Germany bans circumcision

[Gigablue]

A court in Germany recently ruled that circumcision of children, without their consent, is akin to grievous bodily harm and is a criminal act. This ruling came following complications from the circumcision of a four year old boy. Circumcision is an essential rite of passage in several religions, notably Judaism and Islam. The court ruled that “the right of a child to keep his physical integrity trumps the rights of parents to observe their religion”.

What are your thoughts on this? Should parents have the right to circumcise their children, for religious reasons or otherwise? Is religious freedom more important than body integrity?

[HackerExecute]

I don't see what the big deal is with this crap. Circumcision has its benefits. If you ask me, I think religion having to do with it is pretty stupid. Though I wouldn't mind more rational ideas to get it done. I can tell you it's gonna suck ass when the child realizes what it is and wants it done and they pay a few thousand for him to get it done and he suffers through a painful recovery.

It's whatever. Once I become a father I may do my kid a favor and get it done as he's born. It's up to me and the wife obviously so I don't know, but I don't see anything wrong with getting your kid circumcised as a baby. Been happening for years so either those people of such sensitive nature need to toughen up or adapt to reality.

[turtleman]

What the hell. If you don't circumcise them as babies, they'll freak the fuck out as kids and will refuse.

[Will Grigg's on Fire]

What the hell. If you don't circumcise them as babies, they'll freak the fuck out as kids and will refuse.

Exactly!

I am Jewish and the circumcision ceremony is a very big occasion!

I do not understand this law at all!
In South Africa the exact opposite is occurring - They made circumcision a free service when the baby is born as an uncircumcised penis is not healthy.

I think this act is absurd and that it should never have been implemented.

Honestly, what are Jews going to do now? It is part of our culture. They can't just do that when it violates cultural beliefs!

[Gigablue]

There are both benefits and risks to circumcision. It can reduce the risk of HIV transmission and penile cancer, as well as prevent phimosis, paraphimosis and other conditions affecting the foreskin. There are many potential complications of circumcision. It can cause excess bleeding, infection, and can sometimes require amputation of the penis. The benefits are deemed to not outweigh the risks and, as a result, routine infant circumcision is no longer recommended.

Religion is not a good reason to circumcise children. You should not have the right to violate your child's right to personal security because of religion. Their rights are more important than your right to freedom of religion.

[FreeFall]

Good. I always hated the idea of taking away a male's right to his own body.

If I have a son, it's his penis not mine so why on earth should we, the hypothetical parents, feel the right to do that to him? If he chooses to have himself circumcised, that is his choice. The guys I know that weren't circumcised are just fine. They're no more sick than the circumcised. As for religion, I do not see it as a good reason at all.

[Korashk]

I don't see what the big deal is with this crap. Circumcision has its benefits.
Those benefits don't reasonably justify the practical risks and the violation of individual rights. You wouldn't be so accepting of giving babies breast implants or facelifts, so why accept circumcision. They're fundamentally the same except that circumcision is less risky. Note how I say less risky, because surgery carries with it an inherent risk.

It's whatever. Once I become a father I may do my kid a favor and get it done as he's born. It's up to me and the wife obviously so I don't know, but I don't see anything wrong with getting your kid circumcised as a baby.
I don't know about you, but nobody would be doing me a favor by forcing me to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery.

What the hell. If you don't circumcise them as babies, they'll freak the fuck out as kids and will refuse.
So? You act like circumcision is some sort of necessary procedure. Uncircumcised penises function exactly the same (better, some say) as circumcised ones.

I am Jewish and the circumcision ceremony is a very big occasion!
An infant's parents being Jewish shouldn't give them carte blanche to violate his or her rights.

In South Africa the exact opposite is occurring - They made circumcision a free service when the baby is born as an uncircumcised penis is not healthy.
In Africa and other less developped places having a circumcised penis is actually more beneficial and worth the risk. It's not because an uncircumcised penis in unhealthy, it's because those places don't typically have the facilities for people to keep themselves clean. This isn't true of first world countries.

Honestly, what are Jews going to do now? It is part of our culture. They can't just do that when it violates cultural beliefs!
Frankly, cultural beliefs aren't worth crap if they call for the violation of individual rights. Freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to give babies cosmetic surgery.

It can reduce the risk of HIV transmission and penile cancer, as well as prevent phimosis, paraphimosis and other conditions affecting the foreskin.
The only real benefit of circumcision here is the corollary reduction in risk for penile cancer. The studies showing that circumcision helps prevent HIV infection have been debunked; and claiming that preventing things like phimosis as a positive would be like claiming that a benefit to chopping off your breasts is that it eliminates your chances of getting breast cancer. It hardly counts.

There are many potential complications of circumcision. It can cause excess bleeding, infection, and can sometimes require amputation of the penis. The benefits are deemed to not outweigh the risks and, as a result, routine infant circumcision is no longer recommended.
This is something that more people need to realize. There are no reputable medical organizations in the first world that recommend routine infant circumcision.

[Gigablue]

Honestly, what are Jews going to do now? It is part of our culture. They can't just do that when it violates cultural beliefs!

Is a cultural tradition more important than someone's right to their own body? While it may be a part of the religion, it is still an unnecessary, potentially dangerous surgery.

[HackerExecute]

Those benefits don't reasonably justify the practical risks and the violation of individual rights. You wouldn't be so accepting of giving babies breast implants or facelifts, so why accept circumcision. They're fundamentally the same except that circumcision is less risky. Note how I say less risky, because surgery carries with it an inherent risk.

Breast implants? Facelifts? On babies, really? With no means of offence, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's exaggerated comparisons like this that makes me wonder why and HOW people can overreact about something as simple as circumcision that's been around for generations. If you are seriously against it don't do it to your kids. For example, those against abortion same goes for them. If they don't like it then it's up to them to do it to their children or not and not worry about others. You agree?

I don't know about you, but nobody would be doing me a favor by forcing me to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery.

Why does this sentence hint that you are born with a fully developed adult brain with full capabilities of communication and self-awareness of what is happening around you?

[Iris]

Circumcision is a ridiculous tradition that should have died out years ago. This is surgery, and surgery always comes with it's complications. Ever heard of David Reimer? His penis was destroyed in a circumcision gone wrong. He eventually committed suicide. This is a dangerous procedure. Not to mention many of these babies are strapped down in this shit: http://www.restoringforeskin.org/sites/default/files/glossary/circumstraint3_lrg.jpg before a part of them is sliced off, which must be absolutely terrifying to a newborn baby. I can't believe that societies that condemn female genital mutilation think mutilating a male's genitals is perfectly ok.

[HackerExecute]

Circumcision is a ridiculous tradition that should have died out years ago. This is surgery, and surgery always comes with it's complications. Ever heard of David Reimer? His penis was destroyed in a circumcision gone wrong. He eventually committed suicide. This is a dangerous procedure. Not to mention many of these babies are strapped down in this shit: http://www.restoringforeskin.org/sites/default/files/glossary/circumstraint3_lrg.jpg before a part of them is sliced off, which must be absolutely terrifying to a newborn baby. I can't believe that societies that condemn female genital mutilation think mutilating a male's genitals is perfectly ok.

Love how you made circumcision seem near most terrible thing in the world by pointing out 1 bad result of it on 1 person... and pointing out nothing positive.

[Abigballofdust]

I think this ban will only end up in kids getting circumsized in their houses, without proper safety. It's in the cultures of two religions and it cannot get removed just like that.
Hopefully they'll rethink of that because I'd rather have boys circumsized in clinics that did that in a sterile rooms than in the living room of an appartment by a so called doctor that's nothing more than a priest that doesn't frown upon blood.

[Will Grigg's on Fire]

Is a cultural tradition more important than someone's right to their own body? While it may be a part of the religion, it is still an unnecessary, potentially dangerous surgery.

Why is it unnecessary? And how is it dangerous? I don't know one single person who had a problem with his circumcision and being a Jew I know a lot of other Jews and even some non-Jews who are circumcised... No-one had any complications with their surgery so how is it dangerous?

[Gigablue]

Breast implants? Facelifts? On babies, really? With no means of offence, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's exaggerated comparisons like this that makes me wonder why and HOW people can overreact about something as simple as circumcision that's been around for generations. If you are seriously against it don't do it to your kids. For example, those against abortion same goes for them. If they don't like it then it's up to them to do it to their children or not and not worry about others. You agree?

How is it an exaggerated comparison? Breast implants and facelifts are both unnecessary, potentially dangerous surgeries, just like circumcision. The fact that it's been around for generations is irrelevant. Lots of things are old, that doesn't make them good.

Saying just don't do it to your kids doesn't really make sense. It is saying that I should let other people violate their children's rights and do nothing.

[Iris]

Love how you made circumcision seem near most terrible thing in the world

Doesn't make it any less true.

by pointing out 1 bad result of it on 1 person... and pointing out nothing positive.

The potential risks and violation of the baby's human rights far exceed whatever minimal benefits there may be. Circumcision for a non-medical cause is an unnecessary and pointless procedure.

[Gigablue]

Why is it unnecessary? And how is it dangerous? I don't know one single person who had a problem with his circumcision and being a Jew I know a lot of other Jews and even some non-Jews who are circumcised... No-one had any complications with their surgery so how is it dangerous?

How is it necessary? It is not medically recommended, except in rare circumstances. The main reason for it is religious. Religion shouldn't give you the right to get your child cosmetic surgery.

Just because you don't know anyone with complications doesn't mean they don't happen. The complication rate is about 2%, with bleeding and infection being the most common. More serious side effects are rare and therefore difficult to track. The risk of death from circumcision is about 1/500,000. These risks are far too great for a procedure with few if any medical benefits.

[HackerExecute]

How is it an exaggerated comparison? Breast implants and facelifts are both unnecessary, potentially dangerous surgeries, just like circumcision.

So you are saying circumcision has absolutely nothing positive to give and people do it for no reason?

The fact that it's been around for generations is irrelevant. Lots of things are old, that doesn't make them good.

It is relevant. If it was such a terrible thing then ages ago they would have stopped it.

Saying just don't do it to your kids doesn't really make sense.

It does make sense. I'll let you make sense of it on your own.

It is saying that I should let other people violate their children's rights and do nothing.

Isn't that what you already do?




The potential risks and violation of the baby's human rights far exceed whatever minimal benefits there may be. Circumcision for a non-medical cause is an unnecessary and pointless procedure.

HELL no they don't. If you actually knew what circumcision prevents you wouldn't say that.

pointless procedure.

Facepalm.

[Gigablue]

So you are saying circumcision has absolutely nothing positive to give and people do it for no reason?

No. I'm saying that the benefits of circumcision are questionable, while the risks are well documented and potentially severe. People don't do it for no reason. They do it mainly for religion or just because other people do it.


It is relevant. If it was such a terrible thing then ages ago they would have stopped it.

Just because we haven't stopped it yet doesn't mean there aren't risks. We realize all the time that some of our medical techniques don't make sense.


It does make sense. I'll let you make sense of it on your own.

I'm opposed to pointless cosmetic surgery for children, not just for my children, but for all of them.


HELL no they don't. If you actually knew what circumcision prevents you wouldn't say that.

Circumcision doesn't prevent much. It reduces the risk of penile cancer, a very rare condition. It may reduce the risk of HIV, though this is questionable. It can also reduce the risk of UTIs, which can be easily treated. These benefits don't outweigh the risks.

[HackerExecute]

No. I'm saying that the benefits of circumcision are questionable, while the risks are well documented and potentially severe. People don't do it for no reason. They do it mainly for religion or just because other people do it.

No. I'm saying the risks of circumcision are questionable, while the benefits are well documented and potentially willing.

They do it mainly for religion or just because other people do it.

You forgot other reasons. But I agree those 2 reasons are pretty stupid.

Just because we haven't stopped it yet doesn't mean there aren't risks.

Never said there weren't any.

I'm opposed to pointless cosmetic surgery

Isn't pointless.

Circumcision doesn't prevent much. It reduces the risk of penile cancer, a very rare condition. It may reduce the risk of HIV, though this is questionable. It can also reduce the risk of UTIs, which can be easily treated. These benefits don't outweigh the risks.

Only listed a few benefits.

[Gigablue]

No. I'm saying the risks of circumcision are questionable, while the benefits are well documented and potentially willing.
Only listed a few benefits.
What are the benefits that I missed? Are there any that can be verified by good studies?


You forgot other reasons. But I agree those 2 reasons are pretty stupid.
Can you give any good reasons?

[HackerExecute]

What are the benefits that I missed? Are there any that can be verified by good studies?

Better hygiene, better feel to sex, self satisfaction, in case of phimosis, in case of foreskin adhered to glands. And yes.

[Gigablue]

Better hygiene, better feel to sex, self satisfaction, in case of phimosis, in case of foreskin adhered to glands. And yes.

While it is easier to clean, that isn't very significant. It only takes a few more seconds to clean an uncircumcised penis.

A better feel to sex is very controversial. The foreskin has the highest density of nerve endings and is responsible for much of the sensation. Also, after circumcision, the glands lose much of their sensitivity as a result of rubbing constantly on clothing.

Phimosis can be cured in most cases by stretching. Severe cases can be cured by surgery. Circumcision can be used to treat severe phimosis, but isn't necessary as a preventative measure.

I don't see how circumcision leads to self satisfaction. Please explain.

The foreskin can adhere to the glands, but usually detaches prior to puberty. If it doesn't, it can be treated fairly easily.

Circumcision can be used as a treatment for some medical conditions, usually as a last resort. The risks of the surgery are too great for it to be used preventatively.

[HackerExecute]

While it is easier to clean, that isn't very significant. It only takes a few more seconds to clean an uncircumcised penis.

A better feel to sex is very controversial. The foreskin has the highest density of nerve endings and is responsible for much of the sensation. Also, after circumcision, the glands lose much of their sensitivity as a result of rubbing constantly on clothing.

Phimosis can be cured in most cases by stretching. Severe cases can be cured by surgery. Circumcision can be used to treat severe phimosis, but isn't necessary as a preventative measure.

I don't see how circumcision leads to self satisfaction. Please explain.

The foreskin can adhere to the glands, but usually detaches prior to puberty. If it doesn't, it can be treated fairly easily.

Circumcision can be used as a treatment for some medical conditions, usually as a last resort. The risks of the surgery are too great for it to be used preventatively.

What does it matter?

Self satisfaction leans more towards someone with low self-esteem if they knew most men are circumcised and they feel different for not being cut.

The way I see it over all is I may say yes to circumcise my kid when he's born for health reasons, most likely I will. But the other option is to let him be uncircumcised then in the later future I would ask him if he wants to stay like that or explain why he can get circumcised. If he says yes he'll risk the little there is to risk and suffer through a painful recovery for weeks instead of doing it as a baby in which the recovery lasts only a few days and obviously has no memory of the pain. If he says no and wants to stay that way, he's still risking much but it's what he wanted.

What would you do to your kids would you give them the choice or force them to stay uncut?

[FreeFall]

What does it matter?

Self satisfaction leans more towards someone with low self-esteem if they knew most men are circumcised and they feel different for not being cut.
If I may jump in here for a second, that's a horrible reason to have the skin removed. Just because a majority of men are circumcises, he should be as well? Just so he won't feel the like the odd duckling?

[Gigablue]

What does it matter?

What does what matter?

Self satisfaction leans more towards someone with low self-esteem if they knew most men are circumcised and they feel different for not being cut.

Only about 30% of the world's population is circumcised. This obviously varies depending on where you live. Even if they are the minority in their region, it shouldn't be a source of any problems.

The way I see it over all is I may say yes to circumcise my kid when he's born for health reasons, most likely I will. But the other option is to let him be uncircumcised then in the later future I would ask him if he wants to stay like that or explain why he can get circumcised. If he says yes he'll risk the little there is to risk and suffer through a painful recovery for weeks instead of doing it as a baby in which the recovery lasts only a few days and obviously has no memory of the pain. If he says no and wants to stay that way, he's still risking much but it's what he wanted.

The health reasons are dubious and the risks are unlikely, but potentially severe. Once he is an adult, why would he want to be circumcised? It's an unnecessary procedure with a recovery time of a few weeks, and potential risks greater than the potential benefits. Most people wouldn't want to get circumcised as adults. Why would they want to be circumcised as babies?

What would you do to your kids would you give them the choice or force them to stay uncut?

How is not getting them cosmetic surgery "forcing" them to do anything. I would wait until they are able to make an informed decision. If, for whatever reason, they wanted to get circumcised, and they understood the risks, I would let them, but I wouldn't make that decision for them.

[HackerExecute]

If I may jump in here for a second, that's a horrible reason to have the skin removed. Just because a majority of men are circumcises, he should be as well? Just so he won't feel the like the odd duckling?

Ask whoever feels that way, not me lol. But if he would wanna do it, like everyone here is talking about how the babies don't have the choice, if HE chooses for whatever reason, why bash him for the things he chooses to do to his body?

The health reasons are dubious and the risks are unlikely, but potentially severe. Once he is an adult, why would he want to be circumcised? It's an unnecessary procedure with a recovery time of a few weeks, and potential risks greater than the potential benefits. Most people wouldn't want to get circumcised as adults. Why would they want to be circumcised as babies?

I didn't say adult. But there are many adults who take themselves to get circumcised, I am sure there is someone on the Internet who will asks those questions for you and like I said to the guy above, if he chooses to, why bug him about it. As babies, they wouldn't know so no one can answer that question.

How is not getting them cosmetic surgery "forcing" them to do anything. I would wait until they are able to make an informed decision. If, for whatever reason, they wanted to get circumcised, and they understood the risks, I would let them, but I wouldn't make that decision for them.

What I meant by "forcing to stay uncut" is not telling them about it so they have no clue what it is.
Nods. Would you tell them what it is?

[Gigablue]

Ask whoever feels that way, not me lol. But if he would wanna do it, like everyone here is talking about how the babies don't have the choice, if HE chooses for whatever reason, why bash him for the things he chooses to do to his body?

If a man wants to get circumcised, he should be able to. There is nothing wrong with circumcision if it is preformed based on an informed decision. It is also okay when medically necessary.

I didn't say adult. But there are many adults who take themselves to get circumcised, I am sure there is someone on the Internet who will asks those questions for you and like I said to the guy above, if he chooses to, why bug him about it. As babies, they wouldn't know so no one can answer that question.

As I said before, that's his choice. But it's not fair to babies to circumcise them without consent.

What I meant by "forcing to stay uncut" is not telling them about it so they have no clue what it is.
Nods. Would you tell them what it is?

I would tell him, because I don't think you should keep information from your children. I wouldn't recommend it, however, and I would tell him the pros and cons.

[FreeFall]

Ask whoever feels that way, not me lol. But if he would wanna do it, like everyone here is talking about how the babies don't have the choice, if HE chooses for whatever reason, why bash him for the things he chooses to do to his body?
My apologies. I thought you meant that as a reason to circumcise infants. As an adult, it is his choice to do so as he pleases with his body as it is his right.

[Mortal Coil]

I am not anti-religion, and am in fact from a Jewish family, but I agree with this law EXCEPT that sometimes it is required for medical purposes.
What then?

[Korashk]

I am not anti-religion, and am in fact from a Jewish family, but I agree with this law EXCEPT that sometimes it is required for medical purposes.
What then?
Not stated in the OP, but the ban probably only applies to routine infant circumcision. Not circumcision that's medically necessary, or consensual circumcision later on in life.

[Korashk]

No. I'm saying the risks of circumcision are questionable, while the benefits are well documented and potentially willing.
The risks aren't questionable, they're just rare.

[Jean Poutine]

HELL no they don't. If you actually knew what circumcision prevents you wouldn't say that.

Lol what does it prevent? A dirty peepee? If you have any actual hygiene skills then washing down the foreskin isn't a problem, that is unless you're born without arms. Circumcision can "fix" things (ie phimosis) but it prevents jack squat. Even the things it fixes there are many better ways to do it.

Routine circumcision is a tribal, barbaric, disgusting procedure. I'm all for senseless butchery as long as the person is a willing adult. They can do whatever they want with their foreskins.

Babies are another story entirely.

[Will Grigg's on Fire]

Germany are being hypocrites. How can they dictate anything like that which applies majorly for Jews after what they did to us? It is part of tradition. I understand where they come from to release such a law, but it violates tradition! Make an exception for Jews and Muslims who have that as part of the religion. I don't think that you understand this.

[StoppingTime]

Germany are being hypocrites. How can they dictate anything like that which applies majorly for Jews after what they did to us? It is part of tradition. I understand where they come from to release such a law, but it violates tradition! Make an exception for Jews and Muslims who have that as part of the religion. I don't think that you understand this.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23539877.jpg

[Abigballofdust]

Germany are being hypocrites. How can they dictate anything like that which applies majorly for Jews after what they did to us? It is part of tradition.

I've been waiting for this moment since the very start of a thread. This is such a worn out argument that it's even funny. How can you call German hypocriteswhen that happened over 70 years ago in a country that is in no way connected to actual Germany? Germany went through 3 different countries since then (one of which was even communistic) and you dare call them antisemitic? I'd rather point the finger at you for calling somebody a nazi than point a finger at Germany for making a law that has no connection with antisemitism.

[Will Grigg's on Fire]

I've been waiting for this moment since the very start of a thread. This is such a worn out argument that it's even funny. How can you call German hypocriteswhen that happened over 70 years ago in a country that is in no way connected to actual Germany? Germany went through 3 different countries since then (one of which was even communistic) and you dare call them antisemitic? I'd rather point the finger at you for calling somebody a nazi than point a finger at Germany for making a law that has no connection with antisemitism.

The fact that it happened so long ago doesn't make it any less real.
After all the things they did to Jews (experiments, painful slaughter and violation of every possible human right), the least they can do is respect the religion to allow one of its traditions to carry on.

And before you attack me like that, get your facts straight. The holocaust ended in 1945. We are in 2012. That's 67 years but anyway.

I think you would be seeing this in a very different light if you were a grandson of holocaust survivors who's entire families were killed. It is a major reality, but we are going off the topic here.

I understand why they are issuing the law, but I still don't think that it is justified because it violates tradition.

Oh and just for the record, I never called them Nazis.

[StoppingTime]

I'm from a religious Jewish family, so don't be pulling that crap on me.
The Nazis were anti semetic, not the Germans, and especially not the Germany of today.

[Rayquaza]

I don't see the point of circumcision, but on the other hand I don't see why it should be banned. It's like modifying your body. Does that mean they should ban piercings? That's stupid. I think it should be allowed by self decision on the other hand, not at birth. Not forced.

[Gigablue]

Germany are being hypocrites. How can they dictate anything like that which applies majorly for Jews after what they did to us? It is part of tradition. I understand where they come from to release such a law, but it violates tradition! Make an exception for Jews and Muslims who have that as part of the religion. I don't think that you understand this.

Why is religion so special? Should it give you the right to force a pointless cosmetic surgery on your children? Also, these aren't the same people who perpetrated the holocaust. They are simply trying to protect children.

[FreeFall]

I don't see the point of circumcision, but on the other hand I don't see why it should be banned. It's like modifying your body. Does that mean they should ban piercings? That's stupid. I think it should be allowed by self decision on the other hand, not at birth. Not forced.
It's not being banned from ever happening.

It's just banned in Germany from the parents forcing it on their son for religious and cosmetic reasons, not medical. Basically it's being banned because it's seen as cosmetic surgery on what are possibly non willing infants, unless there is an obvious medical reason to do it for the infant at that time.
They haven't banned it from the willing adult men.

[Rayquaza]

It's not being banned from ever happening.

It's just banned in Germany from the parents forcing it on their son for religious and cosmetic reasons, not medical. Basically it's being banned because it's seen as cosmetic surgery on what are possibly non willing infants, unless there is an obvious medical reason to do it for the infant at that time.
They haven't banned it from the willing adult men.

Maybe Germany should allow some sort of form or something to allow certain parents to give a circumcision, though I still think it could mean the migration of many soon-to-be parents to have their children give birth out of germany in order to have a circumcision.

[Abigballofdust]

The fact that it happened so long ago doesn't make it any less real.
After all the things they did to Jews (experiments, painful slaughter and violation of every possible human right), the least they can do is respect the religion to allow one of its traditions to carry on.
They don't have to show respect to anybody because present day Germany has NOTHING to do with nazi Germany.

And before you attack me like that, get your facts straight. The holocaust ended in 1945. We are in 2012. That's 67 years but anyway.
Typo. My post should be saying 'over 60'.

I think you would be seeing this in a very different light if you were a grandson of holocaust survivors who's entire families were killed. It is a major reality, but we are going off the topic here.
I would be seeing it as someone whose opinion is biased. Or perhaps I wouldn't, as StoppingTime proves.

I understand why they are issuing the law, but I still don't think that it is justified because it violates tradition.
Not entering in the ethics of religions since it's not my business. I said what I think about it on page one.

Oh and just for the record, I never called them Nazis.
Yes you did. Indirectly, but you did. If you said that in Germany, you could get sued for offending.

[Will Grigg's on Fire]

Why is religion so special? Should it give you the right to force a pointless cosmetic surgery on your children? Also, these aren't the same people who perpetrated the holocaust. They are simply trying to protect children.

Circumcision is not forced upon. My mom really didn't want to circumcise me when I was a baby, but she settled for letting me do it with a really good doctor because it is what is socially accepted by our culture.

[Gigablue]

Circumcision is not forced upon. My mom really didn't want to circumcise me when I was a baby, but she settled for letting me do it with a really good doctor because it is what is socially accepted by our culture.

Maybe it wasn't forced upon you, but it is forced on many babies. Getting circumcised simply it is socially required makes no sense. The only reason to get surgery should be medical. Also, you didn't really answer my question. Why should religion/cultural views get special treatment?

[HackerExecute]

Why should religion/cultural views get special treatment?

They shouldn't. :thumbsup:

[gothicsanctum]

1. Why do all the religious people cut the foreskins off? Didn't their "God" create them in his perfect image or something
2. We Evolved a foreskin for some purpose, why get rid of it?

[Abigballofdust]

1. Why do all the religious people cut the foreskins off? Didn't their "God" create them in his perfect image or something
2. We Evolved a foreskin for some purpose, why get rid of it?

All religious formalities have (had?) a practical use.
Take Islam for example: they forbid alcohol. Why? Because if you got drunk in the desert heats of the areas where Islam developed, you'd most certainly die due to dehydration. Add a full of fat meat like swine meat and you have a recipe for disaster.
Indian cultures forbid killing cows, why? A dead cow can give meat for probably one or two days if it's not conserved in a fridge (which did not exist at the time, duuh), however you can drink her milk and eat cheese throughout all of her life. Much practical, right?
Circumcision is not different: in the heat and lack of water that was common of the areas where judaism and islam developed, you needed to get rid of that piece of skin to avoid problems with your penis. We take for granted that elders had no clue about medicine or stuff, but they all had an extensive knowledge of medical issues.
Many people wouldn't believe a doctor at that time, however everybody believed when the 'God wants it' argument was being pushed in.

[Gaybaby94]

Good. Now we need that ban here in the states.

[Iris]

All religious formalities have (had?) a practical use.

No. Some have, not all. if you read through some religious texts of just one religion, like the bible, you'll see hundreds of laws that have had no practical purpose. In Judaism, for example, there are shitloads of laws that no one understands the purpose of, even after centuries of speculation. There's even a name for them: חוקים (pronounced chukim) and include things like shatnez, not combining wool and linen, and the laws of the פרה אדומה (pronounced parah adumah), which is a completely arbitrary way to purify someone. They make no sense, and are only done "cuz God wants it."

Take Islam for example: they forbid alcohol. Why? Because if you got drunk in the desert heats of the areas where Islam developed, you'd most certainly die due to dehydration. Add a full of fat meat like swine meat and you have a recipe for disaster.
Indian cultures forbid killing cows, why? A dead cow can give meat for probably one or two days if it's not conserved in a fridge (which did not exist at the time, duuh), however you can drink her milk and eat cheese throughout all of her life. Much practical, right?

if they were so practical, many more societies would have adopted them. The early Jews lived in basically the same conditions as the Muslims, but drinking wine was encouraged in the Jewish communities and obviously wasn't with the Muslims. don't you think that amongst Judaism's hundreds of laws there would be a mention of avoiding a substance that could kill them? As for Hindus, dead cows could easily be sold for a considerable price, and provide meat to lots of people who need some substantial food (starvation and malnutrition in India is rampant), not just milk or cheese.

That's not to say that there aren't some religious practices that benefited the practitioners (Jews got sick from the bubonic plague far less than others as they are commanded to wash their hands very often) but to say 'All' is ridiculous, and justifying most through this argument is pointless.

Circumcision is not different: in the heat and lack of water that was common of the areas where judaism and islam developed, you needed to get rid of that piece of skin to avoid problems with your penis. We take for granted that elders had no clue about medicine or stuff, but they all had an extensive knowledge of medical issues.

Circumcision would have been useful as hygiene, in those societies, as sand could creep in I suppose. I don't see why heat or lack of water should have anything to do with it though. If anything, having another layer of skin, to protect the penis and keep it from the elements would be more helpful than slicing it off and exposing the individual to infection, which would be far less treatable than having a unclean penis.

No one is saying those 'elders' were idiots, by the way, but saying that they had extensive knowledge on medical issues would be pushing it.

[deadpie]

1. Why do all the religious people cut the foreskins off?

Uh, Muslims and Jews. That's not all religions buddy. And some Reform and Reconstructionist Jews perform the brit milah less or do it in a different way where the child isn't cut.

Didn't their "God" create them in his perfect image or something

There's this really weird interesting philosophy that I was told from a Jewish person that taking away the foreskin, a part of your body made for sexual desires and such, is a way of showing you love your God enough to take a piece of pleasure away. The idea is the tradition is what makes the person completely perfecto or whatever. It's a new perspective I don't think many can get but I kind of get what they're saying, reminding you that I'm an atheist that used to be very militant on his beliefs.

2. We Evolved a foreskin for some purpose, why get rid of it?[/B]

A unique anatomy that as it went along evolving caught along with problems. Although, there's the solution of circumcision. Although, I've heard of many people use different methods without having to have it done.

I don't see the point of circumcision

Better to get the straight up facts here. (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm)

I personally don't think it should be banned at all. The only thing I see a problem with is a religious circumcision doesn't sound so safe - they aren't doctors and I don't know if they're giving anesthesia. It's a stupid religious practice for sure, but if it's done safely, I have no probs. Medical purposes make more sense than the religious idea of it. Yes bash me in the face with a stone for being that guy in this thread.

[Abigballofdust]

No. Some have, not all. if you read through some religious texts of just one religion, like the bible, you'll see hundreds of laws that have had no practical purpose. In Judaism, for example, there are shitloads of laws that no one understands the purpose of, even after centuries of speculation. There's even a name for them: חוקים (pronounced chukim) and include things like shatnez, not combining wool and linen, and the laws of the פרה אדומה (pronounced parah adumah), which is a completely arbitrary way to purify someone. They make no sense, and are only done "cuz God wants it."
Every law has a practical use, even if the practicality of such law can be limited to only the one that wrote it.



if they were so practical, many more societies would have adopted them. The early Jews lived in basically the same conditions as the Muslims, but drinking wine was encouraged in the Jewish communities and obviously wasn't with the Muslims. don't you think that amongst Judaism's hundreds of laws there would be a mention of avoiding a substance that could kill them? As for Hindus, dead cows could easily be sold for a considerable price, and provide meat to lots of people who need some substantial food (starvation and malnutrition in India is rampant), not just milk or cheese.
There's nearly 2000 years between those two religions. People changed during that time, new beliefs were brought in, etc...
Dead cows served no purpose because they didn't give as much as a living cow would. There were no cattle farms with hundreds of cows, there were one to two cows per Hindu, maybe even less. The death of one was a tragedy, hence it being sacred.

That's not to say that there aren't some religious practices that benefited the practitioners (Jews got sick from the bubonic plague far less than others as they are commanded to wash their hands very often) but to say 'All' is ridiculous, and justifying most through this argument is pointless.
As I already said, every law had a practical use to at least the one that wrote it.



Circumcision would have been useful as hygiene, in those societies, as sand could creep in I suppose. I don't see why heat or lack of water should have anything to do with it though. If anything, having another layer of skin, to protect the penis and keep it from the elements would be more helpful than slicing it off and exposing the individual to infection, which would be far less treatable than having a unclean penis.
Heat and lack of water usually go with bad hygiene, just saying.

No one is saying those 'elders' were idiots, by the way, but saying that they had extensive knowledge on medical issues would be pushing it.
They had extensive knowledge for that time. You can't compare it to what we have today, but they weren't complete idiots as to not understand why somebody died when he fell asleep in the sun after getting piss drunk.

[StoppingTime]

Every law has a practical use, even if the practicality of such law can be limited to only the one that wrote it.


I wouldn't say that. As she said, Judaism has חוקים, which is commonly translated into "laws we don't understand." Shatetz, the mixing certain fabrics in clothing, is something that has no definite answer, (There are משניות about it, but we'll just leave that for another say). So no, not every law may be seen as practical, but they may all have reasons.

[Will Grigg's on Fire]

For all of you saying that a foreskin is there for a reason, may I just know what that reason is? And what good does it do?

[Abigballofdust]

For all of you saying that a foreskin is there for a reason, may I just know what that reason is? And what good does it do?

Let me answer with an other question: the coccyx has no reason for being there anymore, it does only bad if you break it and it gives pains as you grow older. Why don't we surgically remove it upon birth?
Besides, the foreskin protects the nerves of the glans, it itself is sensory and it keeps the glans moist.

[Will Grigg's on Fire]

Let me answer with an other question: the coccyx has no reason for being there anymore, it does only bad if you break it and it gives pains as you grow older. Why don't we surgically remove it upon birth?
Besides, the foreskin protects the nerves of the glans, it itself is sensory and it keeps the glans moist.

Because an operation to remove one's coccyx is a very complex one and a dangerous one too as it is a part of the vertebrae, unlike the penis with the foreskin. And I have never heard of an operation that removes the coccyx, however people do remove foreskins and it is an operation with an extremely high success rate, with very few complications and I agree with you, it is unnecessary, but it is part of a culture which had that custom for thousands of years.

[Gigablue]

Because an operation to remove one's coccyx is a very complex one and a dangerous one too as it is a part of the vertebrae, unlike the penis with the foreskin. And I have never heard of an operation that removes the coccyx, however people do remove foreskins and it is an operation with an extremely high success rate, with very few complications and I agree with you, it is unnecessary, but it is part of a culture which had that custom for thousands of years.

Circumcision may have a high success rate, but it's or 100%, and there can be complications. An operation to remove the coccyx would be similar to circumcision: unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

The fact that circumcision has cultural significance is irrelevant.

[Dabigdtc]

Should you give a child plastic surgery? No, both are completely unnecessary and potentially dangerous . So I agree with them.

[Haufen]

The right of a child's bodily integrity is worth more than the 'rights' of parents following a useless 'rule' of useless outdated religions that have no historical or cultural importance in the country in question and are a minority.

Also, inb4 Jews start yelling Holocaust and calling Germany Nazi again to abuse the feeling of guilt that current Germans for some ridiculous reason still have.

Oh and it's also discrimination, female circumcision is taboo and outlawed in most countries, but male circumcision is seen as a cultural/religious right, even though it's almost completely useless, and often in fact, damaging.

[Dabigdtc]

They shouldn't. :thumbsup:

The right of a child's bodily integrity is worth more than the 'rights' of parents following a useless 'rule' of useless outdated religions that have no historical or cultural importance in the country in question and are a minority.

Also, inb4 Jews start yelling Holocaust and calling Germany Nazi again to abuse the feeling of guilt that current Germans for some ridiculous reason still have.

Oh and it's also discrimination, female circumcision is taboo and outlawed in most countries, but male circumcision is seen as a cultural/religious right, even though it's almost completely useless, and often in fact, damaging.

Agreed

[Human]

Good on them. It's unfair to be snipped as a baby with no choice.

[Darknova8]

What would be the point of banning it?
Circumcision should be the child's choice when he is old enough.
Both cut and uncut have their benefits but parents shouldn't just do it
without consent from the child.

[Gigablue]

What would be the point of banning it?
Circumcision should be the child's choice when he is old enough.
Both cut and uncut have their benefits but parents shouldn't just do it
without consent from the child.

I wasn't clear enough in the original post. It's not banned in all circumstances. The ban is only on infant/child circumcision without a medical reason.

[Darknova8]

I wasn't clear enough in the original post. It's not banned in all circumstances. The ban is only on infant/child circumcision without a medical reason.

I guess that sounds reasonable.
What would constitute a valid reason to have circumcision done?

[Gigablue]

I guess that sounds reasonable.
What would constitute a valid reason to have circumcision done?

It can be done for medical reasons e.g. Phimosis, acute blanoposthitis, paraphimosis, etc. It can also be done for adults upon request, for any reason, though they have to pay for it themselves.

[Darknova8]

Ok thx for the info i think that the ban is a good desicion.

[Firebolt]

Finally! Circumcision should have been banned centuries ago. As much as we mock the Germans, they are the only country that can get things done.