penis and there is no gap, all the urine that goes in there will just get squeezed out. There is no gross #(internet shows you the worse of the worse), its like telling someone, they should pull out your teeth cause they get cavities, its the same, clean your penis when you take a shower... its all about hygiene, or you think taking 1 sec to pull back your foreskin during shower is too much work?

People might be saying now that its not because of a religious reason but they have been conditioned like that, just like western women are conditioned to like circumcised penis thru media, girl friends, etc etc since its very common in western countries, it would be the norm.

Please stop talking about disease, they both get infected for different reasons, its not the norm, not all circumcised men get etc and not all uncircumcised guys get etc.

Someone asked about what is foreskin used for... ill tell you from my experience..

Its mainly to keep your penis sensitive to increase pleasure, because it prevents your penis head from rubbing onto your underwear/cloth etc, it a layer of protection for some external bugs/insects etc. How could i know this? because i can pull back and try it, soon as im pulled back(imitating a circumcised penis) and put something on, like underwear, i can easy get sensitive to the "rubbing" of the cloth.

And just like how you think its ok for male circumcision because you been accustomed to it, Muslims think its okay for female circumcision? why are you made about that? loss of pleasure? so does male circumcision(to an extent), its not like its preventing her from having a baby. Stop trying to make your idiotic ritual(or used to be) an OK and what others do is bad.

I for one am happy with what nature gave me! and i can imitate uncircumcised penis as well. I win both ways!!

reply to post by ken10


no, Germany is bringing in this law for reasons other than protecting children. If they were, then there would be other practices that would be outlawed. All cosmetic procedures should be banned until the child is of age to determine whether, or not, they want the procedure.

Originally posted by ToneDeaf

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
I assure you, there is nothing "disfigured" about my penis, and I assure you,

Nobody here cares or gives a dam about your penis, just leave
the kids penises alone ! understand ?

________________

edit on 27/6/12 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)

No one gives a damn about mine, yet i was a child once too, so are you saying by proxy you dont care about theirs too?

You use the word disfigured....

Sounds to me you dont have a solid stance, youre just looking for something to champion......


You sit there and call people who have had circumsision disfigured, yet dont care to justify your stance when challenged......

Your position is as weak as your response...no one is disfigured by circumcision infact 90 percent of people out there prefer entercourse with those who have had the procedure done , you can dismiss that if you want, which you will because youre not being logical.........but that makes a huge difference........

reply to post by ken10


I find out when we are dating. Only 1 man was uncircumcised and honestly I didn't care tho I asked him about it. Fortunately when I first saw it..it was out of it's foreskin...and later when it was happy and relaxed I didn't touch or look at it much.,And usually it was out of the foreskin...smiling at me.

Originally posted by dorkfish87
uncircumsized penises look odd to me and honestly stink. Even freshly showered.

Really not sure what kind of cocks you've been offered, but I can assure you it has nothing to do with the foreskin being present or not. I'd question more the guys you've been dating and their personal hygiene, there is nothing biological that would cause a "smell" due to the foreskin being present post cleaning, if cleaned properly. Next point would be that having a foreskin may allow bacteria, if present, to develop under the foreskin, but again I think you've either dated skanky guys, or guys who did not wash/dry properly.

The amount of stars you've gotten simply goes to show how many women are dating outright skanky guys. You might want to look at your own criteria when selecting male partners.............

T

Originally posted by Patoote
reply to post by ken10

 

I find out when we are dating. Only 1 man was uncircumcised and honestly I didn't care tho I asked him about it. Fortunately when I first saw it..it was out of it's foreskin...and later when it was happy and relaxed I didn't touch or look at it much.,And usually it was out of the foreskin...smiling at me.

Well I admire your honesty, and that alone is worth a star.

Of course Germany would be the first lol... Cant have anything remotely Jewish in that country.

But on a second note, im not jewish, but i am circumcised, its great. I wouldnt want it any other way.

Decrease in pleasure? lol far from it. Its actually been proven more pleasurable, with less skin covering the head of the penis, obviously youll get higher stimulaton.

Not to meantion the fact your far less likley to get "red rash" on your penis. And your penis doesnt stink like dick cheese. Oh and your penis doesnt look like a flacid ant-eater LOL.

I dont know where your getting your facts from, Germans? lol. Ask anyone whos circumcised and theyll tell you they wouldnt want to not be. And most people who arnt wish they were.

Have fun with your moist, stinky dick cheese, built in condom, disease incubating pointless forskins!

Originally posted by kman420
Have fun with your moist, stinky dick cheese, built in condom, disease incubating pointless forskins!

Please provide sources/biological backup for those statements? All of them, including the fact that not having a foreskin provides more pleasure. Thanks!

www.medicinenet.com...

Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.

Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).

Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).

Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.

Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission
.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.

Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.

There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

T

lol, whatever happened to deny ignorance? you guys sound like bunch of idiots regurgitating subjectivity instead of looking at the bigger picture. If circumcision was so important for hygienic reasons then it would be far more common globally. The United States is far, far, FAR from being a leading example in health care.

reply to post by Dookie Master


Dookie Master, thanks for the information you have provided and sorry it took me this long to get back to you.

From the data that I have viewed over the last few days, the medical community worldwide acknowedges that there MAY be preventative reasons for circumcision, but almost unanimously states it is not a practice that should be done. HIV in particular seems to be the major health issue as 60% of the cases involve uncircumcised men. Considering however that

The World Health Organization has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim

one can say that the rate of 6/10 is actually low, as 7/10 males in the WORLD are uncircumcised.

The Medical College of Georgia studied the impact of a new (as of 2004) vaccine against "HPV types 16 and 18, the two most common causes of cervical and penile cancer". Circumcision has been associated with a lower incidence of Human Papilloma Virus infection in males in several studies. HPV infection is a known risk factor in the development of penile cancer. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. "In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States" and "Ultimately, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence". They state that it is important to concentrate on the main risk factors: poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and cigarette smoking.[121] They also state that the current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer [120]

The American Urological Association (May 2007) states there are benefits and risks to circumcision, recommending that circumcision "should be presented as an option for health benefits" while acknowledging that "[e]vidence associating neonatal circumcision with reduced incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is conflicting."

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) said: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child

Similarly, the American Medical Association states that although neonatal circumcision seems to lower the risk of contracting penile cancer, because it is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified

In regard to pain:

The American Academy of Pediatrics' policy states:Some common painful minor procedures, such as circumcision, do not always receive the warranted attention to comfort issues. Available research indicates that newborn circumcisions are a significant source of pain during the procedure and are associated with irritability and feeding disturbances during the days afterward. Opportunities for alleviating pain exist before, during, and after the procedure, and many interventions are effective

Additionally, here is the official stance of many countries health advisory boards:

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; 2009) state that "after extensive review of the literature" they "[do] not recommend that routine circumcision in infancy be performed".

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004,[8] and "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed", and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions

The Royal Dutch Medical Association issued a new policy in May 2010: "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."[

ColoradoJens

reply to post by moleskin

Dear moleskin,

And surely the basic argument holds most valid... what right to YOU have to enforce your beliefs onto others? Including your own children?

Forgive me, I thought you knew the difference between "force" and "enforce." As an example, a curfew can be enforced, or an anti-littering law can be enforced, or even a tolerance policy can be enforced. Good manners are often enforced with nothing more than a stern look.

And surely the basic argument holds most valid... what right to YOU have to enforce your beliefs onto others? Including your own children?

If your objection is to force. then I presume you are opposed to spanking children of any age, forcing them to sit in a time out spot, threatening them with eviction ("As long as you live in my house, you'll obey my rules."), imprisoning them ("Go to your room and don't come out until supper.") And worst of all, in my case, "You will take dance lessons, you need to know how to handle yourself in society." THAT was a million times more traumatic than circumcision, and the horrible effects remain to this day.

Can we at least agree that the parents are the ones entitled to choose what beliefs to inculcate in their children? That the State can not choose those beliefs, or the Schools, or the neighbors? You say you were brought up with good morals and ideals. I assume you mean you were brought up with what your parents considered good morals and ideals. Can we agree that other parents should be allowed to bring up their children with different morals and ideals if they so choose?

Because if you believe in going to church, but your child hates and you FORCE them to go, physically is this really right? Even though you believe it is best for the own moral choices?

If, even with a moral and educational reason, it is not right to take a child to church against his will, how do you justify taking him to the barber's, if he cries when he's there, and all you have is a cosmetic reason? How to justify taking him, by force, to visit "mean ol' Auntie Penelope?"

Up to a certain age, which varies, children can not be reasonably expected to make any decisions whatsoever. Everything has to be "forced" on them. Certainly no one-year-old can be expected to decide anything. My point is that it is the parent's responsibility and right to make those decisions, not the State's, yours, or anyone else's.

As someone posted earlier:

Where We Stand: Circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as risks. The existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision. Therefore, because the procedure is not essential to a child’s current well-being, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician, taking into account what is in the best interests of the child, including medical, religious, cultural, and ethnic traditions. Your pediatrician (or your obstetrician if he or she would be performing the circumcision) should discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with you and the forms of analgesia that are available (Emphasis added)

So, let's back away and allow the parents to make that decision, just as the medical community recommended.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by dogstar23

How about allowing for this when the person reaches an age of consent? How is that oppressing anyone if it is still available? How also, do the 100's of millions of people around the world survive with out this "medical procedure"?

CJ

I can't believe the question was actually asked, but, do you also wonder how 100's of millions survive without Gardasil, or the Flu vaccine? I haven't seen a single post that says "you will die an early death for sure if you aren't circumcised."

As far as allowing it at the age of consent - why are other beneficial medical procedures performed without the newborn's consent? Heck, if I had the choice, I would have had the. Circumcision done (which was), but passed on half of the vaccines. Nobody gave me a choice, and I was stuck slowly filtering adjuvants from my body for years (and probably still am.)

You should believe the question was asked. There is no definitive study that circumcision is preventative of anything. Read:

you are wrong

CJ

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by karen61057

 

correct. my son never cried, other than from the initial snip.

my nephew had to have his corrected when he was 5 or 6 and he said it hurt when he went to the bathroom, bathed etc. It's might be easier on the child at the young age.

TextThe American Academy of Pediatrics' policy states: Some common painful minor procedures, such as circumcision, do not always receive the warranted attention to comfort issues. Available research indicates that newborn circumcisions are a significant source of pain during the procedure and are associated with irritability and feeding disturbances during the days afterward. Opportunities for alleviating pain exist before, during, and after the procedure, and many interventions are effective.[95] -- The Assessment and Management of Acute Pain in Infants, Children and Adolescents, 2001.

CJ

Where We Stand: Circumcision

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as risks. The existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision. Therefore, because the procedure is not essential to a child’s current well-being, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician, taking into account what is in the best interests of the child, including medical, religious, cultural, and ethnic traditions. Your pediatrician (or your obstetrician if he or she would be performing the circumcision) should discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with you and the forms of analgesia that are available (Emphasis added)

So, let's back away and allow the parents to make that decision, just as the medical community recommended.

With respect,
Charles1952

If parents had the brainpower to discuss these things with a pediatrician and research the literature around it then sure, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, the majority of "parents" seem to think winging it, or doing what's always been done is a-ok in matters like this. It becomes a mirror of the garbage we've seen in this thread "I like it better circumcised" "uncut men are dirty and stinky" etc instead of a scientifically backed decision.

To everyone who thinks it looks "gross and unatural" think about this. What if we had cut off peoples lips for thousands of years, you would think lips looked gross too. It's the same thing. The human body was created a certain way, why not leave it like that?