ForumsWEPRCircumcision banned

139 43327
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
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

****it I am off today. Should be "fatty things". To clarify, I meant "how most of the men involved in porn" in the first paragraph. And finally, "obesity" should have a question mark after it. Curse you absent edit button!

reaperbackinaction
offline
reaperbackinaction
91 posts
Nomad

I don't understand what the remorse is for really.


remorse was the wrong word choice i think, in retrospect i would say something more like any negative feelings. as in feeling it was their right to choose, for any number of reasons, or maybe feeling less like a man. really though, i don't see a huge deal other than the right of choice. it appears that more men from european countries are uncut than men in america, only because porn here is of predominantly cut males. but i guess it depends on what kind you watch. or don't watch. some people have no sexual orientation one way or the other, so i imagine porn might be a bit boring for them.
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

only because porn here is of predominantly cut males


Not the hardcore porn, which a lot of Americans are in to. Most of the paid for sites feature uncircumcised men, for whatever reason. But this is getting off topic.
reaperbackinaction
offline
reaperbackinaction
91 posts
Nomad

might be off topic, but if we can deduce a list of pros and cons for a males entire life-span, the proper choice, at-least in a perfect world, can be attained. i might chalk this on up in the con's list, and perhaps easier cleaning in the pro's. its hard for me to be unbiased however, being a cut male, married, and not actively in porn (you never know i could have been one before).

devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

its hard for me to be unbiased however, being a cut male, married, and not actively in porn (you never know i could have been one before).


Biased sounds so negative, just call it...knowledgeable. ;P

I might be too but oh well, deep down I still think that any law concerning a medical choice a parent makes while the child isn't even out of the hospital yet is a huge waste of time. But whatever, that's just me.

I know that some people, on this thread and off it, say uncircumcised people get more pleasure, but 1.How do you measure pleasure? (See what I did there??? ^_^) 2.Last time I checked, the amount of pleasure someone gets from the sex organs really is just how they function and are made. 3. I think this is just one of those arguments that is impossible to prove or disprove, so it's not really that valid.

I'm sure for some guys the foreskin may get a bit tight, so I'm guessing this would be a con. I wouldn't think it would offer better protection for the penis, but I can't say anything for sure. To make a Pro/Con list like this, I think we may need a few more people.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

@reaperbackinaction, devsaupa,
What would you say about my post on top of page 12, third paragraph?

Pros and cons? Meh... it depends on the individual condition, some need a medical circumcision (who are still completely legal btw, in case you forgot), others are better off uncut. So, yeah...

Concerning children as property, I have to disagree. Children are also members of the society, they're simply not mature yet. The parents fill the role of tutor and take responsibility for their protegee, until he is of age.

Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,421 posts
Nomad

I come from a predominantly Catholic family, what makes you think this practice of circumcision hasn't had a direct effect on me?


It doesn't affect you if a baby in Switzerland or your nneighborhood gets circumcised.

You do when it comes to doing harm to another person against their will. In this case you're irreparably altering a persons body.


Who are you to say what is harmful and what isn't? It is up to the parent to decide and not anyone other than that.

It's not just some flap of skin that gets removed, saying that's all it is would not be accurate.


But you can't say that the removal of a leg is as bad.

Children become adults when they claim self-ownership for their well-being and don't want to be under the care of their parents any longer. Children can be coerced into doing anything, like brushing their teeth, taking a shower, going to bed at a certain time. Adults cannot be coerced into doing anything at all. Your fundamental argument is "Circumcision is harmful and no one should ever do it."

Outlawing practices that are common is not only not going to work, but it's immoral. I created life and I can't mold it to my liking? My decision to feed my child hamburgers and drink coke all the time has no direct effect on you whatsoever, yet one could argue it is harmful.

Parents should not lose their rights when they have children, nor should anyone lose rights when they take care of others.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,421 posts
Nomad

If that labor happens to be sex, human beings.


Too specific. In other words, property. Can corn be property? Can land be property? Can my ideas can be property? Let's say I made all of those things or purchased them from another individual.

Since apparently you have to claim ownership of yourself, and it is not an inherent right? Kind of like how you have to go down to the court house and get your "Unmurderable" card, since you have to be approved for your life to be your own. Right?


What do you think happens at 18?

By what definition of property?


Most.

Your logic is insane.


My logic can think? Really? I never knew it was insane.

So logically, slavery should be allowed?


Your logic is "insane" as well. You jump to conclusions, put words in my mouth, and don't know anything about common law. That's why you're a terrible person to debate.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

Who are you to say what is harmful and what isn't? It is up to the parent to decide and not anyone other than that.

You're putting too much trust in parents that aren't necessarily enough educated/qualified in all matters. Not meant as a critique to parents, they simply can't know everything.

That's why you have official definitions and laws. Circumcision falls under bodily harm that is not illegal if done 1) with consent or 2)out of a medical reason. Since none of the two are true in case of a baby circumcised for religious reasons, it has been found guilty in that case where there have been post-operational complications.

What do you think happens at 18?

At the age of 18 you're given your full rights as a full member of the society, but even before, you're already a member of society, just not a 'full' one. Parents are kinda tutors that take responsibility and have some rights over you, but basically children are already part members and thus no property.
reaperbackinaction
offline
reaperbackinaction
91 posts
Nomad

i can't believe that i actually agree with HahiHa. lets not let this get in the way of our debating relationship. after all there are still plenty of things we disagree on. but like i said, i do agree with you on this. children, from the moment of birth on, are continuously learning how to be a functioning member of society. almost like a pseudo productive member in training. like pretty much any job, you can profit off of someone, and train them to make as much profit as possible, even fire them if you want to but in the end you cannot own them. there was a reason for the emancipation proclamation. if you all recall.


i dare say that we have reached a conclusion on the matter of law involving itself in the medical matters of anyone. although most of us seem to believe that a parent should not have the right to chop things off of their children, no matter how small, it also seems to be wrong for a government to step in and take direct control. anyone up for a compromise? maybe set an age of decision for any male child that wishes to choose for themselves. I would suggest 13 at the youngest. the only issue i can see is judaism, in which the removal of the prepuce is a commandment from god and has been done in infancy for thousands of years. i believe that the jews may be willing to compromise, but, being of jewish descent myself, i know personally that they have a bit of a problem being told what to do.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

It doesn't affect you if a baby in Switzerland or your nneighborhood gets circumcised.


It does impact me when I'm part of the culture that this is being done to.

Who are you to say what is harmful and what isn't? It is up to the parent to decide and not anyone other than that.


Okay, let's use an example. There are people in Africa who believe their children are witches. In response they have fed poison to these children abandoned them and worse. By your logic These parents are perfectly in their right and know that what they are doing is for the children's best interests.

Yes this is a more extreme example than just cutting off the end of a kids penis, but it does demonstrate parents don't' always do what's best for the child. This also demonstrates why religious freedom should have limits.

But you can't say that the removal of a leg is as bad.


Perhaps but there are plenty of other examples I can think of. The breast removal thing sure seemed to raise some uproar.

Outlawing practices that are common is not only not going to work, but it's immoral.


I would call doing unnecessary surgery on those who A) didn't consent and B) can't consent immoral.
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

Thinking about this a bit more, I thought of something. Should there be a law about breastfeeding? Some mothers just don't and there are facts that breastfeeding has health benefits. So are they going to outlaw baby formula because they did not have the consent of the child to breastfeed or not?

Don't forget about the other person who may suffer from all this. Women are less likely to develop cervical cancer from a snipped partner. And it has been proven that uncircumcised men are more at risk for cancers and STD's, this can't be denied. So if someone ends up getting a disease of this sort, does this mean they get to blame their parents for this too? Parents may not always know what's right, but religious or not, can't they have some control? Let's ban infant baptism too. The children don't get to choose so therefore they shouldn't partake. And they should choose whether they want to go to school. Parents have no right telling them to go, especially if it's a religious based school, god forbid. Children need to approve everything that happens to them. Actually, now that I think about it, we should ban the bar/bat mitzvah too. They aren't of proper age yet and are obviously just following their parents rules. What an immoral thing to do to a 13/12 year old. Parents should really just shut the hell up and let the child do what he/she wants. It's his/her life right?

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

So are they going to outlaw baby formula because they did not have the consent of the child to breastfeed or not?


There's multiple reasons for baby formula.

1) Feeding your baby in public places.
2) Twins+
3) Unable to produce enough.

Women are less likely to develop cervical cancer from a snipped partner


Source please. This sounds like a load.

And it has been proven that uncircumcised men are more at risk for cancers and STD's, this can't be denied.


No it hasn't, unless you wish to link a completed study? We've been over how the people who were apart of the study also received education in prevention/safety, which as we all know is effective.

Parents may not always know what's right, but religious or not, can't they have some control?


There's a difference between control and performing surgery which is at the moment unnecessary and permanent to the child without the child's consent.

Let's ban infant baptism too


Not harmful. You pour water on its head and say some words. You may as well be at a party outside and it rains.

The children don't get to choose so therefore they shouldn't partake.


That's not the issue.

The issue is that you're permanently changing the child's body for no immediate or necessary purpose without them consenting or even being able to. There is no reason not to wait until the child is say, 13, and let them decide. If such a reason does occur (like it being too tight or something) it can be done then for a medical purpose.

Parents have no right telling them to go, especially if it's a religious based school, god forbid.


Religious based schools are still required to teach certain curriculum.

I personally don't agree with religious schools, but they're not harmful (to the child at that time) so it's a freedom.

Children need to approve everything that happens to them.


You can argue ridiculous things and cite &quotarents lose their freedoms to children" all you want but it's simply not true. Parents are required to keep their children's well being and not harm them. That is all. No one is saying you can't feed your kid junk food. What people are saying is that you shouldn't be allowed to feed your kid only or mostly junk food (or that that makes you a bad parent if you do.)

Actually, now that I think about it, we should ban the bar/bat mitzvah too.


The child is old enough at that point to voice a nay/yay, and a bar mitzvah is non-harmful.
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

link 1

link 2

Sorry for the lack or creativity, but I'm too tired to think of much more to say.

Parents are required to keep their children's well being and not harm them.


And if they believe with all their heart that circumcision is the best thing for their child, why shouldn't they be able to?
devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

link 1

link 2

Sorry for the lack or creativity, but I'm too tired to think of much more to say.

Parents are required to keep their children's well being and not harm them.


And if they believe with all their heart that circumcision is the best thing for their child, why shouldn't they be able to?
Showing 121-135 of 139