German court bans circumcision

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Okay. I'm not sure I understand, but that may be because it was done to me despite the fact that neither of my parents were believers. I just thought it was considered routine.

well...ok...there was a time when the medical establishment in various western parts decided it was cleaner to be circumcised, and that one was less prone to infections. It is now considered nonsense.

[MH]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

...... It is now considered nonsense.

Depends on whom you ask.

Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by MH

Depends on whom you ask.

as i said earlier, lots of people come up with all sorts of reasons why circumcision is healthier and cleaner in order to justify what is done for cultural reasons. there is no statistical evidence to support these claims.

edit: missed that quote you gave when i posted - sorry

[Skybird]

The medical debate is about anaerobic versus aerobic bacterias, and is even linked lately to AIDS. But - that plays no role here. The argument given by relgions for circumcision is no medical one, but a religious one. Not to mention that the medical arguments for the most have been proven since long to be no arguments, but lousely examined excuses to construct an argument. Again there is nothing in the statistics letting it appear unreasonbale to ask why subjects are not allowed to wait to grow up and when they are 18 or older form a decision by themselves whether they want to undergo circumcision or not.

And even if it were true that it helps to lower AIDs infection rates, this is no issue a baby (Jews) or just 6 year old (was it six years for Muslims?) must be protected from, since at that age babies and kids have sexual intercourse only against their will and ability, and always to their disadvantage. - Where we again close the circle to religions: fatwas by Muslim clerics and namely Ayatollah Chomenei ruling that the penetration of a baby's openings by finger is okay as long as no penetration by penis takes place, or the massive ammount of personality deformations you see in the personell stock of Christian clerics, leading to high numbers of sexual child abuse there, and attempts by their higher offices to hide and cover that.

[joegrundman]

it is a good point that you make when you say that the medical excuses given are themselves largely not applicable before adulthood

[MH]

Were we again close the circle to religions: fatwas by Muslim clerics and namely Ayatollah Chomenei ruling that the penetration of a baby's openings by finger is okay as long as no penetration by penis takes place, or the massive ammount of personality deformations you see in the personell stock of Christian clerics, leading to high numbers of sexual child abuse there, and attempts by their higher offices to hide and cover that.

Leave the Ayatollah and the Rabbinate out just ask average secular "victims" if they are bothered by this...you are totally mixing stuff here and try to paint this as something sinister with your graphic analogy.

it is a good point that you make when you say that the medical excuses given are themselves largely not applicable before adulthood

Depends...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

it is done in hospitals because it is more hygienic and safer than people doing it in less regulated conditions (ie in ceremonies done at home).

only very rarely is circumcision done for direct medical reasons, although people do say all sorts of nonsense about "better hygiene" etc. to justify circumcision.

It is done for religious/cultural/traditional reasons in almost all cases

as for how much damage is done - i'd say it's less than losing your little toe, but more than having your fingernails cut.


In any case most of Skybird's argumentation is missing his primary problem.

Germany is going to drop this law. The question is, how much of a fuss do you wish to make before this happens?

It does not look good for Germany to be making this sort of law, and you can either drop this law pronto while making it clear that this was some sort of weird judicial aberration .. or you can wait until the maelstrom kicks up with Jewish groups in Israel and the USA joining in and start saying unpleasant things.

I recommend you take the first option and drop it quickly and be glad for the triumph of common sense.

That you wish for the third time now that Germany skips this law, and that you even demand it and threaten with those Jewish lobby groups in the US (last time I mentioned them it was denied that they even exist...), does not mean that it will happen so easily, or at all. chances are 50:50 that it will hold on n ational court levels, and what the European cpouret says, I do not predict - the EU recently decided that it wants to form a tough front against female circumcision.

But you live in a country (US, I assume) that even seriously argues that scientology is no commerce company selling slavery, but seriously considers it to be a religion, giving it full religious priviliges, tax evasion, and immunity from laws. So who do you demand to take that sende rof the message serious? The US govenrment has repeatedly demanded ermany and other Eiuroppean nations to recognise scientology as a relgion, and look where it led: we have not, and even have it under close observation by the federal police and the office fore the proteciton of the constitution. As a result, scientology since some years runs dry in Germany, and that is good so.

The same should be done with a campaign to ban religiously motivated physical violence.

It was the second level of the German legal system that gave the sentence today, and it is not binding for all courts in Germany, but it will serve as a precedence that will be considered and taken into account at other courts when such cases gets negotiated. Muslim and Jewish groups threaten to go to the highets European court to defend their precious little hobby of violence against kids. Le thtem. That is the same EU that has released an official proposal that nations should (and some have already) make criticism of religions a punishable crime by declaring all criticism of religion a discrimination. I am certain that man people in this thread love that. Religion cannot defend its claims by facts, arguments and sane reason, so it must be saved from getting put into question - that is the logic bewind it.

That is so pitiful.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That you wish for the third time now that Germany skips this law, and that you even demand it and threaten with those Jewish lobby groups in the US (last time I mentioned them it was denied that they even exist...), does not mean that it will happen so easily, or at all. chances are 50:50 that it will hold on n ational court levels, and what the European cpouret says, I do not predict - the EU recently decided that it wants to form a tough front against female circumcision.

But you live in a country (US, I assume) that even seriously argues that scientology is no commerce company selling slavery, but seriously considers it to be a religion, giving it full religious priviliges, tax evasion, and immunity from laws. So who do you demand to take that sende rof the message serious? The US govenrment has repeatedly demanded ermany and other Eiuroppean nations to recognise scientology as a relgion, and look where it led: we have not, and even have it under close observation by the federal police and the office fore the proteciton of the constitution. As a result, scientology since some years runs dry in Germany, and that is good so.

The same should be done with a campaign to ban religiously motivated physical violence.

It was the second level of the German legal system that gave the sentence today, and it is not binding for all courts in Germany, but it will serve as a precedence that will be considered and taken into account at other courts when such cases gets negotiated. Muslim and Jewish groups threaten to go to the highets European court to defend their precious little hobby of violence against kids. Le thtem. That is the same EU that has released an official proposal that nations should (and some have already) make criticism of religions a punishable crime by declaring all criticism of religion a discrimination. I am certain that man people in this thread love that. Religion cannot defend its claims by facts, arguments and sane reason, so it must be saved from getting put into question - that is the logic bewind it.

That is so pitiful.

i'll get back to you on this, sky rl matters have arrived!

[Herr-Berbunch]

Page 3 already, and it's not totally gone to pot.

I've nothing further to add to the debate, I've said my piece and you too can have your say.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by MH

WOW what can i say the Muslim flood is really getting on your nerves there...stop being such hypocrite.

Originally Posted by MH

Now that is so dramatic and graphic another foreskin man comes to our rescue....

Let's try to stay serious here, shall we? If you can't discuss this rationally, no one is forcing you to participate in the thread.

Originally Posted by MH

I just wonder what are the statistical complications due to piercing or tattooing.

A very relevant point. I'll get back to this below.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

OK, the issue at hand is circumcision. It is a medical procedure routinely done at birth and a procedure done on the 8th day according to the law of Moses.

Utterly irrelevant. European courts do not make decisions based based on scripture from 3000 years ago.

I was circumcised at my parents request, Im perfectly fine.

Your anecdote aside, lots of babies which undergo circumcision do not turn out perfectly fine. Some grow up wishing their parents had left their bodies alone. Some suffer complications. A miniscule number dies. What is gained? Something as archaic as tradition and religious rites.

What the heck is your issue with it? Mind your own business, leave me and my parents out of your holier than thou hypocritical self righteousness rants.

The irony here is this is exactly what we're trying to do. We are objecting to adults performing surgery on babies without their consent. In effect, we want a nation where adults do not impose their archaic traditions and religious beliefs onto infants.

If circumcision is to be allowed, why not purely cosmetic snipping of female babies' genitalia? Note that I say purely cosmetic, as in, a visible difference but, unlike male circumcision, no ill effects to, say, sex life? What if I was to tattoo a scarlet "A" for atheism on my infant's calf? Or decide to cut its eartips off? If you wouldn't permit these practices, why permit circumcision of non-consenting babies?

What do you say we "mind our own business" and permit Muslems to make cosmetic alterations to their babies' vaginal areas? We don't want to be jerks, now do we?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why I care? For the same reason why i care when children in my neighbourhood would get beaten up by parents, or would get hurt by their parents, of would get abused.

Another very good point. "Spanking" doesn't even cause permanent physical changes in the body of the child, yet surprise surprise, it's banned in many countries.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

well...ok...there was a time when the medical establishment in various western parts decided it was cleaner to be circumcised, and that one was less prone to infections. It is now considered nonsense.

That makes more sense to me now. After all I was born more than sixty years ago.

Thanks for the clarification.

[MH]

precious little hobby of violence against kids.

That's bull....still you seem to be too busy with so many issues to take this in...

[Skybird]

That is no "bull", that is exactly what it is. An extremely painful and often traumatising expereince. Until this morning I thought that at least it would be done with local anaestitics, but I meanwhile learned better: at least in Muslim communities it must be done without.

You cannot campaign against the circumcision of females but accept it for boys. That would be a completely self-contradicting opinion.

Aother German comment, his time from the perspective of a Turkish woman in Germany, Necla Kelec, a known critic of Islam and Turkish rejection of integration in Germany, and a profound sociologist and publicist, she is author of several books on the matter. She fled from her family and is an apostate. She accuses Germans of shying away from the confrontation with Islam, being unwilling to value the freedom that they have and take it for granted, and giving too much ground to it. In the german debate on Islam, I count her as a heavy-weight. Politicians avoid her (she is too competent to buy their appeasing lies), and Muslim lobby groups dispise and hate her as an enemy and apostate.

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentar...uer-Allah.html

It is interesting that the sacrifice for thei deity is not being done by cutting the nosetip, or the earlobes or a piece of a finger, but the sexual organs. All three desert dogmas are obsessed with supressing sexuality, and turning into into a perverted, often brutally sanctioned stigma of man, a sign of sin, a cause of endless guilt, an alibi for supression of women, and life-long neurosis and traumatization. Every year several hundred thousand girls and women are estimated to die miserably due to having been circumcised, the suffering is unimaginable, so is the pain, the shock, and the trauma. The result is a lifelong horror of sexual intercourse, which always means just pain, no pleasure, and I can only speculate how it messes up healthy relations between a man and a woman when the man knows that sex always hurts the woman even if he approaches her in a loving, careful attitude (mind you, by Quranic descritpions women are no real hmans but somethign like satanic halflings, that must be controlled and kept in check, so do not read too much into it when I mentioned the possibility that man may apoproach woman in acaring, loving attitude - one of thr worst fates oyu can suffer is to live as a female in some of the most backwardly Muslim place son this planet, let'S say Afghansitan for example). We ban this circumcision of women and campaign against it when it effects girls and young women, but we shall tolerate it in case of boys - for nothing better, for nothing less non-substantial than religious claim and hear-say? We cannot be serious. Religion does not deserve this, it is nothign that justifies this repeal of mental sanity and reasonability - and humanism.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is no "bull", that is exactly what it is. An extremely painful and often traumatising expereince.

Is it?

Originally Posted by Skybird

You cannot campaign against the circumcision of females but accept it for boys. That would be a completely self-contradicting opinion.

Ask the women who can freely speak their mind....this female circumcision example is boring and childish stretch.
I don't think they would disagree with you....that's the difference.

[Safe-Keeper]

Is it?

Again, please try to actually contribute to the discussion.

Ask the women who can freely speak their mind...

Oh, but we do. Who do you think perform female circumcision in many countries? The women themselves, of course. They have it done to themselves when they're young, and then grow up to do it to their own offspring when the time comes. I read an interview with two immigrants from Somalia who had both had their vaginal openings sewn shut. Despite all the pain they went through, both when the procedure was done, and in the time thereafer when they urinated, for example, they didn't consider what was done to them a wrongdoing until they came to Norway and us evil ethnocentric secularists convinced them that their culture was inferior to ours in this regard.

Em, why do you ask?

..this female circumcision example is boring and childish stretch.

Please explain. Why is circumcision a boring a childish stretch in a discussion on circumcicion?

I asked a question earlier in this thread: are you for or against purely cosmetic circumcision of young girls, for reasons of tradition, culture and religion? Why or why not?