QuoteGerman court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault
(AFP) – 12 hours ago
BERLIN — Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm, a German court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision that the Jewish community said trampled on parents' religious rights.
The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.
"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court added.
The case was brought against a doctor in Cologne who had circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents' wishes.
A few days after the operation, his parents took him to hospital as he was bleeding heavily. Prosecutors then charged the doctor with grievous bodily harm.
The doctor was acquitted by a lower court that judged he had acted within the law as the parents had given their consent.
On appeal, the regional court also acquitted the doctor but for different reasons.
The regional court upheld the original charge of grievous bodily harm but also ruled that the doctor was innocent as there was too much confusion on the legal situation around circumcision.
The court came down firmly against parents' right to have the ritual performed on young children.
"The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."
The decision caused outrage in Germany's Jewish community.
The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination."
The judgement was an "outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries," added Graumann.
"This religious right is respected in every country in the world."
Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, told the Financial Times Deutschland that the ruling was "enormously important for doctors because for the first time they have legal certainty."
"Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of anti-Semitism or religious intolerance," added Putzke.
The World Health Organisation has estimated that nearly one in three males under 15 is circumcised. In the United States, the operation is often performed for hygiene reasons on infants.
Thousands of young boys are circumcised every year in Germany, especially in the country's large Jewish and Muslim communities.
The court specified that circumcision was not illegal if carried out for medical reasons.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5idCDYo0Sg4r7FMY9ueBfajLynaiQ?docId=CNG.57c3c5b01b5794db35e63f156f63c566.271
Good decision. We are a secular state and should not condone bodily harm inflicted by parents on their children.
:rolleyes:
Ridiculous.
Why stop at bodily harm...why not worry about every childhood religious activity causing emotional harm as well.
good. a decision in favour of religious freedom and against unnecessary medical procedures.
Hmmm...............now where did I put that popcorn?
One could argue that fixing a cleft lip soon after birth is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
Will they ban baptism of babies next, or they will stop at anti-semitism?
Interesting also that the article focuses on Jewish outrage, when the case stemmed from a Muslim child. Where is the infamous Muslim outrage when it is needed most?
I have always been saying that. Good to see European authorities are finally starting to refuse to bow to religious idiots.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 01:57:39 AM
One could argue that fixing a cleft lip soon after birth is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
One could also argue that female genital mutilation is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 01:57:39 AM
One could argue that fixing a cleft lip soon after birth is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
that's a bit different in that a cleft palate isn't just an aesthetic thing, there are real dangers involved. A circumcision isn't all that different from female genital mutilation (well, a variation there of where the clitoral hood and or lips are excised, not the clitorictomy version). But really, i don't think I care enough to have an opinion either way. I wouldn't have any future son circumcised and I kind of wish doctors wouldn't recommend it for non-religious reasons as there's no proof it actually is medically beneficial as studies keep going either way on the STD (namely AIDS) protection. Plus, you know, condoms work better anyway lol
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
Will they ban baptism of babies next, or they will stop at anti-semitism?
muslims do it too. so you're cool with banning it now, right?
Quote from: HVC on June 27, 2012, 02:10:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
Will they ban baptism of babies next, or they will stop at anti-semitism?
muslims do it too. so you're cool with banning it now, right?
I would be fine with it, if it was part of banning parents from forcing a religion down a child's throat. But it isn't, and therefore I consider it a half-assed measure concentrating on the non-german way of going about religions.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 27, 2012, 02:08:42 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 01:57:39 AM
One could argue that fixing a cleft lip soon after birth is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
One could also argue that female genital mutilation is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
Hmm, I will now have to find a bigger strawman to bring to this duel. :hmm: :P
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.
What marti said... only less mean and with ":P" smilie
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 02:15:16 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 27, 2012, 02:08:42 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 01:57:39 AM
One could argue that fixing a cleft lip soon after birth is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
One could also argue that female genital mutilation is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
Hmm, I will now have to find a bigger strawman to bring to this duel. :hmm: :P
i demand honourable mention!
Religion is the opium of the masses, last king with the entrails of the last priest and all that.
Quote from: HVC on June 27, 2012, 02:18:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 02:15:16 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 27, 2012, 02:08:42 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 01:57:39 AM
One could argue that fixing a cleft lip soon after birth is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
One could also argue that female genital mutilation is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
Hmm, I will now have to find a bigger strawman to bring to this duel. :hmm: :P
i demand honourable mention!
You could now take Marti's post, and argue if child body modification is worse than parents raising a child to be a Nazi. Go big, or go home. :P
I'm not at all sure that Marti's criticisms are correct :hmm:
Why is Pakistan a shithole for example? Is it because of circumcision or a retarded education/indoctrination system?
Oh, hell yeah. Go Germany. I guess a broken clock really is right twice a day.
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 02:15:17 AM
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.
Just because you enjoy lovingly running your predatory tongue around an unnecessary amount of useless flesh as you jam bulbous and engorged shafts into your filthy cocknibbiling mouth doesn't mean parents don't have an obligation to prevent you from enjoying their kids' knobs later in life.
Gotta find a better argument against circumcision than "I enjoy slathering over dick cheese, it's heady and pungent", pal.
You put way too much description into that post. Even Grallon would blush :lol:
Quote from: HVC on June 27, 2012, 07:27:44 AM
You put way too much description into that post. Even Grallon would blush :lol:
Yeah, I suppose I did. 50 Shades of Marty.
Germany going after the Jews? I am not surprised.
Good for them, there is no reason to keep grandfathering barbarism in the name of religion just because a practice has been in place for thousands of mostly fucked up years. If there was no history of circumcision, and some religious group today decided to start chopping off the foreskins of children as a religious ritual, we would rightly think of them as a bunch of nutty cultists.
Yes but then do not allow them priests feeding them children with ritualistic food and drinks of probalby not monitored origin, traumatize infants by putting water over their heads while a bunch of people stand around etc. etc.
if we go after obsolete barbarism, we ought to do a full job.
Doctors. :thumbsdown:
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 02:15:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2012, 07:34:52 AM
Germany going after the Jews? I am not surprised.
This will mainly affect German Turks, of which there are 4 million turks in germany, only 110,000 :Joos
there are probably more americans getting circumcized (e.g. hansy) in germany than there are jews.
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 07:38:23 AM
Yes but then do not allow them priests feeding them children with ritualistic food and drinks of probalby not monitored origin, traumatize infants by putting water over their heads while a bunch of people stand around etc. etc.
if we go after obsolete barbarism, we ought to do a full job.
ideally, but eating dry tasteless cookies and getting impromptu baths is hardly equal with permanently losing a piece of your body. Even if it's a small piece
Heh, the ruling won't affect Jews all that much, because there are few German Jews left alive.
The ruling would apparently not rule out circumcision on non-religious grounds. Guess what? As it turns out, male circumcision has some health benefits. On average, given modern evidence of benefits, it is no longer contra-indicated purely on health grounds - which makes the ruling sort of redundant (except for those with a hard-on to attack religion, or Jews, or Muslims).
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:17:33 AM
The ruling would apparently not rule out circumcision on non-religious grounds. Guess what? As it turns out, male circumcision has some health benefits. On average, given modern evidence of benefits, it is no longer contra-indicated purely on health grounds - which makes the ruling sort of redundant (except for those with a hard-on to attack religion, or Jews, or Muslims).
Indeed. And on a benefit that Marti should approve of - it means fewer people get infected with HIV.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:29:42 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:17:33 AM
The ruling would apparently not rule out circumcision on non-religious grounds. Guess what? As it turns out, male circumcision has some health benefits. On average, given modern evidence of benefits, it is no longer contra-indicated purely on health grounds - which makes the ruling sort of redundant (except for those with a hard-on to attack religion, or Jews, or Muslims).
Indeed. And on a benefit that Marti should approve of - it means fewer people get infected with HIV.
Why would he approve of that? Gays love getting HIV.
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:17:33 AM
Heh, the ruling won't affect Jews all that much, because there are few German Jews left alive.
No kidding. If they didn't get the hint to didi mau most riki tik ages ago, then that's on them.
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2012, 08:31:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:29:42 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:17:33 AM
The ruling would apparently not rule out circumcision on non-religious grounds. Guess what? As it turns out, male circumcision has some health benefits. On average, given modern evidence of benefits, it is no longer contra-indicated purely on health grounds - which makes the ruling sort of redundant (except for those with a hard-on to attack religion, or Jews, or Muslims).
Indeed. And on a benefit that Marti should approve of - it means fewer people get infected with HIV.
Why would he approve of that? Gays love getting HIV.
I don't think Marti - the hypochondriac - is a fan of getting HIV.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:29:42 AM
Indeed. And on a benefit that Marti should approve of - it means fewer people get infected with HIV.
Meh, there's a ton of pro snakes-in-sweatertards that disagree with that premise. THERES NOT CLINICAL BENEFIT TO FIREMEN'S HELMETS
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 08:34:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:29:42 AM
Indeed. And on a benefit that Marti should approve of - it means fewer people get infected with HIV.
Meh, there's a ton of pro snakes-in-sweatertards that disagree with that premise. THERES NOT CLINICAL BENEFIT TO FIREMEN'S HELMETS
Did you just break? :unsure:
Since "die wende" Jews have been returning to Germany in quite large numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany
"some health benefits" - all these "benefits" boil not to not suffering all the various maladies related to the foreskin - mostly infection, inflamation and transmission. Basically if you don't have a foreskin your foreskin cannot get infected. The same applies to hands, legs, penii and noses.
There is no health benefit you can get from circumcision (apart from treatment of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin)) that you cannot also get from keeping it clean and practicing safe sex.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 08:37:30 AM
There is no health benefit you can get from circumcision (apart from treatment of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin)) that you cannot also get from keeping it clean and practicing safe sex.
Because in general males are very good about keeping clean and practicing safe sex.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:35:18 AM
Did you just break? :unsure:
:lol:
I just seem to remember in previous circumcision bitchthreads the argument that there was no clinical basis in the premise that circumcision prevents STDs, or is in any other way a hygienic improvement.
I don't agree with that premise, I just recall that as one of the arguments.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 08:40:57 AM
:lol:
I just seem to remember in previous circumcision bitchthreads the argument that there was no clinical basis in the premise that circumcision prevents STDs, or is in any other way a hygienic improvement.
I don't agree with that premise, I just recall that as one of the arguments.
I mean I've learned from this thread that circumcision is just mutilation. :lol:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 01:57:39 AM
One could argue that fixing a cleft lip soon after birth is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
I thought it was established that beauty is fairly universal, since beauty indicators (youth, unblemished skin, bilateral symmetry, hip/waist proportions and such) usually imply greater potential for healthier offspring.
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 08:52:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2012, 01:57:39 AM
One could argue that fixing a cleft lip soon after birth is unnecessary as well, and merely conforming to our civilizations narrow concept of beauty and/or normalcy.
I thought it was established that beauty is fairly universal, since beauty indicators (youth, unblemished skin, bilateral symmetry, hip/waist proportions and such) usually imply greater potential for healthier offspring.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here seeing as how people pick love interests all the time that don't find your standards of beauty. After all, attraction in humans is about more than a biological imperative.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 08:37:30 AM
Since "die wende" Jews have been returning to Germany in quite large numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany
"some health benefits" - all these "benefits" boil not to not suffering all the various maladies related to the foreskin - mostly infection, inflamation and transmission. Basically if you don't have a foreskin your foreskin cannot get infected. The same applies to hands, legs, penii and noses.
There is no health benefit you can get from circumcision (apart from treatment of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin)) that you cannot also get from keeping it clean and practicing safe sex.
So, you are saying there are no benefits from circumcision - except for a bunch of benefits? :hmm:
Point is, on the state of medical knowledge today there is a perfectly acceptable
non-religious case for circumcision. A perfect atheist may, acting rationally, choose to have the procedure performed on his or her children. Or not. The benefits are relatively minor - and so is the procedure.
This fatally undermines the notion that the decision to perform the procedure is an "assault" - unless, of course, the rationale for so classifying it is to give a sock in the eye to religious types generally (or Muslims and Jews, specifically). I'd love to see the German Court arrest a doc for performing the procedure where the rationale for performing it was to obtain the reputed health benefits.
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
:huh:
From the looks of this thread it seems mostly uncut Euros cheering out a do-nothing decision by Germany. As to your Marti analogy: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
What's up with supporting a silly, unnecessary and probably meaningless intrusion of the state?
Lets prosecute cosmetic pediatric orthodontists for "assault" while we are at it.
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
What's up with supporting a silly, unnecessary and probably meaningless intrusion of the state?
Lets prosecute cosmetic pediatric orthodontists for "assault" while we are at it.
it is about cutting off a piece of an infant child. Which child will still be free to have it chopped off once he reaches adulthood.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:55:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
:huh:
From the looks of this thread it seems mostly uncut Euros cheering out a do-nothing decision by Germany. As to your Marti analogy: :rolleyes:
its a very good analogy. It is an unnecessary piece of your body which can go seriously wrong unless maintained properly.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:54:17 AM
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here seeing as how people pick love interests all the time that don't find your standards of beauty.
Sure, we have to settle. That's yet another biological imperative.
QuoteAfter all, attraction in humans is about more than a biological imperative.
:lol:
No it's not.
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
What's up with supporting a silly, unnecessary and probably meaningless intrusion of the state?
Lets prosecute cosmetic pediatric orthodontists for "assault" while we are at it.
it is about cutting off a piece of an infant child. Which child will still be free to have it chopped off once he reaches adulthood.
And pediatric cosmetic orthodontics inflicts torture on a child. I should know - I had it done. Why not wait until I was 18 to have it done, so I could make up my own mind whether funny-looking (but fully functional) teeth were better than medical tortures needed to make them look nice?
The rationale for both is pretty obvious - having the procedures done as an adult is not the same thing as having them done as infants or children, as the parts in question grow and change. Infant circumcision is a nothing of a nothing. Not so adult circumcision. Childhood is better for othodontia, because the teeth are still growing. Relatively mild intervention is needed as a kid, major surgery as an adult.
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
Foreskins are a filthy Old-World trait, like substandard nutrition and mopeds. Fireman's Helmets are where it's at for an advanced civilization.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 08:37:30 AM
The same applies to hands, legs, penii and noses.
Yeah but what are the benefits of keeping your foreskin? I can think of medical reasons to want your nose, penis, legs, and hands around so those are not really comparable. Isn't this a bit like giving your infant an Appendectomy upon birth? I mean hardly a necessary procedure but not exactly the same as amputating a nose.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:55:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
:huh:
From the looks of this thread it seems mostly uncut Euros cheering out a do-nothing decision by Germany. As to your Marti analogy: :rolleyes:
No shit.
And Tamas, when my manicurist is willing to give me a nice knob polishing as part of my cuticle work, then we can make the comparisons.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 09:06:21 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
...are a filthy Old-World trait, like substandard nutrition ...
:lol:
Rubens would have run out of canvas space in modern America.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 09:03:21 AM
:lol:
No it's not.
:huh:
Pretty sure I'm not looking for a partner who will raise me healthy children.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 09:13:50 AM
:lol:
Rubens would have run out of canvas space in modern America.
Spain is right up there with us: http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2010/10/16/obesity-public-enemy-number-one/
At least we can fall back on our freedom to inflict brutal bodily assault on our infants. The Spanish will soon have nothing to console them in their obesity.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:55:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
:huh:
From the looks of this thread it seems mostly uncut Euros cheering out a do-nothing decision by Germany.
Wrong.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:55:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
:huh:
From the looks of this thread it seems mostly uncut Euros cheering out a do-nothing decision by Germany.
Wrong.
Care to point out where?
I can't think of a rational principled reason why they should be allowed. But I still think they should.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 09:33:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:55:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2012, 08:53:50 AM
what's up with garbon and Seedy being so defensive on this?
You know, nails require constant maintenance as well otherwise they get fugly, dirty, and possibly infected. Let's remove them all for health's sake!
:huh:
From the looks of this thread it seems mostly uncut Euros cheering out a do-nothing decision by Germany.
Wrong.
Care to point out where?
...No. -_-
But it's still a great thing Germany has done today.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 09:19:36 AM
:huh:
Pretty sure I'm not looking for a partner who will raise me healthy children.
Not consciously.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 10:23:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 09:19:36 AM
:huh:
Pretty sure I'm not looking for a partner who will raise me healthy children.
Not consciously.
OK. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 09:34:20 AM
I can't think of a rational principled reason why they should be allowed. But I still think they should.
It is too trivial for the state to be involved (except as a regulator so that certain standards are met). There are all sorts of things that are legal that we do not necessarily approve of, that is right and proper in my opinion, the alternative is a dreadful tyranny.
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
Though as I say I still think it should be allowed. Certainly I think that it should require explicit legislation, not just the court interpreting assault, because of the effects on particular religious communities.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 09:13:50 AM
:lol:
Rubens would have run out of canvas space in modern America.
Spain is right up there with us: http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2010/10/16/obesity-public-enemy-number-one/
At least we can fall back on our freedom to inflict brutal bodily assault on our infants. The Spanish will soon have nothing to console them in their obesity.
I'm not that surprised, sadly. It seems people have less and less time for traditional Med diet and we've been shifting to fast food for a while.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 10:39:48 AM
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
Which makes sense then in the case of female circumcision but in the case of male, evidence of its affects on enjoyment of sex is mixed at best.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:39:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 08:37:30 AM
There is no health benefit you can get from circumcision (apart from treatment of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin)) that you cannot also get from keeping it clean and practicing safe sex.
Because in general males are very good about keeping clean and practicing safe sex.
Yes and? If we had some doctors here they would tell us that surgery is always the last option when behavior can make it redundant.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:39:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 08:37:30 AM
There is no health benefit you can get from circumcision (apart from treatment of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin)) that you cannot also get from keeping it clean and practicing safe sex.
Because in general males are very good about keeping clean and practicing safe sex.
Yes and? If we had some doctors here they would tell us that surgery is always the last option when behavior can make it redundant.
If such measures are having noted positive effects vs. those not receiving surgery then clearly there is some need.
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 08:37:30 AM
Since "die wende" Jews have been returning to Germany in quite large numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany
"some health benefits" - all these "benefits" boil not to not suffering all the various maladies related to the foreskin - mostly infection, inflamation and transmission. Basically if you don't have a foreskin your foreskin cannot get infected. The same applies to hands, legs, penii and noses.
There is no health benefit you can get from circumcision (apart from treatment of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin)) that you cannot also get from keeping it clean and practicing safe sex.
So, you are saying there are no benefits from circumcision - except for a bunch of benefits? :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:54:42 AM
Point is, on the state of medical knowledge today there is a perfectly acceptable non-religious case for circumcision. A perfect atheist may, acting rationally, choose to have the procedure performed on his or her children. Or not. The benefits are relatively minor - and so is the procedure.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 08:54:42 AM
This fatally undermines the notion that the decision to perform the procedure is an "assault" - unless, of course, the rationale for so classifying it is to give a sock in the eye to religious types generally (or Muslims and Jews, specifically). I'd love to see the German Court arrest a doc for performing the procedure where the rationale for performing it was to obtain the reputed health benefits.
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.
Norway already has a borderline ban on male circumcision as non-doctors are banned from performing surgery and doctors refuse to on grounds of medical ethics. In addition to it not being paid for by the state health insurance. You won't need to arrest any doctors, you'll just need to shame them by exposing them.
Right now the muslims and jews import "doctors" to come and do this. From time to time. There is an effort to ban this as well in Norway.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:39:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 08:37:30 AM
There is no health benefit you can get from circumcision (apart from treatment of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin)) that you cannot also get from keeping it clean and practicing safe sex.
Because in general males are very good about keeping clean and practicing safe sex.
Yes and? If we had some doctors here they would tell us that surgery is always the last option when behavior can make it redundant.
If such measures are having noted positive effects vs. those not receiving surgery then clearly there is some need.
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
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.
The basic difference between performing cosmetic surgery on babies and performing cosmetic surgery on consenting adults should be obvious.
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 07:42:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 02:15:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:38:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 07:42:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 02:15:17 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:42:41 AM
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.
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. :)
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:41:50 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:38:11 AM
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?
Americans and Canadians are idiots. Film at 11.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:42:41 AM
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.
:D
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 12:00:30 PM
Americans and Canadians are idiots. Film at 11.
Euros wan't too much government involvement in their peckers. :x
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 12:00:30 PM
Americans and Canadians are idiots. Film at 11.
Euros wan't too much government involvement in their peckers. :x
Does this mean Americans want more parental involvement? :x
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2012, 12:10:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 12:00:30 PM
Americans and Canadians are idiots. Film at 11.
Euros wan't too much government involvement in their peckers. :x
Does this mean Americans want more parental involvement? :x
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
Do you support giving girls breast implants then?
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
Do you support giving girls breast implants then?
Not a minor procedure.
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 12:14:26 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:30:38 AM
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".
QuoteMotivated 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.
QuoteIt 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.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
Do you support giving girls breast implants then?
Do you support arresting pediatric othodontists, then?
Why do you want our foreskins Malthus!
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:50:47 AM
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?
:hmm:
That's a gold-standard analogy, that is. :lol:
Quote from: katmai on June 27, 2012, 12:38:12 PM
Why do you want our foreskins Malthus!
Two words: expanding wallets. :D
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:50:47 AM
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?
:hmm:
That's a gold-standard analogy, that is. :lol:
Pssst, we call them Martiesque around here.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
Do you support giving girls breast implants then?
That is an invasive surgical procedure that requires the administration of general anesthesia within a surgical environment.
Circumcision is not.*
*Except in Marty's case, where a first date would involve an Exacto knife and a tube of Anbesol.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
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.
Actually you still can. You just can't do it for ostensibly religious reasons.
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
Do you support arresting pediatric othodontists, then?
Orthodontists are doing a service to their patients.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2012, 12:51:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
Do you support arresting pediatric othodontists, then?
Orthodontists are doing a service to their patients.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Not everyone actually benefits from orthodontic work that gets referred...at least not in the long term. Sure there are terrible cases like crooked teeth, or teeth in places where teeth shouldn't be...but for minor overbites and underbites - the lasting power without permanent use of a retainer is small.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
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.
Actually you still can. You just can't do it for ostensibly religious reasons.
I've only read the article in the OP.
The human mind has powerful defensive mechanisms in place to keep its owner from facing the fact that he was abused by his parents as a child. This is a strength, not a weakness. Though fairly hilarious to watch, as strengths go.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
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.
Actually you still can. You just can't do it for ostensibly religious reasons.
I've only read the article in the OP.
But apparently you didn't even understand the first sentence. :console:
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:57:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
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.
Actually you still can. You just can't do it for ostensibly religious reasons.
I've only read the article in the OP.
But apparently you didn't even understand the first sentence. :console:
Did you even read the last?
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:58:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:57:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
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.
Actually you still can. You just can't do it for ostensibly religious reasons.
I've only read the article in the OP.
But apparently you didn't even understand the first sentence. :console:
Did you even read the last?
Yes, I did...and there is no statement as to what counts a medical reason. :)
So sadly I'll concede your initial statement was correct though not the sentiment. -_-
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
Appeal to tradition much? Other traditional mutilations, such as cutting out teeth, stretching necks and binding feet are discouraged in our society, especially when done without the consent of the individual. Even the pre-emptive removal of tonsils and appendices-- parts that don't seem to have much of a necessary function-- are frowned upon iirc.
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 01:06:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
Appeal to tradition much? Other traditional mutilations, such as cutting out teeth, stretching necks and binding feet are discouraged in our society, especially when done without the consent of the individual. Even the pre-emptive removal of tonsils and appendices-- parts that don't seem to have much of a necessary function-- are frowned upon iirc.
Strawman much? I don't recall saying anything like that. I believe I said it is a standard cosmetic procedure. Not sure what any of those traditional mutilations have to do with what I said.
It's only "standard" because it's a tradition.
Watching Euros cry about their incorrect penises is funny.
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 01:08:21 PM
It's only "standard" because it's a tradition.
Also standard because most people see no issue in permitting the practice to continue. :)
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2012, 01:08:50 PM
Watching Euros cry about their incorrect penises is funny.
So body modifications are correct now? Interesting.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 01:10:26 PM
Also standard because most people see no issue in permitting the practice to continue. :)
aka appeal to tradition.
There are many other much worse practices that the same could have been said for.
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2012, 01:08:50 PM
Watching Euros cry about their incorrect penises is funny.
So body modifications are correct now? Interesting.
Well yes, you can make certain permissible changes. :)
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 01:12:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 01:10:26 PM
Also standard because most people see no issue in permitting the practice to continue. :)
aka appeal to tradition.
There are many other much worse practices that the same could have been said for.
Great? What does that have to do with this minor practice that most people have no issue with?
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2012, 01:08:50 PM
Watching Euros cry about their incorrect penises is funny.
No shit. Even their dicks are anti-semitic.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 01:12:55 PM
Great? What does that have to do with this minor practice that most people have no issue with?
The idea that most people have no issue with it has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea.
This thread isn't nearly as bitter and divisive as a union thread. I am disappointed.
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 01:15:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 01:12:55 PM
Great? What does that have to do with this minor practice that most people have no issue with?
The idea that most people have no issue with it has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea.
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.
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2012, 01:08:50 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 01:13:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2012, 01:08:50 PM
Watching Euros cry about their incorrect penises is funny.
No shit. Even their dicks are anti-semitic.
Cowering to your Zionist overlords ain't gonna get you a jobby job. :rolleyes:
Quote from: katmai on June 27, 2012, 01:26:03 PM
Cowering to your Zionist overlords ain't gonna get you a jobby job. :rolleyes:
Shit, you know that wouldn't happen anyway. FAMILY ONLY GOYEM NEED NOT APPLY
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:22:54 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
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. But still, do you think that parents should be permitted to do minor religiously motivated elective cosmetic surgery on infants?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 27, 2012, 01:26:03 PM
Cowering to your Zionist overlords ain't gonna get you a jobby job. :rolleyes:
Shit, you know that wouldn't happen anyway. FAMILY ONLY GOYEM NEED NOT APPLY
Golem?
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 12:22:54 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
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.
Btw, I've heard that in America people get put under AT THE FUCKING DENTIST. Yeah, they're that pussified.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:30:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 12:35:31 PM
QuoteMotivated 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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 12:35:31 PM
QuoteIt 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.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 01:23:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 01:39:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 01:24:21 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2012, 01:08:50 PM
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.
If I had a religion I sure as heck would think twice before claiming that penis-cutting was an important part of it.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 01:55:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 01:55:31 PM
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
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 01:38:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 10:39:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 01:23:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:51:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
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.
:hmm:
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
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? :hmm:
Life isn't fair. Ask the guys who happened to be born in Bobbiton, USA.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
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.
But if it were done without the little girl's consent or if it were done to infant girls then we would be.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Body-piercing/Pages/Introduction.aspx
QuoteAge restrictions
There is no legal age restriction on most body piercings, however performing genital or nipple piercing on someone under the age of 16 could be considered an offence.
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:14:05 PM
But if it were done without the little girl's consent or if it were done to infant girls then we would be.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Body-piercing/Pages/Introduction.aspx
QuoteAge restrictions
There is no legal age restriction on most body piercings, however performing genital or nipple piercing on someone under the age of 16 could be considered an offence.
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.
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.
I've heard a crazy rumor that holes in ears can close if they don't see use.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:14:05 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 02:20:30 PM
I've heard a crazy rumor that holes in ears can close if they don't see use.
That rarely happens if the ears are pierced as infants, which is why a lot of parents do it then. Saves having to redo it later even if she chooses not to wear earrings for a long while. So, again, a permanent cosmetic procedure without the child's consent.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2012, 12:51:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
Do you support arresting pediatric othodontists, then?
Orthodontists are doing a service to their patients.
Few young children ask for cosmetic orthodontic work.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 10:39:48 AM
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.
Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate, though, which is probably why it rubbed Americans the wrong way in the first place decades ago.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
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.
American doctors suggest unnecessary procedures? SAY IT AIN'T SO
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2012, 02:27:41 PM
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.
Eh he prefers to make up facts and then force us to disprove his fantasies. We only live here what do we know?
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 02:24:58 PM
Few young children ask for cosmetic orthodontic work.
Unless they're a friend of Marty's, who really hates too much tooth action.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
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? :hmm:
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.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversiesMedical 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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 02:27:35 PM
Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate
How is that?
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
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? :hmm:
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.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversiesMedical 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.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:19:11 PM
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?
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:19:11 PM
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. :secret:
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
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? :hmm:
Quote
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. :lol: 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.
Quote
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".
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:14:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 27, 2012, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 02:27:35 PM
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.
:worthless:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 27, 2012, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 02:27:35 PM
Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate
How is that?
Probably because you can stick things in it. Marbles. Small insects. Toes.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:37:12 PM
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.
:unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 02:39:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:37:12 PM
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.
:unsure:
Look, she was the youngest of four and the only girl. I wanted people to KNOW that I'd finally had my girl, damnit! :mad:
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2012, 02:27:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
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.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CircumcisionThe 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.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:41:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 02:39:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:37:12 PM
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.
:unsure:
Look, she was the youngest of four and the only girl. I wanted people to KNOW that I'd finally had my girl, damnit! :mad:
FWIW I was very clearly male as a child.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
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?
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
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? :hmm:
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.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversiesMedical 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!
QuoteHe 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. :D
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. :secret:
Really, docs counselled circumcision for hygenic reasons, not "religion".
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: dps on June 27, 2012, 02:27:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
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.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CircumcisionThe 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.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 02:45:32 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 02:54:23 PM
The issue isn't whether the practice is right or wrong, it is who gets to determine this - parents, or the state.
:rolleyes: States' rights again? OK Lettuce.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 27, 2012, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 02:27:35 PM
Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate
How is that?
Probably because you can stick things in it. Marbles. Small insects. Toes.
:XD:
Oh I've heard of this thing, docking?
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:41:32 PM
Look, she was the youngest of four and the only girl. I wanted people to KNOW that I'd finally had my girl, damnit! :mad:
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:37:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2012, 02:45:32 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
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.
Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:01:48 PM
Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.
Those generally grow too. :secret:
Well maybe not in Scandistan... :(
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:06:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:01:48 PM
Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.
Those generally grow too. :secret:
Well maybe not in Scandistan... :(
You're doubting my penis? It has come to this?
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:09:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:08:58 PM
You're doubting my penis? It has come to this?
Yes.
My penis is big enough. It may not be huge but it... You know what? It does the job! OK? Fuck you.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:06:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:01:48 PM
Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.
Those generally grow too. :secret:
Well maybe not in Scandistan... :(
You're doubting my penis? It has come to this?
I didn''t want to bring it up, but - the goat was laughing at you.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:11:02 PM
My penis is big enough. It may not be huge but it... You know what? It does the job! OK? Fuck you.
I'm good but thanks. :)
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 03:11:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:06:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:01:48 PM
Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.
Those generally grow too. :secret:
Well maybe not in Scandistan... :(
You're doubting my penis? It has come to this?
I didn''t want to bring it up, but - the goat was laughing at you.
Why you watching 'em, perv?
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 02:46:24 PM
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?
No, they do it(and doctors recommend it) because it's the status quo. Dr Kellogg was influential in the US medical field, not so much in the rest of the world.
Ah, this thread wouldn't be complete without the Mother of the Year sharing with us her pearls of wisdom.
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 02:57:56 PM
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.
I doubt it. If you think you're the only person to think that I shouldn't have done so, you're very wrong. Of course, there were plenty of people who told me that I shouldn't have had my boys circumsized, too. And that I should have breastfed longer, and that I shouldn't have given them solid food when I did.
Ultimately, I made choices for my children that worked for our family, and they've all survived, and in fact, thrived because of or despite those choices. But the fact remains that they were MY choices for MY children, and the state had no place in any of them. I don't see these types of decisions to have long-term deliterious affects, and so should not require the state's okay regardless of which choice was made.
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 03:25:17 PM
Ah, this thread wouldn't be complete without the Mother of the Year sharing with us her pearls of wisdom.
It's true. Probably better to listen to the childless manchild who hates children.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:32:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 03:25:17 PM
Ah, this thread wouldn't be complete without the Mother of the Year sharing with us her pearls of wisdom.
It's true. Probably better to listen to the childless manchild who hates children.
What does CdM have to do with this?
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 03:25:17 PM
Ah, this thread wouldn't be complete without the Mother of the Year sharing with us her pearls of wisdom.
0/10
Now, if you had managed to work 'listen to your body' in there somehow, it might have been funny.
Quote from: katmai on June 27, 2012, 03:35:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:32:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 03:25:17 PM
Ah, this thread wouldn't be complete without the Mother of the Year sharing with us her pearls of wisdom.
It's true. Probably better to listen to the childless manchild who hates children.
What does CdM have to do with this?
Hey, I'm not the Polish fag lawyer that would've done Sandusky's defense
pro bono, so fuck you.
Quote from: katmai on June 27, 2012, 03:35:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:32:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2012, 03:25:17 PM
Ah, this thread wouldn't be complete without the Mother of the Year sharing with us her pearls of wisdom.
It's true. Probably better to listen to the childless manchild who hates children.
What does CdM have to do with this?
Out of respect to him, I'm not touching the issue of him treating his cats like children. -_-
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 03:22:31 PM
No, they do it(and doctors recommend it) because it's the status quo. Dr Kellogg was influential in the US medical field, not so much in the rest of the world.
It was not really a recomendation so much as a box to check.
'Circumcision?'
'Yes'
'Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one scalpel each.'
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 03:43:59 PM
It was not really a recomendation so much as a box to check.
'Circumcision?'
'Yes'
'Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one scalpel each.'
That's how I remember it, too. I will say that it's nice that parents are taking more of an interest in the US on whether or not it's a necessary procedure, and what the long-term affects might be. When my boys were cut, the conversation had only just really started. Now, it's a very serious debate, which is a nice change.
Better that it's seriously considered and openly discussed before the question comes up rather than just an automatic check in a box because Daddy had it done.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2012, 03:57:48 PM
I will say that it's nice that parents are taking more of an interest in the US on whether or not it's a necessary procedure, and what the long-term affects might be.
Meh parents in the US take an interest in every single aspect to obsessive detail these days. I have never seen a more ridiculously opinionated group of people before. There is not one issue, no matter how minute and seemingly mundane, that somebody has not equated some arbitrary position with child abuse or worse. 'OMG you potty trained at 20 months instead of 24 months! HITLER!!!111'
It never ceases to amaze me what harmless thought I will have that is edgey or countercultural...like wanting to paint my second boys room purple, you know, roman style. But it seems purple will make him ever confused about his sexuality and gender identity or something.
'Wow purple it is nice to see somebody bravely taking a stand against societal gender modes'
'Purple! OMG your son will be confused and he will end up therapy for years. FOUL LIBERUL ABUSER!'
'um...I just thought it reminded me of the Toga Virilis' :nerd:
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
It never ceases to amaze me what harmless thought I will have that is edgey or countercultural...like wanting to paint my second boys room purple, you know, roman style. But it seems purple will make him ever confused about his sexuality and gender identity or something.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now purple may be the color of the wealthy, Christ and Caesars, but he should definitely be OK if it's in sports teams.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
Meh parents in the US take an interest in every single aspect to obsessive detail these days. I have never seen a more ridiculously opinionated group of people before. There is not one issue, no matter how minute and seemingly mundane, that somebody has not equated some arbitrary position with child abuse or worse. 'OMG you potty trained at 20 months instead of 24 months! HITLER!!!111'
It never ceases to amaze me what harmless thought I will have that is edgey or countercultural...like wanting to paint my second boys room purple, you know, roman style. But it seems purple will make him ever confused about his sexuality and gender identity or something.
'Wow purple it is nice to see somebody bravely taking a stand against societal gender modes'
'Purple! OMG your son will be confused and he will end up therapy for years. FOUL LIBERUL ABUSER!'
'um...I just thought it reminded me of the Toga Virilis' :nerd:
Okay, there is that aspect to be considered, too. Number one rule of parenting in 2012: Never share your plans until they are
fait accompli. Don't seek an opinon, any advice, or otherwise share what you plan to do with or for your child until it's already a done deal. Then, it's harder for people to condemn you for it. They will still try, but it's not quite as easily done.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
It never ceases to amaze me what harmless thought I will have that is edgey or countercultural...like wanting to paint my second boys room purple, you know, roman style. But it seems purple will make him ever confused about his sexuality and gender identity or something.
'Wow purple it is nice to see somebody bravely taking a stand against societal gender modes'
'Purple! OMG your son will be confused and he will end up therapy for years. FOUL LIBERUL ABUSER!'
'um...I just thought it reminded me of the Toga Virilis' :nerd:
When I was a kid purple was definitely a male colour. The line was between green and yellow. Anything on the red side was feminine, anything on the blue side was masculine.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
It never ceases to amaze me what harmless thought I will have that is edgey or countercultural...like wanting to paint my second boys room purple, you know, roman style. But it seems purple will make him ever confused about his sexuality and gender identity or something.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now purple may be the color of the wealthy, Christ and Caesars, but he should definitely be OK if it's in sports teams.
What's wrong with a little gender role mixing? :angry:
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 04:18:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
It never ceases to amaze me what harmless thought I will have that is edgey or countercultural...like wanting to paint my second boys room purple, you know, roman style. But it seems purple will make him ever confused about his sexuality and gender identity or something.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now purple may be the color of the wealthy, Christ and Caesars, but he should definitely be OK if it's in sports teams.
What's wrong with a little gender role mixing? :angry:
Fine. Sports teams
AND Prince.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:18:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 03:11:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 03:06:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2012, 03:01:48 PM
Americans think that tattooing the infant's penis is OK.
Those generally grow too. :secret:
Well maybe not in Scandistan... :(
You're doubting my penis? It has come to this?
I didn''t want to bring it up, but - the goat was laughing at you.
Why you watching 'em, perv?
Hey, it was on the news. "Swedish nuclear plant meltdown, unsatisfied and sarcastic goat found at scene".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 04:18:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
It never ceases to amaze me what harmless thought I will have that is edgey or countercultural...like wanting to paint my second boys room purple, you know, roman style. But it seems purple will make him ever confused about his sexuality and gender identity or something.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now purple may be the color of the wealthy, Christ and Caesars, but he should definitely be OK if it's in sports teams.
What's wrong with a little gender role mixing? :angry:
Fine. Sports teams AND Prince.
:hug:
Quote from: Maximus on June 27, 2012, 03:22:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2012, 02:46:24 PM
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?
No, they do it(and doctors recommend it) because it's the status quo. Dr Kellogg was influential in the US medical field, not so much in the rest of the world.
And it's the status quo because it was felt to be condusive to good hygene.
The argument that the practice had to do with anti-wanking is on the same lines as the argument that anti-drug legislation in Canada "really" had to do with racism. A historical curiousity in that the practice was pushed by influential early 20th century figures for bizarre reason "A" (anti-wanking, racism) but very obviously that isn't why people *kept* the practice going - that would be reason "B" (hygene and perceived addiction harms, respectively).
In any event, the notion that NA circumcision was based on "religion" is clearly nonsense. Kellogg himself was drummed out of the Seventh-Day Adventists for being, well, a pantheist. In any event, the idea that wanking was bad for you was not a *moral* notion based on religion, but a (crackpot) *medical* notion based on the alleged harms it would do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Non-religious_circumcision
You fuckers notice I have been sane enough not to comment on anything.
BTW, as I've gotten older, I've been liking Prince more.
I knew it.
It was just a matter of time for the little Adolfs to come out of the nazi closet.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 27, 2012, 05:10:06 PM
You fuckers notice I have been sane enough not to comment on anything.
Sane or drugged out?
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 05:39:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 27, 2012, 05:10:06 PM
You fuckers notice I have been sane enough not to comment on anything.
Sane or drugged out?
I'm off the Tramadol. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 27, 2012, 05:10:06 PM
BTW, as I've gotten older, I've been liking Prince more.
And who wouldn't?* Man's a genius.
*Other than Japanese teenyboppers, who are still locked into the Wacko Jacko camp. For whatever reason.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:39:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2012, 08:37:30 AM
There is no health benefit you can get from circumcision (apart from treatment of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin)) that you cannot also get from keeping it clean and practicing safe sex.
Because in general males are very good about keeping clean and practicing safe sex.
Yes and? If we had some doctors here they would tell us that surgery is always the last option when behavior can make it redundant.
If such measures are having noted positive effects vs. those not receiving surgery then clearly there is some need.
Besides, why does a standard cosmetic procedure need justification?
Consent.
Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2012, 08:58:10 PM
Consent.
Jesus Christ.
I asked my son. He was cool with it.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2012, 08:58:10 PM
Consent.
Jesus Christ.
Can you imagine what hell it would be to be a parent if you had to get your child's consent for every decision you made? :x
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 02:27:35 PM
Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate, though, which is probably why it rubbed Americans the wrong way in the first place decades ago.
:yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Drastic_measures
I guess it never struck me as something difficult to do :hmm:
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2012, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 02:27:35 PM
Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate, though, which is probably why it rubbed Americans the wrong way in the first place decades ago.
:yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Drastic_measures
I really like the part of that movie where Bridget Fonda gets fisted by Chief O'Brien.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2012, 04:55:28 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2012, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 02:27:35 PM
Foreskin sure makes it easier to masturbate, though, which is probably why it rubbed Americans the wrong way in the first place decades ago.
:yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Drastic_measures
I really like the part of that movie where Bridget Fonda gets fisted by Chief O'Brien.
It's been a while since I saw that one, but wasn't he just masturbating while watching, and it was the other guy doing the fisting?
Quote from: dps on June 28, 2012, 06:04:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2012, 04:55:28 AM
I really like the part of that movie where Bridget Fonda gets fisted by Chief O'Brien.
It's been a while since I saw that one, but wasn't he just masturbating while watching, and it was the other guy doing the fisting?
I haven't seen it since it came out, but it doesn't matter: Bridget Fonda got fisted, and that was enough.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 11:35:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2012, 08:58:10 PM
Consent.
Jesus Christ.
Can you imagine what hell it would be to be a parent if you had to get your child's consent for every decision you made? :x
Next up: parents arrested for unlawful confinement - should have waited until the tyke was 18 and concented to being kept in a playpen. :P
Martinusesque analogies are way fun.
Are any non-dental* purely cosmetic procedures routinely entered into by infants at the behest of their parents and permitted by law?
*And I'm not sure about purely cosmetic dental.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2012, 08:19:28 AM
Martinusesque analogies are way fun.
Are any non-dental* purely cosmetic procedures routinely entered into by infants at the behest of their parents and permitted by law?
*And I'm not sure about purely cosmetic dental.
Exactly how many times do we have to go over the same questions in the same thread?
Anyway ear piercing.
Wait, WAIT! Bridget Fonda got fisted?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2012, 08:19:28 AM
Martinusesque analogies are way fun.
Are any non-dental* purely cosmetic procedures routinely entered into by infants at the behest of their parents and permitted by law?
*And I'm not sure about purely cosmetic dental.
Already answered ...
In any event, the analogy with purely cosmetic procedures is slightly misleading, as circumcision isn't solely cosmetic - unlike pierced ears, it has alleged health benefits.
The real issue is, like so many things, one of reason and proportion. To take a leaf from Marty's book of analogies, surely no doc would or should enable parents to graft horns and an extra eyesocket on their kid, because they thought it looked cool. It would be unreasonable to claim parents had an absolute discretion to do whatever they wanted.
With circumcision, it is you who wish to criminalize it who are being unreasonable. The procedure is trivially minor, the health benefits are arguable either way, and contrary to Dr. Kellogg and DGuller it doesn't stop people from being able to wank. :D
This was recommended news for me by Yahoo...-_-
http://news.yahoo.com/european-rabbis-protest-circumcision-ban-berlin-003555232.html
QuoteJewish and Muslim groups have issued a joint call for German lawmakers to protect the right to circumcise boys after a court ruling against the rite sent shockwaves through their communities.
Several Jewish and Islamic organisations said in a statement released Wednesday that they had met with legal and medical experts and European Parliament deputies in Brussels this week to discuss the court's decision.
"We consider this to be an affront (to) our basic religious and human rights," the joint appeal said.
"Circumcision is an ancient ritual that is fundamental to our individual faiths and we protest in the strongest possible terms this court ruling.
"To that end we will vigorously defend our right to maintain our mutual tradition and call on the German parliament and all political parties to intervene in overruling this decision as a matter of urgency."
The unusual joint statement was signed by leaders of groups including the Rabbinical Centre of Europe, the European Jewish Parliament, the European Jewish Association, Germany's Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs and the Islamic Centre Brussels.
They met with MEPs from Germany, Finland, Belgium, Italy and Poland, according to the statement released by the Turkish-Islamic Union.
The June 26 ruling by the regional court in Cologne that circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounted to grievous bodily harm has caused international uproar.
Jewish and Muslim groups had each demanded that the German parliament establish clear legal protections for the rite, calling the issue a matter of religious freedom.
Just to spite the German justice system I had a circumcision performed on my son last week. :showoff:
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
Just to spite the German justice system I had a circumcision performed on my son last week. :showoff:
You should tell him that when he grows up.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 12, 2012, 03:58:20 PM
You should tell him that when he grows up.
His son will then send the German Justice System a thank you note.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
Just to spite the German justice system I had a circumcision performed on my son last week. :showoff:
Wait, isn't this the second time...
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2012, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
Just to spite the German justice system I had a circumcision performed on my son last week. :showoff:
Wait, isn't this the second time...
Second son...
Ahhh.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 12, 2012, 03:58:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
Just to spite the German justice system I had a circumcision performed on my son last week. :showoff:
You should tell him that when he grows up.
Yeah. "Daddy mutilated you to spite the Germans."
Father of the Year Award runner up, anyone?
Can you stop being detestable for just one day?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2012, 02:37:38 AM
Can you stop being detestable for just one day?
He's just laying in wait until BB's boys are of age. Like 9.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 07:33:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2012, 02:37:38 AM
Can you stop being detestable for just one day?
He's just laying in wait until BB's boys are of age. Like 9.
Sorry, not into circumcised guys.
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2012, 07:34:44 AM
Sorry, not into circumcised guys.
I'm sure. I bet you weep with ever briss. It's as if millions of foreskins suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2012, 02:02:09 AM
Yeah. "Daddy mutilated you to spite the Germans."
Father of the Year Award runner up, anyone?
A foreskin is a mark of barbarism. -_-
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2012, 08:21:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2012, 02:02:09 AM
Yeah. "Daddy mutilated you to spite the Germans."
Father of the Year Award runner up, anyone?
A foreskin is a mark of barbarism. -_-
A good point.
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2012, 08:21:23 AM
A foreskin is a mark of barbarism. -_-
It's even worse than chicks that don't shave their pits or legs. :shudder:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 08:45:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2012, 08:21:23 AM
A foreskin is a mark of barbarism. -_-
It's even worse than chicks that don't shave their pits or legs. :shudder:
Well, sure, it is attached to a penis.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 07:53:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2012, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
Just to spite the German justice system I had a circumcision performed on my son last week. :showoff:
Wait, isn't this the second time...
Second son...
Why? You're not Jewish.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2012, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 07:53:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2012, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
Just to spite the German justice system I had a circumcision performed on my son last week. :showoff:
Wait, isn't this the second time...
Second son...
Why? You're not Jewish.
He already said why - he wanted to spite the Germans.
The Ministry of Justice has proposed the following new legislation:
The personal custody of the parents also includes the right to consent to a medically unnecessary circumcision of a male child that can not understand or decide by itself if this circumcision is conducted according to the medical art. If it is against the child's best interest (e.g. medical counterindication), it may not be conducted.
In the first six months of the child's life, a "specially qualified person" (e.g. a Jewish Mohel) may conduct the operation. After that, only physicians are allowed to. Furthermore, anesthesia may be required in individual cases.
Quote from: Zanza on September 25, 2012, 11:00:58 AM
The Ministry of Justice has proposed the following new legislation:
The personal custody of the parents also includes the right to consent to a medically unnecessary circumcision of a male child that can not understand or decide by itself if this circumcision is conducted according to the medical art. If it is against the child's best interest (e.g. medical counterindication), it may not be conducted.
In the first six months of the child's life, a "specially qualified person" (e.g. a Jewish Mohel) may conduct the operation. After that, only physicians are allowed to. Furthermore, anesthesia may be required in individual cases.
Sounds reasonable. :)
We'll have to find another way to piss off the Germans :(
Quote from: Zanza on September 25, 2012, 11:00:58 AM
The Ministry of Justice has proposed the following new legislation:
The personal custody of the parents also includes the right to consent to a medically unnecessary circumcision of a male child that can not understand or decide by itself if this circumcision is conducted according to the medical art. If it is against the child's best interest (e.g. medical counterindication), it may not be conducted.
In the first six months of the child's life, a "specially qualified person" (e.g. a Jewish Mohel) may conduct the operation. After that, only physicians are allowed to. Furthermore, anesthesia may be required in individual cases.
One step closer to Eurabia.
Quote from: derspiess on September 25, 2012, 11:51:27 AM
We'll have to find another way to piss off the Germans :(
I'm sure that idiots will still rage hard against circumcision. And just the fact that the US exists is enough to anger them anyways.
Anyone know why South Koreans cut their kids? They don't strike me as tribal.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F79%2FGlobal_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png%2F800px-Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png&hash=a42e6ebf4b88b385bc41ed15f719ae20e9badb5a)
USAian influence from the Korean war? Influence of modern Christianity?
Quote from: Vricklund on September 25, 2012, 01:52:16 PM
Anyone know why South Koreans cut their kids? They don't strike me as tribal.
It's only South Korea, so I'm guessing American influence.
the tribes, the uncivilised and the nutters.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 25, 2012, 03:42:21 PM
the tribes, the uncivilised and the nutters.
Yeah, it's telling that in Europe, the stronghold of this practice is the Former Yugoslavia.
Quote from: mongers on September 25, 2012, 03:52:46 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 25, 2012, 03:42:21 PM
the tribes, the uncivilised and the nutters.
Yeah, it's telling that in Europe, the stronghold of this practice is the Former Yugoslavia.
Telling that Europeans brutally murdered most of the people who practiced it. But we are the uncivilzed and nutty ones :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2012, 03:55:33 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 25, 2012, 03:52:46 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 25, 2012, 03:42:21 PM
the tribes, the uncivilised and the nutters.
Yeah, it's telling that in Europe, the stronghold of this practice is the Former Yugoslavia.
Telling that Europeans brutally murdered most of the people who practiced it. But we are the uncivilzed and nutty ones :lol:
The "stronghold" in former Yugoslavia is probably Bosnian Muslims - another group Europeans have attempted to exterminate, albeit more recently. :hmm: