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

Don't have time to read through all the posts right now so i'm not sure if this has been said... BUT.. if simply cutting off foreskin is wrong because the baby has no consent, then how is aborting the baby not wrong- surely it didn't give anyone consent to kill it? Does not compute.

reply to post by Believer101


So if the general consensus was that MEN preferred women to have a less than 28inch waist, 34EE breasts and a cute ass... you are ok for us to operate on our young female population to achieve that yeah?

Seriously consider the context of your response!

reply to post by charles1952


Before trying to twist what I said... think for a moment, what I ACTUALLY did say my friend...

What right do we have to FORCE our beliefs onto others, including our children... I stand by what I said. Guide, teach, lead by all means, but when FORCE is used, is it right?

Now I would like to question why you believe it is RIGHT to FORCE beliefs onto others... Did you really just say that? Really? Have a long hard think about what you questioned about my statement, break it down and then think some more.

We own nothing in this world, we may create offspring, and be responsible for them, but we do not own them. They are not pets, they are their own living, breathing beings. We have a responsibility to guide, help, teach and nurture them. And part of that process is about allowing them to grow, develop and make good informed choices of their own. So now let me include the rest of the quote you failed to post, which hopefully adds significant context to my point... something I believe you fundamentally failed to provide

And surely the basic argument holds most valid... what right to YOU have to enforce your beliefs onto others? Including your own children?I was brought up with good morals and ideals, but was given enough space to make my own way in the world, to become my own person and lead my own life. I have never been circumsized, christianed or undertaking any religious ceremony which deemed me to be a man or of age, or whatever. If my deeds in this life are not good enough to get me a ticket into the pearly gates... then I would rather choose an eternity of uncertainty, then to follow a god who only cares that I worship him, regardless of how I treat others and progress as a person, being, soul.

Hopefully that clarifies my position, and hopefully as a result you will read what I wrote in greater detail next time. Because if you believe in going to church, but your child hates and you FORCE them to go, physically is this really right? Even though you believe it is best for the own moral choices?

Seems like this thread has really brought about a mixture of the informed and the rest of the populace... especially over the past couple of pages.

My thoughts are well known now, and on a simple moral ground, a persons body should be their say, as and when they are old enough to make any choices or decisions about it. The beliefs of my parents shouldn't be used to alter my physical being in any way shape or form. By all means guide, nuture and teach me as you see fit... if when I reach a specific age, I decide to follow in your belief systems, and if such beliefs dictate my body be abused, then I will CHOOSE that for myself.

And so should be the choice for all men and women.

Originally posted by Ketzer22
Don't have time to read through all the posts right now so i'm not sure if this has been said... BUT.. if simply cutting off foreskin is wrong because the baby has no consent, then how is aborting the baby not wrong- surely it didn't give anyone consent to kill it? Does not compute.

Easy, a full-term baby that is born is a separate living human being that can survive on its own. A fetus (before the sixth month mark) cannot survive outside the womb on its own and is not fully developed. Its not human.

Ok, I’ve had it. This is a subject that I have great emotions about.

We are talking about the removal of a piece of your child. Kinda gives you the willies (pun intended)?

Ask yourself why? Because the medical community says so? ( I address religion a bit later.)

Well, before 1999 there was no anesthesia used in hospitals. None. In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics came out and stated as a fact that newborns do feel pain and anesthesia needs to be used.

So maybe they are not superhero's.

In America, I believe the Doctors make about $400 million a year off of circumcision.
Not the best site, but, they lay it out very well. Saving Baby Blog Spot


AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Circumcision Policy Statement Task Force on Circumcision,

For hygiene, really? The part removed produces Smegma as well as many wonderful nerve endings. Smegma's purpose is to clean and lubricate. Now, girlie parts, as well, produce smegma. Hygiene is simple if you teach it.

Phimosis

Other causes may include scarring caused by forcible retraction of the foreskin, and balanitis.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Pediatric Society state that no attempt should be made to retract the foreskin of an infant. Age is reportedly a factor in non-retractability: according to Huntley et al. the foreskin is reportedly retractable in approximately 50% of cases at 1 year of age, 90% by 3 years of age, and 99% by age 17. These authors argue that, unless scarring or other abnormality is present, non-retractibility may "be considered normal for males up to and including adolescence." Hill states that full retractability of the foreskin may not be achieved until late childhood or early adulthood.

Forcible Retraction

Forcible retraction of the foreskin, sometimes called premature retraction, in infants or young children can damage the glans and mucous inner tissue of the foreskin. Doctors or parents who may be unfamiliar with the foreskin can often forcibly retract it, unaware that it can be damaging. At birth, the foreskin is fused to the glans. Over time, separation occurs naturally. Infants are sometimes diagnosed as having pathological phimosis, which some authors consider to be erroneous. In order to perform circumcision the foreskin must be retracted by force, ripping it away from the glans when performed on infants.

Now, I believe this law is not saying that one cannot be circumcised, I believe it is declaring that the parents are not allowed to make the choice to alter their child's body. Hatafat dam brit can satisfy bringing him into the covenant with Abraham as it is with medical and physiological issues(such as no foreskin present), When the Child reaches the proper age of consent he is then able to make that choice to enter into said covenant with a circumcision.

I am am not clear, is Brit Milah a requirement or a tradition? Or both? The Covenant of Circumcision
I know that is in not in the Torah. But I do understand that the oral teachings are just as important.

I know that Khitan is not in the Qur'an but I know that is practiced since before the time of the Prophet Muhammad. Is that a requirement or a tradition? Or both?

I truly mean no disrespect, I am trying to understand. With religion, I have found that it doesn't always translate well on the internet.

As a parent we have many hard choices to make as to what is right for our children. I am not comfortable with mandated parenting laws, but I am less comfortable with the altering of our children's bodies, with something permanent that cannot be undone. They are babies, they are truly unable to give any sort of informed consent. If it is worth being done in your culture, then it is worth waiting for.

No, I don't vaccinate. I have 5 children. 3 boys (all intact) and 2 girls(all intact). Their ages 18 years (M), 15 years (F), 11 years(M), 8 years(M) and 3 years(F) old. I breastfed all of my children. My oldest daughter did get her ears pierced when she was almost 15 years old. My youngest daughter is only 3 years old with no piercings. No, I am not, nor have I ever been on welfare. My first child, a son, is from my first marriage, his father was circumcised as is my husband, the father of all of my other children. No tattoos on any of my children. Yep, I'm one of those freaks.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

Originally posted by Ketzer22
Don't have time to read through all the posts right now so i'm not sure if this has been said... BUT.. if simply cutting off foreskin is wrong because the baby has no consent, then how is aborting the baby not wrong- surely it didn't give anyone consent to kill it? Does not compute.

Easy, a full-term baby that is born is a separate living human being that can survive on its own. A fetus (before the sixth month mark) cannot survive outside the womb on its own and is not fully developed. Its not human.

Wrong! My son was born at 24 weeks, fully formed. I was 5 1/2 months pregnant. He stayed in hospital for over 3 months, came home at a little over 5 pounds. He was born at just 1lb 6 ounces, micro-preemie.

And yes my child is not circumcised nor do I believe in abortion. I believe in neither. So you see they are HUMAN before the 6 month mark.....

Those who are for Circumcision should watch this and if you can't YOU shouldn't be doing it, period. NO ONE SHOULD BE DOING THIS TO ANY BABY. PERIOD.

Video - Circumcision Procedure

Human beings are followers. How such a sick procedure such as this has become socially acceptable only proves my point. What a weak minded race that it takes to view the butchering of their own offspring as the norm. That truth has been proven many times within this very thread.

Think deeply about it outside of your brainwashed little box for just one second and it's very easy to comprehend just how sick it is to do such a thing to a defenseless new born infant child.

I can hear the idiots now........."oh, well everyone does it, so it must be ok". = conforming weak minded robots who can't think for themselves. So as usual, the weak minded idiots allow someone else to do the thinking for them. What a people. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I find it very hard to believe that someone with your intelligence and profile picture has this stance on the subject. I dont need to go on, the facts speak for themselves. Do you think a baby feels nothing when coming through the vaginal canal ? having the umbilical cord cut ?

Fact is, more disease is spread by uncircumcised penis's. Never forget about the cheese factor. Its a breeding ground for all these new age (germs)..... Biblical times are over mate.

Originally posted by DaphneApollo

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

Originally posted by Ketzer22
Don't have time to read through all the posts right now so i'm not sure if this has been said... BUT.. if simply cutting off foreskin is wrong because the baby has no consent, then how is aborting the baby not wrong- surely it didn't give anyone consent to kill it? Does not compute.

Easy, a full-term baby that is born is a separate living human being that can survive on its own. A fetus (before the sixth month mark) cannot survive outside the womb on its own and is not fully developed. Its not human.

Wrong! My son was born at 24 weeks, fully formed. I was 5 1/2 months pregnant. He stayed in hospital for over 3 months, came home at a little over 5 pounds. He was born at just 1lb 6 ounces, micro-preemie.

And yes my child is not circumcised nor do I believe in abortion. I believe in neither. So you see they are HUMAN before the 6 month mark.....

Those who are for Circumcision should watch this and if you can't YOU shouldn't be doing it, period. NO ONE SHOULD BE DOING THIS TO ANY BABY. PERIOD.

Video - Circumcision Procedure

edit on 28-6-2012 by DaphneApollo because: (no reason given)

Could your child have survived without the aid of medical equipment? No. Therefore, it was not fully formed.

Could your child have survived without the aid of medical equipment? No. Therefore, it was not fully formed.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


No, he could not have lived without medical intervention. But, to say that they Are Not Human or fully formed is not true. I've even known of babies born at 6 mos + who needed to be in the NICU [Neonatal Intensive Care Unit] because only their lungs are not developed (lack surfactant) but they are fully formed.

So, with the info on babies born at 6 months still needing Intensive care are they also not fully formed?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
i am circumcised and wish that i wasnt.

I think its disgusting what my parents did. It should be a personal choice.

How can you miss something you've never really had?

Originally posted by moleskin
Sorry can't resist one more response...

To all the ladies that prefer the "cut" look you have been conditioned to like, I personally like this look, so please ensure you get yourselves sliced and diced accordingly... you know so you fit the ingrained stereotype that us males dig... thanks

Now apologies if I offended with that, but your visual argument is completely flawed, unless of course you are happy to completely tidy yourselves up and be held to a standard deemed appropriate?

Science actually says CUT men lose a heck of a lot of sensitivity. Therefore the males sexual performance, whilst still enjoyable, is actually lessened as a result of the work. The health benefits are slight and no better than good basic hygiene - but you know, in this modern age where time is of the essence, I guess we dont have time for basic hygiene and thus, removal of what GOD gave us is a simpler way to go.

What next, removing armpits because you know, after a workout, they smell? Completely removing the rear end, because it produces smelly gas, and even more smelly bodily wastes? We are what we are, if we didn't need these elements, we wouldn't have been given them to begin with. Evolution/GOD whatever you choose to believe works in mysterious ways, and as such we have these things for a purposes.

And surely the basic argument holds most valid... what right to YOU have to enforce your beliefs onto others? Including your own children? I was brought up with good morals and ideals, but was given enough space to make my own way in the world, to become my own person and lead my own life. I have never been circumsized, christianed or undertaking any religious ceremony which deemed me to be a man or of age, or whatever.

If my deeds in this life are not good enough to get me a ticket into the pearly gates... then I would rather choose an eternity of uncertainty, then to follow a god who only cares that I worship him, regardless of how I treat others and progress as a person, being, soul.

Women are well aware of what men like women to look/act like - They've been pushing their views about femininity for a few thousand years now so much to the point that in modern times, women and girls are even starving themselves to get thin for "you" But i'll let your few thousand years of brainwashing women to adhere to male standard of "beautiful" slip on this occasion

Science actually says CUT men lose a heck of a lot of sensitivity. Therefore the males sexual performance, whilst still enjoyable, is actually lessened as a result of the work.

You cant have an earth shattering orgasm every time you cum, even if you had foreskin. This argument should definitely be dropped, Uncircumcised men have no problem having happy sex lives and if they're unhappy for any reason, im sure their problems wouldn't magically be resolved with a few inch's of skin.

Now, as for the look of the penis. As a woman i prefer cut. I once slept with a man with foreskin and.. well, never again. Ended up with a water infection. Not only that, it cooled me down..fast. Like a man who takes off the panties of an attractive women only to be met with a 70's afro, if your not into it, your going to be turned off by it.

All human beings are entitled to have prefernces but we cannot expect people to change for us.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Why have you focused on Germany? If carried out with the appropriate medical requirement, male circumcision is as much mutilation as removing a tooth is. Female circumcision, now that is a different thing.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I am religious and i am not circumcised so wtf are you talking about??? Its pretty much the norm to get circumcised i think... and it has little to do with religion for the most part.

Where does it say religion hates sexuality??? It actually says to take up a spouse a fill the earth... to fill the earth you need to have sex and lots of it..... most religion does however talk against promiscuity and adultery. which actually makes sense. promiscuity can lead to the spreading of stds and can screw up a persons life especially women since they get more attached with sex unless they have issues. adultery also spreads stds and destroys relationships in which children are invovled and that screws them over pretty bad. And if you are referring to nuns and monks who deny sex then LAWL... you are not supposed to do that.

Do you just want to find another reason to crap on religion?? because that is sure what it seems like

Originally posted by Wertdagf
i am circumcised and wish that i wasnt.

I think its disgusting what my parents did. It should be a personal choice.

And that is all it takes to invalidate every one of the posters trying to defend this barbaric and idiotic practice of forcefully and without consent removing the bulk of the male genital nervous system from newborns.

To the ladies who think an intact member is ugly, I'm willing to bet you're either US or Jewish or some other clan that has a religious fascination with genital mutilation. Indoctrinated much? Ask a european and she will probably educate you as to the beauty and pleasure of the foreskin.

It's well known and researched that intact males make more sensitive lovers, but if you like being banged senseless by some guy who only feels a small amount of what he would were he intact, then good for you and enjoy

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by luciddream
Girls are influenced by peers and whatnot without knowing the reason. They just assume, "eww uncircumcised is nasty" just cause her friend told her that.

In fact, uncircumcised ones retain more feelings due to multiple nerve endings in the foreskin(you would know if you had it lol). It also protects against some disease that might be related to urethra. Also when someone is circumcised, these slowly loose some feeling because of the sensitive bump like skin around the head keep rubbing on underwear/cloths.

Im glad to be uncircumcised, what nature intended. You can shove religious mutilation up their ass lol

Also, uncircumcised guys know what else foreskins can be used for

!

Actually no peer of mine influenced my decision, it was one gentleman (and I use that term loosely) that influenced my decision on this particular topic.. he was absolutely disgusting under that skin... and well things he wanted me to do just weren't happening.. Much to his dismay..... and I can tell you there wasn't enough mouthwash in the world to make up for that...

Yeah, I dated a girl once who didn't wash her labia, ewww.

Now I only date women who had their labia removed at birth, it is much prettier and doesn't smell quite as bad :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Crakeur


Congratulations Germany, you've just set yourself back 70 or so years by implementing a law that could, easily, have been avoided by implementing more safe guards and stricter guidelines.

Can't see the logic there?
How will more safe guards and stricter guidelines stop religious and cosmetic mutilation of babies?
Surely it has to be prevented in order to stop, not just regulated more aggressively?

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Cutting the entire vulva out of a woman and leaving only the opening of the vagina which is then sewn tight is quite different from removing a little foreskin from the penis.
Circumcision is no more multilation than ear piercing is. Its asthetics. Its cultural and for the most part harmless. Its even done without anesthesia.

Wow, someone hasn't done any homework at all hear.
The 'little bit of skin' is actually about a third of his entire penile shaft skin:

This visual aid is very effective in convincing people of what a man loses from infant circumcision.

1. Take a 3"x5" index card or piece of paper.


2. Fold it in half lengthwise.

3. Bring the two ends of the folded card together. Hold them in place with your finger so the card forms a ring.
Hold up the ring to your audience and say:

"This ring represents an average adult male foreskin. Like this ring, the circumference of the average man's erect penis is 5 inches around and the average foreskin length is 1 1/2 inches on the outer foreskin and another 1 1/2 inches on the inner foreskin. The total area of foreskin then on an adult male is equal to this 3x5 card. This is how much skin an adult male loses from being circumcised as an infant. That's almost 36% of his penile shaft skin!"

"Ashley Montagu, in his book The Human Connection, states than an area of skin the size of a quarter contains more than 12 feet of nerves and over 50 nerve endings. This card can fit 15 quarters easily, with room to spare. Infant circumcision robs men of over 240 feet of nerves and over 1,000 nerve endings meant to enhance his and his partner's sexual pleasure."

and about sensitivity

The foreskin contains 20,0000+ touch and pressure receptors that represent 75% of the sexually sensitive tissue on the penis.

and it's done without anasthesia because putting an 8 day old under could v. easily kill it (and babies are easier than adults to hold down when they wriggle, fight and scream from the pain!)

reply to post by RogerT3


this is nothing more than a means for Germany to tell muslims and jews that, perhaps, they'd be better off raising their children elsewhere.

If it was discovered that splashing water on an infant's face, or dunking them, ever so briefly, was akin to waterboarding and, therefore, was no longer allowed, I'd be just as concerned about the state of society as I am with this law.


Picture a child born with webbed toes or a hemangioma on their face.

It's how god made them, right? neither are a danger to the child. there's no medical reason to alter their appearance, other than cosmetic. Shouldnt' these kinds of surgeries be banned as well?

What about orthodonture? ask any child and they will tell you they don't want braces. the majority of all orthodonture is cosmetic. why aren't they banning the barbaric practice of sticking a metal device under the roof of a child's mouth so that, every night, you can crank that rack outward, widening your child's mouth to accomodate teeth? Believe me, having seen this done, it is far more barbaric, far more torturous than removing excess skin and, yet, there's no laws saying we can no longer subject our children to a year of dental torture, all in the name of straight teeth.


This law is b.s. It's nothing more than a masked way of telling jews and muslims they aren't welcome any more.