Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court

reply to post by SibylofErythrae

Yes. Babies heal faster from an unnecessary elective surgery. Stem cells - aren't they great?

Necessity is a difficult factor to assess. The medical benefits are backed up by statistics. Quantifying those medical benefits is a difficult challenge; particularly since the basis for those decisions is usually qualitative in nature (what pertains to the individual as opposed to the population that may be exclusive of the individual) - an inherently subjective process.

It is, however, not stem cells and the faster healing rate of babies that is primarily responsible. It's a combination of factors that have to do with when the surgery is performed. In addition, most of the medical benefits from circumcision are restricted to populations circumcised at or near birth. Adult circumcision conveys far fewer of the benefits inferred from statistics.

What a great argument to continue the practice.

I don't have to argue continuing the practice. Only against your argument of restricting it.

Arguing to continue the practice is essentially an argument of necessity - I would have to demonstrate that you need to go out and have your kids circumcised (in the same way that a parent must make the decision to get their child circumcised or not circumcised). I have to wrestle the concerns against it to the ground.

I take the null standpoint. I argue that the practice should not be restricted as there's not sufficient evidence to illustrate that the procedure causes harm or rights violations that requires government involvement.

Which means that you have to make an argument strongly in support of utilizing government authority to regulate and restrict the process. Which means you must argue the inverse of one arguing for circumcision - a challenge that is logically equal of magnitude.

The other argument along this lines that I really enjoy is the one where women discuss how they prefer docked penises. So essentially, they are considering how well they would like screwing their own son as a basis for a decision.

Read "The Red Queen: Sex and The Evolution of Human Nature."

Vanity is a powerful facet of sexual selection processes:

www.pbs.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Once a selection bias within a population exists - it can rapidly cause a run-away evolutionary process that radically transforms the species in a short order of time (this is likely the reason for our calorie-intensive intelligence that was grossly excessive for practical survival - women liked having behaviorally complex and interesting partners).

We have evolved to exploit these biases. If a woman believes her son will not be considered attractive by his female peers, she will do what she can to correct for it to ensure her genes have an increased probability of being propagated.

It's not whether or not she would want to bone her son. It's whether or not her genetic legacy is going to have a chance of continuing.

And that's the facet of evolution that is often under-emphasized. Most species are not in competition with other species in terms of natural selection and evolution. They are in competition with members of their own species.

And that's the entire concept of the Red Queen Hypothesis - that we're in a genetic (and now behavioral) arms race against each other.

Males are totally capable of making decisions about their own body parts when they reach an age to do so.

But not retroactively.

I can't decide when I'm 24 that I would have liked my parents to use retroviral gene therapy to correct a flaw, or give me heat-ray-vision (the practicality of gene therapy during gestation is much greater than after birth - even more so after the onset of adulthood).

You can't decide now that you want to be circumcised and to have been so since birth (because it's a much more involved procedure, as I've said - and much more expensive). Or vice-versa.

I can't decide that I would have rather my dad teach me more of the dark arts to aluminum diecasting after he's already dead (and when I was more than capable of learning at the age of ten).

There are decisions parents make in the development of the child that cannot be reversed. It's the nature of parenthood and it's the nature of life. You can't seal a kid in box to open when he/she's 21 and expect him/her to be able to make any more reasonable decisions than an infant. Part of life is making decisions and dealing with the consequences - both intended and unintended.

There's no perfect solution.

I don't find it hard at all.

It is an elective procedure that is not life ameloriating, does not correct a fault, has no upside for the foreseeable future of said person. All religious reasons can be accounted for when a person is of age to make the decision themselves, and it could be argued that this is far more inline with a true religious choice.

Nothing is taken away from a male in leaving him the decision. He is left with all his options.

Red Queen syndrome is very interesting. It is also completely cultural here. Take away the normalacy of this action, and the benefit goes away. If your Red Queen believes that binding a babies head will make them more attractive I still don't give a god damn about her stupid opinion. Culture queens can kiss my behind. I'll take respect for a human's right to self-determination any day over their nonsense.

reply to post by Aim64C


you dont see any rights being violated?

so if someone drugs you and then cuts off one of your nipples, would that be a violation of your rights?

its only a nipple, the removal of it isnt detramental to your health, so even if you didnt give consent its not violating your rights as a human being.

reply to post by DaveNorris


And there is clear similarity with something proven to be helpful and your example.

People are doing stupid things for no apparent reason apart from cosmetic (piercing nipples, destroying ears etc.) and I don't see a problem with them doing it, but would object someone doing it on kid.

But as already mentioned many times here, there are good reason for circumcision, and you have right not to do it to your kids, but you can't take my right to do correct things for my kid.

This brings us to grounds of another debate - should parents have a right to terminate pregnancy if doctors notice problems on fetus? What do you think?

reply to post by Aim64C


The benefits of having your legs amputated outweigh the benefits of having them. You dont need to walk anywhere anymore, just wheel around. You dont have to clean your feet. Chances of varicose veins and leg cancer is almost nill, you get to sit most of the day and you get the best parking at the malls.

If the argument saying Circumcision is good then like I said before, with this train of thought then it would be statistically safe to have childrens teeth removed at age 10. This will prevent any type of tooth decay, tooth aches, gum disease, crooked or non symmetrical teeth plus fake teeth last longer, and look better.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I see the point you are making, but your analogies are a little off. Circumcision does not involve the removal of the entire penis, just some extra skin at the edge. There is a difference between removing something that serves no real purpose (like the foreskin) and removing something that serves a specific function (like a leg).

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Aim64C

 

The benefits of having your legs amputated outweigh the benefits of having them. You dont need to walk anywhere anymore, just wheel around. You dont have to clean your feet. Chances of varicose veins and leg cancer is almost nill, you get to sit most of the day and you get the best parking at the malls.

If the argument saying Circumcision is good then like I said before, with this train of thought then it would be statistically safe to have childrens teeth removed at age 10. This will prevent any type of tooth decay, tooth aches, gum disease, crooked or non symmetrical teeth plus fake teeth last longer, and look better.

Yep, you right, circumcision is the same as remove the leg...

Are you serious??

reply to post by SuperFrog


i think that a parent should always do what they think is best for their child, having said that, as far as i can see there are no serious risks to leaving the foreskin were it is, and then maybe waiting till the child is older so he can make up his own mind.

reply to post by DaveNorris



More then once pointed that it is better to do it while child is young. We talked to more then one doctor and all have said the same to us.

Safe procedure, best done on newborn babies and it takes less then a week to heal.

Why wait?

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Foreskin serves a real purpose, just as a leg does.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Because it is not your penis, why do you feel like it is OK to lop off a part of another beings body without their informed consent?

The only argument you guys have left is making analogies to other body parts being cut off against our will in the hopes that we will be too mortified to then keep arguing.

WHY CANT YOU KEEP TO THE TOPIC, FORESKINS. NOT LEGS, NOT NIPPLES, NOT TOES OR PINKIES.

Enough analogies please.

Shadow Herder, you little hypocrit. I saw you in that FB thread.

Great post Op. A very important issue.

One of the most informative (and entertaining) videos I have seen on this subject and which covers just about all the views posted in this thread can easily be found on youtube by typing:

PENN & TELLER. CIRCUMCISION

You will not be dissapointed, For the record I agree with the conclusions reached by Penn & Teller 100%

reply to post by MickC


You might notice, Penn and Teller make it all but impossible to disagree with them by the end of their videos. They are experts in deception and manipulation, keep that in mind. The only people that don't agree with the premise at the end of a Penn and Teller video are idiots that can't follow logic.

Granted you might change your mind after some time and pondering.

reply to post by TKDRL


Interesting, I believe that I am, and not you, guardian of my kids.

It is really puzzling why doctors asked me instead of you before procedure.

I like all the best for my kids, and I consider everything that might save their life and make them more healthier.

Too bad that you guys can't see advantage over your taboo off the topic.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Guardianship, not ownership. Anything other than lifesaving procedures, be it circumcision, piercing ears, tattoos etc, should be up to no one but the owner of that body; When they are of age to form an informed opinion on the matter.

reply to post by TKDRL


So if your 10 year old child wants to get a tattoo and their face pierced will you just allow them to do it? If your 10 year old child wants to chop their limb off will you allow it? It is not your choice whether they do it, is it your choice to stop them?

My guess is no, because you don't think they are of an age to give consent. Yet, then you are essentially making the decision that they can't do that to their body, because you don't think they are old enough to make that decision.

So what age is OK then? 15? 16? 17? 18? The day before turning 18?

My whole point is that as a parent, you sometimes have to make decisions for your child that they and others might eventually disagree with. There is nothing that can be done about that, you are the parent and a decision has to be made so you make it.

I am all for people disagreeing with circumcision. I am against being called a child abuser, mutilator etc.

reply to post by sputniksteve


If I had to make the age cutoff, I would not give a specific age perse. I would say it should be two years after you have left the nest, and are supporting yourself. Life experience is the greatest teacher. People mature at different rates, if you are 30 and still living in the parent's basement free of charge, you should not even be able to drink if you ask me

reply to post by TKDRL


Don't worry there is no right answer. Either way it comes down to the parents making a decision whether or not to let the child make a decision.

I would like to restate there was 1 person in this thread that was unhappy about being circumcised. The rest of the men came to say they were happy about it. This thread isn't so much about foreskin being cut off as it is people saying their opinions and then making a case for why the rest of the world should agree and follow those opinions.

This is not about choices or decisions, it is about the government and individuals saying "I don't like this, I don't agree with this, so NO ONE should be able to participate in it." Well that and making accusations and calling names.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by MickC

 

You might notice, Penn and Teller make it all but impossible to disagree with them by the end of their videos.

Exactly, because the truth is the truth.

They are experts in deception and manipulation, keep that in mind.

True, but remember this is not a magic act. they are presenting logical facts. keep that in mind.

The only people that don't agree with the premise at the end of a Penn and Teller video are idiots that can't follow logic

I can't agree with you there. They are idiots who can follow logic, but who prefere to remain ignorant of the truth.

I am happy to read that you were not damaged and are indeed happy with circumcision, but many people are damaged both physically and psycologically. even one person is too many.

Let individuals make the decisions about their own bodies when they are old enough to understand the facts. Whats the problem with that?

And what about female circumcision is that good too if the guardian says so?