We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Circumcision banned
| 139 | 15961 |
- 139 Replies
Circumcision does no harm to a person, whatsoever. The foreskin is not needed. A person does not feel any less "whole" without it. I do not have a foreskin. I am Jewish. I do not feel like any less of a male without it. I was circumcised when I was 8 days old. I can assure all of you that I do not feel any chronic pain, nor do I remember any pain whatsoever. I challenge all of you to try and remember anything from the first year of your life, much less your first year.
unfortunately my man, I have to contest that. you lost your's in your religious ritual, not all circumcisions are religious. granted, very few parent's consent to a child's circumcision without religious promptings, but it is still around. besides, the law wants consent, which means you can just wait a couple years or so and ask the child. just like how a child can choose his own beliefs or not, he can choose for himself whether of not he really wants the operation. if he says yes, then by all means give him some anesthetic and rip it off, but only if he says so.
did'nt your parents wrote your religion on birth certificate and/or other documents coming with it.
I don't think that really matters. maybe my parents wrote "mormon" for my religion on my birth certificate, but I became an atheist later in life. I chose my own life. that is more or less what this law in germany is doing, giving the child a chance to make a descision on his own terms.
-Blade
i can understand what you say. realy. I live in Israel, wher its almost not even a question if to do it or not, and even here there are peoples {jewish} who dont do it because what you said.
but yet, its quite bother me. its a very significent ritual in jewdisem. and everyone who say how horrible it is, sure, it sound horrible 'from the side', but here in Israel, wher {this sound preety creepy} almost no one have foreskin, i dont find this as a blood ritual like some of you think about it.
you cant ask a kid "what you want to belive in?" "which you prefer, god, god and jesus or god + jesus + muhamad". kids belive in what there parents teach them. sure, some change ther mind, some learn new theories, but most stay in the religion in which they grew up.
if i have to compare it to something, its like banning parents from teaching kids about santa clous, until they are old enough to accept the Christian doctrine and its symbles.
i know its sound a little sily {dont thorn my flesh of because of it}, but come on, do you realy see a kid say "i dont know, the things you Taught me since childhood do look true, but i think that..."? as i said, i dont see any kid choose if to do it or not because of Intelligent opinions, only on the 'ain' of the process.
in the age of , he dont feel any pain mostly. the 'speciel' rabbi, "mohel", do it. many peopel do it in hospitals. its not like they do it with meat knife in a center of a field. its clean and Sterile.
what next? banning parents growing a kid in a male or female way, because they might prefer to be the opposite sex? {there are peoples like that who suffer very much because they borned in "another sex body", they feel like a girl when they are boys, or girls who just feel as boys, even they have the entire body of a girl. so im not making fun on them}.
Circumcision is one of the things that keep teh jews togheter. one of the things who kept us as a united group. i am an atheist too. but i am a proude jew. yea, i despise the religius system, but yet i know wher i come from. how many kids in USA have no clues about there ancestors history? there irish, france or kongish history? i know exectly wher i came from.
we are a small group, less that 15m in a world of 7 billions. we survived thanks to these 'rituals'. if the germans try to say 'you have Freedom of worship, but first let your kids to choose if they wwant to belive in what you do [or, maybe, be christian like the rest of germany]". because thats what its all about. trying to let the child to decide if he want to remind a part in a minority, or join the majority. because lets face it, you cant identify a jew. a russian jews look like russians, ethiopean jew look like ethiopean and french jew look like french.
so for summery, as i said, this ban is questioning the place of parents teaching the kids about there culture. and i think its olny a start. like the banning of hijab in france, these are the start of a new 'anti-minority' wave in europe. banning Circumcision is like banning teaching about religion untuil the child is big enoughe to choose for himself.
im not sure if this is Sanctimonious Europeans or a new nationalism wave.
@danielo
Please understand that the actual case in Germany and the examples you stated, like Santa Claus or religious teachings, are not the same in that circumcision is a mutilation of a part of the body, and even though it might not be very dangerous, it still presents certain risks. This is the main difference; a child will not get a bad infection from being told about Santa.
The goal of all this is not to bother the minorities, it also won't lead to more restrictions unless they have a good reason. In this case the good reason was that a child was harmed following the ritual and the one that did it was spoken guilty, which started the debate and resulted to the overly dramatic media echo we know now.
so for summery, as i said, this ban is questioning the place of parents teaching the kids about there culture. and i think its olny a start. like the banning of hijab in france, these are the start of a new 'anti-minority' wave in europe. banning Circumcision is like banning teaching about religion untuil the child is big enoughe to choose for himself.
im not sure if this is Sanctimonious Europeans or a new nationalism wave.
The parents can teach their children about culture without cutting them. I don't think it's similar to a hijab. You can put on and remove a hijab but you can't choose to have your foreskin on or not once it's been removed. I don't think it's fair to cut off a baby's foreskin and declare that they are a part of a culture or religion without their permission. If the baby later on grows up to want his foreskin removed so he can delcare himself part of whatever culture or religion I have no problem with it. I just don't to have the parents assume that their child will be raised by their expectations, under their religion, and their culture. It doesn't always work out that way and the child has every right to disagree.
Children are often ill equipped to make such choices.
Who are you to say that? Children can say no and yes just the same as you can say no and yes. Drunk people are often "ill equipped" to make decisions as well but they still make decisions and suffer the consequences, or rewards, whatever the case might be, for them.
Who are you to say that? Children can say no and yes just the same as you can say no and yes. Drunk people are often "ill equipped" to make decisions as well but they still make decisions and suffer the consequences, or rewards, whatever the case might be, for them.
bad example, a kid has no prior knowledge in order to make such crucial descisions, while a drunk man has prior knowledge, but chose not to use good judgement. to say that is a gross oversimplification of the actual issue, especially when you consider children as property. if anything, they are more like apprentices, learning and have some say in the matter, but the adult makes the final descision. usually the adult has to make his judgement while taking into account what the child says. that is a better thing to consider them besides things.
-Blade
bad example, a kid has no prior knowledge in order to make such crucial descisions, while a drunk man has prior knowledge, but chose not to use good judgement. to say that is a gross oversimplification of the actual issue, especially when you consider children as property. if anything, they are more like apprentices, learning and have some say in the matter, but the adult makes the final descision. usually the adult has to make his judgement while taking into account what the child says. that is a better thing to consider them besides things.
I have debated this in my head a bit. Are children slaves or are they individuals, and up to what point? Are they they exception the non-aggression principle and should not be free from coercion, and by whom?
http://mises.org/daily/2568/
I suggest you read this to gain a little insight on my perspective .
Who are you to say that? Children can say no and yes just the same as you can say no and yes.
Okay circumcision is often preformed between the first 48 hours to 10 day of birth, so let's ask a child between that age and see what they have to say.
For kids who actually can talk let's find out how their average decision making abilities are by putting them in a situation where they have to fend for themselves living based solely on what decisions they make.
Drunk people are often "ill equipped" to make decisions as well but they still make decisions and suffer the consequences, or rewards, whatever the case might be, for them.
I wouldn't expect a drunk person to make such a decision in a proper manner either. However as an adult, even a drunk one. They have been given the time to develop decision making skills, thus are given certain responsibilities to handle those decision for better or worse.
Circumcision should not be banned, because it is a symbol of a religious covet. That is taking someone's freedom away. And babies don't have a say, you don't get rights until you're 18, at least in America. Circumcision also has health benefits, because the foreskin can actually tear off during intercourse and it also can become infected.
Okay circumcision is often preformed between the first 48 hours to 10 day of birth, so let's ask a child between that age and see what they have to say.
You're missing the point. I used children instead of newborns for a reason. Children can understand what is right and wrong by two years of age. Until a child no longer wants to be owned, the parent has the ability to do whatever he likes with him. Any person should be allowed to buy or sell a child because they are essentially slaves, or property. However, this form of property, in my eyes, is conditional. If the child claims self-ownership, or no longer wants his biological parents to be his guardians, he should have the right to. Read the article I linked.
It brings up interesting points. I'm going to delve a bit into abortion, as well. Abortion is a touchy subject because people have been asking the wrong questions. It isn't a matter of when conception begins, it's a matter of creation of property. In the article, it brings up the point that "if, in some future decade, a scientist becomes able to create human life in the laboratory? The scientist is then the "creator." Must he also have a legal obligation to keep the child alive? And suppose the child is deformed and ill, scarcely human; does he still have a binding legal obligation to maintain the child? And if so, how much of his resources â" his time, energy, money, capital equipment â" should he be legally required to invest to keep the child alive? Where does his obligation stop, and by what criterion?"
"Let us consider the case of poor parents who have a child who gets sick. The sickness is grave enough that the parents in order to obtain the medical care to keep the baby alive, would have to starve themselves. Do the parents have an â¦obligation to lessen the quality of their own lives even to the point of self-extinction to aid the child?"
Parents must be able to make these decisions without being considered criminals. The parents are the ones who are held responsible if anything happens with their child, but they still are told what they can and can't do with their child, even though they created it?
My point here is, parents should have non-consensual ownership of the child until he no longer wants to be owned. I am not in favor of the parent being allowed to do whatever a parent pleases with a child
Once a child claims self-ownership, he is free from the coercion of his parents. However, what if his parents want to murder him while he is owned? Technically they are in possession of him. It is a disgrace that any parent go to the lengths of abusing a child. The only way I can see a parent being incarcerated for maltreatment of his child is by murdering, torturing, mutilating, or sexually abusing him, with intent.
Circumcision should not be banned, because it is a symbol of a religious covet. That is taking someone's freedom away. And babies don't have a say, you don't get rights until you're 18, at least in America. Circumcision also has health benefits, because the foreskin can actually tear off during intercourse and it also can become infected.
1. not in USA, don't drag us into this mix
2. some before the age of 18 are perfectly capable of being able to make such descisions
3.that is an extremely rare phenomenon, which probably doesn't apply in this situation.
I'll get to kevin's comment later.
-Blade
This is the main difference; a child will not get a bad infection from being told about Santa.
Heartbreak is a bad infection :'(
Children can understand what is right and wrong by two years of age.
Most (probably about 99%) of 2 year old's can't speak. Most can't even walk. So, I doubt a 2 year old would be able to make sense out of something such as circumcision. I think the child should not get circumcised unless it has reached an age, for example 14, where he can think much more rationally than before. And then, when the child hits 14, then you ask him, explain why he should/shouldn't and let him decide whether or not he wants to live with less or more skin on his penis.
That's very good for you. Now read the posts on the second page, especially Mages, to see it's not always like that. The foreskin is not really needed but that does not mean that the operation itself isn't automatically painless.
There always are exceptions.
So, if 1% or less of people get complications due to any wild reason it can't be banned because of this.
I was circumcised for medical reasons and my life was no different except for the odd guy thinking I was somehow inferior because I have no foreskin. I can see where they are coming from, it's a practise that is irreversible and out dated but it's not as if you're having your hand chopped off; circumcision is harmless and won't cause anything bad in the future.
In the BBC article it talks about parents choosing but surely it should be the child's choice? What if circumcision is banned and he wants to or, like me, needs to.
Good for Germany! Circumcision is a horrible thing to do to a child. I am sure if I ritually cut of the toe tips of babies, I would be locked up. Why is it any different for foreskins?
Having tight foreskin is really painful, at times it's like someone is pushing a nail through your penis and it gets worse as you get older. If it was banned it would most likely be completely banned rather than just for religious reasons.
The foreskin is not really needed but that does not mean that the operation itself isn't automatically painless.
Ever heard of a little thing called anaesthetics? They relieve all pain during an operation.
Ever heard of a little thing called anaesthetics? They relieve all pain during an operation.
But not afterward. There are known complications, complications have a statistical probability of happening which reflects that they happen to people, and some of them have long-term implications.
In a developed country with a certain standard of hygiene embedded in the culture, there is no evidence that circumcision will, if not indicated for other reasons (i.e. phimosis), confer any real benefit. It's for this reason that the Royal Childrens' Hospital (Melbourne) has ceased to offer elective circumcisions. I stress that this is not the same as banning it, nor does this decision apply to circumcisions in which there is a medical indication.
The difference that circumcision in early childhood makes is still a controversial topic, so I won't be commenting on that at this time.
You must be logged in to post a reply!