German court "effectively bans" male circumcision


Recommended Posts

+warwagon

removing religion from the equation, I think at least in the US most men are Circumcised including me. Ever noticed in porn how 99.99% of guys are circumcised and the .1% that aren't, always have a British accent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
articuno1au

Why do people get tattoos?

Each to their own. I don't think either point of view is right (or wrong). I just think forcing an irreversible body change on a child is wrong.

Hell, if you tattooed a child, the entire world would be up in arms, but we aren't when you mutilate a child's genitals?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon-

This debate comes up time and time again, the consensus is really most people who are circumcised are usually happy to be, and those who are not are happy not to be. Being cut does not cause any problems with the penis (as the skin is cut that is AROUND the penis, not cutting the actual penis) in short or long term uless it was done improperly (very rare) and I know that at least in the Jewish religion, it is done when the male is still a baby after enough days have passed for the blood to clot properly after the procedure and heal the quickest. The baby will have no memory of it, no psychological effects. Being cut is something between him and his parents, not the state, if he was unhappy about it, then why do cut men get the same done to their sons.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter each way, the person can be perfectly normal with or without, and banning it is nothing more than making a statement about something they don't really understand and is really about sending a big FU to religions involved. Say hello to the 4th Reich.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
ArialBlue

This debate comes up time and time again, the consensus is really most people who are circumcised are usually happy to be, and those who are not are happy not to be. Being cut does not cause any problems with the penis (as the skin is cut that is AROUND the penis, not cutting the actual penis) in short or long term uless it was done improperly (very rare) and I know that at least in the Jewish religion, it is done when the male is still a baby after enough days have passed for the blood to clot properly after the procedure and heal the quickest. The baby will have no memory of it, no psychological effects. Being cut is something between him and his parents, not the state, if he was unhappy about it, then why do cut men get the same done to their sons..

You can say the same about any form of child abuse - if the child is young, the child will forget the abuse eventually

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
articuno1au

The issue is that the child can't choose.

The reason cut men get it done to their sons is that they believe it's normal (who wants to believe they're abnormal?).

I'm not suggesting the child is mutilated as in ruined (I'm merely using the word use to describe the removal of body parts), but they should still be able to choose for themselves.

The norm (based on birth) is uncut. I think you would find very few uncut men willing to get cut later in life. Why then do we force getting cut on children?

You can point out that cut men would choose to get cut again, but again, they're rather biased in this.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon-

You can say the same about any form of child abuse - if the child is young, the child will forget the abuse eventually

No, children do remember (even if it is buried deep), babies do not have a memory developed yet. They will grow up perfectly normal not even knowing that they had this unless they were told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

How long till its illegal to have your daughters get ear piercings.... Sigh, society moving backwards as always.

Piercing the ears of an 8-day-old boy who cannot consent could possibly be deemed by some as just as bad. Let's have some context here: According to Judaism and Islam, males should be circumcised at the age of 8 days, and their consent is not required. Are you advocating piercing the ears of 8-day-old people and not gaining their consent? Of course, piercing someone's ears isn't as bad as cutting off a part of their penis (that in turn can affect the sensitivity of the head of their penis, among other things), anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

No, children do remember (even if it is buried deep), babies do not have a memory developed yet. They will grow up perfectly normal not even knowing that they had this unless they were told.

That doesn't make it fine or right. Many within the intactivist movement will inform you of how the routine infant circumcision that was forced upon them has negatively affected their life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Noir Angel

Circumcision is just another stupid and pointless religious ritual anyway. "Hi everyone I'm your God, I designed you intelligently. But I demand that you remove this part of your body".

Makes perfect sense :laugh:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

[. . .] and is really about sending a big FU to religions involved. Say hello to the 4th Reich.

As with other issues in life, no one should be allowed to force their religion on another person. I can't think of many acts more forceful than something that leaves a lasting mark: person A cutting off a body part from person B, just because it is part of person A's religious beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tiagosilva29
How long till its illegal to have your daughters get ear piercings.

I have no problems with banning that as well. You can choose do that when you get to be an adult.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
The issue is that the child can't choose.

Exactly. I honestly can't believe that there is any debate on this matter. If somebody wants to be circumcised then that is fine but it should never be done to an infant or child who has no choice in the matter, nor the mental faculties to make such a decision. The same applies to tattoos, piercings, chopping off fingers, etc.

Circumcision is common in Africa, Australia, the Middle East and North America. Circumcision is the exception in Europe, Russia and much of Asia (including China and Japan). In fact in China and Japan the percentage of males circumcised has been calculated at less than 1%. For those who have had it done you need to set that aside and ask yourself "what if I hadn't wanted a circumcision?". Ignore the fact that you agree with it and consider that if you had opposed it you wouldn't have had a choice and would have been mutilated. Do you consider that to be acceptable? What if a religion dictated that all children should have a finger chopped off and there was medical evidence that concluded this resulted in a lower rate of cancer? Would that be acceptable? It's very easy to justify something that is widely accepted by a culture but rational analysis should tell you that it is the decision of the individual, not their parents or their parents' religion.

I am fundamentally opposed to performing unnecessary medical procedures on unwilling children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

Do you get hair cuts? Do you shave? Do you pluck? Just because it comes with your body doesn't mean you should/have to keep it.

All of those involve hair, which is something that grows on the body, and if left to grow without maintenance, it can become out of control. The foreskin does not grow out of control; it grows in-line with the penis. Further, hair is not the same as an organ or a chunk of the body.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

The baby will have no memory of it, no psychological effects. Being cut is something between him and his parents, not the state, if he was unhappy about it, then why do cut men get the same done to their sons.

So they should wait until he's at least 6 and old enough to make the decision himself. And they do it because religion says so, and because uneducated American doctors keep saying they should.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

[. . .] if he was unhappy about it, then why do cut men get the same done to their sons. [. . .]

You surely don't expect all circumcised men to feel the same way, do you? Some will have their sons circumcised for whatever reason, but some won't, and some believe the circumcision that was forced upon them has ruined their life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

Good on the court. Circumcision on a minor should only be done for medical reasons.

If an adult wants to undergo elective surgery on his penis then go for it, but don't inflict it on a child.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

Exactly. The foreskin can trap all sorts of nasty bacteria and can increase the risk of contracting an STD.

So what is your answer to the fact that many millions of uncircumcised humans have never contracted any STDs; billions, even, if we're looking at the past as well as the present? Any possible health benefits are not reasonable justifications for cutting off a part of someone's body without their consent, especially when facts prove that health is fine for people when that body part is left intact.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
articuno1au

That's exactly right.

Bad hygiene in general leads to lots of issues. Not cleaning your penis properly is bad hygiene; not a valid argument for circumcision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san

No, children do remember (even if it is buried deep), babies do not have a memory developed yet. They will grow up perfectly normal not even knowing that they had this unless they were told.

you could just as easily apply that to infant rape. After all what damage is there if they can't remember it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san

That's exactly right.

Bad hygiene in general leads to lots of issues. Not cleaning your penis properly is bad hygiene; not a valid argument for circumcision.

it might be a good arguement in places where access to effective daily hygene is unavailble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
compl3x

False. It's ALWAYS been about religion. In the US, Christians started circumcising their kids in a vain attempt to curb masturbation. Spilling your seed apparently ****es off God.

It's true religious people outside of Judaism and Islam started circumcising their sons, but it is also true it became so common and the norm that people who didn't do it for religious purposes did it because it was something they thought they were supposed to or needed to do. Hygiene was an argument for ... I guess .... secular circumcision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Glassed Silver

removing religion from the equation, I think at least in the US most men are Circumcised including me. Ever noticed in porn how 99.99% of guys are circumcised and the .1% that aren't, always have a British accent.

Your porn has dialogues? :p

kidding, mine does, too.

Don't watch this American "professional" porn anymore, it's boring as hell.

Glassed Silver:mac

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

Exactly. The foreskin can trap all sorts of nasty bacteria and can increase the risk of contracting an STD.

A problem which simply doesn't exist in the world of people who actually WASH. Plus, loss of the foreskin means loss of sensitivity.

The entire practice of genital mutilation is a sickening crime against an innocent and those who want it done, as well as those who do it, SHOULD be punished severely. You want the end of your wang chopped off to appease some invisible man in the sky? Fine, do it when you're legally an adult and able to make such a decision for yourself.

It's time we stopped giving religions exceptions to the laws that everyone else has to follow. There's no reason for it, period.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

This debate comes up time and time again, the consensus is really most people who are circumcised are usually happy to be, and those who are not are happy not to be. Being cut does not cause any problems with the penis (as the skin is cut that is AROUND the penis, not cutting the actual penis) in short or long term uless it was done improperly (very rare) and I know that at least in the Jewish religion, it is done when the male is still a baby after enough days have passed for the blood to clot properly after the procedure and heal the quickest. The baby will have no memory of it, no psychological effects. Being cut is something between him and his parents, not the state, if he was unhappy about it, then why do cut men get the same done to their sons.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter each way, the person can be perfectly normal with or without, and banning it is nothing more than making a statement about something they don't really understand and is really about sending a big FU to religions involved. Say hello to the 4th Reich.

2 points of order.

1. The foreskin IS part of the penis, it's not just some spare part hanging around it. It's an integral part that serves a function.

2. Circumcision on babies is performed WITHOUT ANAESTHESIA. On adults, full anaesthesia is used. How is that even remotely right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Richteralan

This debate comes up time and time again, the consensus is really most people who are circumcised are usually happy to be, and those who are not are happy not to be. Being cut does not cause any problems with the penis (as the skin is cut that is AROUND the penis, not cutting the actual penis) in short or long term uless it was done improperly (very rare) and I know that at least in the Jewish religion, it is done when the male is still a baby after enough days have passed for the blood to clot properly after the procedure and heal the quickest. The baby will have no memory of it, no psychological effects. Being cut is something between him and his parents, not the state, if he was unhappy about it, then why do cut men get the same done to their sons.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter each way, the person can be perfectly normal with or without, and banning it is nothing more than making a statement about something they don't really understand and is really about sending a big FU to religions involved. Say hello to the 4th Reich.

ooo the holocaust card....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Hum
      SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- A South Dakota prison inmate is suing the hospital where he was circumcised as a newborn, saying he only recently became aware that he'd undergone the procedure and that it robbed him of his sexual prowess.
      Dean Cochrun, 28, is asking for $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. He also asks in the lawsuit that his foreskin be restored "in the hopes I could feel whole again," though he acknowledged that he didn't expect such a restoration to be anything more than aesthetic.
      Cochrun, who is imprisoned in Sioux Falls on a kidnapping conviction, filed the federal lawsuit Friday against Sanford Hospital. Cochrun claims that an "unknown doctor" at the then-named Sioux Valley Hospital misled his mother to believe that the procedure was medically necessary. Cochrun argues that the procedure was unnecessary, unethical and without medical benefit.
      "I was recently made aware of the fact that I had been (circumcised) and that ... I was robbed of sensitivity during sexual intercourse as well as the sense of security and well-being I am entitled to in my person," he argued in the lawsuit, adding that neither he nor his partners would "have that sensitivity during sexual intercourse and have a normal sex life."
      more