German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

[dps]

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?

Absolutely.  Personally, I don't particulary like body piercings, even for just the ears, but I don't think it's a proper subject for the government to legislate on.

[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.

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

FWIW I was very clearly male as a child.

[Iormlund]

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

No one cries over piercing a little girl's ears. That seems the most similar procedure that takes place, and it's one that I doubt many would consider outlawing.

Not really. The most similar procedure would be tatooing children. What do you think of that?

[Malthus]

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.

First, anti-wanking has noting to do with religion. The fellow quoted - Dr. Kellogg - is well-known as a proponent of vegitarianism, enemas, and inventer of corn flakes, and he was an extreme advocate of the *medical* reasons why wanking was bad for you!

He was an especially zealous campaigner against masturbation; this was an orthodox view during his lifetime, especially the earlier part. Kellogg was able to draw upon many medical sources' claims such as "neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism," credited to one Dr. Adam Clarke. Kellogg strongly warned against the habit in his own words, claiming of masturbation-related deaths "such a victim literally dies by his own hand," among other condemnations. He felt that masturbation destroyed not only physical and mental health, but the moral health of individuals as well. Kellogg also believed the practice of this "solitary-vice" caused cancer of the womb, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, and mental and physical debility; "dimness of vision" was only briefly mentioned.

To quote your own opinion - if you were living at the time, and you were told to LISTEN TO THE ADVICE OF THEIR DOCTOR!, you would be of the "scientific" opinion that wanking was bad for you, too. 

Obviously, medical advice has moved on since Dr. Kellogg's time. Or are you seriously claiming that Americans in this century circumcise children to prevent them from wanking?

Word it that it doesn't. 

Really, docs counselled circumcision for hygenic reasons, not "religion".

[dps]

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.

Most American males now living weren't born in 1999 or later.

[The Brain]

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

No one cries over piercing a little girl's ears. That seems the most similar procedure that takes place, and it's one that I doubt many would consider outlawing.

Not really. The most similar procedure would be tatooing children. What do you think of that?

I think it's OK if the infant is a sailor or in prison. If not then no.

[Malthus]

The issue isn't whether the practice is right or wrong, it is who gets to determine this - parents, or the state.

To my mind, it is clearly not a matter for the state, particularly as the medical lit states clearly that there are benefits.

[The Brain]

The issue isn't whether the practice is right or wrong, it is who gets to determine this - parents, or the state.

States' rights again? OK Lettuce.

[garbon]

Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate

How is that?

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

Oh I've heard of this thing, docking?

[Viking]

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

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.

I gotta agree with the Brain here. There are a lot of things I want to say here, but you would only read "you are a horrible mother" and "you don't love your child" into what I wrote, so I'm not going to say anything more about this.

[garbon]

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

No one cries over piercing a little girl's ears. That seems the most similar procedure that takes place, and it's one that I doubt many would consider outlawing.

Not really. The most similar procedure would be tatooing children. What do you think of that?

I don't really see how that comparison makes more sense - other than it is more evocative of something people might think parents shouldn't do to their children.  And then, an infant is going to grow up and that tattoo is going to get awful ugly.

[The Brain]

Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.

[garbon]

Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.

Those generally grow too.

Well maybe not in Scandistan...

[The Brain]

Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.

Those generally grow too.

Well maybe not in Scandistan...

You're doubting my penis? It has come to this?

[garbon]

You're doubting my penis? It has come to this?

Yes.