German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

[Viking]

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.

Wait you get to make shit up and then we have to come up with with non-shit to refute it?  How is that fair?

It started in the 19th century in the US when the procedure became safer that circumcision became popular in the US for religious reasons including a focus on anti-onanism.

Medical advocacy and opposition
Circumcision spread in several English-speaking nations from the late nineteenth century, with the introduction of anesthesia and antisepsis rapidly expanding surgical practice.[6] Doctors such as Sir Jonathan Hutchinson in England wrote articles in favour of the procedure.[45] Peter Charles Remondino, a San Diego physician, wrote a History of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present: Moral and Physical Reasons for Its Performance (1891), to promote circumcision.[46] Lewis Sayre, a prominent orthopedic surgeon at the time, was another early American advocate.[46] However, the theories on which many early claims were made, such as the reflex theory of disease and the alleged harmful effects of masturbation, have long since been abandoned by the medical profession.[46]
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." (page 295) But he was opposed to routine circumcision of infants: "It is doubtful, however, whether as much harm as good does not result from circumcision, since it has been shown by extensive observation among the Jews that very great contraction of the meatus, or external orifice of the urethra, is exceedingly common among them, being undoubtedly the result of the prolonged irritation and subsequent cicatricial contraction resulting from circumcision in infancy." (page 107)[47]

It was done to keep boys from masturbating. If you can show me a non-religious reason for why masturbation is morally wrong I'll consider changing my opinion.

[DGuller]

I'm going to need to see an optometrist to have my eyes unrolled if I have to read many more of Martinus's tired orthodontics analogies.

[MadImmortalMan]

Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate

How is that?

[The Brain]

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.

Wait you get to make shit up and then we have to come up with with non-shit to refute it?  How is that fair?

It started in the 19th century in the US when the procedure became safer that circumcision became popular in the US for religious reasons including a focus on anti-onanism.

Medical advocacy and opposition
Circumcision spread in several English-speaking nations from the late nineteenth century, with the introduction of anesthesia and antisepsis rapidly expanding surgical practice.[6] Doctors such as Sir Jonathan Hutchinson in England wrote articles in favour of the procedure.[45] Peter Charles Remondino, a San Diego physician, wrote a History of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present: Moral and Physical Reasons for Its Performance (1891), to promote circumcision.[46] Lewis Sayre, a prominent orthopedic surgeon at the time, was another early American advocate.[46] However, the theories on which many early claims were made, such as the reflex theory of disease and the alleged harmful effects of masturbation, have long since been abandoned by the medical profession.[46]
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." (page 295) But he was opposed to routine circumcision of infants: "It is doubtful, however, whether as much harm as good does not result from circumcision, since it has been shown by extensive observation among the Jews that very great contraction of the meatus, or external orifice of the urethra, is exceedingly common among them, being undoubtedly the result of the prolonged irritation and subsequent cicatricial contraction resulting from circumcision in infancy." (page 107)[47]

It was done to keep boys from masturbating. If you can show me a non-religious reason for why masturbation is morally wrong I'll consider changing my opinion.

Masturbation increases tissue use and we only have one planet.

[Viking]

Actually, I meant her ears. The only requirement is that she have had her first round of shots, which happens usually around her two-month check-up. It's a cosmetic procedure that causes some pain and has the potential - however minor - to cause an infection, much like a circumcision. To my knowledge, no one has ever considered making it illegal, though, even if the child can't give permission.

By the way, your quote says that it "could" be considered an offense. Not quite the same as it is an offense.

Do you think that piercing a child's ears when the child either cannot give consent or, if the child can, does not give consent should be legal when done for non-medical reasons?

[The Brain]

Actually, I meant her ears. The only requirement is that she have had her first round of shots, which happens usually around her two-month check-up. It's a cosmetic procedure that causes some pain and has the potential - however minor - to cause an infection, much like a circumcision. To my knowledge, no one has ever considered making it illegal, though, even if the child can't give permission.

By the way, your quote says that it "could" be considered an offense. Not quite the same as it is an offense.

Do you think that piercing a child's ears when the child either cannot give consent or, if the child can, does not give consent should be legal when done for non-medical reasons?

It's vaccination that should be illegal.

[Malthus]

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.

How is lowering the potential to get AIDS not a "benefit" and how does it not completely invalidate your point? 

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.

No they don't.  Circumcision by non-Muslims and non-Jews has zero to do with religion. Please support this strange notion of Christian religious circumcision in America with a cite.

What it has to do with, is cultural notions of hygene.

The medical lit moved against this cultural practice on the basis that it was believed that there were *no* real hygene benefits. But lately, the lit has moved the other way. Now, it is thought to have benefits.   

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.

As noted, in North America cicumcision has nothing to do with "religion" for the vast majority, so Hitchens is I am afraid full of shit on this. Not to mention throwing around crapola emotive terms like "mutilation".

[Viking]

So, in England piercing it is illegal, but cutting it off is legal. When religion is left out of it Medical Ethics gets it right. It is just that in the case of circumcision religion is interfering with normal medical ethics.

What a completely baseless position.  Medical Ethics does not have a spotless record.  This is the sort of bullshit I am talking about.

Sigh, you speak as if Medical Ethics was an existing doctrine rather than a process. The point here is that only where religions demand non-medical surgery on infants is it permitted. Everywhere else (in civilized countries at least) doctors and the law prevent it.

[merithyn]

Do you think that piercing a child's ears when the child either cannot give consent or, if the child can, does not give consent should be legal when done for non-medical reasons?

Yes. That's why my daughter had her ears pierced at two months old. It was safer for her (she was too young to mess with them so it lessened the risk of infection), it made it permanent so we wouldn't have to worry about repiercing them later, and it made it easy to distinguish her as a female child without having to put her in pink all the time or sticking a bow on her head with a drop of honey.

[DGuller]

Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate

How is that?

There is no friction between your hand and your penis if you're not cut.  The rubbing happens between the foreskin and the glans.

[The Brain]

:worthless:

[CountDeMoney]

Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate

How is that?

Probably because you can stick things in it.  Marbles.  Small insects.  Toes.

[The Brain]

and it made it easy to distinguish her as a female child without having to put her in pink all the time or sticking a bow on her head with a drop of honey.

[merithyn]

and it made it easy to distinguish her as a female child without having to put her in pink all the time or sticking a bow on her head with a drop of honey.

Look, she was the youngest of four and the only girl. I wanted people to KNOW that I'd finally had my girl, damnit! 

[Viking]

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

Yep, and in America, most males are circumcised because their parents listened to the advice of their doctors--the vast majority of American parents have no religious reason to have their male infants circumcised, even if you mistakenly believe otherwise.

While the personal doctor might advice it, his professional body does not.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[23] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.[23]

They oppose banning it though, unlike the doctors of most european countries.