German court "effectively bans" male circumcision


Recommended Posts

dippednbutter

I don't know if this has been said before but... thanks be to Neowin, we all now know who is probably circumcised and who is probably not lmao..

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kelxin

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

What jew told you that?

Edit: For the record, I am circumcised and wish I would of had the choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard

We shouldn't be doing cosmetic surgery on children.

That's great, we shouldn't, except to Muslims and Jews it's not a cosmetic surgery, it's a religious practice.

You're not seriously comparing a cancer with a foreskin, are you? Nobody can be that asinine.

Both are natural, are they not? Should we let babies born with deformities (that pose no health hazard whatsoever) live with them and not remove them when it's possible? Should we abolish the health care system globally and let nature take its course? Should we listen to religious people and follow their advice and/or "law"?

What's more is that there amount of deaths recorded when compared to the number of surgeries is ridiculously low, it's practically an impossibility here in Israel for a baby to die because of a circumcision.

that has to be the dumbest comparison I've ever seen.

While male and female cirucmcision might not be exactly the same I'll tell you how it does compare. Society sees violence against men, and even infant male children whom have no ability to consent, as perfectly acceptable while we freak out and abhorr consentual female cirumcision and banned it immediately and everyone felt morally justified in that decision.. AND THEY WERE MORALLY JUSTIFIED. It's time that men receive equality too now and end violence against infant children.

Circumcision is not a violent act, female circumcision has nothing to do with this thread, this is solely about male circumcision, both are worlds apart.

Like I said, this is purely an attack on religion, there aren't enough incidents for this ban to be justified, why didn't Germany ban beer yet? Way more people hurt themselves and die because of alcohol, why the hell is it still freely available to society?

What's disgusting is that you're playing the children card when in reality it's just another "HAH IN YOUR FACE, RELIGION" moment for you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

That's great, we shouldn't, except to Muslims and Jews it's not a cosmetic surgery, it's a religious practice.

We also shouldn't force religious practices on people before they can choose for themselves. Doing it for religious reasons is even more stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san

Circumcision is not a violent act, female circumcision has nothing to do with this thread, this is solely about male circumcision, both are worlds apart.

Like I said, this is purely an attack on religion, there aren't enough incidents for this ban to be justified, why didn't Germany ban beer yet? Way more people hurt themselves and die because of alcohol, why the hell is it still freely available to society?

What's disgusting is that you're playing the children card when in reality it's just another "HAH IN YOUR FACE, RELIGION" moment for you.

Yes it is violent. And my basis for being happy about this isn't based on a bias against religion. It's based on the fact I'm sick of seeing boys being treated as so disposable that within days of their birth that they make it painfully clear by removing part of their body.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PurpleHaze420

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

Disagree, an ear piercing cause's no permanent change to the body.

You can remove the stud/ring and never know it had been pierced. Whereas with circumcision this is not the case now is it.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ahhell

Both are natural, are they not? Should we let babies born with deformities (that pose no health hazard whatsoever) live with them and not remove them when it's possible? Should we abolish the health care system globally and let nature take its course? Should we listen to religious people and follow their advice and/or "law"?

What's more is that there amount of deaths recorded when compared to the number of surgeries is ridiculously low, it's practically an impossibility here in Israel for a baby to die because of a circumcision.

WTF?

Comparing something life threatening like cancer to circumcision is probably the most asinine thing that I've heard. :angry:

The fact that there is ANY risk of possible death due to circumcision just gives more weight to it being ****ing wrong.

If you ignore your religious rhetoric for 5 seconds and look at from a medical perspective, you'd realize that it just yet another outdated practice like removing tonsils.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PurpleHaze420
If you ignore your religious rhetoric for 5 seconds and look at from a medical perspective, you'd realize that it just yet another outdated practice

Well said. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan~

I don't get why circumcision is done really, it's not really done in UK unless it's for medical purposes.

We were born with it, so leave it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miuku.
What's disgusting is that you're playing the children card when in reality it's just another "HAH IN YOUR FACE, RELIGION" moment for you.

Religions have dictated a variety of senseless, stupid and meaningless acts in history, many of which have been banned a long time ago in every single civilized country in the world.

Do I really need to start cherry picking some examples of things that are banned today in Israel that were mandated to be legal and acceptable in your Bible? Do we really, really need to go there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

That's great, we shouldn't, except to Muslims and Jews it's not a cosmetic surgery, it's a religious practice.

Incorrect, it's a cosmetic surgery. The only valid reason for circumcision that's NOT cosmetic surgery, is medical necessity. Trying to justify it as a religious practice doesn't stop it being a cosmetic surgery.

Both are natural, are they not? Should we let babies born with deformities (that pose no health hazard whatsoever) live with them and not remove them when it's possible? Should we abolish the health care system globally and let nature take its course? Should we listen to religious people and follow their advice and/or "law"?

Cancers and deformities, whilst occurring in the body, are NOT natural. They are malfunctions either in the developmental process or in the cell structure.

What's more is that there amount of deaths recorded when compared to the number of surgeries is ridiculously low, it's practically an impossibility here in Israel for a baby to die because of a circumcision.

It's not about how many babies die. It's about removing a part of their body without their consent. That it's also done without any form of anaesthesia is just barbaric.

Like I said, this is purely an attack on religion, there aren't enough incidents for this ban to be justified, why didn't Germany ban beer yet? Way more people hurt themselves and die because of alcohol, why the hell is it still freely available to society?

What's disgusting is that you're playing the children card when in reality it's just another "HAH IN YOUR FACE, RELIGION" moment for you.

Beer IS banned, for children. You must be a consenting adult to drink it, so your point is irrelevant

As for religion, it should NOT be granted ANY legal exceptions to anything, ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan~

BTW, in UK you can legally drink alcohol at the age of 5 or 6, can't quite remember

Link to post
Share on other sites
jakem1

Circumcision is common in Africa, Australia, the Middle East and North America.

Circumcision in Australia is relatively uncommon and is currently only performed on 10-20% of boys. Even in the US, only a minority of boys are circumcised with about 32% currently being subjected to the procedure. The rates are continually dropping in both countries.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jakem1

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.

Ignoring the obvious Godwinism, it's cleart that you didn't read the article. If you had you would have seen that one of the reasons the court reached it's decision was in defence of religious freedom - the child's religious freedom. By forcing circumcision on a baby the parents are effectively imposing a particular religion on their son and limiting his freedom to choose his own religion.

I also think it's interesting that you'd seek to defend religions that think it's alright to brutalise babies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard

1. Incorrect, it's a cosmetic surgery. The only valid reason for circumcision that's NOT cosmetic surgery, is medical necessity. Trying to justify it as a religious practice doesn't stop it being a cosmetic surgery.

2. Cancers and deformities, whilst occurring in the body, are NOT natural. They are malfunctions either in the developmental process or in the cell structure.

3. It's not about how many babies die. It's about removing a part of their body without their consent. That it's also done without any form of anaesthesia is just barbaric.

4. Beer IS banned, for children. You must be a consenting adult to drink it, so your point is irrelevant

5. As for religion, it should NOT be granted ANY legal exceptions to anything, ever.

1. Fine, it's a cosmetic surgery, but with a heavy religious influence.

2. They are most certainly natural.

3. So now it's the consent issue, along with outrages claims that it's "barbaric", there's nothing barbaric about it, else you'd bitch and moan about how 8 days old babies are subjected to anesthesia and ****.

4. That wasn't my point. Beer is still being produced and it's a bloody disaster when compared to circumcision, even if you take the huge difference in the amount of people both things apply to, like circumcision only applies to babies and the % of incidents is so low that it's ridiculous, beer is available to every adult in (mostly) every country, and the % of incidents is way higher when compared to that of circumcisions'.

5. Thanks for proving my point, it's all about religion, you don't give two ****s about children or the actual incidents, it's just another front to attack religion.

Why the **** can't you be a normal Atheist, like me?

Before commenting bull**** replies (as most did, hence I only replied to you), you should really do a small scale research about circumcision, many of the posts here are so ignorant and the people behind them don't even try to hide the fact that they know **** about it.

Consent in babies is a bull**** concept.

The only thing that perhaps should be changed is anesthesia, that's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

1: and why should cosmetic surgeries on babies be allowed because or religion, you still haven't answered this

2: Natural but abnormal, foreskin however is NORMAL

3: What's wrong with the consent issue ? it ties in with everythign else, the "person" should be able to chose if something is cut of and what if any religion he should follow.

4: not sure what you're arguing here but it seems to be another one of those comparing it to somethign completely irrelevant arguments so I'll ignore it as irrelevant

5: And why should Religions have special Exceptions to laws? why should the "person" when he's old enough be allowed to chose his own religion and what if any body mods his religion should perform on him ?

So as you said, before commenting bull**** replied, do some research and answer the actual questions that's been given to you.

Why should it be given special exceptions because it's a religion(not that's not an attack on religion, it's merely making them follow the same laws and rules as everyone else) and why should the person be allowed to chose for himself ?

yes, consent for babies is BS, so that's why you wait till 16-18. there is NO reason to force it on a baby and thus person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

2. They are most certainly natural.

Only in the sense that they occur in the body. However, they're cell malfunctions, so are rightly considered UNnatural.

3. So now it's the consent issue, along with outrages claims that it's "barbaric", there's nothing barbaric about it, else you'd bitch and moan about how 8 days old babies are subjected to anesthesia and ****.

Of course it's a consent issue, that's the ENTIRE point of this. A baby cannot consent to being mutilated, only an adult can. And ANY kind of cutting of the body is barbaric where no pain relief is involved.

4. That wasn't my point. Beer is still being produced and it's a bloody disaster when compared to circumcision, even if you take the huge difference in the amount of people both things apply to, like circumcision only applies to babies and the % of incidents is so low that it's ridiculous, beer is available to every adult in (mostly) every country, and the % of incidents is way higher when compared to that of circumcisions'.

Again, beer is something people CHOOSE to drink. Circumcision is something DONE to a baby, without consent. The two cannot be compared.

5. Thanks for proving my point, it's all about religion, you don't give two ****s about children or the actual incidents, it's just another front to attack religion.

Why the **** can't you be a normal Atheist, like me?

Seeing as religion is the root for this practice, it deserves to be pulled up on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dashel

I think I'm still most impressed that Germany has stood up to the religious pressure from the Jews. As one poster already did here, misplaced screams of anti-semitism is always a sure way to make modern Germans second guess themselves. Hell, we saw the same religious backlash and much louder screams of anti-semitism (gods I hate that charge) in Cali when they started talking about it there too.

Maybe if Hitler would have done this the exodus would have been less bloody. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Richteralan

Circumcision in Australia is relatively uncommon and is currently only performed on 10-20% of boys. Even in the US, only a minority of boys are circumcised with about 32% currently being subjected to the procedure. The rates are continually dropping in both countries.

32% in the US? You mean the last 10 years or last 5 years? I understand it was over 90% 10 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Richteralan

Why the **** can't you be a normal Atheist, like me?

O you are an atheist? I thought you are religious based on your posts at Neowin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jakem1

32% in the US? You mean the last 10 years or last 5 years? I understand it was over 90% 10 years ago.

Yes, that's right. That's why I said the rates are dropping and and used the word "currently". Rates were much higher in the past, especially in the '50s and '60s. Presumably thanks to better education rates, people now realise that the practice is not only unnecessary but abhorrent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrunkenBeard

You know what I hate ? Specific laws. If it's really what it is about just make it illegal to modify a children's body in any way before he/she can have an educated opinion. No piercings, no circumcision, hell maybe the guy wants his hair long so no haircuts.

Objectively, I think we are in very delicate times. While there is certainly a certain truth about the right of children to decide for themselves later on, I think that we are moving towards societies where the parents have very little say about how they want to raise their own children. In my opinion, it shouldn't be illegal for parents to raise their children in accordance to their own convictions as long as they don't harm him. Circumcision is far from being harmful, it's not healthier either mind you, it just makes your life a little easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SpeedyTheSnail

Really? Who here would absolutely miss their foreskin? Don't give me that bull**** about it making you less sensitive because half of you would bust a nut in under two minutes anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

Really? Who here would absolutely miss their foreskin? Don't give me that bull**** about it making you less sensitive because half of you would bust a nut in under two minutes anyway.

I think you have no clue what you're talking about, no in fact I know you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Haggis

Is it just me thats thinking that Jewish people all get circumsised and this is weird that GERMANY off all countries and making it illegal?

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