Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court

reply to post by PsykoOps


Don't worry you have made it painfully clear how smart you are. Eeeh.

Yes because if I announce my intellectual superiority it automatically boosts my argument. So there you have it.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Are you criticizing Dave or Aim there? Surely isn't me, I would never dare tell people on a forum how smart I am. You are setting yourself up for too much. The part that bothers me so much about this thread is the inability for most people (you included) to admit that they don't know everything and that maybe people do things differently than you for a reason, and that it's possible our opinions aren't as important as we think they are.

I can't tell you how many times I have deleted this from my recent only to come back and post more. I don't know why I can't leave it alone. I think it is mostly the hypocrisy keeping me here, it is amazing to watch.

Team A: I will do what I think is right, and you can do what you think is right. We are both happy.

Team B: I will do what I think is right, and you will do what I think is right. Its not your place to make a decision for your child, but it is my place to make a decision for you and your child.

I mean it is ridiculous.

Yes because child abuse is parents "decision". That's definately going to hold up in court.

reply to post by PsykoOps


And that might be the perfect punctuation to this thread.

reply to post by Aim64C

 

What does society and the government serving it stand to gain from the formation of such a law? Other than the power to arbitrarily make decisions for people?

Although it is far from uncommon for governments to overstep their bounds in terms of civil liberties and freedoms of the people, unfortunately sometimes it is a necessary evil. I say this as there are still vulnerable groups in society that are being exploited, and unfortunately the people seem unable to protect them sufficiently without the intervention of said government.

Once society can display the ability to look after their vulnerable members without abusing them then the people can reject government involvement in the relationship between parent and child.

reply to post by sputniksteve

 

Team A: I will do what I think is right, and you can do what you think is right. We are both happy.

Team B: I will do what I think is right, and you will do what I think is right. Its not your place to make a decision for your child, but it is my place to make a decision for you and your child.

I mean it is ridiculous.

Team A: I will do what I think is right, and stand by while you do what you think is right for fear of offending you or some religious group.

Team B: I will do what I think is right, and support laws which mean children are not arbitrarily chopped and hacked to adhere to the rules according to some story book.

It is ridiculous.

If a consenting adult wishes to be circumcised, then he can quite easily take that step. Six weeks without sex or masturbation and some discomfort is not a high price to pay to whichever god they worship. In fact, people frequently engage in religious rituals which involve a much greater sacrifice. However, outwith medical problems, there is absolutely no reason what so ever the foreskin should be removed before that point.

www.cirp.org...

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

To those who say circumcision is a choice made to avoid hygiene or medical problems, teach your sons about proper personal hygiene, safe sex, and masturbation.

In short, be a good parent.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'm smarter than the whole forum put together. I say human rights trump parents imaginary friends orders.

/thread

To all the people who are in favour of circumcision, you may or may not have noticed that most of the thread is against it. It's a losing battle. We don't live in biblical times anymore.

People are finally moving forward and getting rid of these silly old traditions.

reply to post by Xaphan


Its a losing battle? 1 country has made it illegal dude. I think whats happening is ya'll aren't too bright in this thread, and certainly aren't a pleasure to have a discussion with so most people will just stay out of the discussion.

Bottom line is none of what was said in this thread means anything. I could still circumcise my kid tomorrow if I wanted and none of the rantings or childish postings in this thread would change that. So you may have "won" this thread but you have "lost" real life. (in regards to circumcision at least)

Post more donuts it makes you look cool.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by Xaphan

 

Its a losing battle? 1 country has made it illegal dude. I think whats happening is ya'll aren't too bright in this thread, and certainly aren't a pleasure to have a discussion with so most people will just stay out of the discussion.

Looks like Aim64C has a pal. Just because you have no good reasons for supporting circumcision does not give you a reason to start insulting other people's intelligence.

No one likes a sore loser.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by Xaphan

 

1 country has made it illegal dude.

Incorrect.

One city in one country has done it.

Cologne is not Germany.

“OK. So even if you were a Vulcanist (en.wikipedia.org...) you would not crop your kid’s ears. But you would be against a law that said a parent (even if they were a Vulcanist) cannot crop their kid’s ears?”
ME
“Precisely.”
Aim64C


I admire Aim64C’s honesty. However, that position implies other positions that most people will disagree with. If involuntary partial amputation of the genital region is allowed (because as Aim64C would claim children are not people and have no right to disagree with any decision made by their parents) then involuntary body alteration should be allowed. For example, if Aim64C is consistent in his reasoning, if a parent wants his child’s forehead tattooed with a swastika, that should be allowed.
I strongly disagree!

reply to post by pieleg


Brilliant. Thanks for coming.

I am sad to see you guys see this thread and website as a win/lose scenario. If "winning" a thread means degrading, abusing, and throwing out libels then I don't want to win a thread ever. Truly in this case the only person "losing" is the one that is unable to discuss a topic without calling someone names and replying in childish posts. You learn absolutely nothing if this is the way you approach a subject. That is certainly not winning.

The fact : More and more males get the chop every year .

I expect yet even more males to get the cut in oncoming years as well .

Maiming a child is wrong whichever way you cut it , pun intended .

Court is technically correct i.e medically speaking " First Do No Harm " comes to mind .

Yet , this particular religious tradition is so widely practiced and accepted by the masses .



Anyhow , what is the conspiracy angle on this subject ?

The foreskins actually can power eternal youth perhaps ?

Damn Stemcells !!!

reply to post by sputniksteve

 

I am sad to see you guys see this thread and website as a win/lose scenario.

I don't consider threads as win/lose situations, however there are threads in which there is an overwhelming opinion on a particular subject.

You learn absolutely nothing if this is the way you approach a subject.

I have learned a lot through this thread, although I have always been against circumcision I am now much more clued up on the issue and am at a loss as to how anyone, when faced with logical evidence, can argue any other point.

I have yet to see any argument supported by published, credible, peer-reviewed research which advocates circumcision to be anything other than unnecessary disfigurement of a vulnerable member of society.

I would love it if yourself or another member in your camp could counter my argument Steve?

reply to post by sputniksteve

I wasn't talking about the legality of circumcision. I meant the fact that most of the thread is against it. So far only Germany has taken legal action, but judging by most of the opinions in this thread, there will probably be many more countries that follow suit it in the near future. Like it or not, the world is changing and emerging from the religious ignorance of the past.

Oh please. Mutilation? Better call my lawyer up and see what I can get for pain and suffering damages. No use going after my parents, they spent most of their money raising me right and giving me a good education, I'll just go after the horrible doctor who assaulted me with that deadly weapon. At the very least maybe I can get payment for a surgery to sew on artificial foreskin

reply to post by pieleg

Although it is far from uncommon for governments to overstep their bounds in terms of civil liberties and freedoms of the people, unfortunately sometimes it is a necessary evil.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "evil."

That is the problem with the entire premise of this argument. The justification for "why shouldn't parents be able to remove the foreskin of their child" is "because I don't think they should." It's a subjective line of reasoning with little objective support (what little there is comes into conflict with objective support for circumcision).

Even legal history is against this. Prohibition and Abortion were both spearheaded by groups that argued the laws would protect aspects of equality and lead to overall sociological improvement. Both failed miserably - both in being enforced, and where it was enforced; the claimed benefits were not seen.

Once society can display the ability to look after their vulnerable members without abusing them then the people can reject government involvement in the relationship between parent and child.

This is a sociological can of worms to establish as a government authority.

As a parent, you are responsible for proper nutrition of a child, correct? Failing to feed a child correctly negatively impacts their present performance and their future performance (and possibly instills them with destructive eating habits). This establishes grounds for government regulation regarding the meals parents can serve to children.

Of course - exactly what constitutes good nutrition is somewhat debated. Should anything not carrying a certified organic label be banned from a child's food plate? Some prominent nutrition experts think so (and there are criticisms from other nutrition experts to this argument).

With improper meal choices, parents can increase the risks for a wide range of cardiac, respiratory, and immunological disorders by an order of magnitude or more.

And what is to be said of the many working men out there who are preyed upon by their wives - cooking unhealthy meals and literally pinning them to their recliners after work (when proper meals would offer them increased energy levels, better alertness, and keener performance overall)? Should someone not take up defense of this group that is unable to adequately defend itself?

It was this same line of logic that led to the banning of abortion. "Who is going to protect the unborn people?"

The problem is that a fetus, baby, and even young children - are not "people." We may look upon them as people because of the potential to become a person - but we do not actually see a person before us when we address them in the present. We defer behavior of the child to the parents. We defer the wealth of a child to the parents. For many years after birth - we still treat a child as an extension of their parents.

Parents make many arbitrary decisions on behalf of a child. While a child has its own internal biases due to genetics and sex; the parents literally make choices based on who they want to see that child become. Similarly, society looks this way upon children. We do not often blame a child for unwarranted violence toward others (as we would an adult). We attempt to instill within them a sense of morality based upon the type of individual we would prefer to interact with.

This is the entire sociological and legal concept behind adulthood. Criminal behavior in a child ("breaking the rules") is quite universally seen as a need to further shape that child's behavior away from such tendencies. Criminal behavior in an adult is seen as grounds to remove that individual from society - via confinement, exile, or execution.

We recognize that, at some point, our neurology becomes far less plastic; no longer responding as well to the views of others. We become our own individuals, far more set in our tendencies than even just a few years ago. Yet, even that individuality is something of an illusion. We were largely influenced by the world around us. Our parents (both in nurture and genetics) were responsible for stimulating our development. Society also played a role in stimulating the development into a form that would eventually gain an awareness that solidified its identity.

But that identity is much the product of other factors well beyond that individual's control. The idea of a self-made personality is a fallacy.

reply to post by Xaphan

People are finally moving forward and getting rid of these silly old traditions.

So, we moved from systems of dominating religious oligarchies to a system allowing religious freedoms to a system of mob oppression.

Because, obviously, if 60% of people think I shouldn't do something - it's their collective right to write laws or, failing that, discriminate against me to the point where I must comply with their demands.

Using that logic, some 80% of Americans claim to be Christian; therefor, bible study class will be mandatory in all schools.

The other 20% can deal with it.

By all means, lets allow parents to beat their children. Cut them. Boil them and feed to little kittens. Just cause it's a bad idea for a society to protect them instead?

“This is a sociological can of worms to establish as a government authority.”
Aim64C
If you are consistent in your reasoning you will have to say (because you think it is OK for a parent to give their kid permanent “Spock ears”) that not allowing a parent to tattoo their child’s forehead with a swastika is only a way to establish a government authority. Do you believe that parents should be allowed to tattoo their kid’s forehead?* Or is your reasoning inconsistent?
Are you against ALL government authority? Should the police and military be abolished?
* Note that you cannot claim that tattooing your child's forehead with a swastika is socially unacceptable and having a freaky kid with Spock ears is.