Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders

[Unkotare]

Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:

A judge at a Cologne court said that the circumcision of minors went against a child's interests because it led to a physical alteration of the body, and because people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation.

The bold portion is what I wish to comment on. Just because a child is circumcised doesn't mean they belong to a religion. Many people are circumcised, and many of those people have no religion.

Also, what of parents who have their young children baptised into their religion? While baptism isn't altering a part of the body, aren't these parents determining the religious affiliation of the child, while the child is too young to make their own decisions?

For the record, I am fine with circumcision, as long as it is performed by a trained professional - and I would also prefer that a general anaesthetic be used to prevent the child feeling pain.

Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.

Link?

 

[Vidi]

Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:



The bold portion is what I wish to comment on. Just because a child is circumcised doesn't mean they belong to a religion. Many people are circumcised, and many of those people have no religion.

Also, what of parents who have their young children baptised into their religion? While baptism isn't altering a part of the body, aren't these parents determining the religious affiliation of the child, while the child is too young to make their own decisions?

For the record, I am fine with circumcision, as long as it is performed by a trained professional - and I would also prefer that a general anaesthetic be used to prevent the child feeling pain.

Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.

Link?

How about YOU provide some for a change? Wouldnt THAT be refreshing?

 

[beagle9]

Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:

A judge at a Cologne court said that the circumcision of minors went against a child's interests because it led to a physical alteration of the body, and because people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation.

The bold portion is what I wish to comment on. Just because a child is circumcised doesn't mean they belong to a religion. Many people are circumcised, and many of those people have no religion.

Also, what of parents who have their young children baptised into their religion? While baptism isn't altering a part of the body, aren't these parents determining the religious affiliation of the child, while the child is too young to make their own decisions?

For the record, I am fine with circumcision, as long as it is performed by a trained professional - and I would also prefer that a general anaesthetic be used to prevent the child feeling pain.

It's like the State is offended that the Parents have any Authority over the child.

Yes, the state as it exsist more and more these days, and for which has gotten everything turned completely upside down now in the world, doth seek after us more and more in order to gain control over us who are in the world, especially upon these mysterious days in which we all now do live.. Lets just hope that what goes on in Germany doesn't soon come here, but I think that it already has in many ways, so just be ready to deal with it all, and that is all I can say about it at this time...

We look too and fro within the virtual worlds as so many millions now doth rome, and we do this in search of our lost identities, for which we had given up within the real world in which we once had known...... Beagle9 a U.S. Inet Citizen, in the year of our Lord 2012.

 

[Unkotare]

Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.

Link?

How about YOU provide some for a change? Wouldnt THAT be refreshing?

I've provided more links than anyone else on this thread.

 

[Vidi]

back to the subject,

My position is this.

Infant circumcision is the willful mutliation of a child. That child has no chance to choose if this permanent removal of his organ is something he even wants done to him and should therefore be considered a violation of his rights.

If an adult wants to have it done then thats their choice, do what you got to do.

Go ahead, Unk, shoot it down. Explain to us how that child has no rights and therefore amputating one of his body parts is completely acceptable.

 

[Vidi]

Link?

How about YOU provide some for a change? Wouldnt THAT be refreshing?

I've provided more links than anyone else on this thread.

You ignored my deluge of links in your count obviously.

EDIT:

You may give me shit for my spelling but Im going to give you shit for your MATH. SFCalifornia provided more links in ONE POST than you have this entire thread. Try again, Professor.

 

[Unkotare]

back to the subject,

My position is this.

Infant circumcision is the willful mutliation of a child. That child has no chance to choose if this permanent removal of his organ is something he even wants done to him and should therefore be considered a violation of his rights.

If an adult wants to have it done then thats their choice, do what you got to do.

Go ahead, Unk, shoot it down. Explain to us how that child has no rights and therefore amputating one of his body parts is completely acceptable.

Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.

 

[Unkotare]

How about YOU provide some for a change? Wouldnt THAT be refreshing?

I've provided more links than anyone else on this thread.

You ignored my deluge of links in your count obviously.

EDIT:

You may give me shit for my spelling but Im going to give you shit for your MATH. SFCalifornia provided more links in ONE POST than you have this entire thread. Try again, Professor.

Try reading the entire thread.

 

[Vidi]

back to the subject,

My position is this.

Infant circumcision is the willful mutliation of a child. That child has no chance to choose if this permanent removal of his organ is something he even wants done to him and should therefore be considered a violation of his rights.

If an adult wants to have it done then thats their choice, do what you got to do.

Go ahead, Unk, shoot it down. Explain to us how that child has no rights and therefore amputating one of his body parts is completely acceptable.

Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.

Because its a decision that has life long negative implications. Whats so hard for you to understand?

Would you support parents amputating every childs left hand because their religion said so? Or because they thought it was cleanlier?

 

[Vidi]

I've provided more links than anyone else on this thread.

You ignored my deluge of links in your count obviously.

EDIT:

You may give me shit for my spelling but Im going to give you shit for your MATH. SFCalifornia provided more links in ONE POST than you have this entire thread. Try again, Professor.

Try reading the entire thread.

I did. Try a calculator next time. Stop dodging with the derails.

 

[Political Junky]

back to the subject,

My position is this.

Infant circumcision is the willful mutliation of a child. That child has no chance to choose if this permanent removal of his organ is something he even wants done to him and should therefore be considered a violation of his rights.

If an adult wants to have it done then thats their choice, do what you got to do.

Go ahead, Unk, shoot it down. Explain to us how that child has no rights and therefore amputating one of his body parts is completely acceptable.

Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.

Even when there's absolutely no good medical reason to do it.

 

[Vidi]

back to the subject,

My position is this.

Infant circumcision is the willful mutliation of a child. That child has no chance to choose if this permanent removal of his organ is something he even wants done to him and should therefore be considered a violation of his rights.

If an adult wants to have it done then thats their choice, do what you got to do.

Go ahead, Unk, shoot it down. Explain to us how that child has no rights and therefore amputating one of his body parts is completely acceptable.

Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.

Even when there's absolutely no good medical reason to do it.

and if we are discussing Christians, the New Testament says its unnecessary for salvation.

 

[Political Junky]

Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.

Even when there's absolutely no good medical reason to do it.

and if we are discussing Christians, the New Testament says its unnecessary for salvation.

It goes back to American puritanical beliefs, as outlined in an earlier post.

 

[Unkotare]

back to the subject,

My position is this.

Infant circumcision is the willful mutliation of a child. That child has no chance to choose if this permanent removal of his organ is something he even wants done to him and should therefore be considered a violation of his rights.

If an adult wants to have it done then thats their choice, do what you got to do.

Go ahead, Unk, shoot it down. Explain to us how that child has no rights and therefore amputating one of his body parts is completely acceptable.

Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.

Because its[sic] a decision that has life long[sic] negative implications.

Your opinion has been noted. You are just repeating yourself. The parents decide; that's it.

 

[Unkotare]

back to the subject,

My position is this.

Infant circumcision is the willful mutliation of a child. That child has no chance to choose if this permanent removal of his organ is something he even wants done to him and should therefore be considered a violation of his rights.

If an adult wants to have it done then thats their choice, do what you got to do.

Go ahead, Unk, shoot it down. Explain to us how that child has no rights and therefore amputating one of his body parts is completely acceptable.

Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.

Even when there's absolutely no good medical reason to do it.

Many, many sources have been provided that indicate good medical reasons to do it.

 

[Vidi]

Why do you just want to repeat the same thing over and over? What's the point of that? I've told you many times that the parents decide for the child at that age, as they will make many decisions for the child. That's what parents do.

Even when there's absolutely no good medical reason to do it.

Many, many sources have been provided that indicate good medical reasons to do it.

No. ONE source says that it can help prevent the spread of HIV in Africa. That same source said that it was unclear if the effect would be the same in developed nations.

EVERY other source ( the ones YOU provided ) all said it reduced risks by less than 1%, which in sciencespeak means not at all.

 

[Unkotare]

Even when there's absolutely no good medical reason to do it.

Many, many sources have been provided that indicate good medical reasons to do it.

No.

Yes. If you had read all the many links I provided you would know that.

 

[Vidi]

Many, many sources have been provided that indicate good medical reasons to do it.

No.

Yes. If you had read all the many links I provided you would know that.

I read your links and I have judged them properly. Thats why you cut out that part of the quote and left only the "no". You cant be fettered with "facts" can you?

 

[Noomi]

Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.

I am not religious, yet if I ever have a son, he will be circumcised as soon as I can get it done. He is my son and I want what is best for him, like any parent. He will not suffer with his foreskin removed, he will still be able to engage in sexual activity. Circumcision is harmless as long as it is done properly.

Because its a decision that has life long negative implications. Whats so hard for you to understand?

Would you support parents amputating every childs left hand because their religion said so? Or because they thought it was cleanlier?

Why does something which was performed in the childs first few weeks of life someho come back to affect them many years later?
Perhaps if the anti circumcision crowd didn't ram their beliefs down the throats of those who have been circumcised, making them believe they are somehow abnormal, there wouldn't be any 'life long negative implications'.

Those against circumcision somehow think that their sex life is not as good as it could be. Yet they have no idea what sex would be like if they did have a foreskin. They don't know if it would be better, or worse, or even painful due to the foreskin being too tight. They simply assume that because the foreskin has many nerve endings, that sex would be better.
These men can still achieve orgasm, they can still enjoy sex, and they can still father children, yet they complain.

It makes me wonder whether these men don't blame circumcision for their shitty sex lives.

 

[Unkotare]

No.

Yes. If you had read all the many links I provided you would know that.

I read your links and I have judged them properly.

Are you a physician?