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

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by vkey08

 

by presenting this as something else, they are masking their true intentions.

That's why I mentioned Merkel's upbringing..... I think that may have a bit of the issue

Well I can tell it's USA daytime by the number of stars on the pro-circ posts

Originally posted by muzzleflash

reply to post by RogerT3

 

I reviewed the Wiki fairly closely: Circumcision

I didn't quote wikipedia, I quoted norm.co.uk

There are all sorts of pro's and con's.

Often times, most of the "con's" are subjective and impossible to actually determine. Mostly opinions, rather than dangerous warning signs.

I see you still didn't read the extract I posted then.
It contained factual information (with countless references on the site that I removed to make the quote more manageable and appealing to those that don't like to read quotes).
The information illustrates what is removed during circumcision, here is my synopsis:

15 sq inches of protective skin covering (which prevents keratinisation (sp?) and loss of sensitivity - think callouses);

the frenular ridge band which is the PRIMARY male erogenous zone;

the natural lubricated gliding action of the penis, ie. the way it is supposed to work;

between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types (part of the child's nervous system);

the highly erogenous frenulum on the underside of the glans (my personal favorite!);

approximately half of the temperature-sensitive smooth muscle sheath which lies between the outer layer of skin and the corpus cavernosa;

lymphatic vessels - ie. a portion of the babies immune system;

oestrogen receptors that are yet to be understood at this time;

pheromone producing Apocrine Glands of the inner foreskin;

Sebaceous Glands (lubrication);

Langerhans Cells (more immune system);

several feet of blood vessels;

sometimes the dorsal nerve (effectively rendering the penis 'numb';

emotional bonding with the mother during the most important developmental stage of an infant's life is interrupted by the procedure, the pain and/or the anasthesia.

Add to this the complications that result in a great many deaths, trans gender operations or just plain loss of the penis!

If you wanted to be taken seriously on the matter, why don't you discuss the statistics debated on in the article

ok, I'll take a shot, but this is my first invitation.
curious as to why my posting and reposting hard factual information about the 'just a bit of skin' myth isn't taken seriously though - not a single pro-circ poster has commented on any of the above, and it's 3 pages back already!

such as:

There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in populations that are at high risk.[73][74] Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decreased risk of between 38 percent and 66 percent over two years[15] and in this population studies rate it cost effective.[75]

This would very quickly get off topic, but if you're wanting to use African HIV/Aids stats to prove anything other than Eugenics or Big Pharma profiteering you've already lost me.
Sub Saharan Africa - really, and you trust that data is clean and honest? I don't.

I believe there has already been ample dispute of the HIV/Aids prevention myth in developed countries like Germany and the USA. Perhaps the fact the majority of Africans don't have abundant supplies of condoms, soap and water has something to do with this, but that's just idle speculation.

How about we supply soap and water and condoms to SSA instead of cutting part of their dicks off!

In terms of western civilisation, the study of sub saharan africa carries no weight.

Just sitting there telling us every reason why in your opinion, the practices that others conduct is not according to your liking, does not equate to a reasonable and well balanced opinion.

It that's the impression I'm giving, I'm doing a bad job. But hey, if you like parents cutting pieces of immune system, nervous system, and primary erogenous zones off their babies for cosmetic or cultural purposes then I really have no come back, but I doubt we're gonna be friends

You have to tell me the good sides of something as well as the bad, if you want me to judge the entire story and come to a reasonable conclusion. Instead you want to downplay the positives, and hype up the negatives.

Positives of circumcision that can't be gained or exceeded without removing body parts?

They are a myth, perpetuated by an industry that greatly profits, religious reps defending their right to ritual surgery and a biased populace that is somewhat blinded by a need to avoid the emotion of guilt or anger at loss (learned helplessness as a child surfacing as an adult perhaps?)

To hear the way you put it, it's like a travesty and a nightmare. But in reality, circumcised men rarely even notice anything to complain about.

From my perspective it IS a travesty. I fully understand that most circ'd men don't see it that way, that will change eventually and is already if this landmark judgement is a sign of things to come. Apparently 250,000+ men are attempting to restore some of their foreskin, so it would appear rare in this case is a bit of an understatement.

Almost all of these complaints are based upon
1) Personal taste / belief
2) Exaggerations or bias
3) Failure to consider alternative or counter views.

1) Yep, I believe it is in bad taste to remove useful body parts from newborns
2) OK I am biased for sure, but according to you, calling an organ a limb is exaggerating
3) I considered them deeply. Your lack of thread reading is showing again. I even posted that I considered getting a circ as an adult. How deeply have you considered the alternative? Any personal investment?

reply to post by muzzleflash


Hi muzzleflash, thanks for contributing to the thread. For discussion sake, a few issues with some of the things you said:

Last I checked, it's illegal to beat up people no matter what excuse you come up with.

Not according to muslim religious tradition. In fact, religious tradition says it is ok to murder people who go against your tradition.

And comparing cutting skin off (which doesn't prevent orgasm), to practices that can indeed prevent orgasm in women, is also out of bounds, it's no better than me comparing circumcision to a hair cut.

Both are religious traditions, why is one ok with you and the other is not?

What I think this really boils down to is that some people believe other kids are their jurisdiction, and they have the authority to tell you what religious traditions you can and cannot follow

So you are ok with the religious tradition of a grown man marrying and having sex with a nine year old? You agree then that killing your daughter because she wears westen clothing is ok? Both religious "traditions".

I can't help but go by historical precedent and posit that such gross abuses of political power over random families to eliminate a religious practice that one faction doesn't agree with. Communist China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, the USSR, etc.

Eliminating religion and eliminating a practice within religion that society deems barbaric are two different things, wouldn't you agree?

If you wanted to be taken seriously on the matter, why don't you discuss the statistics debated on in the article such as:

It has been debated in this thread. The current medical stance taken from US, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, all state that the evidence is inconclusive at best and insufficient as to make circumcision necessary.

Happy Friday!

CJ

reply to post by Crakeur


I understand your point on this Crakeur but why is it that many religious traditions are not acceptable in the eyes of the law and yet muslims and jews continue not only to live in the countries where they are illegal but are growing in number? Last time I checked it is against the law to marry and have sex with a nine year old in the US. Does this correlate to wanting muslims to leave? Spousal abuse is a pretty big legal/societal no-no here too. Are you saying that a secular society is bound to allow any and all religious dictates, no matter how much they go against the laws of the country? Does Germany have the right to say Scientology is a cult and not a religion?

CJ

i dont understand how pro-circ people don't see that the only leg they have to stand on is societal norms. Every other "valid" reason has been invalidated time and time and time again. Instead of working so hard to convince yourselves that what was done to you and your children was ok, why not accept the most recent information and realize that it's a farce. There is no logical reason to continue on. In fact, the MOST convincing reason (to me) to allow circumcision IS religion.

Last post from me. It's been an enjoyable and enlightening thread, thanks CJ.

Muzzleflash, my apologies for not sticking around to see our exchange through.

It's time for me to withdraw into my little hoodie and say ta ta ;0)

reply to post by RogerT3


Why withdraw? There is the issue of the expected shortage of kosher bacon and foreskin face cream.

Do you think I am joking?

reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady


Holy Moley! You weren't kidding in your first post. I thought it was a joke!

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

Holy Moley! You weren't kidding in your first post. I thought it was a joke!

CJ

I am not joking one minute. There are people who will us anything to stay young looking including baby foreskin cream.

If this is what the wealthy admit to, I wonder what they do in secret. Could they be injecting liguidised fetus, do they freebase dessicated baby brains, do they dip dead babies in gold coatings for satanic orgy ceremony offerings?

The mind truly boggles.

When I was in nursing school I was able to observe a circumcision. The baby was given a field block anesthetic (I didn't bother to ask what it was...maybe lidocaine). He still wasn't too pleased about the entire ordeal. What it amounted to was the obstetrician stretching the foreskin and clamping it (think clapperboard) and then running a scalpel across it in one smooth motion. It was rather bloody. All in all, I don't believe that it's necessary, although I was circumcised...I guess I'm fulfilling Abraham's covenant with God or some junk like that.

I think that this law was a good move. If there is a medical necessity to it, then it should absolutely be permissible, but for religious or vanity purposes it should not be an option. I would never have it done to my (nonexistent as of now) children, and if I'd had a choice I would have opted not to have one.

I had to look this up because I'd never known the term en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Update: (although I realize this is too much information)
After about 38 years with a um.. wanna be pseudo-circumsized... "convertible" (that's a good word to describe my situation - read the post replied to for more info), I'm pleased to report that, after a little work getting the "roof" back up (initially not the default position after all that time in the "rolled configuration") that as a "covered" person I'm enjoying newfound comfort (less rubbing in underwear and pants) and increased sentitivity, so there are advantages, in my humble experience, to being uncut and I'm now glad my parents made the decision they did when I was born not to cut (it gives a man options he might not have had otherwise!). To thine own self be true!

Note to self: Don't forget to always clean under the hood every shower!

wow 28 pages deep.

damn.

throw in my 2 cents anyway.

This argument is subject to a silent influence that makes agreement hard (pun). We men love our penises. I don't care where you are from or what culture you practice, if you're a guy... Chances are you really dig your penis. I mean, c'mon, whats not to like?

which brings to mind a joke that the mods may have to edit...

...So i whipped out my two-incher and she said, "Well who are you gonna please with that wee thing?" and I said, "Me!"

But on a more serious note: You will find that the average victim of circumcision still LOVES their penis. This is because they are (usually) otherwise healthy males. And I mean love... like what if the Mob had you, and you had to shoot your best buddy or your penis. hmm. wait let me think a minute...

This reflective, "knee-jerk" love response will prevent many men from agreeing that their genitals were mutilated. This seems to take the fire out of a very legitmate argument..

The argument being that circumcision is violence against babies, violence of the worst kind, a kind of sexual mutilation. I don't care what the reason is, in the future it will look like phrenology or something equally challenged in the smarts department.

Don't think circ is mutilation? Whip it out right now and look at the scars they left on your beloved penis.

now... all you grown men out there.... what would happen if someone you didn't know tried to put NEW scars on your penis without your permission? would you lock and load?

what if they talked about hygiene or disease or even brought up GOD in the attempt to cut off ANOTHER piece of your penis?

how would you react? how would your wife react? would the police have an opinion? would smith and wesson have an opinion?

thank you for your time, sorry about all the penis talk, its just that kind of thread.

and one more thing... Regarding the actual news article that prompted this discussion: It does appear that this law will interfere with the practice of certain religious customs.

Big deal. Yeah that's right, I said it. BFD.

Not EVERY religious or cultural practice is worth dragging with us into the future.

Just to play wicked with the arguments about religious freedom in a modern society..

how would we all respond if Mexico City decided to practice its ancient religion (google Huitzilopochtli... theres a good time)

Or what about the Thuggee cult of Kali, was it wrong to say that they can't practice their religion in our society?

OH WAIT some say, THATS DIFFERENT. THOSE PEOPLE WERE SAVAGES!
whereas I merely want to cut off a piece of my childs genitalia...

Is it possible to worship Huitilopochtli without sacrificing thousands and dancing around in their peeled off skins? It damn well better be if you expect to arrive in the future with the rest of us.

The covenant of Abraham. OK, I dig it, I'm not a dick (pun).

but isnt it already illegal to enter into a contract before legal age? so what if the religious person in question decided, when legally possible, to undergo the surgery that makes him a "real one" of whatever sect we are talking about.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE BABIES?

oh wait. I got it. because anyone who makes it to 18 is gonna think twice about this. at least. maybe more.

reply to post by uwascallywabbit


Thanks for the post uwascallywabbit. As we move forward as a civilized society, often times the norms of religion are forced to change with us, yet the religions themselves remain. The obvious ones, sanctioned murder of heretics, the belief that women are chattle, human sacrifice, torture for masterbation, have gone the way of the caveman, at least in the western world.

Scientology, again, is considered by the USA and many other nations to be a legitamate religion. I can't really recall any big uproar here on ATS or anywhere else for that matter when Germany deemed it to be a cult. I think most people will agree it is. But it is an official religion and so what makes its wacky ways any different than mormanism?

If you can look past "tradition", you would see a grown man sucking blood from a new babies sliced penis as being insane and wrong. It just can't be seen as anything but. I would also like to point out that this tradition has varied over time even within the Jewish religion itself. Many traditions are not in the best interest of society, and many slowly fade (but are held to by a core of people due to it being a "tradition"). These include state and religious traditions.

Can anyone in the west imagine this being legal?



Hey, MOST of the time it is painless, right?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by uwascallywabbit

 

Can anyone in the west imagine this being legal?

CJ

I'm not gonna lie...that looks fun as (poo). I'd much prefer that to the ol' penis slicing with which America seems to be enamored.

reply to post by kabfighter


It may look like fun to an adult, but I am guessing many would disagree. Now imagine the terror of a baby being thrown off a building. I think both practices are not necessary or very forward in thinking.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I'm pretty sure that if I did that now a few shoulders would be dislocated.

Michael Jackson got a lot of heat for holding a kid over a balcony. I'm sure this would make the news and have people up in arms if it happened in the United States.

i played that video for max 5 seconds. The boys face says it all....ughhh....

Originally posted by kabfighter
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I'm pretty sure that if I did that now a few shoulders would be dislocated.

Michael Jackson got a lot of heat for holding a kid over a balcony. I'm sure this would make the news and have people up in arms if it happened in the United States.

I hear you. Considering the amount of folks who have jumped me for thinking circumcision is "normal" I may have been quick with my statement. I keep thinking about a recent even when my 6 year old was riding waves in San Diego and people there were in awe I would let him out that far - up to his waist! Some dad commented to me that I was irresponsible, even though I was out there next to him!

CJ

Originally posted by natters
i played that video for max 5 seconds. The boys face says it all....ughhh....

I think it may be again T&C to post a circumcision vid. If you listen to people on this post, humans enjoy having pieces of their bodies cut off, even with anethesia! I'm sure the babies faces look even more horrified...

CJ