German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

[garbon]

I think only an idiot is incapable of noticing a qualitative difference between a parent educating the child in a certain manner and a parent causing irreversible bodily modification to the child. That's all I have to say about Tamas's posts.

If I were facing a choice of being brainwashed for the first 18 years of my life, and having my foreskin chopped off, I'll whip it out faster than Siege after seeing a picture of a pre-teen girl.  That said, there is no reason to dismiss small victories just because big victories are out of reach.

Perhaps, but the problem with "brainwashing" is that it gets into the delicate grounds of parent's apparent right to educate his or her children (which I think is definitely not absolute and should be significantly curbed but a lot of people feel differently), whereas body mutilation is more of a clear cut (pardon the pun) issue. So you gotta pick your battles when fighting the hydra of religion.

Except that many people circumcised their children for reasons completely to religion.

[CountDeMoney]

Except that many people circumcised their children for reasons completely to religion.

If it involves kids and dicks, Marty's there to defend their honor with all his might.

[Martinus]

I'm pretty sure German doctors' organization will decide there are no recognizable health benefits to circumcision so Malthus's hysterical tirades are for naught.

[Viking]

Adjectives adjectives. There are no "noted" positive effects. You just have one less body part to get infected. Admittedly a body part well suited to grow bacteria, but still, the only benefit is that the foreskin is no longer there to get infected or infect somebody else.

Doctors don't recommend this procedure to deal with the supposed need.

They just did in South Africa.

1 - Germany is not about be be destroyed by a rampaging AIDS epidemic.
2 - German health care is not sub-standard like South Africa's
3 - If I invent a procedure which makes anal sex impossible, how is that different (as seen by South African Doctors) from male infant circumcision?

[Martinus]

Americans and Canadians are idiots. Film at 11.

[garbon]

Except that many people circumcised their children for reasons completely to religion.

If it involves kids and dicks, Marty's there to defend their honor with all his might.

[garbon]

Americans and Canadians are idiots. Film at 11.

Euros wan't too much government involvement in their peckers.

[Eddie Teach]

Americans and Canadians are idiots. Film at 11.

Euros wan't too much government involvement in their peckers.

Does this mean Americans want more parental involvement?

[Martinus]

Americans and Canadians are idiots. Film at 11.

Euros wan't too much government involvement in their peckers.

Does this mean Americans want more parental involvement?

That or involvement of old perverted Jews with herpes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/baby-dies-circumcision-ritual-herpes_n_1322420.html

I'd rather have the German government tell parents that no, they can't let an old guy suck their baby boys' dicks, thank you very much.

[Iormlund]

Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?

Do you support giving girls breast implants then?

[garbon]

Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?

Do you support giving girls breast implants then?

Not a minor procedure.

[garbon]

That or involvement of old perverted Jews with herpes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/baby-dies-circumcision-ritual-herpes_n_1322420.html

I'd rather have the German government tell parents that no, they can't let an old guy suck their baby boys' dicks, thank you very much.

Most Americans and Canadians don't have circumcisions attend by the physician's mouth on the baby's penis.

[The Brain]

I don't think it's important that I have the right to cut up a baby's penis for no medical reason. The German decision appears to be reasonable.

[Malthus]

No, I'm saying that the only benefits you get from removing he foreskin is avoiding diseases of the foreskin. Just like removing the teeth will prevent all diseases of the teeth and removing the appendix will prevent diseases of the appendix. And I am saying that you will also avoid all these diseases of the foreskin by keeping it clean and having safe sex.

I am impressed to see AIDS defined as "a disease of the foreskin". 

Motivated reasoning. Infant foreskin removal is never done for medical reasons without some pathology (phimosis) and when it is done without some pathology it is only done for religious and cultural reasons. There is not a perfectly acceptable non-religious case. I can say this because the argument is accepted by no-one. It is only used to justify and support the religious motivation; much like Halal/Kosher slaughter.

I am equally impressed to note that North Americans are now all religious Jews and Muslims.

It is an "assault" because it does physical harm without medical justification to a person who is incapable of deciding if they want this done or not.

Like the above-noted cosmetic orthodontia? That also an "assault"?

"Medical justification" is, by any rational meaning of the term, weighing of benefits versus risks. Where both are minor, as in this case, there is no reasonable point from a liberty persective in the state legislating the issue, is there?

Face facts - if this didn't involve religion, you would not care. IT is more about the motives of those proposing state intervention, than it is about the absurdly trivial "harm" inflicted on infants.

[Malthus]

Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?

Do you support giving girls breast implants then?

Do you support arresting pediatric othodontists, then?