Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court

reply to post by PsykoOps

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?

The difference is that you can demonstrate those behaviors to be unquestionably destructive and of demonstrable detriment to future individuals.

You can also demonstrate them to be completely unnecessary and without any benefits.

When presented with a case where there are no demonstrable benefits from a parental choice and there exists an unquestionable detriment and/or physical harm to a future individual - one can form a legitimate legal basis for government intervention (which then must be supported by the legislative and voter processes to become a law authorizing said intervention).

reply to post by wittgenstein

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?

I was not aware there was currently a law in effect to prevent this.

Regardless, even if parents choose to do this, I see no cause for the establishment of a law regulating it. If a parent wants to get the hammer&sickle tattooed on their child's shoulder blades, I really couldn't care less. I wouldn't do it to my children - and I don't imagine those children would grow up to do it to their children, but I really don't see where it's a problem.

The larger problem would be the implication that the family held racially supremacist views and was likely passing those views down to their children. But, there again - you didn't say: "we should regulate thought in this country." You said, "We should keep parents from tattooing swastikas on their kids heads." (to the effect of).

You're already sliding down the slippery slope, and you don't realize it.

I don't like nazis. I don't like to give them the respect of a capitalized title. However - I don't think that we should start regulating thought (or basing our arguments for regulating parental decisions on fears of "unwanted" opinions being expressed in this country).

I can decide that the nazis are douchebags without a law. And the kid isn't less likely to become a nazi because you made a law that prevented his parents from tattooing him with a symbol or two.

Though why you would get a tattoo on a kid is beyond me. The skin is still growing and changing too much - it would distort the image.

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.

I'm against government authority being utilized based on the emotional whims of a population that considers it an accomplishment to be wrong 20% of the time (as opposed to 35% of the time).

Laws should be formed with a scientific, objective reasoning behind their necessity. Laws should not be formed according to the whims of moral trends, but from the hard mechanics and statistics of functional reasoning.

reply to post by Aim64C

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.

Maybe you do not, but I do see a person and a human being when looking at a baby or a child. I do not see an adult yet, tough.

Child is in no way an extension of the parents. Child is a responsibility of the parents, if anything. Parenthood is primarily about obligations towards the child, and then about parental rights, which are limited to be in harmony with rights of the child as a human being.

You may talk about a can of worms being opened, but the truth is, there is no single society where parent-child relationship is not regulated, the question is only that of a degree. So the can of worms was opened since ancient times.

Chinese one child policy may be a bit strict, but it is much better than the other extreme, failed societes where children are let with their parents in complete anarchy and irresponsible parents breeding like rabbits. China will be the dominant power in 21st century, mark my words, your vision is again unsubstantiated.


There exist so-called individual, or personal rights. These are the ones which should be left alone by any sensible, free society. Their hallmark is that they are concerned with a personal matter, or are conducted between consenting adults. This is your can of worms that should not be opened.

But parental rights are not one of them, despite what many seem to think. They are inter-personal, "public" rights. And thus they are wide open to potential government intervention. Indeed, every more developed society regulates them quite extensively.

The only reason why circumcision is allowed is because it is a tradition and widespread. If not for this entirely irrelevant fact, circumcision would be banned just like female circumcision is. Think about that.

reply to post by Aim64C

It's not just an opinion. Neuropsychological research demonstrates the formation of early neural pathways to be crucial in establishing long-term biases in the system. While the brain retains a very high degree of neural plasticity well into the early 20s for most members of the population - exposure to processes of "indoctrination" are highly effective at manipulating that neural plasticity, as well.

Regulation of neural pathways of the offspring is very real, what do you think "mandatory education" is? It really is a form of mild indoctrination, which children are a subject of for hours five days a week, by law. Also, as another example, psychological abuse of children is outlawed, because of the concern about childs neural pathways.

So the precedent is already there, whatever example you come up with, I can show you we already regulate it. The question is one of degree only. Thats because parental rights are not absolute, they are a balance and a justified subject to government regulation.

reply to post by Xaphan


You are nuts. Use your head and think a second before you open your mouth. This isn’t about the child. This is about how much intrusion the government can make into a family’s life. This isn’t a “brutal” procedure. It’s a medical procedure that in some cultures is part of a religious ceremony. The medical profession has also recommended the procedure for health reasons. The fact that the government can come into someone’s family and start to dictate as to what is deemed acceptable is SCARRY! The next step is that a government can come into your home and tell you what to feed your children, dress your children in and what you teach your children. You free spirits on this site, I would think, would think this is a great intrusion. You probably jumped on it because of the anti-religious implications, and isn’t that what your all about anyway. Anti-religion because religion asks that you be responsible for your actions, and you don’t want that, do you? You have to start thinking with your big head not the little one.

reply to post by Maslo

Child is in no way an extension of the parents.

Genetics and evolution disagree with you.

Child is a responsibility of the parents, if anything. Parenthood is primarily about obligations towards the child,

A responsibility to do what?

To provide an environment where the child can become as competitive as possible with his/her peers. You have a responsibility to your child because it is your genetics being passed on. It's your future.

and then about parental rights, which are limited to be in harmony with rights of the child as a human being.

You cannot extend human rights to a child. Under my rights as a human being - you cannot force me to undergo surgery to remove my tonsils. Under my rights as a human being - you cannot force me to go with you to church - nor could you prevent me from owning a bible or other scripture of religious importance.

These are all things we accept as being parental authority. My parents taught me to wear clothes inside the house. They taught me to speak English (as opposed to teaching me to speak Japanese - a language I would love to have learned).

You can't argue human rights for a child, because it doesn't translate well with the child's capabilities and status.

We would consider it unreasonable for a parent to force a teenager to wear what the parent wanted each day for school. But we consider it responsible for a parent to dress their grade school child and ensure their hair is kempt.

Different "rights" manifest at different ages within children as they develop into an individual. Laws cannot be reasonably created to span this continuum appropriately. Therefor, the law can only apply some of the most primitive and basic of human rights extensions to children in a reasonable manner.

Otherwise, you begin to establish bizarre arbitrary "adulthoods" within legal context. The age at which your parents can't tell you what to wear to school. The age at which your parents can't tell you what to eat. The age at which your parents can't drag you with them to Church, satanic cults, or other groups of common belief systems, etc.

Chinese one child policy may be a bit strict, but it is much better than the other extreme, failed societes where children are let with their parents in complete anarchy and irresponsible parents breeding like rabbits. China will be the dominant power in 21st century, mark my words, your vision is again unsubstantiated.

China is broke and will either collapse into civil war (their history pre-communist revolution) or make a desperate grasp for regional military power and get smacked into the dirt.

India will become the dominant power in the region with South Korea and Japan acting as important nodes of regional activity in the East - the UAE acting as an intermediary in the west.

Though most of this is due to poor economic decisions and a refusal to play on an open field.

But parental rights are not one of them, despite what many seem to think. They are inter-personal, "public" rights. And thus they are wide open to potential government intervention. Indeed, every more developed society regulates them quite extensively.

This is also incorrect. Take a look at the middle east and Africa, and tell me that there is not a regulation of the relationships between parents and their children.

The difference is the type of regulation. Developed nations trend away from such heavily regulated families.

Further - to claim the relationship between the parent and the child as a public affair is to displace the responsibility to the child with a responsibility to the government (which ultimately claims ownership of the child). Which means the government is responsible to the child - a status that cannot be functionally upheld. The government does not have the resources or the corporeal existence to assume responsibility for children.

Current adoption and child services illustrate this point.

The only reason why circumcision is allowed is because it is a tradition and widespread. If not for this entirely irrelevant fact, circumcision would be banned just like female circumcision is. Think about that.

This is also incorrect. Medical benefits of female circumcision cannot be supported. Further, the two procedures are far from equivocal. Female circumcision is far closer to castration in males than circumcision in males.

Cultural reasons for circumcising females tend to revolve around concepts of reducing a female's pleasure and keeping her tied to her husband.

The male equivalent is the Enoch - castrated men who tend to the king's harem. Circumcision was not an effort to subdue males. There are much better ways of keeping them from cucking your wife.

reply to post by Maslo

Regulation of neural pathways of the offspring is very real, what do you think "mandatory education" is? It really is a form of mild indoctrination, which children are a subject of for hours five days a week, by law.

And yet a parent can choose to home school their child, or send their child to a private education institution.

Also, as another example, psychological abuse of children is outlawed, because of the concern about childs neural pathways.

Because it can show a clear detriment to the future individual with no benefits.

You're usually a fairly intelligent individual. If you would try reading my posts, you would quickly find that we are not so different as you seem to think. You're just putting on the blinders and rhino-charging around like you're making a point.

It's not becoming of you.

So the precedent is already there, whatever example you come up with, I can show you we already regulate it. The question is one of degree only. Thats because parental rights are not absolute, they are a balance and a justified subject to government regulation.

Once again - you're stretching this concept quite far.

I can choose to become a nazi and raise my children as such. I can also raise them as a black panther. I can raise them to distrust and hate police - or that the government is planning to put microchips in them and control them like little robots.

Many of those teachings directly conflict with the very laws and principles that our nation was founded upon (THE Constitution as it was originally ratified). Yet we permit them.

But let's support a law to prevent parents from circumcising their children. We can't have a bunch of circumcised school gangs shooting up government property (the school and the children in it).

It's arbitrary reasoning to establish such a law.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by pieleg

 

Demonstrate the necessity of this "evil."

Without it, there would be no consequences for those who choose to beat up their kids, deny them an education, starve them, rape them...

Granted, I don't envision these laws prevented all little boys who would be circumcised from being circumcised. However I think if even a few of them are allowed to make their own choices with regards to their religious affiliations at an appropriate age then it will be worth it.

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).

That is incorrect. There is a wealth of objective information available at the touch of a button which demonstrates that there is no reason other than religious beliefs or tradition to circumcise a child. That in fact even in the event of a medical problem with the foreskin circumcision should only be considered when all other methods fail, and from what I can gather from my research both problems with the foreskin and the subsequent need for circumcision are both extremely rare.

Prohibition and Abortion were both spearheaded by groups that argued the laws would protect aspects of equality and lead to overall sociological improvement.

These are two completely different scenarios. Firstly, prohibition is a whole different topic. But on the subject of abortion, in most developed countries it is only allowed up until a certain point in the pregnancy. So it is still regulated by the government. People can choose to use contraception and not get pregnant at all. However if you choose to have a baby you don't want/can't look after, it is illegal to abandon said baby. I could argue I abandoned my baby for health reasons - I wanted to smoke and smoke is bad for baby's health. Or for religious reasons - I am a member of the church of invisibility. Therefore, although you thought the baby had been abandoned, I was actually right there with it keeping it safe. So how can you argue I was not acting in the best interests of my child?

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

No, it is a decision by the majority that the argument for circumcision is weak and modern society cannot continue to condone it.

And as for all those poor men stuck in their armchairs, I will immediately start a protest group. This situation obviously cannot continue, and the sole contributing factor is their wretched wives' cooking.

reply to post by Aim64C

 

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.

If that 80% of Americans thought that mandatory bible study class in all schools was indeed important then they would use their majority to vote the majority into power making the passing of this bill much, much easier. However, it appears this 80% of Americans recognise it probably isn't the brightest idea.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

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?

You can also demonstrate them to be completely unnecessary and without any benefits.

I have already provided evidence as to why circumcision is completely unnecessary and without any benefits. Where is your evidence that it is not?

reply to post by wittgenstein

 

Laws should be formed with a scientific, objective reasoning behind their necessity. Laws should not be formed according to the whims of moral trends, but from the hard mechanics and statistics of functional reasoning.

You said it better than I ever could. The hard facts are that a tiny minority of boys have any medical problems with their foreskin, and only a tiny minority of those require surgical correction. That said, the logical conclusion is to stop the practice of circumcision on babies and children for non-medical reasons.

reply to post by Aim64C

 

This is also incorrect. Medical benefits of female circumcision cannot be supported. Further, the two procedures are far from equivocal. Female circumcision is far closer to castration in males than circumcision in males.

I fail to see how female circumcision is more like male castration?

And the medical benefits of female circumcision can be supported about the same as for male circumcision. That is, not at all.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Maslo

 

I can choose to become a nazi and raise my children as such. I can also raise them as a black panther. I can raise them to distrust and hate police - or that the government is planning to put microchips in them and control them like little robots.

Many of those teachings directly conflict with the very laws and principles that our nation was founded upon (THE Constitution as it was originally ratified). Yet we permit them.

You can choose to raise your children as nazis. People can believe what they want to, right or wrong, good or bad. It's actions that cause problems.

reply to post by pieleg

Without it, there would be no consequences for those who choose to beat up their kids, deny them an education, starve them, rape them...

I was talking about circumcision. Though I can see how you thought I was talking about much broader concepts.

That is incorrect. There is a wealth of objective information available at the touch of a button which demonstrates that there is no reason other than religious beliefs or tradition to circumcise a child.

Incorrect.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org... ns_experts_say

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

But on the subject of abortion, in most developed countries it is only allowed up until a certain point in the pregnancy. So it is still regulated by the government.

Yet you missed the obvious.

It was illegal to have an abortion at one time in this country - in any form, for any reason.

It didn't work. People still made the choice to get an abortion - and who did it? You had a few doctors running behind-the-scenes abortions in sanitary conditions at the risk of their careers and livelihood - but most turned to hacks.

A repeal of the law was forced. Even major tenants of the law had to be discarded. A woman can choose to have an abortion for any reason in the U.S. There are very few restrictions on the process - because the alternative is women with bicycle spokes sticking out of their hooas.

Banning circumcision will simply create a host of underground circumcision rings operating in bathrooms using box cutters and God only knows what else (a few might have medical training, and even open up their medical facilities like concerned doctors during abortion bans).

No, it is a decision by the majority that the argument for circumcision is weak and modern society cannot continue to condone it.

No, it's the opinion of your little advocacy group.

You're in the minority, despite the amount of noise you make.

If that 80% of Americans thought that mandatory bible study class in all schools was indeed important then they would use their majority to vote the majority into power making the passing of this bill much, much easier. However, it appears this 80% of Americans recognise it probably isn't the brightest idea.

No, they couldn't. The Constitution has laws and forbids the establishment of state religion. While what exactly constitutes a state religion can be debated; that would clearly step over the line.

States ratified the Constitution when they applied and voted for statehood. That Constitution expressly forbids what the law they would be attempting to establish. They would have to change the Constitution before they could change the law.

Which was my point.

I have already provided evidence as to why circumcision is completely unnecessary and without any benefits. Where is your evidence that it is not?

You provided links to sites that use inflammatory language and, essentially, continually restate that circumcision is mutilation and attempts to play off of male paranoia regarding his genitalia.

I've already provided my evidence. But it's the same evidence you live in denial of - so you're not going to accept it as legitimate.

You said it better than I ever could. The hard facts are that a tiny minority of boys have any medical problems with their foreskin, and only a tiny minority of those require surgical correction. That said, the logical conclusion is to stop the practice of circumcision on babies and children for non-medical reasons.

You're skipping a step.

No one is making the argument that circumcision should be mandatory (one would have to demonstrate large medical benefits while demonstrating the failure to circumcise to be a massive risk to society).

You are making the argument that it should be ceased and banned. To do this, you must be able to demonstrate it to be both without benefit and create a great risk to the future individual and/or society.

Else - the null state is the logical default. Government should take no position on it aside from the sanitary concerns of any medical procedure.

reply to post by pieleg

I fail to see how female circumcision is more like male castration?

. . . And you claim to be informed?

www.guttmacher.org...

Infibulation is particularly likely to cause long-term health problems. Because the urethral opening is covered, repeated urinary tract infections are common, and stones may form in the urethra and bladder because of obstruction and infection. If the opening is very small, menstrual flow may be blocked, leading to reproductive tract infections and lowered fertility or sterility. One early study estimated that 20-25% of cases of sterility in northern Sudan can be linked to infibulation.11

Without deinfibulation before childbirth, obstructed labor may occur, causing life-threatening complications for both mother and infant. Because birthrates are high in many countries where infibulation is practiced, a woman's infibulation scar may be cut and resewn many times during her reproductive years.

In addition, the amputation of the clitoris and other sensitive tissue reduces a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure. For infibulated women, the consummation of marriage is likely to be painful because of the small vaginal opening and the lack of elasticity in the scar tissue that forms it. Tearing and bleeding may occur, or the infibulation scar may have to be cut open to allow penetration.

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

Western providers will most likely encounter delayed complications of infibulation,19 whose severity usually correlates with the extent of introital obstruction or scarring. Infibulated women can have keloids, adhesions, and dermoid cysts that obstruct the introitus, or further narrow the vaginal opening. An obstructive vulval skin diaphragm leads to a poor, slow urinary stream, dribbling, incontinence, and vaginal calculi,20 and maintains a blind pouch around the urethra and vagina, resulting in frequent vaginal and urinary tract infections.21 A narrow introitus may also obstruct passage of menstrual blood and result in dysmenorrhea and hematocolpos (painful retention and accumulation of blood in the vagina).

If a woman has recurrent infections, or significant obstruction of urine or menstrual blood, clinicians can refer her to a gynecologist for defibulation or stretching of vaginal tissue. Women with obstructive sequelae may not agree to these procedures prior to first intercourse or marriage. Although such a choice may be frustrating for their clinicians, patients have the right to make this decision, and clinicians can be invaluable to these patients if they manage these problems medically, and gently present these options again on future occasions.

And the medical benefits of female circumcision can be supported about the same as for male circumcision. That is, not at all.

You're new to this whole circumcision discussion thing, aren't you?

It's like the newfound atheist or christian.... any time an individual feels he/she has learned something new - they have to share this knowledge with everyone. The christian tries to throw a bible to everyone they know (or otherwise save everyone); the atheist picks arguments with anyone who has a theistic belief.

After a few years, they settle down and realize that other people have different views and opinions... and it's okay - the world isn't going to implode if they don't spread their ideology to every dissenting individual.

If you're going to compare the medical prognosis of male and female circumcision and make the claim that they are, in any way, similar... you're just on another plane of existence from the one I (and most medical professionals) recognize as reality.

The medical benefits -and- detriments of male circumcision are routinely minor or inconclusive. The strongest evidence is for reduction in STD transmission - which is, understandably, not a strong point of support for most in western societies. That said - there's little objective research showing a detriment (any objective studies showing a detriment also have objective studies showing no significant evidence for that detriment).

In female circumcision, there's nothing but a laundry list of problems. Probably doesn't help that the procedures are often performed with sub-standard tools and facilities... but many of the problems are endemic to the structural change and would persist even when done in proper facilities.

It's apples and oranges.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by pieleg

 

www.hopkinsmedicine.org...

Excellent link, however I fail to see anything in this article that can't be overcome by proper hygiene and safe sex. Again, not an argument for circumcision. Especially in developed nations.

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

This article merely reinforces every argument I have made and undermines yours. Good try though.

And in response to your point about people who would go to questionable characters offering back-street abortions, if that is what people resort to in a developed nation to get their sons circumcised then they absolutely do not deserve to have children. Cue state intervention.

They would have to change the Constitution before they could change the law.

If there was an 80% majority who believed this should be changed, then it is perfectly within their reach.

You provided links to sites that use inflammatory language and, essentially, continually restate that circumcision is mutilation and attempts to play off of male paranoia regarding his genitalia.

I'm afraid you have mixed up the evidence I provided with something else. The links I provided are not biased or inflammatory. I suggest you backtrack a bit and give them another look.

reply to post by Aim64C


All fascinating information, however we can get into the semantics of female circumcision at a different time. The question I asked, and am still waiting for a response to, was how is female circumcision more like male castration than circumcision? Castration involves making a male unable to reproduce. However female circumcision has about as much effect on her ability to reproduce as male circumcision has.

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

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by pieleg

 

And the medical benefits of female circumcision can be supported about the same as for male circumcision. That is, not at all.

You're new to this whole circumcision discussion thing, aren't you?

You're missing the point. I was not stating similarities between the medical benefits of the two procedures. I was stating the fact that both procedures have little to no medical benefits.

I'm a 32 year old male and I confess... I was circumcised due to Religious beliefs without my consent! I'm upset by it. Everything appears to be normal down under, but it should have been my decision. My parents are Jewish people and I fear their beliefs. Any Religion that supports child genital or any mutilation should be a crime and considered child abuse.

Then again; maybe that's just me.

S & F

It was worse for me because I was a teenager when I was snipped. More thoughts were pouring through my head. The anticipation of being mutilated is brutal and has scarred me ever since. Pure religious fanaticism. What type of 'God' would need mutilation to feel more appreciated. I'll tell ya; a very hateful/angry/jealous God, that's who!

reply to post by Aim64C


Wait, did you just use the rarest form of female circumcision to illustrate your point?

I didn't think a person of your vast intelligence would stoop to sensationalism.

The most prevalent form of female circumcision is a Type 1a, clitoral hood removal. And, just like male circumcisions, when performed in non-sterile conditions, frequently leads to infection and complication.

Interestingly, the most common type of male and female circumcisions remove very similar amounts of skin. The only notable difference being that the males foreskin is laden with nerves and the females clitoral hood is not.

Originally posted by Aim64C
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.

That is generally how the law works, yes.

The majority of people think that murder is wrong, therefore it is illegal.
The majority of people think that rape is wrong, therefore it is illegal.
The majority of people think that child abuse is wrong, therefore it is illegal.
The majority of people think that drinking & driving is wrong, therefore it is illegal.

reply to post by pieleg

Excellent link, however I fail to see anything in this article that can't be overcome by proper hygiene and safe sex. Again, not an argument for circumcision. Especially in developed nations.

The problem is that you assume I have to argue for mandatory circumcision. Which is not what I am arguing.

There are medical benefits to circumcision. Just like there are medical benefits to having braces placed on a child (proper hygiene instruction can render braces unnecessary in all but the most extreme of cases).

This article merely reinforces every argument I have made and undermines yours. Good try though.

That would be true if it was... well... true.

And in response to your point about people who would go to questionable characters offering back-street abortions, if that is what people resort to in a developed nation to get their sons circumcised then they absolutely do not deserve to have children. Cue state intervention.

Then you are for population control. The government should be able to authorize only certain people to have children.

Yes?

Here's the problem with your thinking - you don't really want the government to espouse control over people's lives - you simply want your ideals to be adhered to by other people. The government is being used as a means to an end; the accomplishment of a personal agenda.

Once you start down that path - you will get nothing from me but bullets and warheads.

Whether I agree with your ideals or not. That is not what the government is for.

If there was an 80% majority who believed this should be changed, then it is perfectly within their reach.

But there is a bit of a problem. Our society, at least currently, espouses to believe in individual liberties. You cannot have individual liberties and state mandated religion.

That means, at present, the U.S. places the liberties of individuals and the limitations of government authority above and beyond that of religious code. Unless you know of some other way to interpret the Constitution.

The principle of our government is that it cannot be used for any arbitrary tasking, at least at the National level.

I'm afraid you have mixed up the evidence I provided with something else. The links I provided are not biased or inflammatory. I suggest you backtrack a bit and give them another look.

That's a negative. Your sources are blatantly inflammatory and largely supported by activist sites with evidence manufactured from anti-circumcision magazines and other biased sources.

Credible sources almost unanimously come to three conclusions after weighing the data: Circumcision conveys small medical benefits that may or may not be seen as reasonable by parents. The issue of sensitivity loss or other complications resulting from circumcision is moot (complications with circumcision run comparably equal to complications with foreskins - statistical analysis supports neither as a better alternative). Parents should consult with medical professionals on the issue of whether or not to circumcise their child.

Castration involves making a male unable to reproduce. However female circumcision has about as much effect on her ability to reproduce as male circumcision has.

Spare bleeding during intercourse, sterilization, problems with infection, statistically higher chance of birth complications leading to maternal death....

In more mild forms of female circumcision - you may be correct. Though statistical data on those cases and studies of them are considerably lacking.

However, judging from the results of more extreme forms of circumcision - it is unlikely any mild forms of female circumcision would confer reduction in STD transmission, better hygiene, or reduce urinary tract infections, cancers, etc.

Which can be noted in male circumcision.

The two parts - while somewhat similar in concepts - are not necessarily similar in function. Alteration to one sex does not give much indication to how the alteration of the other would compare.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by pieleg

 

The problem is that you assume I have to argue for mandatory circumcision. Which is not what I am arguing.

I do not assume that. I am merely pointing out that laziness, bad parenting and bad hygiene are not good reasons to lop off other people's body parts.

And poor dental hygiene is not a reason people get braces, so that has no place anywhere in this debate.

That would be true if it was... well... true.

You really need to read sources more closely, and pay more attention if you wish to respond.

Then you are for population control. The government should be able to authorize only certain people to have children.

Yes?

No. From a logical standpoint, it would be absolutely ridiculous for parents to seek out some dirty back alley circumcision for their child. It is abusive. If the child really required a circumcision for medical reasons, a lovely clean hospital would be the place to go.

That's a negative. Your sources are blatantly inflammatory and largely supported by activist sites with evidence manufactured from anti-circumcision magazines and other biased sources.

And again we are back here. I will post the links again, perhaps you just did not have time to reread the information.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.cirp.org...

The sources I have provided are not biased. They are not inflammatory. They do use credible, peer-reviewed data as their sources. If you cannot be bothered reading through the information, that's fine. Just don't pretend like you have.

It is unbecoming of you.

The two parts - while somewhat similar in concepts - are not necessarily similar in function. Alteration to one sex does not give much indication to how the alteration of the other would compare.

Regardless, female circumcision is more like male circumcision than castration. Glad we finally solved that side issue.

reply to post by sputniksteve


i was thinking of setting up a new thread discussing intelligence, but i think its something i should leave till ive got more time on my hands. should be an interesting one

reply to post by pieleg

I do not assume that. I am merely pointing out that laziness, bad parenting and bad hygiene are not good reasons to lop off other people's body parts.

You're using inflammatory statements in an appeal to absurdity.

It's no different than braces. Braces confer a physical change, mostly for the benefit of cosmetics. In all but the most extreme of cases, crooked teeth are a personal hygiene issue that requires parents to take the time to teach children how to properly work with their teeth.

Except we choose to place steel plates on them and straighten the teeth out unnaturally in order to comply with cosmetic fashion.

The two are no different. A child can never go back from having braces. Any 'character' they had due to their unique tooth arrangement is forever destroyed by the decision of the parent to put braces on the child.

You really need to read sources more closely, and pay more attention if you wish to respond.

You can't read my posts correctly. Let alone a source.

Tag the section in question.

No. From a logical standpoint, it would be absolutely ridiculous for parents to seek out some dirty back alley circumcision for their child. It is abusive.

Yet people will do it. See the history of the Anti-Abortion laws.

If the child really required a circumcision for medical reasons, a lovely clean hospital would be the place to go.

And lovely clean hospitals were available for people to get abortions deemed medically necessary.

And you still had a bunch of women bleeding out in emergency rooms because of their own personal decision to receive an abortion. Whether you agree with their decision is irrelevant to the fact that they would make that decision regardless of whether or not they were legally entitled to do so.

And again we are back here. I will post the links again, perhaps you just did not have time to reread the information.

You're obviously a little confused. None of these support a ban on circumcision.

From your sources:

The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the circumcision of normal male neonates, infants or children in Australia.11 However, many parents still wish to have their boys circumcised for religious, ethnic, or personal reasons. If these procedures are performed, they should be done after 6 months of age, under general anaesthetic in safe, controlled, appropriate paediatric facilities.

For those of us with functional brains - that reads as: "We do not support mandatory circumcision. We support that a decision to circumcise should be done in a professional and hygienic manner."

There are very few medical indications for circumcision and this is particularly true under 5 years of age. Circumcision for non-medical reasons should be discouraged. However, if parents feel strongly about the issue, safe circumcision outside of the newborn period should be made available to them.

I'll check, and perhaps I'm mixing your posts in with others on this issue - but sources that directly support a ban on non-medical circumcision are always inflammatory and biased; using polls from anti-circumcision websites/magazine ads and the like.

Few groups of medical doctors support an outright ban on circumcision - particularly those who remember the years when abortion was banned. The laws did far more harm than good; and it's difficult to see how a ban on circumcision could accomplish anything good.

Regardless, female circumcision is more like male circumcision than castration. Glad we finally solved that side issue.

That's a negative.

Unless you care to try and back that with some kind of source.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by pieleg

 

You're using inflammatory statements in an appeal to absurdity.

Incorrect. I am merely stating fact.

You can't read my posts correctly. Let alone a source.

Tag the section in question.

From your source www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Review of existing literature supports that most children who are uncircumcised do well from a medical standpoint... Proper penile hygiene should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision.

Yet again your free-flowing opinions are unfounded.

Yet people will do it. See the history of the Anti-Abortion laws.

Some people may go to that extent to circumcise their child, but it does not change the fact that it is a ridiculous and dangerous path to go down for a cosmetic medical procedure.

And you still had a bunch of women bleeding out in emergency rooms because of their own personal decision to receive an abortion.

And when it's the mutilated children screaming from botched back alley circumcisions, the child will not be going home with it's parents. Because it's reckless endangerment of the child.

You're obviously a little confused. None of these support a ban on circumcision.

It appears I am not the confused one here. And as one who claims to be so much and yet does so little while throwing insults at those who don't immediately bow to your opinion, you would think you would pay more attention to what you were saying.

The sources I provided were for the express purpose of disproving the myth that circumcision is a good course of action, especially for babies. Which they do. In an unbiased way. Using medical texts and research from credible sources as their evidence for reaching such conclusions.

If other people provide biased sources, regardless of what they are advocating, then I would give them as much credence as I have given your biased sources in the past. Your apology on that note is accepted.

That's a negative.

Unless you care to try and back that with some kind of source.

I already have, but you have made it perfectly clear you have not paid any attention to the evidence I have provided in the past, so here is the link again.

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

reply to post by Aim64C

It's no different than braces. Braces confer a physical change, mostly for the benefit of cosmetics. In all but the most extreme of cases, crooked teeth are a personal hygiene issue that requires parents to take the time to teach children how to properly work with their teeth.

Except we choose to place steel plates on them and straighten the teeth out unnaturally in order to comply with cosmetic fashion.

The two are no different. A child can never go back from having braces. Any 'character' they had due to their unique tooth arrangement is forever destroyed by the decision of the parent to put braces on the child.

This is a ridiculous analogy. Braces are placed by a medical professional to correct a diagnosed pathology. No medical professional will give you braces if you do not have a medical diagnosis that requires them. And crooked teeth are very often far more than simple cosmetic issue. Improper occlusion can lead to all kinds of dental problems down the road. It is also required to have them while the child is growing up, so there is a reason to give them to children. There is no reason circumcision cannot wait until adulthood.

Unless having a foreskin is recongnised as a pathological condition, it cannot be compared to having crooked teeth in any way.