ForumsWEPRCircumcision banned

139 43334
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,825 posts
Nomad

this and this article states that a court in germany has banned circumcision stating that child did not consent to it.
My opinion, "WTF"
What are your thoughts on this?

  • 139 Replies
DSM
offline
DSM
1,303 posts
Nomad

That's a personal decision to make, unlike circumcision where someone else is deciding for you.


They are not deciding something that could effect you negatively in the future.

If you removed a girls breast it's not like she was old enough to remember it. It would be like she was born without it.


that in the other hand will effect the girl in the future.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

I suppose another comparison could be to the permanent removal of finger or toenails.

Funny but I also had that thought.

So was it from circumcision or sex education that we see this 40% some odd % reduction?

Lol yeah. If this is the case, then that study doesn't give any exploitable result...

that in the other hand will effect the girl in the future.

"If that the reason it should be banned, then there is allot other things that should be banned as well. We cant help people like that in general. There will always be very small amount of people who just wont be satisfied the way things work. That why the society should focus on the majority, and help the minority with other means."
- DSM
DSM
offline
DSM
1,303 posts
Nomad

That why the society should focus on the majority, and help the minority with other means."
- DSM
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

majority

How to know a girl would be unsatisfied in the majority of cases when growing up with only one breast?

--
I checked what I could find about the German penal code and it's definition of bodily harm. Bodily harm also includes medical treatment for healing purposes, which are only legal if there is a consent OR a justifying emergency.

I'm not instructed in all the finesses of that law, but it seems by judging that one doctor guilty of bodily harm, they simply applied the already-existing laws.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

They are not deciding something that could effect you negatively in the future.


It could have a reduced sexual sensation. I would call that a negative effect. But this is sidestepping my counterpoint that drinking alcohol is self inflicted while circumcision often times is not.

that in the other hand will effect the girl in the future.


There can be effects resulting from circumcision as well. The only real effect it would have on a girl is because it's not part of the cultural norm to have a breast missing. If it were the argument would be reversed. Just as it is with circumcision.
pickpocket
offline
pickpocket
5,956 posts
Shepherd

Oh, silly Germans and their ways at annoying Jewish people.

I laughed. I going to h*ll aren`t I?
It could have a reduced sexual sensation. I would call that a negative effect.

Heck yeah thats a negative affect!
Alright, excuse my lake of knowledge but why do religions do this? I know Jewish people and well.....im trying to think of a way so it doesnt sound gay.... Im fairly confident that that didnt happen to them. Its a lot different from something like baptism in my point of view. Baptism is when your cleaned of original sin. all they do is put some what on your forehead. they dont go and chop you d*ck off!
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

but why do religions do this?


Tradition. A long time ago, Christians/Jews thought it was unclean to have a foreskin still on. And we know how religion loves to hang on to it's traditions. But honestly, why ban something as stupid as this? Isn't there other **** going on that people should be focusing on? Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but if people are *****ing about what is/is not on their penis and pushing a law to ban this, they need to check their priorities. This is almost exactly the same as the abortion issue. It's a personal choice that a government should not get involved in. If you want to hold a grudge against your parents for doing something they thought was right, go ahead. But really, that is between you and them, not you, them, and any sort of government.
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

Oh, silly Germans and their ways at annoying Jewish people.
I laughed. I going to h*ll aren`t I?


I chuckled at that too. We can go to hell together.

(sorry for DP)
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

Oh, silly Germans and their ways at annoying Jewish people.
I laughed. I going to h*ll aren`t I?


I chuckled at that too. We can go to hell together.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but if people are *****ing about what is/is not on their penis and pushing a law to ban this, they need to check their priorities.


Sometimes these smaller battles can lead to bigger wins.

This is almost exactly the same as the abortion issue. It's a personal choice that a government should not get involved in.


I can see where someone might draw similarities but there are key differences. First off it's questionable whether the child involved has even developed personhood. Secondly with abortion we aren't just dealing with a case arguing for the rights of the child but also that of the right of the mothers body and for her to have say over her body. With circumcision the issues that would put personhood into question are largely past for the child and the child is now outside the mothers body so that we no longer have to consider the right for the mother to have control over her own body. It becomes solely the question of the rights of the child to have control over their own body.
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

I can see what you are saying, but does that mean that the parents can't have a say if, for instance, there is a complication at birth and the doctors could do one thing that will probably save the babies life but will physically impair him for the rest of his life, or leave it alone and hope the child makes it through? Who would decide how to treat him/her? Would the doctors make that choice? I understand that circumcision isn't a life-threatening or physically impairing procedure, but just where do we draw the line between the parents right to parent, and the child's right as a person to make that choice for himself?

VirtualLife
offline
VirtualLife
276 posts
Nomad

Oh please, I've heard that line from my parents a billion and one times before. Just because the parents do something, it doesn't mean it's alright and that no one has any rights to interfere with it. My parents beat the **** out of me practically every day, and their response would always be "He's my kid, he needs to toughen up". Doesn't make it alright. Although it did bring advantages, I despised my parents back then.


Okay I'm not saying that we should let parents beat their children. But as long as the parents are being responsible parents and not berating their children or beating them people should just leave parenting up to the parent. In certain cases we should interfere with the parents and take the children away or make them stop. But not in something like a circumcision.

Same like how parents aren't magical beings, and whatever they do is always right and good because, well, he/she's a parent! It doesn't work like that. You can't know what will and will not have an impact on the kids' future life.


I understand that, but studies show that a child still needs parental involvement in their lives to be the best they can. While some kids can get along fine without a parent parenting, most cannot. Parents will not screw a kid up most of the time. In fact, there are more times of a kid getting screwed up because of a lack of parental involvement than a kid getting screwed up because of an excess of parental involvement.

It's amazing how I've been gone for one whole day and I've missed so much in this argument. Curse doing fun things away from the computer.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

I can see what you are saying, but does that mean that the parents can't have a say if, for instance, there is a complication at birth and the doctors could do one thing that will probably save the babies life but will physically impair him for the rest of his life, or leave it alone and hope the child makes it through?


There again is a difference here in that this is a life threatening situation while circumcision is just cosmetic.

In certain cases we should interfere with the parents and take the children away or make them stop. But not in something like a circumcision.


The removal of the clitoral hood is consider genital mutilation, thus abuse to the child. Why is it suddenly different because it's a penis being mutilated?
VirtualLife
offline
VirtualLife
276 posts
Nomad

The removal of the clitoral hood is consider genital mutilation, thus abuse to the child. Why is it suddenly different because it's a penis being mutilated?


It's not a mutilation. The removal of the clitoral hood isn't necessarily considered genital mutilation either. I don't understand how you can say that medically removing an optional body part is mutilation. When I think of mutilation, I think of maiming, such as chopping off an arm or leg. Your logic fails me. Some of the best parents I know had their kids circumcised, while some of the worst parents I know didn't. You shouldn't base parental quality on circumcision.

There again is a difference here in that this is a life threatening situation while circumcision is just cosmetic.


But to some people it is more than cosmetic. The practice is still widely encouraged because it is said to give health benefits that uncircumcised doesn't. To some people it is also extremely important in culture. I don't think you should take away that right from parents.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

It's not a mutilation. The removal of the clitoral hood isn't necessarily considered genital mutilation either. I don't understand how you can say that medically removing an optional body part is mutilation.


Female genital mutilation as defined by the World Health Organization "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."
As for the religious freedom to do male circumcision religious reasons is what's going on for FGM.


-Where FGM is a social convention, the social pressure to conform to what others do and have been doing is a strong motivation to perpetuate the practice.
-FGM is often considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly, and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage.
-FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist "illicit" sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed (type 3 above), the fear of the pain of opening it, and the fear that this will be found out, is expected to further discourage "illicit" sexual intercourse among women with this type of FGM.
-FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are âcleanâ and "beautiful" after removal of body parts that are considered "male" or "unclean".
-Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support.
-Religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others contribute to its elimination.
-Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcisers, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice.
-In most societies, FGM is considered a cultural tradition, which is often used as an argument for its continuation.
-In some societies, recent adoption of the practice is linked to copying the traditions of neighbouring groups. Sometimes it has started as part of a wider religious or traditional revival movement.
-In some societies, FGM is practised by new groups when they move into areas where the local population practice FGM.

(again from W.H.O.)


Female Genital mutilation has been a federal crime since 1996.
It's a crime in the UK, Australia, and at least 20 states in the US.

This is why people try to tack this health benefit to male circumcision. Something that I have already shown to be using fudged data in the studies conducted. I see it as nothing more than an attempt to tack this health benefit argument on so they can have an excuse to continue mutilating kids. And yes it is mutilation!

But to some people it is more than cosmetic. The practice is still widely encouraged because it is said to give health benefits that uncircumcised doesn't. To some people it is also extremely important in culture. I don't think you should take away that right from parents.


Health benefits are fudged and I would be willing to bet likely don't exist or at the very least can be circumvented through other less evasive means. Both male circumcision and FGM have religious backing for doing it so I don't see that as being a reason to allow one but not the other when you're essentially doing the same **** thing.
Showing 91-105 of 139