Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court

Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by Xaphan

 

What are the benefits of circumcision? There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including: A decreased risk of urinary tract ................

The benefits of amputation.

Amputate your arms and you never have to wash your hands again. Hands stay clean. You will never punch anyone in the face. You cannot fire a gun. Easier to roll over. You dont have to help anyone. Risk of hand cancer eliminated. One less body part = less weight.

reply to post by PsykoOps


All the health issues they try to push on people here is BS. Whether you have a foreskin or not doesn't have anything to do with how clean the penis is or isn't, and has nothing to do with the rate of contracted STD"s. It's how a man takes care of what he has and the partners he chooses. Shower thoroughly at least once a day, pick your women carefully and wear protection and you shouldn't have any problems.

Germany, once again, did the right thing.

About time, why isn´t this barbaric ritual banned all over the world already?

Seems like Germany is the first country to become civilized in this manner. Very good Germany! I Applaud you for this initiative, keep fighting the good fight!

Originally posted by dorkfish87
Whichever side of this you are on. This is wrong.

This sets a precedent that the government can control how you raise your children. Next there will e a law on which foods you an feed your kids. Won't be shocked to hear they ban children in synagogues. Nazis must never have left the offcie

I know rite, I should be able to boil my child till it's almost dead, cut off most of it's limbs and eat them.

It's my child after all!

reply to post by Xaphan


Ok, so putting religion to one side, and concentrating on the medical benefit of circumcision for a mintue......

What a bout us girls !

The study in Denmark referred to earlier that found 5-fold lower HPV in circumcised men concluded that “the female partners of circumcised men are less exposed to cervical cancer because these men are less likely to be infected with HPV” [54].

Link to source, if not interested in penile cancer, at least read about the effects for women

As a mother of two, (one of whom is a boy) who has had to undergo treatment for dyskariotic cells (not cancer, but not nice to discover), I personaly support circumcision.

Fact, having a smear is not a pleasant experience, especially having to have one annually for the next TEN years !

Everytime I have to have this done, I feel humiliated, and anxious, and I am an adult, a newborn is unaware of circumcision, in the same way, although I thats not to say I don't feel for them.

But HPV is responsible for almost all cervical cancer cases, and circumcision has been indicated to affect the prevelance of cervical cancer taking place.

Now my son is not circumcised, but in some ways I wish he was, because I can tell you now, if you were a woman, you would not want to have to go through what we do.

Just to note, I accept it wouldn't irradicate the need for testing in women, but it sure would help cut down the number of Leep proceadures undertaken.

Oh just to add, Leep can mutilate a woman, by compromising the cervix, as a consequence future pregnanices may be difficult, as an incompetent cervix can occur, as a result of Leep preceadure.

Leep, an explanation of

If I knew then, what I know now, I would have got my son circumcised, and I will certainly be encouraging him in the future to do so.

It's funny because they didn't think twice about cutiing my duaghters tounge-tie 16 hours after her birth, which in itself is a form of mutilation, fiddling wit her natural state, her's wasn't that bad, yet they still did it, and told me it wouldn't hurt her, I don't believe that, because she cried hard, and was very difficult as a baby to try to pasify.

reply to post by Xaphan


German's are always making things hard on the Jewish people.. or so I hear.

I agree that religious circumcision of children should stop, but medical one should be offered to all new parents.

When my son was born, we were offered to have him circumcised in hospital, and we gladly did it, after talk to our doctor, who strongly suggested to do it.

What are the benefits of circumcision? There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
* A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
* A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
* Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
* Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
* Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
* Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Note: Some studies show that good hygiene can help prevent certain problems with the penis, including infections and swelling, even if the penis is not circumcised. In addition, using a condom during sex will help prevent STDs and other infections.

source - WebMD

I kinda like my circumcised deick to be honest
Probably because I grew up my whole life having one.

But my opinion on this is very simple.. Idgaf about what everyone else is doing.. If people want to do it go for it, if people don't all power to them..

BTW that HMERHEAD or w/e his name is is a complete troll.. Attacking someone because they prefer one over the other... LOL

Put it this way.. would you of paraded her if she agreed with you? Yes.
Then whysomadbro, when she doesn't.. It seems you have past issues from people judging you for it.

Get those fixed.

Just another of I am sure many to say you guys are ridiculous. I was circumsized and I am damn glad, in fact as an adult I would have been upset had my parents not done this to me. I did it to my son as well.

Get over yourselves and keep your nose out of MY business.

reply to post by NeoVain

About time, why isn´t this barbaric ritual banned all over the world already?

Because it's not barbaric. At least, not the way it is practiced in countries where we have reliable sources of running water.

Sure - you have some African tribes that go around with pieces of glass, razor blades, and flint - but I'm sure a simple law on the books in the Western world will put a stop to that.

Seems like Germany is the first country to become civilized in this manner. Very good Germany! I Applaud you for this initiative, keep fighting the good fight!

Because German politicians are much better at determining what is or isn't in the best interests of children and their parents compared to medical professionals with more years in practice than politicians have been in their collective offices.

Personally, I would feel much more comfortable if countries would allow their licensed medical professionals to sit down and have a talk with their patients about various procedures. Let people and their doctors make the decisions, and only get involved when there are cases of criminal activity (fraud, theft, criminal negligence, etc).

"But then people will just go to doctors who tell them what they want to hear."

Then at least the procedure can be performed in a facility held to standards of hygiene. The U.S. tried banning abortion years ago, and the number of deaths and injuries due to complications in the uterus of women skyrocketed. They were going to hacks who would perform the procedure in alley ways and apartments with improper tools, equipment, and training (at best) or completely abusive methods (at worst - such as coat hangers, bicycle spokes, etc).

You're not going to put a stop to people making decisions you disagree with by implementing a law. They are going to make the decision - and flip you the bird while doing so; whether it's a good idea or not.

It's illegal to drink and drive. I'd be willing to bet at least half the members of this forum have driven while legally (and realistically) intoxicated.

Case in point.

Well.. I for one am happy that I am circumcised. I really do not know any guys who are not. It is done right after birth for medical reasons (nothing to do with religion) mostly in the USA and most women, I think would be kind of grossed out by an uncircumcised male, at least from my discussions with past girlfriends this seems to be the case. I find it strange that it is considered barbaric now days.. When it was always the uncircumcised heathens in the past that were the barbarians. Anyways.. I do consider myself a barbarian... although I prefer my circumcision and have no complaints about sensitivity AT ALL.. Very happy!

Leave parents and doctors alone to make this decision. Stay out of it government!

reply to post by sputniksteve


It's not your buisness to decide whether or not you mutilate your child. Especially if your only reasoning for doing so is to appease the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by sputniksteve

 

It's not your buisness to decide whether or not you mutilate your child. Especially if your only reasoning for doing so is to appease the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But it is yours instead? No need to bring up spaghetti monsters to make me seem stupid.

reply to post by ShadeWolf

It's not your buisness to decide whether or not you mutilate your child.

This is really a gray area.

It's not exactly the child's choice, either. I'm circumcised. Sure - being a reasonable person, I wonder what it would be like to not have been - but by that same token, it is not a choice that can be made later on. It's a much more complicated and risky procedure later on in life (and really only necessary post-natal in cases of acute phemosis of the foreskin preventing it from retracting properly) - so it's not really something that can be left on and then chosen later.

One of my brothers was born with a slight defect, his urethra pointed 'down' - perpendicular to the usual axis shared with the shaft. My parents chose to allow the doctors to do some surgery to correct the issue (so he wouldn't have to stare down his penis to pee correctly).

But maybe he would get a kick out of it, now. Or maybe he would have been laughed at by his peers (to his expense).

He knows nothing different. I know nothing other than being circumcised. It's difficult to say what one is really missing out on in any case - if it's really possible for someone to 'miss out' in either case. Studies show that circumcision correlates with far lower post-natal health complications as well as reduced infection rates. If done early - there's really no scientific basis for claims of lost sensitivity (though if done later in life, the body responds to the change differently and leads to thicker tissues and weaker neural pathways).

Especially if your only reasoning for doing so is to appease the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The reasoning behind it is rather irrelevant.

Laws exist for the function and betterment of society. We can agree on that point, yes?

How does banning circumcision result in a better society?

Now, let's be pragmatic: Do laws make people behave a certain way; or do they only provide legal/fiscal consequences for people who choose certain behaviors?

In that case, how does banning a person from performing a medical procedure in a licensed, legitimate medical facility lead to 2 things: reduction of targeted behavior and improvements to society?

Because here is what will happen: People will choose to have their children circumcised regardless of laws. The reasoning for it is irrelevant to the fact that they will. If they cannot do it in your legitimate medical facilities (that also pay taxes, by the way)... they will go to less credible sources that are, by their very nature, are clandestine and unknowable.

How does that eventuality compare to the argument against circumcision?

By the way - the flying spaghetti monster is a straw man argument of semantics. It's no different than if I were to say that you just stuck a cock in your mouth when you take a bite of chicken (actually - it was probably a hen... but you get the idea).

Regardless of what you call it - it is what it is. The idea that some entity created the universe is not affected by what you choose to personify that entity (be it an old wizard of a man, a flying spaghetti monster, or 'theory of everything' you feel indicates design).

That said - I really don't think said entity gives a rat's ass about many of our daily decisions. I think the Muslims are absolutely out of their minds to participate in fasts during the summer time around here. The concept of using adverse experiences to strengthen and/or challenge one's personal development is a good one... but the idea that God actually cares about whether or not you ate during the day is quite arbitrary. I think Baptists are crazy for thinking that blessing some water and dipping a barely self-aware baby into it will somehow establish some kind of contract between God and the kid (if anything - it affirms the community's responsibility in helping to raise the child; it's more of a social ritual than a mystic one - but everyone likes to believe in magic).

But - at the end of the day - it's all irrelevant. We can define laws and their function. We can also predict social response to those laws and use those predictions to assess the impact the law will have on social behavior. Once done - we can determine whether or not the law will result in a net benefit.

At the end of the day - this law falls under the "no net benefit" category, with a tendency toward "possible detriment." Any law that cannot provide substantial benefit to society should not be considered for ratification.

reply to post by sputniksteve


I have been considering whether I would have it done to my kid if I had a boy. You shouldn't take it so lightly. After all you are bringing a baby into the world and making the very first thing he knows extreme physical pain. It has no real health benefits. You would really make a choice for your son based only on him having physical sameness as you. Do some actual research and it won't be so cut and dry (that is probably the most clever no pun intended in history). It completely changes the glans and dries it out. Look up one picture of a freshly circumsised baby and you might change your mind based on that.

reply to post by sputniksteve


Why are you glad? Are you still in highschool? Still a virgin? I know I was glad too when it was important not to be different, but now I am forever curious. You are aware that the foreskin isn't just skin but a ton of nerves, stimulated during sex right? And you are aware that the glans penis isn't supposed to be dried out, bit the foreskin keeps it moistened and more sensitive. When you cut the foreskin the head o the penis thickens (not unlike a callus) and doesn't feel the same because it has to protect itself with no natural protection (because that was cut off the moment you were born - again welcome to a world of pain. I wonder if id be a different person sans circumsision?)

In short you have no real idea beyond the unnatural appearance as to whether or not you arre glad. You might be a smarter, better person, with an enhanced sex life (tone you can never know) had you not been c'd. You can't really be glad because you are so uninformed. Please never be (or attempt to be) a scientist.

reply to post by Xaphan


Don't know if this has been posted yet....from the Gospel of Thomas...you know...one of the books they excluded from the Bible:

His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."

Hey, I'm not 'religious' but you cannot deny that he's the man.

reply to post by Startruth144


I am not happy im circumcised.

It is a mark on my body from religious fanatisicm and ignorance.. it shows you what religion can do to a weakminded person... it can make them take a knife to their child to cut away what ever it takes to make their imaginary friend happy.

That is disgusting.

reply to post by solargeddon


Just wrong in every way. First off hpv is being pushed so heavivly because the vaccine. Second no one should mutilate themselves for the benefit of someone they may or may not meet (unless you're on hand to save they gay babies from their first worldy experience being one of pain). Third your study basically says if you sleep with an hpv infected guy that's circunsized you're less likely to get hpv than sleeping with an hpv infected guy that isn't. Newsflash don't sleep with a guy with hpv, use a condom, etc. I really can't believe someone brought the "what about us girls" argument to the table. Ladies consider this the topic where you don't need to have an opinion. Like guys with abortion.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Well my circumcision, as well as every male I know that is circumcised, was done days after our birth.. Not for religious purposes, but at the prompting of a doctor for medical reasons. So to claim that it is only done by religious fanatics is not 100% true.

I just think everyone is jumping down on it as child abuse because of its religious origins, although a good portion of the medical crowd think it has benefits. Just last week my sister had a baby, and her doctors strongly urged the circumcision. I think at that age it is fine... Any older and I can understand people being against it.