German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

[The Brain]

Cowering to your Zionist overlords ain't gonna get you a jobby job. 

Shit, you know that wouldn't happen anyway. FAMILY ONLY GOYEM NEED NOT APPLY

Golem?

[CountDeMoney]

Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?

Do you support giving girls breast implants then?

Not a minor procedure.

Both are outpatient procedures.

LOL, maybe if you're gluing on pasties.

[The Brain]

Btw, I've heard that in America people get put under AT THE FUCKING DENTIST. Yeah, they're that pussified.

[Valmy]

But still, do you think that parents should be permitted to do minor religiously motivated elective cosmetic surgery on infants?

There is a religion that motivates breast implants on infant girls?  Caligaism?

[Viking]

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". 

It is also a disease of the rest of the body. However, you are being disengenous here. You know very well what I am talking about. I expect you to be above mendacious cheap shots.

Removing the foreskin will not enable you to avoid AIDS. It will lower your probability of getting it provided you engage in regular unsafe sex.

You are not "impressed" here you are building a strawman.

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.

As above. Making up shit isn't an argument. American Christians circumcise for religious reasons as well. You don't deal with my argument in any way you just make shit up.

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.

The Medical Justification is the one provided by the German version of the AMA. They are the specialists and they are the ones not only tasked with making such judgments but they are also the ones skilled and equipped to make such judgments.

I have faced the facts - if this didn't involve religion PEOPLE WOULD LISTEN TO THE ADVICE OF THEIR DOCTOR!

To paraphrase Hitchens, Evil people will mutilate children, Good people will care for them, but for Good people to mutilate children you need religion.

[Maximus]

True but because it is a relative minor procedure than I'm not really sure the basis for complaint lies, especially not if most people are fine with it.

The procedure is minor but is the effect? To determine this I feel we would need the input of a statistically significant number of men who have experience both with and without a foreskin. Such a sample may be hard to find though, since the procedure is typically performed before the age of consent.

[Viking]

But still, do you think that parents should be permitted to do minor religiously motivated elective cosmetic surgery on infants?

There is a religion that motivates breast implants on infant girls?  Caligaism?

Founded it in CivV started as a religion of love.

I didn't bring up breast implants, Garbon did. I argued that most civilized countries ban breast implants on infants for good reason. Or, I was keeping the Illegal nature of breast implants for infants as a ready argument for when Garbon actually answered that question.

[Maximus]

Watching Euros cry about their incorrect penises is funny.

So body modifications are correct now? Interesting.

I did not realize bodily modifications had an inherent correctness or falseness associated with them.

Neil has railed against body modifications before.

[The Brain]

If I had a religion I sure as heck would think twice before claiming that penis-cutting was an important part of it.

[Maximus]

If I had a religion I sure as heck would think twice before claiming that penis-cutting was an important part of it.

It only takes one guy.

[Viking]

If I had a religion I sure as heck would think twice before claiming that penis-cutting was an important part of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KXmcNfEFMI

[derspiess]

Btw, I've heard that in America people get put under AT THE FUCKING DENTIST. Yeah, they're that pussified.

Only in cases of extreme pussification.

I'm either building a tolerance to novocaine or my dentist uses diluted stuff, but the last time I had a filling my jaw never quite got numb.  After the second injection failed to do the trick I told him to just do it & get it over with since it was like 7:30pm already & I just wanted to go home.  Hurt like hell, but I'd rather feel some of the pain than be knocked out.

[merithyn]

Maybe and I agree on your general point.  But I can't help thinking that cutting a child's genitals, especially given that it can affect their enjoyment of sex through their life is something the state can be legitimately concerned with

I have been with *mumble* men, only two of whom were not circumsized. All of them seemed to enjoy sex quite a bit. I'm fairly sure the number that it affects in that way is pretty small. Additionally, it's more likely to affect them if they are circumsized later in life than as infants. So, if that's a concern, it seems to be an argument for infancy circumcision rather than against it.

[garbon]

True but because it is a relative minor procedure than I'm not really sure the basis for complaint lies, especially not if most people are fine with it.

The procedure is minor but is the effect? To determine this I feel we would need the input of a statistically significant number of men who have experience both with and without a foreskin. Such a sample may be hard to find though, since the procedure is typically performed before the age of consent.

It is also no longer a minor procedure at that point.

[garbon]

I didn't bring up breast implants, Garbon did. I argued that most civilized countries ban breast implants on infants for good reason. Or, I was keeping the Illegal nature of breast implants for infants as a ready argument for when Garbon actually answered that question.

WTF? Like I'd ever bring up breast implants. And your ready argument was silly.  An easy reason not to have breast implants on infants (since you have decided to hand wave over the fact that the procedure isn't so really so minor) is that they wouldn't even fulfill their cosmetic function.